Green Crayons wrote:
1. The fact that you're stating the obvious is bad because what you have added to the conversation is fluff. It's fluff because the very narrow point that you're making - that name claiming at this point in the game is a bad idea - had already been made to some degree by numerous other players at the time of your post (see 3. below). It's an attempt to look like you're contributing when you are not. Your question about "why are we talking about name-claim" appears diversionary. We're talking about a name-claim because camn made a really bad suggestion. There's nothing more to say about that, so I'm not sure what your point is.
This is an ENTIERLY self defeating argument.
Either it's obvious, or it's not. If it's clearly anti-town then Camn, one of the best players in this game, shouldn't have suggested it unless she's scum, and she needed to be asked about it. If it's unclear, then it needed to be said. Honestly, both are probably true; Camn should have know, but just because mass-name claim is obviously anti-town to me and to you, it dosn't mean there wasn't a significant risk of other people just randomally starting to claim because of that comment. Stuff like that happens ALL THE TIME. I can't remember when the last time is I played a game when I *DIDN'T* see people claim for terrible reasons when they obviously shouldn't have.
Also, I'm pretty sure I was the first person to actually explain WHY mass name clam in this specific setup was such a bad idea, so no, the point "had no been made".
2. The fact that you're answering a question that wasn't directed at you is bad because there's no reason for you to answer it. You're not preempting anyone from responding, that's true. But your response is unnecessary. The question has been answered. Exactly on the points that you have provided. Once again, this makes your post look like filler.
Your whole argument is this terrible "your post was unnecessary" thing. My post was entierly necessary.
For that matter, why are you leaping in here instead of just letting Camn respond for herself? The way she answered it might have given me a decent read on her alignment, and you've probably screwed that up now.
3. Your post in no way contributes what you are suggesting it does in the quote above.
Again, this is just badly wrong. Even if all I was doing was agreeing with what other people had already said (and I was not), doing that is a really good idea when there's such an anti-town suggestion on the table.
Finally, the fact that you're qualifying (what I believe to be) a fairly benign, "intro-suspicion" inquiry post (#79) as an attack is interesting. Heck, I even undercut the force of any suspicion I had by suggesting in that very post about how wishy-washy I was to even post my suspicion. But to you, this is an attack?
Of course it was an attack. In what universe is this not an attack?
Green Crayons wrote:I've been going back and forth on this post of yours. I think I'm landing on the "not liking" side of the fence. It's just a very, very bland post. Apart from stating the obvious, it's stating the obvious to a question that was not directed at you, as well as stating the obvious that has already been put into the thread by the person to whom the question was asked (post 60). It feels like an attempt to look active and engaged but is actually a very bad attempt at doing so.
I'm a little confused why you're now denying it was an attack. Yes, it's a slightly wishy washy attack, but what you were getting at was pretty obvious.
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie
