He was scum in that game.
This looks to be more of the same.
This shows it isn't:Cyberbob wrote:This is bottom of the barrel stuff, even for you.
SocioPath wrote:This game.
Why?xvart wrote:I'm thinking maybe we should destroy Escouta instead of FFFF.
I think you are going a bit overboard with this, Iec. You can't hold what games someone catches up with first against them. I know that I normally save my big catch up games until later, especially if I am at work.Iecerint wrote:It's based on introspection. I personally have a habit of (barring special circumstances) avoiding my scumgames relative to my towngames. (I also ignore VT games relatively more, but your posts imply that that does not parsimoniously explain your behavior IMO.)
I'm not disputing that you posted relatively few times, or that your lack of access was legitimate. I'm pointing out that your time management choices reflect poorly on your alignment.
Let's look at the keyword in all of this...Iecerint wrote:Yep, I think it's appropriate. My assumption is that most players tend to have that tendency. Are you saying that you do not have that tendency?
I don't have to make the other assumption at all, though I grant that that information would be helpful.
That's a possibility, but you'll note that he didn't voice as much; he also didn't dispute the accuracy of my assumption, even if he attacked it for being an "assumption." For that matter, what do you have against assumptions? O.oStarbuck wrote:I know that I normally save my big catch up games until later, especially if I am at work.
Let me put it this way, since you clearly don't seem to be getting it:Iecerint wrote:There's also the matter of the content of his posts, but I can't allude to those beyond acknowledging their existence without breaking site rules AFAIK. <_<
You're comparing this to an RVS vote based on your being late to confirm? Huh?SocioPath wrote:This game.
If you don't think his posting pattern is scummy, why would it warrant suspicion? Do you think he's lying about visiting his sister altogether?Starbuck wrote:Apparently, you didn't notice that I think his absence for an entire day warrants suspicion.
Because I think that we will learn a lot more about the Elscouta flip than FFFF. FFFF's behavior, to me, seems like a lyncher. I just saw the exact same thing happen in a game that just finished (only it was successful). I think it is pretty clear that FFFF did not share the town win condition and I believe he had his own personal win condition so (if true) it would be much more difficult to sift through who was scum on his wagon. Since Escouta was also raising suspicion to people yesterday I am more interested in his flip and those people at the moment. I am also inclined to think that Escouta was a vig target last night based on the previous days events.Starbuck wrote:Why?xvart wrote:I'm thinking maybe we should destroy Escouta instead of FFFF.
I didn't feel the need to voice my priority list of what games I respond to at what time because the foundation for your case is so ludicrous. You made a blanket statement about my posting habits based on your posting habits, which is flimsy at best. There could also be a thousand different reasons for posting in one game over another, none of which I can prove so what is the point? I didn't really feel like getting in a "he said/he said" debate about my unprovable motivations.Iecerint wrote:That's a possibility, but you'll note that he didn't voice as much; he also didn't dispute the accuracy of my assumption, even if he attacked it for being an "assumption."