mykonian wrote:I can't pronounce that.
Well you can spell it, can't you?
I'm occupied by something called school.
herrcombs wrote: In post 520, Hieirama wrote:@Herrcombs @meanmelter
I did skip by those posts, I was in a rush to reply previously since we were about to go out for lunch.
In post 467, herrcombs wrote:And one of my own: what is your opinion of Garmr right now? What do you think of his last few actions yesterday?
Hmm, went over this a couple times I think....
In
post 232,
post 227, and
post 239.
My main opinion there still stands. The quickhammer was unexpected, but the message that went along with it made sense.
I'm curious as to why you'd ask that question, actually?
It's been repeated a couple times, if my memory serves me right.
Well, I keep asking because you're apparently unable to answer it. I asked what your
current
opinion of Garmr is, and you link three posts from 8 pages before the end of D1, none of which substantiate a town-read on Garmr besides an "assumption" that he's town and the feeling that his outburst was "more Town frustration then scum."
And your answer to the second half of my question -- "unexpected" does not assign alignment, nor does the phrase "it made sense." You are intentionally avoiding my questions, giving answers that absolve you from any responsibility for an accurate read on Garmr, and this looks scummy as hell to me.
Yeah... I'm leaving my vote on you.
Unable to answer? Did you read what I've said?
You should be able to put it together that I have a Town-Lean on Garmr. It's kind of obvious. But if you really need it spelled out for you in a post, there you go.
Read, assumption, what's the difference again?
It was a way for me to explain why his quickhammer wasn't scummy to me (because it apparently was to others) since you did ask about his last few actions.
You asked me my opinions on Garmr and I said I assumed he was Town. That's not question dodging.
Dierfire wrote:@Hieirama
In post 504, Hieirama wrote:You explained how his lack of contribution to Town was one reason for your vote, right? Posting fluff and not posting enough are two different things. Pista was doing a little bit of both, so I feel like the vote had a bit of "lurk" drive in it.
I'm still not quite getting this. Do you think that either of those things (posting fluff, not posting enough) are bad reasons to cast votes?
Posting fluff is an okay reason to cast a vote. Not posting enough, imo, isn't a good reason because it can be explained by RL things for example.