/ wrote:What the flip does haggis have to do with gilligan being town? Haggis vouched for Sax being town to prevent his lynch, then gilligan skimmed and offered to hammer sax shortly after.... That was the whole point of the case, to not know this at this point, after pages and pages of going back and forth on this matter, I'm afraid that is completely unacceptable skimming, I'm not really sure about the current cases, it doesn't seem very strong one way or the other to me, but on the other hand your obliviousness seems a better lead to me.
Unvote Vote commander
Apparently I've confused the two. And really, /? Due to the time constraints and not having fully enough time to be as active as I usually am, I've missed one detail and yet you jump on this like a wolf.
It's not really a "detail" if it's the foundation to one's reasoning and most of a case for much of a day phase, some mistakes are understandable, but if we just chalk everything up to that there is no point in the word "skimming" in the first place.
/ wrote:It's not really a "detail" if it's the foundation to one's reasoning and most of a case for much of a day phase, some mistakes are understandable, but if we just chalk everything up to that there is no point in the word "skimming" in the first place.
And exactly how many times have I been caught skimming? Very little. I probably should have double checked, but this is normally not exactly known as my characteristics. Furthermore, I've been quite inactive in all mafia forums (and CC), so I really do think that you are trying to pin this one mistake and possibly derail attention from a much more valid case to me.
Do not mistake acknowledging a new event as "derailing" current cases, suspicion is being cast all around, there is no point in ignoring something suspect. Also, if you are going to say as much, could you elaborate on why the other case is a "much more valid case", from what I have seen you have brought up two points of your opinion against freezie (and no, I am not disputing others cases against freezie, just your stated reasoning in particular)
you brought up two points 1. for FOSing confirmed townie giligan (as we have concluded a mistake on your part) 2. Tunneling andy, whom he has so far made one post on, unless you are for some reason counting joke votes?
/ wrote:What the flip does haggis have to do with gilligan being town? Haggis vouched for Sax being town to prevent his lynch, then gilligan skimmed and offered to hammer sax shortly after.... That was the whole point of the case, to not know this at this point, after pages and pages of going back and forth on this matter, I'm afraid that is completely unacceptable skimming, I'm not really sure about the current cases, it doesn't seem very strong one way or the other to me, but on the other hand your obliviousness seems a better lead to me.
Unvote Vote commander
Apparently I've confused the two. And really, /? Due to the time constraints and not having fully enough time to be as active as I usually am, I've missed one detail and yet you jump on this like a wolf.
You rang?
I think it was more than one detail. You first completely confused the gilligan situation. Then you state that freezie was tunnel visioned on Andy (not true through the fact freezie has been trying to not be tunnel visioned talking about gilligan and definitely hasn't about anyone else) and hasn't made an organized case. Not true. He did make a case it was just rebutted quite well by andy.
fos commander9
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
To be fair to comm9, I mixed up haggis and gilligan not once but twice myself. It was an honest mistake on my part so I'm willing to give comm9 the benefit of the doubt on that front.
If not for this:
/ wrote:2. Tunneling andy, whom he has so far made one post on, unless you are for some reason counting joke votes?
I'm pretty sure that every piece of evidence points to freezie not tunneling andy and we're finding him suspicious for specifically not strongly pursuing it and jumping around to go with the flow.
Commander9 wrote:To be fair, Freezie, you're sort of bringing this on your own. You FoS Gilligan, who's most likely town (I'm fairly sure Haggis wouldn't make such a risky move and did what he did if he wasn't town) and you also continuously have a "thing" for Andy (tunnel vision, if you will) without providing any real substance to the game. Since the vote count is already somewhat high, I won't put mine just yet, but I'm looking forward to hear the response and possibly your claim.
Tunnel vision on andy? What? I have made ONE post against andy, andy defended himself, and while I have read it, haven't taken the time to post an update, but it is in my plans. My case stays. If andy is scum, then good, if it brings more discussion to the table, then good. If you want to accuse me of going tunnel vision...At least tell me I should leave Gilli alone. Even though I already done it once as to not go tunnel vision......The whole fundment of your argument against me
As far as me not contibuting with useful posts....Prove it. If anything, Andy has been ''contributing'' but haven't actually gave any updates or even followed his own contributions ( read this Andy, as that is what I meant with your useful posts...Yes they are useful, but they have been left in the dust and it seems you didn't really care about posting numbers...I seen it as trying to look town without helping, and I stand by that .)
Honestly commander...Skimming and now that..If I didn't want to keep my vote on Andy, it would go for you.
fos: Commander
Oh and to everyone else who seems to think Andy is absolutle town, for some reason, or the fact he is probably the most important/known moderator on the site....I will not back down from tackling someone I can't handle
/ wrote:Do not mistake acknowledging a new event as "derailing" current cases, suspicion is being cast all around, there is no point in ignoring something suspect. Also, if you are going to say as much, could you elaborate on why the other case is a "much more valid case", from what I have seen you have brought up two points of your opinion against freezie (and no, I am not disputing others cases against freezie, just your stated reasoning in particular)
you brought up two points 1. for FOSing confirmed townie giligan (as we have concluded a mistake on your part) 2. Tunneling andy, whom he has so far made one post on, unless you are for some reason counting joke votes?
Yes, mixing one person with the other after a short hiatus is a horrendous crime - I should be lynched straight away
The thing is that instead of just correcting me you're trying to take this as some sort of really evil deed and incriminate me, which is not townsfolk normally do.
If what, there's actually a few quite valid points that Andy and few others have already brought on him and since I'm really not just going to copy/paste what was said, I would highly advise you to read just slightly back
strike wolf wrote:I think it was more than one detail. You first completely confused the gilligan situation. Then you state that freezie was tunnel visioned on Andy (not true through the fact freezie has been trying to not be tunnel visioned talking about gilligan and definitely hasn't about anyone else) and hasn't made an organized case. Not true. He did make a case it was just rebutted quite well by andy.
fos commander9
kwanton wrote:I'm pretty sure that every piece of evidence points to freezie not tunneling andy and we're finding him suspicious for specifically not strongly pursuing it and jumping around to go with the flow.
Yup, you are right. FML - I really need to re-check when I post something these days as I was sure I saw Freezie doubting Andy quite a lot of times, but alas, there's nothing on him.
freezie wrote:Tunnel vision on andy? What? I have made ONE post against andy, andy defended himself, and while I have read it, haven't taken the time to post an update, but it is in my plans. My case stays. If andy is scum, then good, if it brings more discussion to the table, then good. If you want to accuse me of going tunnel vision...At least tell me I should leave Gilli alone. Even though I already done it once as to not go tunnel vision......The whole fundment of your argument against me
As far as me not contibuting with useful posts....Prove it. If anything, Andy has been ''contributing'' but haven't actually gave any updates or even followed his own contributions ( read this Andy, as that is what I meant with your useful posts...Yes they are useful, but they have been left in the dust and it seems you didn't really care about posting numbers...I seen it as trying to look town without helping, and I stand by that .)
Honestly commander...Skimming and now that..If I didn't want to keep my vote on Andy, it would go for you.
fos: Commander
Oh and to everyone else who seems to think Andy is absolutle town, for some reason, or the fact he is probably the most important/known moderator on the site....I will not back down from tackling someone I can't handle
I realize that I've messed up - I have no idea how I got to the conclusions I went at that time, but the posts that I thought were there are not there now.
I can still quote the posts to prove that you've not been contributing all that much, but since basically even my fundamental ideas were wrong, I don't see a point to go there. Also, I've never said that Andy is 100% town (we all realize that he's quite intelligent and that he can talk his way out of a sticky situation and he's also been quite neutral)...
AndyDufresne wrote:Barely helping? I'd like to think that at least I am gathering information, discussing it, and posting some relevant material. This is one of your first posts in the game with content that I can remember.
I beleive I have been trying to post something of usefulness since joke phase was over. Clearly, you don't remember. Yes there was a week that has been completly hectic from me, but this isn't the only game I disapeared. I have to re-check, but I beleive I also missed a turn in my only active cc game..
AndyDufresne wrote:--Andy So because I mentioned what I thought I might do, but didn't immediately do it, that is scummy? That seems like a round-a-bout way to get to scum. Could I say the same about you?
Right with your answer below, you took a LOONG time to vote..With the exception I said i would not place my vote yet, you didn't say anything of the like, and you waited over a week to actually do it.
freezie, Monday - July 11th wrote:Same, I vote inactives on day 1 but only because it's day 1...Otherwise I hate to do so.
I'll see what Sax has to say, but won't add my vote on him just yet.
Unvote
for now.
Nice to see you were quick to hop onto a vote after you mentioned your possible intention. Wait, you waited 5 days and 48 posts later to get to your vote.
As explained above, I explictly said I would not do it yet. You proved I standed true to my words.
AndyDufresne wrote:I'd hardly say I was trying to avoid the heat, but let me point you in the direction of someone who was. You posted this just minutes after Pancakemix put a vote up on you. Nice to see your activity heats up when you have a vote or a FOS on you. Nice try and re-directing the heat.
I was online and able to see it, I answered. And, unlike you said, I am not trying to avoid the heat. Proof is I got 4 votes. I must fail real hard if I tried to avoid the heat XD
AndyDufresne wrote:
Freezie wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:I had a few moments, so I went to look at posting levels in this game (not including confirmation posts)
A good post, I guess, calculating all the posts from everyone, try to tell which is most inactives...but you're still not willing to include yourself in the post count.
I'm not willing to include myself in the post count? I'm pretty sure I'm right in there. Here, I've highlighted it for you. "I guess" you just missed it.
Yea, I failed hardcore here..I didn't meant at all post count, I wanted to say vote count, which was another post of your..Gotta have to look back and find it. Basicly, you summerized every votes some players placed/received, and point fingers at a few of them, while you had at the moment you only vote against sax, which I explained. Quite easy to point fingers at people for their voting patterns, without having one.
I give you this one, that was my mistake.
AndyDufresne wrote:
Freezie wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:I think things are too murky for me right now to get my head around much of anything. Though it could also be that it is morning right now.
--Andy
A very helpful post, once again.
Agreed that it wasn't contributing to the building of any case, but it was at least expressing that I was visiting the topic and trying to be an active part of the game. I'd rather be active with a few non-helpful posts, than inactive like you seemed to be for most of the time. There was literally a week where you didn't post (Thursday, July 28th to Thursday, August 4th). That's quite "helpful," too, isn't it?
Explained above. Yes I have been inactive for a week, and I didn't hide myself from it.
AndyDufresne wrote:
Freezie wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
BGtheBrain wrote:I thought for Sax wouldve posted something to defend himself overnight. It just seems odd to be quiet this long, especially with all of the accusations going on here.
vote thesaxlad
I thought this as well. My ears were also ticked by Haggis wanting to replace him. I think I understand his reasoning about not wanting to vote someone who isn't around to defend themselves. But I can also see this move as something a compatriot might suggest, wanting us to get along with a replacement instead of a vote if in fact we are onto someone this early.
--Andy
First, you say you'd vote an incative, and when someone goes inactives, you do? Oh yes, you don't vote.
I think I rebutted this above in my post. Glad to see that my non-desire to get a quick-lynch on Day 1 is what you think is scummy.
Except you agreed that he was completly inactive and not going to answer. Which was the 'condition' for you to vote an inactive, as you'd ''probably'' do it, in your own words. You also said there was a possibility haggis was protecting his scum mate, too.
AndyDufresne wrote:
Freezie wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
safariguy5 wrote:Deadline in 2 days.
Safari, do you have a 'time' when the official deadline is up? Like Midnight? or 6 PM Eastern? or Something?
--Andy
An alright question to the mod, but that's +1 post that doesn't add much to the discussion.
Similarly, I think I rebutted this earlier in my post. At least I am posting, and not a mystery-man lurking in the shadows for a week without posting.
And I also explained that, thrice now. At least I had a reason not be here, and not giving an illusion of beeing here.
AndyDufresne wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Vote: TheSaxlad
I think we've given him a pretty good chance over the last week, and my other suspicions have even less reasoning behind them.
--Andy
Finally he's getting a vote on someone, when everyone pretty much established sax was beeing voted for inactivity. Still going with the flow.
Again, so my desire to not insta-lynch is what you are working on? You're working pretty hard here.
Who said insta lynch? A week is pretty long to call it instant.
AndyDufresne wrote:
Freezie wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Yowza, well the roles I think are among the interesting tid-bits of all this. Roles seem to be logically (at least do a degree so far) related to the actual portrayal of the character on the series.
So role claiming from now on can be a bit of a double-edge, maybe even triple-edge---there is a possibility we could learn or feel confident who has what character/role if it makes sense, there is also a possibility about tipping off non-town folks, and also the possibility that non-town folks would try to use their fake claims, which might be convincing, unless we figured out if their character/role jived with precedents so far.
Anyways, I think I'm more confused now than I was before.
--Andy
Role claiming beginning day 2 is not double or triple edgy....It's 95% of the time plain stupid.
Right---where did I mention we should start claiming on Day 2? I said from now on. That means from this point, into the future, in English usually. I'll toss this back at you. I know you were joking, but I think it proves my point nonetheless:
Indeed, good point, I mis-read...but I'll say in any cases, role claiming always tips the mafia..
AndyDufresne wrote:
Freezie wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:So is Gilligan going to be the focus of day 2 because of his SaxLad actions?
=====
Also, I feel like we've still a few players who aren't posting very much, so much that I just went to the first page to check again who all was playing.
--Andy
Trying to get the head under gilligan ( granted, I agree on that XD ) but not getting wet still. Most players aren't posting much, but most actually added a lot more to the conversation than Andy did.
There are probably some players who have added more to the conversation, Commander9, Strikewolf, etc. However, I'm pretty sure you haven't.
I am pretty sure I have, minus that week.
AndyDufresne wrote:
Freeize wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
strike wolf wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:So is Gilligan going to be the focus of day 2 because of his SaxLad actions?
=====
Also, I feel like we've still a few players who aren't posting very much, so much that I just went to the first page to check again who all was playing.
--Andy
FOS Andy. The majority of his posts are like this. Fairly non-commital and expressing little opinion on the actual scum tells. He appears to just be going with the flow.
Sometimes it is hard not to go with the flow when it seems like it is mostly a discussion with a small number of players that are posting. Anyways, I'm still building up my reads on everyone.
--Andy
This is where Strike pointed Andy's neutral attitude, and Andy's response was....well, neutral, like all his posts..
I think I've rebutted this point earlier in my post.
I'll go with an answer of yours to half my actions: I am pretty sure you haven't.
AndyDufresne wrote:
Freezie wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Okay, so sometimes I find it is helpful to map out a player's votes, include their initial joke votes, since voting patterns can sometimes shed light on who they vote on, or perhaps who they avoid putting a vote on. I think I've got all the votes cast up to this post:
Strike Wolf is the most prolific voter, with the most vote changing.
I'm going to take a closer look at voting patterns.
--Andy
Another post where he actually post useful information, but still he keeps himself from voting anybody, taking the heat away from himself by ''beeing here'' when he doesn't help. Oh, and nice votting patern on your part. Or abscence of pattern...
Aim #1 - Try to establish I am not posting anything, or posting neutrally.
Aim #2 - When I post something relevant, helpful, or full of information (you've know twice said I've had a 'good post' or a 'useful post'), you try to belittle it by my non-immediate insta-vote action.
That seems to be the pattern of your case. And it seems a little convoluted and tired.
This is the post I pointed out earlier I stand ground on what I said: You point fingers on voting/voted people, I point a finger at someone who is reluctant on voting to avoid getting heat. As for your aims, mostly correct. You're posting neutraly, going with the flow, avoid getting heat by avoiding to get your name in the vote count, while you say to everyone you will/may/probably/should/think you'd do something.....when you don't. I beleive I see where we disagree: You take each of your post and rebute my arguments by saying you didn't do it immediatly. I didn't expect you to vote on each of these posts: I expected you to keep your word and do it when the time was right. Of course I didn't want you to insta vote/lynch sax, but you posted -2- times about it without doing it. My case is a whole, not a post-by-post case.
AndyDufresne wrote:
Freezie wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Looking at voting patterns, I'm going to throw a FOS on Freezie.
Based on his voting, and his descriptions of why he is voting, it really sounds like he is just looking to vote, usually jumping onto a case that seems like it could be gaining momentum.
--Andy
I actually explained all my votes, including my vote on fircoal. It sounds, however, like you are trying not to vote.
freezie wrote:Well, screw this..I would like to replace him over this, but with a deadline in less than 2 days..
Vote: Sax
freezie wrote:Most of the times, the best cases come out from the weaker ones. Since nobody seems to find Gilligan's actions as scummy as I think he is..
Unvote
Vote: Fircoal
I am reluctant to vote unless I feel there is a good case or a need because a deadline. You, however, play the 'reluctant to vote' card, to make it seem like your votes aren't just votes trying to get a quick-lynch I think. Hence your move from Gilligan to Fircoal, which was more popular/gaining steam at that time.
I said it I dont know how many times now, I beleived keeping my vote on Gilli when no new things came out was pointless, useless and scummy-ish. Yes fircoal was a weaker case, but hell we'll get more info with me placing pressure ( Read: not wanting to lynch fircoal yet ) than me sitting down and keep my vote where it was useless at the time beeing. I try to vote whenever I can, since that is town's only power against mafia ( well, except the lucky ones that have power roles .)
AndyDufresne wrote:
Freezie wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Does anyone have any insight on strategies the mafia may be employing? I was thinking about this yesterday, and wondering if a part of them agreed to be the 'lay-low' type, and the other part agreed to be the 'active townie' sort of player, or if they put all their bananas in on basket.
--Andy
Yes, mafias. one more post that shows an illusion Andy is here, but isn't.
Pretty sure I've rebutted this, and have already pointed our two Aims with this whole post of yours.
Yes, yes. I stand firm on what I said.
AndyDufresne wrote:
Freezie wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Is it worthwhile to have a discussion on what we think would be probable characters involved in this game? We briefly have mentioned characters in posts throughout the game so far, but we haven't had a sit down and hammer out probables.
--Andy
Again, another neutral post with nothing to add. Especially since many discussed about other possible roles beggining of day 2.
See above.
Rebuted how? You post a speculation question, days after strike and the like had that conversation.
AndyDufresne wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:So how many prospect-cases do we have? Fircoal, Gilligan, Freezie, Naxus, Strike Wolf?
I'm willing to listen to all the cases, but the Fircoal and Gilligan cases have been scattered too much for me to make much of anything. For those of you who feel something about those cases, would you write up a summary post, so we could more easily compare all the cases? Ta1lgunn3r just sort of presented a summary for the Strike Wolf case-building, and Strike Wolf and Myself posted earlier about Naxus and Freezie respectively. If my post isn't adequate enough for case comparison, let me know, and I'll write up something else.
--Andy
Once again placing heat on a few people, without getting wet himself.
I feel like you confuse 'placing heat' with 'trying to summarize the game so far.' If anyone is sweltering in heat, I'm pretty confident that is you, Freezie.
Yes I got heat. Thanks for telling us about that, except we all know this by now. Unlike you, I am not trying to direct it in all directions. Next time you summerize the game, I'd like to see if you'll include that there is a case against you.
AndyDufresne wrote:Summary:
Based on what I think the two Aims of Freezie's post were, in addition to playing of the 'reluctant voter' to pass off his desire for voting as just...well...what does he say I'm always doing? Oh right, 'going along with the flow', and that his activity only seems to perk up when he either has a vote on him or a FOS: for these reasons I am pretty confident in my case.
Vote: Freezie
--Andy
I nearly always try to use my vote, as, as said above, it's town only power. As for everything else..See above.
Commie wrote:Also, I've never said that Andy is 100% town (we all realize that he's quite intelligent and that he can talk his way out of a sticky situation and he's also been quite neutral)...
The freezie v. Andy is... lacking. "Andy is non-committal" "freezie is re-directing heat." I guess these are ok points by themselves, but they could be summarized fairly easily, and that's all I've read out of those exchanges so far.
What I found far more interesting was /'s response to it:
/ wrote:What the flip does haggis have to do with gilligan being town? Haggis vouched for Sax being town to prevent his lynch, then gilligan skimmed and offered to hammer sax shortly after.... That was the whole point of the case, to not know this at this point, after pages and pages of going back and forth on this matter, I'm afraid that is completely unacceptable skimming, I'm not really sure about the current cases, it doesn't seem very strong one way or the other to me, but on the other hand your obliviousness seems a better lead to me.
Unvote Vote commander
So immediately after Commander adds to the dialogue against freezie and freezie has accumulated a few votes by now, / jumps on Commie's mistake. I believe it just to be a mistake rather than skimming. So he mixed up a little bit. It happens. Maybe he hadn't read those pages in a little while and was just going off the most recent posts. So, at least two possibilities here that come to mind:
1. He's defending freezie (notice how he avoids commenting on Andy v. freezie at the end) however I'm too lazy atm to reference anything he may have said too freezie or Andy earlier.
2. He's wanting to avoid jumping on the freezie wagon and appear like's he's joining a BW as scum for future defense (possible SK maneuver).
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:The freezie v. Andy is... lacking. "Andy is non-committal" "freezie is re-directing heat." I guess these are ok points by themselves, but they could be summarized fairly easily, and that's all I've read out of those exchanges so far.
Yeah, pretty much lol.
What's the picture u posted tho? I'm taking a wild guess and saying the pacifist with the telescope from the episode where bender gets stranded in space and meets god? If it's from the new episodes then I'm lost. (They suck and I refuse to watch them
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:The freezie v. Andy is... lacking. "Andy is non-committal" "freezie is re-directing heat." I guess these are ok points by themselves, but they could be summarized fairly easily, and that's all I've read out of those exchanges so far.
Yeah, pretty much lol.
What's the picture u posted tho? I'm taking a wild guess and saying the pacifist with the telescope from the episode where bender gets stranded in space and meets god? If it's from the new episodes then I'm lost. (They suck and I refuse to watch them
It's the ambassador of the Neutral Planet. "Maybe"
Also go back and watch some of the new ones it was a slow start but some of the latter in the new season are hilarious.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
QOTD: Number 1.0: Dont quote regulation to me! I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation is in. We kept it gray.
1. Freezie-non-commital on cases until after called out for it. Redirecting heat when suspicion falls on him rather than directly defending. Likely scum.
2. Gilligan- two cases of skimming. First case he admitted to, second case he denies with weak reasoning (context shows which post it would have refered to so the not sure about applying to one or all posts is a poor excuse). Claimes good late game role. Possible scum.
3. Naxus-following flow. A bit lynch happy day one and barely passable reasons for asserting that sax was active day one. Decent defense but still possible scum.
4. Commander9-mixed up two important details in a major case. Seems to be following game flow so far. Possible scum.
5. Fircoal-semi-inactive. Called for hypocrisy and playstyle contrary to his norm on his day 1 statements by /. I'm not personally really falling into this one. Maybe vaguely fos worthy but I don't currently think he's scum.
6. Andy-fairly non-commital but useful summary posts. Possibly following game flow. Leaning very slightly scum but enough significant doubt to not stress it currently.
7. /-tails calling him out for avoiding and distracting from freezie case.
8. Nag-was Zoidberg (cpr doc) saved someone from Santa Claws night 1. Killed by mysterious group.
9. Tal-was nibbler (sane cop). Killed by doomsday device.
10. Haggis-claimed connection w/sax/drunk. Possible masons or lovers.
11. Sax/drunk-connected with haggis.
So I think that summarizes every significant case and roles discussed today. I did this without rereading first so I might be missing details.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
strike wolf wrote:1. Freezie-non-commital on cases until after called out for it. Redirecting heat when suspicion falls on him rather than directly defending. Likely scum.
Non commital cases? I was pretty adamant on Gilli until everyone left him alone, I explained that already. I also said beforehand I was gonna re-read and work on something. I did what I did without beeing called on it, even if I agree it might look that way. About re-directing heat.....Wrong. Just wrong. I am not even half trying to do that.
strike wolf wrote:1. Freezie-non-commital on cases until after called out for it. Redirecting heat when suspicion falls on him rather than directly defending. Likely scum.
Non commital cases? I was pretty adamant on Gilli until everyone left him alone, I explained that already. I also said beforehand I was gonna re-read and work on something. I did what I did without beeing called on it, even if I agree it might look that way. About re-directing heat.....Wrong. Just wrong. I am not even half trying to do that.
I guess if you consider one post bringing up the case and then switching votes in your next post commiting. You didn't question gilly on the reasons he gave on skimming you just left it alone came back. "Oh only two votes let's look at fircoal." The redirecting heat is accurate half the time you try to move onto the next case without addressing half of what is brought to light about you.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
I'm not sure what to make of the Gilligan case, but it always seems to be sticking around, propped up by a few folks. Sometimes, it seems like the real evidence for this case is pretty slim and those that keep going back to it really want to bolster a case that generally seemed lacking to me. So I decided to go review his posts to see what I could make of what others were seeing. I think I've got most of them. Ordered in chronological order.
I'd agree that some of those posts come off scummy now viewing them in aggregate, or at least, they rub me a little the wrong way.
For whatever reason (perhaps they feel to a greater degree my feelings above), he seems to have galvanized a number of people to continue bringing up a case about him, and it might be worthwhile to look at those who seem to have been stuck on Gilligan.
strike wolf wrote:4. Commander9-mixed up two important details in a major case. Seems to be following game flow so far. Possible scum.
Care to slightly expand to this? I've not been around for a while, thus I really don't have that much posts recently, but I'm not quite sure how you get to your conclusions.
strike wolf wrote:2. Gilligan- two cases of skimming. First case he admitted to, second case he denies with weak reasoning (context shows which post it would have refered to so the not sure about applying to one or all posts is a poor excuse). Claimes good late game role. Possible scum.
I'm saying vote pattern wise you haven't really strayed too far from the course. I think you know which two important details that you I was referring to about the case.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
kwanton wrote:Something like this is what I was thinking before when I asked our mod if the movies counted. Something just struck me as odd when gilligan asked for doc protect and cop invsigation yesterday, and then BOTH happen to die night 1. The only reason I didn't say anything is that it makes no sense with the death scenes.
Never asked for a doc protect...Just an investigation.
He clarified he meant haggis. Stop skimming.
I'm not skimming. I wasn't sure he meant more than one post about haggis.
This case of skimming with the reasoning given.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
kwanton wrote:Something like this is what I was thinking before when I asked our mod if the movies counted. Something just struck me as odd when gilligan asked for doc protect and cop invsigation yesterday, and then BOTH happen to die night 1. The only reason I didn't say anything is that it makes no sense with the death scenes.
Never asked for a doc protect...Just an investigation.
He clarified he meant haggis. Stop skimming.
I'm not skimming. I wasn't sure he meant more than one post about haggis.
This case of skimming with the reasoning given.
So now being unsure about something constitutes skimming? Cool.
