Foolster41 wrote:Well. I don't know you. My phase was a little badly worded, but what I mean is: If you're good, you just might get away with it. and if not, you might think you and try it anyway.
That makes more sense. Still, people do go back and read the thread. And they will see a stance someone had, even if they didn't vote for someone. How am I going to get away from making a statement that someone is scummy or did scummy behavior? It'll always be there to be examined. My stance on a certain subject isn't going to vanish, and can be used against me at all times.
Foolster wrote:I'm begining to see the cry for "ADD SOMETHING OR DIE" to votes as something of a fallacy.
Not eveyrone's going to be able to expound on a idea that someone else has come up with. If it's already said, what more can be said?
Let's look at what you said one post after MeMe's, before anyone else had commented on it.
Foolster wrote:That sounds good to me. vote: Parrah
Now, at this point, no one else had examined MeMe's statement. In fact, let's look at MeMe's post again too.
MeMe wrote:I voted Pariah based on a quick re-read. In his three posts (excluding the pre-game one) it looks like he's encouraging suspicion broadly without committing to a favorite...as though he'll be ready to join any bandwagon without being the leader (not the first vote) or a follower (already expressed suspicion).
Enough for a vote.
There's nothing you have to contribute that, or go over? I didn't see anything so damning in that post it was irrefutable and there was nothing to say or discuss. I brought up my own opinion/counterpoint against it. You obviously are not me, and I don't expect you to put up a "counterpoint" or defend me against it, but there's nothing more to say about the subject than "Sounds good to me?"
Why not go over what I said and who accused, and see if it was actually correct? Why not try to point out something I was wrong about it? List examples of times someone tried to do a behavior like my own and was scum? Even add minor points to what MeMe's already said?
There was more to be said or go over. Exhaustive research isn't required, but you can add more than "sounds good to me, vote" to a post. You also were even the first person to post after MeMe, which gave you even more room to go over things.
Voting and saying "I agree" is scummy also in the fact it allows you to simply not express your own opinon or attack
toward
someone else's behavior. It's a lot harder to anaylze someone's posts when they don't express their own opinions and use others.
Foolster wrote:With that, I think Pariah hasn't really convinced me much and I'll
revote: Pariah
.
Foolster wrote:I simply thought MeMe had a good point. Just because a "firestarter" can get caught doing it, doesn't mean they will if they are sneaky enough, or try if they think they are.
Second vote means very little IMO. I would have just FOSed with a warning to vote if you already had two.
I don't really see a big difference between the meaning of what meme quoted and what you quoted. You had a small suspicon, and voted on it. Just as I'm doing for you.
MeMe (Quoting Tamaz): "not incredibly scummy"
Tamuz: And so I think you're the most suspicious guy on the block. Not incredibly scummy, but sufficiently for me to vote.
<i>You're not incredibly scummy in my eyes, but the only one the remotest bit scummy so far. though your point about rushing is well taken. I suppose I can wait. unvote</i>
That was a quick change of opinion. First I go from "not incredibly scummy" to be "unable to convince you" of being town aligned. Nothing has changed except that I said voting with an "I agree" post is scummy, which you disagreed with, and I posted a counterargument I believe refutes that.
Fritzler wrote:Pariah = total baller.
But still.
unvote, vote: Pariah
I lol'd. Still, I personally don't like votes with no public backing, and sort of like in the Foolster "case," find it scummy not explain why you did things. Can you explain further your reasoning here?
