Jack:
Urist Imiknorris: You've made an interesting move. Interesting in that it gives me a lot of points I can use to learn more about you. Let's look at your post.
Jack A T: As far as I can tell, the only players you've indicated any real suspicion of are either the inactive (NQT/TolyK D2, Varee today) or easy targets (both Cheeetar and flabort D2
First, is it correct to say that your use of "inactive" here has little to do with amount of activity, and much to do with the quality of the activity shown? That's the only way I see your statement making sense.
Second, I find the most interesting parts of your assertions here are not what you chose to include, but what you omitted. For instance, this FoS of Nerjin alongside my TolyK vote and case. Now, I assume that most players making cases based on records of suspicion would carefully examine, among other things, voting records. You should have found this easily. This leads me to believe that either you made your case without careful examination of the evidence, or you chose to leave this out. Please explain this omission.
Of more importance is your choice to leave my day 1 activities out completely. What led you to believe that inclusion of my Day 1 activities, including a major part of my record of votes and suspicions (particularly the first major Flabort vote), would not be of value to your case?
On the first point, you are correct. Lots of talk, little actual hunting.
On the second, I have had substantially less time than I wished, and have had to rush my readings of the thread. Additionally, as far as I can see, the FoS of Nerjin didn't actually go anywhere, and was dropped in your next post.
[impressive how you take both sides simultaneously]
Raise your standards. The ability to see issues on multiple "sides" and note them publicly should not be, in itself, all that impressive.
Your framing of this particular issue is interesting, though. What makes you view Cheeetar and Flabort as the two sides of the conflict? What makes them "both," as in all, of the sides? What is it that is scummy about a willingness to critically examine "both sides" of an issue? Finally, why are you stretching a statement of intent to examine Cheeetar for having caught my eye while suspecting flabort into a solid taking of "both sides" in the conflict?
I was reading your FoSes in that post as actual FoSes instead of merely things that caught your eye.
The rest you just poke at a little (if at all) and answer questions/discuss the setup. The closest you get to actually hunting is when you accused Imp of doing the same thing you are: providing lots of words with little aggression.
Considering that you consider me to have taken aggressive action against six players (seven if you include Nerjin) out of the 15 non-me living players D2 and on, this "little aggression" thing and insinuation that I attack very few players is not exactly as strong as you seem to think it is. This part of your attack is particularly unconvincing when it has already become clear that you either haven't been looking at my posts in much detail or have been omitting aggressive acts you don't want to mention for whatever reason.
It hardly counts as an attack when you back down almost immediately, as you've done a rather large portion of the time.
But this part does make your goal in your accusation clear. You want to flip part of my attack on Imp around, and put reaching my Imp conclusion about me above reaching an evidence-based conclusion. Why did you prioritize flipping the attack on Imp around over making a good case?
False.
Notably, you seem to be deliberately avoiding the stronger players (except when Cheeetar was looking like an easy lynch due to his quickhammer).
And who are you specifically referring to here? And why are you turning a person whose attackers were already strongly dissipating by the time of my first post D2 into someone who looked like an easy lynch at the time? And when did Imp become a weaker player?
a) I'm specifically referring to Irony and Toaster, whom you've had very little interaction with. Toaster is somewhat understandable after his third-party reveal, but what is your read on Irony, exactly?
b) I thought your first post D2 was earler than it was.
c) By weaker players, I'm referring to the players who were either fairly new or who I've played with in the past and thought could do a lot better. Keep in mind that I left the forum for some time, and that list could use some updating.
In any case, I look forward to your promised evaluation.
Scripten: What I'm gathering of your claimed actions is:
N1 blocked Toaster and flabort
N2 blocked Persus
N3 blocked Jack
If you can target multiple people, why did you only do so N1?
Author
Topic: BYOR 13 - Game Over: Thirteen (Read 243713 times)