Coron, I am going to attempt to make you see logic one more time. Sorry.
Let's look at the progression in your case against me:
First it's:
Coron wrote:He's been rather jumpy with votes with not much in terms of reasons all the time. Not to mention the way he's posting rubs me wrong.
Slightly vague, but it makes sense in principle.
Let's see the evidence against me:
Coron wrote:VitaminR wrote:Well let's see where this leads us.
Unvote: TSAGod
Vote: Thok
One vote? So in the progression from claim to evidence the scope is already narrowed significantly. Where first it is a posting pattern, it is now one vote. Quoted without the questions I asked first, I might add.
Interpretation of evidence:
Coron wrote:1) those people could be scum
2) those people could be sheep like you BAAA!! BAAA!
ok, maybe I missed something here, but as far as I can tell pie's "information" was just a little, "he's acting too worried about cult"
Aside from the fact that you show no knowledge of what actually happened by completely misquoting pie, there is not much to this. 1) I assume was in response to my argument that it was a majority decision and is therefore pretty much irrelevant. 2) remains as the "salient" point. Presented in a nice ad hominem fashion, but there is a point here. My vote was "sheep-like."
More interpretation when questioned:
Coron wrote:You followed someone who claimed to have "inconclusive evidence from their role", without even making them claim it.
Very sheeplike.
Another misquote of Pie and the situation, it's 12 posts and 3 days later and you still aren't properly aware of the context of your evidence. But that doesn't matter, it's "sheep-like" again. This time based on the fact that I didn't make him claim it.
Pie specifically indicated his information would be useless if he claimed it.
When pushed on this:
VitaminR wrote:Claiming it would have invalidated Thok's claim. It was obvious from the way he presented it Thok needed to claim first. He came forward unpressured asking the town to trust him. I did. That's not sheep-like. I considered what I knew and decided to trust him. Sheep-like is following without asking questions and without giving it thought.
Coron wrote:How do I know if you think if you don't post anything about it in the thread?
I refute the reason behind your central point, the fact that I didn't make Pie claim before following, and you move on to outlining thought processes? Where does that come in?
The next bit:
Coron wrote:Then how do you catch scum for sheeping(which is very easy and good for them).
That's stupid.
Moving on to general strategy? What about the specific case we're talking about here?
But
you seem aware of this and bring it back to:
Coron wrote:VitaminR wrote:Could you expand on that a little bit? More precisely, how solid is this evidence?
VitaminR wrote:Well let's see where this leads us.
Unvote: TSAGod
Vote: Thok
when they said cirumstantial after the first(well, what would have been worse than that) you vote anyway, saying only, let's see where this goes. Seems a lot like sheeping with a bit of cover up.
Now Pie had "circumstantial" evidence! The third misquote! It's now 21 posts and 3 days later and the context still eludes you.
Anyway, your point here is that I did ask questions first, but because I did not explicitly acknowledge the response I was merely following it. Why did you think I asked the questions? Because I was going to follow anyway?
The next comment:
Coron wrote:Is it difficult to comprehend that
the terminology
you used as your "logic" was very scummy?
Now it's terminology? First it was a posting pattern, then it was one vote, now it's the terminology in that one vote? Evidence abounds!
To sum it all up we get this masterful recap:
Coron wrote:you say like 5 words and make a vote based on limited info, saying perhaps the easiest thing possible...
low content yes.
sheeplike, yes.
5 words is incorrect. I asked 2 questions before it. Essentially this boils down to terminology again.
Limited info? The easiest thing possible? Show me! Show me how Pie would have ever got away with saying that without claiming relevant information.
Okay, so what do we have? Terminology? This essentially equals one line.
You haven't given any proper arguments as to why context or reasoning was scummy.
That means this is your case:
VitaminR wrote:Well let's see where this leads us.