Evilgorrilaz wrote:Disagree. The most we could discern from that is that he is trying to push the day and getting impatient, which is already a stretch.
JEEP wrote a great article entitled "ScumTells" a few years ago, which is now on the wiki. If I remember right, according to his very extensive research, the first person to ask for "evidence" in a game is about 5 or 10% more likely to be scum or a cop. I considered the "no tells" post to be an extension of this, except that it probably doesn't say anything about copness, as it relates to in-thread "tells" and not "hard" evidence. I think there might be something in there about substance-less "we need discussion" posts too. Even if it doesn't, the "we haven't had discussion" post was pretty pointless, which occasionally can be considered a small tell.
Both points are obviously relatively minor, which is why I didn't vote based on either.
And I agree, alvinz, that bandwagons are a very important part of the game, and "bandwagon hunting" isn't always bad. It was just something else I noticed regarding EvilGorrillaz' behavior that is occasionally considered scummy. Without the other stuff, I probably wouldn't have even included it in my post.
Re: Marmalade, EvilGorrillaz on voting someone who's away:
Yes, you were supposed to know I couldn't post--I mentioned on page one that I was going to be in Scotland with little or no access from Tuesday to Thursday.
That said, I suppose it's not such a terrible thing to vote someone who's away for a couple of days--I just tend to think that in the random phase, voting someone who
is
around is much more likely to provoke a useful reaction. In this case, I suppose it's moot, because it's promoted discussion anyway, and I didn't have to go as long as I originally thought without internet access.
you were already voting for me
- evilgorrilaz
((Nah, I understand that you may not have had access where you were going. Only joking about the typical backward-nature that is perceived Scotland has.)))