Well, I arrive and significant discussion is already occuring.
In post 30, jmo16mla wrote:why are we voting him? BRO's post was completely useless and was a joke reply to what was a serious statement.
Buh? Wha? Well, this seems to indicate that he believes gorckat's statement. I don't think anybody would try to WIFOM right out of the gate. This means that if jmo is scum, then gorckat and Radiant are not.
In post 49, Rob14 wrote:Vote: JMO
Totally serious vote. Really overreacts to a joke response to an obvious joke by gorc (who is obvtown so far in the early game, by the way - I like his opening). But he doesn't say anything about TMT, who enters the game ignoring all serious discussion and reverting to RVS instead of trying to keep out of it. Why are you attacking one player for responding to a joke with a joke, but ignoring another player who opens with jokes after serious discussion has started. He's applying two different standards to two different players. That's not town. Motivations behind that, of course, remain up in the air, but there's no such motivation for town (unless he's a mason, but the probability of that is on the extreme low side).
Although I agree that jmo looks slightly scummy for his reaction to gorc and BRO, there is a very obvious flaw in the logic in this post. I will not mention it, because I want to see if jmo can defend himself.
In post 48, DCLXVI wrote: In post 46, gorckat wrote:Your 2, 3 and 4 go from wanting more info, not seeing why I make the statement and then being totes fine with my statement.
those descriptions aren't quite accurate
2 is correct, I didn't get it at first and wanted more info
3 is not correct, I stated that I didn't see a reason for you to know that radiant was town, NOT that I didn't see a reason for you to make a post. At this point I did think your post made sense, but I forgot to mention it so I brought it up in my next post.
4. Correct, I am totes fine with your statement, even though I don't see any way for you to know radiant was town.
What caused the change between #2 and #3?
In post 53, DCLXVI wrote:So then this is how it would have played out.
TMT did something you think is scummy.
JMO ignored him and therefor is scummier?
I didn't say anything about TMT, does that mean I'm scum as well?
If JMO's scuminess is determined by TMT being scum (after all if TMT isn't scum, then ignoring him doesn't look nearly as bad) then shouldn't your vote by on TMT?
Ummm... what? This is not at all what Rob's argument was. Either you are badly misreading his argument, or you are trying to deflect attention off of jmo and on to TMT. Do not like.
In post 56, TMTOLBTWNTOF wrote:Does Bo Know wrote:It's because Letters is scum. Duh.
Rob13 wrote:Yes, I do.
Someone, please let me know what I did. I feel like it's one of those situations where people are talking behind your back, but in a way so that you can hear snatches of the conversation.
The second one is the old "RVS is over because I have found something to discuss, but he still did an RVS vote rather than joining the discussion, get him!" It's a dumb argument in my opinion. Different people have different thresholds of discussion to exit RVS.
In post 62, RadiantCowbells wrote:And what would that be? Unless they are masons together I can't see how gorkcat would know radiant is town.
I find it interesting that the first thing that comes to mind here for you is that Gorkcat could be mason and not that he could be scum; almost as if you already know he's not scum?
Correct, I am totes fine with your statement, even though I don't see any way for you to know radiant was town.
You shouldn't be fine with someone making a statement like that without any elaboration.
Agree with the first, but disagree with the second.
In post 73, jmo16mla wrote:It was more of the fact that BRO directly quoted the statement, and replied with nothing useful. Possibly discusing such said statement could have been useful to town, as it would move us from RVS and create more discussion to catching scum.
TMT didn't acknowledge the statement like BRO did.
This is the exact flaw that I saw in Rob's argument.
