In post 196, havingfitz wrote: In post 195, Syryana wrote:
Gut feeling. His bandwagon jumpery was pretty blatant. Makes him worth keeping an eye on.
Could you elaborate on this seeing as how he's been on the same two wagons as you?
It's not the wagons he's jumping to, it's the way he's jumping. He's justifying why he thinks the person he's jumping onto is scummy but not why that person is scummier than the person he just left. I don't know a better way to explain it.
In progress, decoding 666's latest wall.
DCLXVI wrote:
The reason I don't like this vote by fitz is that the no RVS issue with fferylt had already been resolved. His meta clearly showed that he was playing as he normally did, it was a bad vote and a poor attempt to join a bandwagon.
What does this have anything to do with fery not voting? Fitz wasn't voting fery because she doesn't RVS. He was saying he begrudgingly does RVS, hence vote. Interpretation fail.
DCLXVI wrote: In post 26, Syryana wrote:Because you've not made a single reference to my RVS joke on you. If you were town, you'd have laughed about it like we did in that newbie game, since half that game was me yelling at you for that joke.
Since you ignored it, that means you don't like the attention, ergo you're scum.
This is just stupid, not scummy stupid, or town stupid, just stupid.
Thanks for the brilliant analysis. Perhaps you ought to analyze the repercussions of this statement in terms of MM's responses.
DCLXVI wrote:Not liking USC's posts 44-46, his push on meomix does not seem genuine.
Why do you think they're not genuine?
DCLXVI wrote:missrepping in order to join a wagon. I think that's strike two now against fitz.
Strike one. Your first point was invalid.
DCLXVI wrote:When I use the phrase "in all seriousness" that means I'm not in RVS mode.
As I explained early in this post. Fitz's RVS post was bad considering the context of it with me having already posted confirming fferylt meta. Yes, it is possible for someone to make a scumm RVS vote. We get out of RVS by finding scummy RVS posts by other players.
Yes, except fitz's post wasn't scummy. Again, interpretation fail. Not to mention we were already out of RVS by the time of this ridiculous post thanks to the MM discussion.
DCLXVI wrote: In post 83, Syryana wrote:No, 666's vote is terrible because he's basing it off an RVS vibe. He's got much better targets around, such as MM for scummy responses or some of the folks on MM's wagon (which other people have pointed out but I can't be arsed to quote). I didn't get a scummy vibe off fitz's RVS and I don't see how 666 did. The partners comment came from 666's lack of justification for thinking MM town and subsequent vote on fitz for reasons that I believe to be very shaky.
Its perfectly ok to make a page two vote off of an RVS vibe (actually, now that I think about it, all the votes on MM are for things that started in RVS, wait, you can vote for RVS stuff but I can't HYPOCRISY)
Way to misrep what I said. Sure, if you take the first sentence of the paragraph and chop off the rest of it that's what I said, but my point was your reason sucked and you were ignoring everything that had gone on since your last post on the first page.
DCLXVI wrote:Well, my vote was random random, it was for the reason of you not doing RVS. And once my reason was shown to be invalid, I decided to place my vote somewhere else.
So your vote was random, but it had a reason. So....... it wasn't random.
