Ecto [174]: Not really fond of this post - seems pretty clear to me what MBL was getting at and this looks like a case of stalling for time with a bit of a deflection.
Ythill [180]: Not entirely sure I'd call it "elaborate groundwork" - stripped down the argument was "pressure lurkers" vs Ythill's "don't pressure lurkers, some of our replacements are good people". It did initially strike me as a possible "welp, my scumbuddy might be a lurker" but
my comment on that matter was meant a little offhandedly anyway2
.
This isn't a bad post but it's not a huge tick in the Ythilltown box either3
.
inHim [183]: Apparently I have a disregard for finger pointing and name calling and this is a cause for concern.
I'm not really sure I understand what this part of his post is getting at4
- sounds flippant and jokey but if I've missed something that is genuinely meant to be directed at me, please say so.
Chamber [192]:
Seems to be pushing for the UTwagon after it's already begun subsiding5
and I'm not entirely sure why. Noting this for later reference more than anything.
Ecto [207]: "My reply is because I'm not" - effectively says he's not contributing simply because he's not contributing. I know this came in an "I'm away for a bit" post so
could be null due simply to being rushed6
but it's noteworthy all the same.
Ythill [208]: Not sure how the two lines he quoted from Glork are mutually exclusive and
I'm a little concerned7
about the way they are presented as such.
--> sidenote: where's CES been in all this? Not seen many posts from him yet after a good couple of pages of content.
Ecto [215]:
While Stark did kinda suggest he was stupid, I'm not sure his post was as "full of adhom" as was claimed.8
Another example of highlighting a reason to deflect whilst not answering the content part.
--> Hmmm, lack of content from IH as well.
Shanba [241]:
Not feeling Ectowagon9
. Not really sure why or how he could not at least think Ecto warrants a further probing.
Shanba [248]: Ah okay, there's the answer.
Ecto [254]: Still stalling for some reason. From his post about reads I got the feeling he was basically saying "I don't use 'when player X says A he is likely scum' type stuff" which is fine but I dislike the way he still hasn't addressed the core issue of who he suspects and why. He's made a lot of posts by this point and ignored the question being asked of him by numerous people.
Chamber/Ythill big back-and-forth... thing. I'm not really sure this is beneficial content from either player, really.10
Don't know why he thinks Ythill's [267] was "classic scum post" but it mainly seems like fluff regardless.
Yos [286]: I agree with what he says about Chamber regarding the "fishing for a reaction" thing - I don't see how choosing not to reply is not, in itself, a reaction that can be looked into anyway.
CES [294]: Agreed - for what it's worth, I also would have said no to the stupid bet thing whatever my alignment and whatever the situation. Not going to consider
Chamber saying no to the bet thing as a tell either way.11
UT [298]:
Was wondering when he'd show up - he got terribly quiet for a while after his wagon subsided, though that could just be holiday-related. Starts off by saying his Fritz vote was a bunch of crap but then goes on to defend his Fritz vote in some depth, which strikes me as very odd.12
