Bay 12 Games Forum

Firstly, unvote.
Jack:

Quote from: Jack A T on January 21, 2011, 12:01:08 am

Quote from: Jim Groovester on January 20, 2011, 11:57:14 pm

I don't follow anymore.

Who are you stating you voted as a target of the most convenience?

I'm stating that, at the time when I voted for Janus, MBP was still the most convenient target for a bandwagon jumper: he had more votes on him and was an easy target at the time.

Instead, I voted Janus for the reasons I've given.

Finally, as some people think I'm jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon, I felt like noting that there were only two times when I could've been considered to have done that.  That is to say, not three.  (only other person who was getting a bunch of votes was me, and I'm not voting for myself!)

You directly contradict your earlier point about voting for the most convenient target and confirm that you've bandwagoned two times out of your total three votes. Explain. Preferably without referring to your previous experience or lack of sleep.

...I did what?  I'm getting a bit confused here.

I was saying, in each post, that no, I didn't vote for the most convenient target that second time.  MBP was still the most convenient, but I voted for Janus.  What you and Jim somehow saw as "Yes, I voted for the most convenient target" was me saying "No, I voted for a less convenient target."

Essentially, when I voted for Mysterious, he was a convenient target, but I had better reasons than that (and I gave them).  When I voted for Janus, he was INconvenient: less votes, less likely to accidentally incriminate himself, but I had reasons to vote for him (and I gave them, again).  And I was suspicious of Janus way back during my MBP vote.

And that 2 out of 3 thing...First, I haven't even voted three times.  Second, that "second" thing was an attempt to semi-sarcastically bring the allegations against me down to a more sensible point (though I can see that being misinterpreted...unmarked sarcasm...).  I had only done what people decided to view as bandwagon-jumping twice, not three times (as was semi-alleged).  I don't want the evidence against me to be stronger than what actually exists.

Even with my nervousness about the vote, he's the scummiest person I can see, for the reasons that have been given earlier in the thread, and he hasn't done much to convince me otherwise.

The voice in the back of my head has never been the best reason to do anything, anyway.  It's a crazy voice.  That crazy voice is out to kill me.  I must remove that voice with my tinfoil hat.  Yes.  Yes, I must do so.  My cleaver mind is cleaver-like!

I don't think the intimidation thing is central.

Jim, what you said was centered around something I actually did.  That made sense.

What Janus said was based on me not giving any reasons for my votes, which I had.  In fact, he had responded earlier to my first point against him.  Essentially, it was based around a lie.  Also, after being pressured on that point, he quickly moved the goalposts, changing his argument from me having given no reasoning to me having given lackluster reasoning.

I don't follow anymore.

Who are you stating you voted as a target of the most convenience?

I'm stating that, at the time when I voted for Janus, MBP was still the most convenient target for a bandwagon jumper: he had more votes on him and was an easy target at the time.

Instead, I voted Janus for the reasons I've given.

Finally, as some people think I'm jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon, I felt like noting that there were only two times when I could've been considered to have done that.  That is to say, not three.  (only other person who was getting a bunch of votes was me, and I'm not voting for myself!)

I think you're trying to invent a case that isn't there, Zathras. And that's not just me handing out a little blue candy. I do suspect you, but Jack A T earns my vote for hopping on the bandwagon of most convenience for the second (third? I lost track) time.

Second.

And, as I tried to say a bit earlier, MBP was still the most convenient one at the time of my vote.  More people, and he was an easy target at that time (he's become slightly less so with his lower overall anger and increased coherence).

Quote from: Zathras on January 20, 2011, 10:24:16 pm

This is an intimidation attempt:

Quote from: JanusTwoface on January 20, 2011, 08:17:31 pm

You're jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon without giving your reasoning. That *is* scummy around here.

Telling the new guy "*this* is how we roll around here", threatening to "nail" him for a major scumtell (for bogus reasons), explicitly after you saw how he reacted to earlier differences in playstyle (moving votes, pointing contradictions); it seems to me you were trying to provoke him into a reaction like here or here. Get him to back down; it'll be one less vote to shake off later in the day.

Not how I meant it. The 'around here' was because he brought up playing other places. Jumping to whoever has the most votes (particularly being the third vote) *is* scummy, so I pointed it out.

Jumping to you person with actual reasoning (not the greatest reasoning, but still), however...

Especially when I've already stated I suspect you.

ESPECIALLY when there's more people voting for MBP at the time.

I'm... not so sure on Jack AT.  It looks more like he's stuck in a "One of the two fighters has to be scum" mentality than bandwagon hopping at the moment.  This isn't exactly a productive thing to be in, though...
Jack AT: what do you think the chances are of a) one of MBP and Janus is scum, b) both are scum or c) neither are scum?

Ignoring third parties...
A: Quite likely, I think.  I see a pushy, hasty offense versus an overly emotional, angry defense.  Both are rather scummy actions at this point, as far as I can tell.
B: Pretty low.  As I said earlier, this feels a bit awkward for an experienced player's attempt at bussing.  That could be deliberate, though.
C: Higher than B, but lower than A, in my eyes.  Not sure how to explain coherently.

Janus's response to my latest vote is quite convincing, to me, in that it depended on a faulty premise: my not noting my reasons for voting for anyone at all.  In fact, from what I'm reading right now, he seems to be hastily adjusting his answer in a goalpost-moving way, now saying that I wasn't using good enough reasoning for it to count.  Add that to the pushiness with the amazingly weak evidence, and the Zathras point about your pushing being designed to get a strong emotional response from the guy (who, I will note, based on the games that I've read, is already a relatively emotional defender), and I've got reasons to keep my vote on Janus.

Sorry, Janus, but you're managing to lose what remained of my trust.  You're not a perfect lynch, I'll give you that, but you're the best I can see at the moment (followed by MBP), and I apologize if I'm horribly, horribly wrong.