In post 95, Ollie wrote:24/25 <--- who states suspicion only to come back literally an hour later to put a vote down?
Why is it scummy that he came back an hour later to vote?
In post 95, Ollie wrote:24/25 <--- who states suspicion only to come back literally an hour later to put a vote down?
In post 100, OceanWind wrote:In post 95, Ollie wrote:24/25 <--- who states suspicion only to come back literally an hour later to put a vote down?
Why is it scummy that he came back an hour later to vote?
OceanWind wrote:
As for Nosferatu's vote on Ollie, what I want to know is why you didn't explain your vote and talk to Ollie when he asked you for your thoughts. Why did it take me accusing you of RVS voting before you explained it?
Nosferatu wrote:nothing. significant. happened. There was no splitting dynamic that occured between the town, nor was there any flagrant events. Nothing. Significant. Happened. I cannot make this more clear.
My response was that no major event had occured that I needed to take a stance on. That doesn't encompass a post I thought was scummy. If you had asked me if there was anything that pinged me, I would have responded differently.
In post 57, Ollie wrote:Nosferatu what's your take on what's happened so far?
In post 104, Nosferatu wrote:might've been a good time, but who knows? Cause I didn't.
In post 105, Nosferatu wrote:what's your angle on this question? Once again, if he asked me if I found anything scummy, I would've talked about my vote. If he or anyone had said anything about my vote I would've explained it.
In post 107, OceanWind wrote:In post 104, Nosferatu wrote:might've been a good time, but who knows? Cause I didn't.
I'm aware you didn't. My question was why?
In post 105, Nosferatu wrote:what's your angle on this question? Once again, if he asked me if I found anything scummy, I would've talked about my vote. If he or anyone had said anything about my vote I would've explained it.
So, if you no one asked you about your vote, you'd have been happy to let people assume it was an RVS vote and move on? You cast a naked vote that could easily be mistaken as an RVS vote. Why does someone need to ask before you explain it? The one reason I could see for putting down naked votes is to get a reaction from the person you voted. You got that. Then you answered his question literally rather than use it an as opening point to scumhunt, ask him if he knows why you are voting him or question him further.
My "angle" with the question is I want to know why you are not pro-active and need to be prompted by others before you expand on your vote.
In post 103, OceanWind wrote:Yeah, I read that post. His question was pretty general:
In post 57, Ollie wrote:Nosferatu what's your take on what's happened so far?
This might have been a good time to engage your then top suspect by pointing out why you voted him rather than answer completely literally that "nothing happened."
In post 107, OceanWind wrote: The one reason I could see for putting down naked votes is to get a reaction from the person you voted. You got that. Then you answered his question literally rather than use it an as opening point to scumhunt, ask him if he knows why you are voting him or question him further.
My "angle" with the question is I want to know why you are not pro-active and need to be prompted by others before you expand on your vote.
In post 111, Nosferatu wrote:So what you're telling me is that you actually wanted to know why I voted you but didn't ask?
In post 73, Nosferatu wrote:In post 63, OceanWind wrote:In post 49, Nosferatu wrote:yeah I also hadn't read your post. Get over yourself.
Assuming you just now remembered this game, why throw down an RVS vote as opposed to offer your thoughts on the non-serious content in the thread?
not RVS.
24/25 <--- who states suspicion only to come back literally an hour later to put a vote down? I could understand if it were a few minutes later and you were like "oh ya, I forgot to vote him actually" but no, he calls him tryhard scum, which is like ¿qué? cause like one thing is saying he was to lengthy in his response to a naked vote, (which I don't even get I mean when did post length become alignment-indicative) but another is calling him tryhard scum based on one post.
In post 99, Nosferatu wrote:jsyk there's no winning a battle where you're going to tellmewhatImeant in a post.
In post 114, Nosferatu wrote:no, I'm saying that your question did not specifically ask for me to explain my vote and therefore I didn't explain it. It is completely normal for me to put a vote down and not explain it until prompted. In Game Shop Mafia, I put a vote down on davesaz and didn't explain it until I was asked much much later. If you want something from me, ask me directly and don't bullshit me with evidently purposefully vague questions in hope that I would answer what you want me to.
In post 109, Ollie wrote:I purposely made it that way to give him a chance to comment on the game in general & his vote for me. & he's making out the fault was in my question & not his answer.
Ollie wrote:
Yes! He wasn't scum hunting til pressed by you about his vote. he had no interest in pressing me til then despite having a great opportunity to, which I purposely gave him. I got no bite on it.
In post 118, Ollie wrote:You're seriously telling me that you thought the answer I was looking for was what you thought had happened minus the thing that had attracted your attention the most?
In post 120, Ollie wrote:I never said it wasn't vague, but you're using that as an excuse foryouranswer. Can you answer my question...
In post 118, Ollie wrote:You're seriously telling me that you thought the answer I was looking for was what you thought had happened minus the thing that had attracted your attention the most?
OceanWind wrote:@Nosferatu - how much of the game had you read when you made your first post?