Nitpick on the last post in Snickers’ wall on MHaye: He didn’t say that we can’t judge ed’s handshake until the end of the game, and if he had said that it would be hypocritical, since he voted for ed on Day 1 on that basis. What he said was that we couldn’t judge the full effects of it until the end of the game.
This could, of course, be Snickers trying to make MHaye look bad, but on the other hand, he also included the links, and reading those clears it up pretty well.
**Vote Count:
Specialed(2): Astralrejection, Chronos,
Astralrejection(3): Redskeezix, Specialed, Oneandonly
Pleonast(2): Meeko, Drainbead
Snickers (2): Nanook, USCDiver
Meeko(1): Pleonast
Hoopy(1): Peeker
**
I think if I have time tomorrow I’ll do a WoW of Astral. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt because he’s a n00b, so I should probably check and make sure. Plus, I don’t think he’s posted as much as Pleo, so hopefully I won’t want to kill myself halfway through.
I’d do it tonight, except I just had my fantasy football draft and I’m a bit drunk.
of for fuck’s sake draino. go score an eight ball and do my durn wow.
i really am not feeling the love.
p.s. that’s what we used to call it a couple of decades ago. i have no clue what the current conversion rate or terminology would be.
Do you see the dichotomy in those two statements when taken in light of why you are voting me and why I was voting chip?
vote: peekercpa
Is this exchange between peeker and Hoopy looking manufactured to anyone else, or is it just because I’m sleep-deprived right now?
Can you elaborate, Chronos?
Willing to bet that the Scum have 24/7 communications. Willing to bet that the gambit here is to end up with the votes being 2 each on a mix of people.
Nothing to base this on. But I would rather have this out now, rather than later.
Nanook: In regards to comparing me to a “Dog with a bone” I asked you when you personally “let go” of a line of arguments / a case.
So?
I am almost certain that’s not the case. A many-way close vote like this has tons of information buried in it: Every vote is a deciding vote, which means that the Scum have to cast deciding votes, which they hate to do. Either they’ll have to actually kill one of their own, or they’ll have to take actions that will later be seen as avoiding killing one of their own. So even if they were subtle and coordinated to be able to set this up, they wouldn’t want to.
Astral, peeker/Hoopy looks manufactured to me because of the way they’re both referring to each other as referring to things, going deep into the chains of reasoning, without linking to whatever it was that actually started it. But it may just be that I’m too brain-addled by getting up too early today, and that it actually is clear what they’re referring to and I’m just not seeing it.
I thought it’s pretty obvious what started it. Both peeker and I were voting Chip at the end of Day 1. Peeker than takes me to task on Day 2, and toDay for my Day 1 reason for voting Chip, even after I explained the differences. Peeker is indicating there aren’t any differences between what I was doing and what Chip was doing, and so I’m hypocritical for voting Chip for it. I’ve explained my reasons multiple times, so instead of going on the defensive, I’ve taken the offensive to figure out what specifically peeker finds wrong with what I’ve done. Based on his last response, he shouldn’t be finding much wrong with what I did, particularly since it’s Day 3 and he’s using logic that’s a stretch even for a Day 1 vote.
On top of that, he goes from voting Chip on Day 1 with a weak case (and, admittedly, mine wasn’t very strong either, but it was Day 1 after all), and then not voting Chip on Day 2, when the case was much stronger, and certainly stronger than the apparently contradictory to his own beliefs logic peeker’s trotting out to justify his vote for me.
If you really want me to, I can link to all the relevant posts, but it’s late and I’m going to bed, so don’t expect it before tomorrow night at the earliest, seeing as how I’m not going to spend the bit of time I get at lunch to do what can be accomplished fairly easy with a search on my posts in this thread. I have considerably less than peeker, so if you look through all my posts, you should be able to see the case.
But if you really want me to link to everything relevant, let me know by tomorrow night, and I’ll do it for you because I’m a giver like that.
I answered you already Meeko. There is no bright line in the sand that says here you keep going, and here you should stop. You have to handle it on a case by case basis.
Assuming, of course that scum haven’t already cast their votes and are simply waiting now to see how the hapless townies deal with the current spread. (This is not to say that I think you’re wrong. Any scum without a vote right now is feeling the heat. But I’m not so bold as to think that all the scum have yet to vote.)
So, to be clear, you aren’t holding by bone holding against me?
This only works if Town doesn’t change votes, correct? While I understand what you are saying, I just think it’s a tad too false positive generating.
I Hate bringing stuff like this up. I once said my brain melts in moments like these. I WIFOM myself - playing both parts on the hypothetical.
Perhaps we should look at vote changers, as well as people placing deciding votes?
in what way is this dichotomous?
an unvote that breaks a tie is equally as significant as a vote that breaks a tie
neta: crap, sorry maha i didn’t bleach it. :smack:
and hoopy just so we are clear. we both voted for chippy for waffling. but you kind of waffled on your waffling vote. i moved elsewhere and you stayed there. and so now you put me to task for not waffling on your waffling vote.
right?
and now that i type this out i think it is time for breakfast. i think i’ll have pancakes.
and now we can add
peeker(1): hoopy
jeez, this is exciting.