Carrotcake wrote:Thor:
I called him on it. But you refused to acknowledge it - important, as he is creating a relationship between you two. And you are trying as hard as you can to keep it down low. Even you know, i'm sure, that your case against poweree is garbage.
Making garbage cases is fine, day one, as it creates discussion. But your follow-through perverts any discussion really, and just tries for a mislynch.
I didn't refuse to acknowledge it because for me to refuse to do so I would have to accept it as scummy, and I don't. What did you want, a post of me quoting you going 'this is possibly a scumtell, but I don't agree with it, Carrot should/should not continue' If i did that for everything that was raised in thred (even if only tangentially involving me) I would be responding to a lot of stuff. AGar and I are friends and we are likely to joke and be friendly while playing a game of Mafia together. I've called AGar on things he's done I've considered scummy, and I haven't called him on things he's done that you consider scummy. That seems pretty darn normal.
The Powerrox case was weak (or garbage if you prefer) - but at the time which case do you think was better? I appreciated getting the 2nd vote pressure on there to get PR to respond to. I actually since then think the case has become stronger which is why I'm still there, but I don't intrinsically find AGar's hop to be scummy. What case should he have been on at that time that wouldn't have been scummy? Is it only because of the relation between us you find it so questionable? If so, the relative strength/weakness of the case is pretty meaningless since your focus is the buddying tell and really all you've done is go 'look, AGar is buddying and Thor doesn't think it's scummy' which isn't the most super exciting case I've seen.
ConfidAnon wrote:To me, your original response was not true to my original point. By restating, I thought I was clarifying. You ignored the main point and instead, kind of tried to turn it back around on me, using a different line of logic than I originally did.
Actually all I was trying to do was show the inherent weakness of the logic you used.
Besides, your tell is that I'm the SK because I leaped to a presumption. I showed you where I drew the presumption and other than doing that there's no way to respond to a case as ephemeral as yours as you'll either see the obvious information in Gud's posts that I used or you won't. What do you want me to respond to besides that?
@AGar - logic for Gud vote now please.