In post 165, Tammy wrote:
I meant exactly what I said. Even if all you read was the post I voted in them, I still don't see how you got that. The last two sentences should have clued you into the fact that your interpretation isn't even close to correct. It was born of a lack of interaction, not whatever interpretation you came up with.
The last two sentences seem to be based on personal past experience which I don't share.
And yes, I do think that in a game of mafia, when there are only five pages, that it's reasonable to expect you to read and even iso to respond.
And I think when you say "my point on" someone, and I see a post in which you voted that person and made a point, it's reasonable for me to conclude that that's the point you're referring to.
Why I asked you in the first place was because the manner in which you went, and didn't, go through the thread pinged me. You seemed like you were reading the thread. You were interacting and responding to posts as if you were trucking along, but all you really did was respond to setup spec stuff. The only sort of scum hunting response you had was responding to Gamma's RQS post.
First, not all scum hunting is obvious. Do you really think I wasn't sorting you as we talked?
Second, how much heavy-handed scum hunting do you expect at that point in the game? If only pushing one person at that point is scummy, then probably everyone in the game is scummy.
(What is it with people caring that he did rqs even after someone said not to anyway?)
That wasn't my point, which you'd know if you had read my ISO.
But you stopped commenting on anything going on in the game thread after that except to discuss with me about people being aware of the setup.
I find it odd that you literally stopped responding once actual game relevant stuff started happening. Since you were shooting down setup suggestions, I expected to see you responding to actual scum hunting that was going on, but you merrily ignored it.
The comment on Gamma was in
96. In
117 I commented on your questioning of molla. In
142 I commented on molla's push on LUV. In
151 I followed up on that, asking what the substantive case on LUV was if it wasn't based on tone (and the response has been underwhelming).
So, no, it's incorrect to say that apart from gamma, I've only talked setup spec.
Why are you casting shade like that?
Did you actually read my problem with them? Go ahead and read that page to see me explain my read two whole posts later after I voted them.
Two posts after you voted them is
57, and again that's based on past personal experience which I don't share. Accordingly, there's not much for me to say about it.