In post 50, mith wrote:KK: Eh? I'm following my weak (gut) read of "I like your posting so far" by not finding you scummy, just as I was following my slightly stronger (not gut, albeit "minutia"-based) read of DRK by voting.
So your scum-read on DeathRowKitty is independent of FishytheFish's read. What is the reasoning of your scum read?
In post 53, KittyMo wrote:Pretty sure KK typo'd. Also, please don't hammer until Rhinox makes a real post.
I didn't. I'd be willing to hammer, but hammering on Day 2 is a pretty bad move.
In post 61, Katsuki wrote:I have other reads that lead to me to believe that panzer will most likely flip scum.
I want you to expand on this.
Despite what my first post said, I'm finding myself massively agreeing with Fishythefish, Katsuki, & Rhinox. And, in accordance, my scum reads have been Panzerjager (inconsistent play; humor as defense) & mith (cagey play).
In post 67, DeathRowKitty wrote:His mith questioning has been his primary lead this game, but it feels like the questions he asked were questions with no potential to go anywhere.
"I can't see something, therefore it doesn't exist"?
Similar to what he had done at the battle of Mu'tah, Khalid had asked the reïnforcements send by the Caliph to join the army in small bands, giving the appearance of a steadty stream of reïnforcements. This forced the Roman's hand, the longer they waited the more numerous the muslims would become.
KK: I am starting to feel like you aren't actually reading what I'm saying. My scum-read on DRK was initially based on the same "minutia" Fishy pointed out (thus "awesome case" in that post). There was other stuff later (post 34).
Rereading your previous post in the context of this latest question, you seem to be implying that I followed Fishy's scum-read but not his town-read, or at least not the strength of his town read, and therefore [???], which makes no sense.
Rhniox: My opinion was that Fishy's case was "awesome" and warranted a vote. I'm not sure what expectations you have beyond that, but I'm sorry to disappoint. As for "asking others to provide an opinion", I was asking Kitty Mo for her opinion because she was the subject of the original DRK vote, and I was surprised that she didn't post more on the subject than "You jerk. <3".
I was satisfied with the responses DRK gave page 2, and chamber's lack of actual response to my earlier question has been eating at me.
fishythefish wrote:
Kitty: I dislike 62. It asks for no hammer while subtly saying "but quickhammers aren't too bad, so if anyone does hammer, that's ok". Feels like Kitty wants an early lynch, but doesn't want to be caught actually endorsing one. Leaning scum, though probably not with panzer.
I was torn while writing that because Katsuki had just said he wanted to hammer earlier than I was comfortable with, but unvoting panzer that quickly would have completely taken the pressure off for him to respond. Which he definitely needs since he's avoiding the game thread while still posting in GD, and just hiding behind humor whenever he does post. Given that and the setup situation, I was willing to risk a hammer to maintain that pressure, but it made me nervous.
@Kitty: then why say that "I feel like a quickhammer isn't nearly as detrimental as it would be under normal circumstances"? I get not unvoting to keep the pressure up, but if you are nervous about a quickhammer, why say anything that makes one more likely?
Still liking Kat here.
@KK: wait, so in post 46 you were saying you were ready to hammer despite it being page 2? I'm confused - I don't see how that fits with your next sentence. "But panzerjager needs to explain himself." sounds very much like you aren't going to hammer him.
I'm not a fan of the mith wagon. A lot of what people are calling him scummy for just looks like playstyle differences. I feel like mith is some sort of y2k time traveler who doesn't realize he's in
What were you hoping to learn from this? You didn't say anything when Panzer responded to it.
In post 87, PJ. wrote:@DRk: Random wagons happen because they are funny, right?
That sounds like as good a reason as any (well, not really, but yes, that is one acceptable reason) for a random wagon, but doesn't actually address what I want to know (why you were riding a random wagon when you had real opinions on the game).
Panzer, can you point out some specifics of what caused you to make the mith-fishy comment? Explaining them would be a bonus, but if not, specific quotes that put the idea in your head would be good.
In post 91, DeathRowKitty wrote:I'm not a fan of the mith wagon. A lot of what people are calling him scummy for just looks like playstyle differences.
That's most definitely not why he's being called scum.
Fluffy fluffy~~~ |
"READING KATSUKI IS LIKE SOME SORT OF POSTMODERN ARTFORM"
- GreyICE
Katsuki is by far more absurdly beautiful than Fate. (hai parama)
Katsuki's Madness coming to you shortly: Nov, 2011!
@Chamber
Because it wasn't a question about private information
@Katsuki
I don't really know what your reasons are - you cited "gut" and "mith's general approach to the game" without any further explanation. Panzer voted mith without giving reasons at all. Now, I'm aware there was more to what the following people said than what I'm about to point out, but the other two people who have cast votes on mith this game have given the following as part of their reasoning: 1. taking my jokey stuff seriously 2. "semantics of meanings of votes"
Mith's take on what should and shouldn't happen at the start of the game and his explanations of his take on what should and shouldn't happen at the start of the game drew a lot of attention and seems to underpin a decent chunk even of the reasoning that doesn't directly reference it.
If you would prefer, I can ask mykonian to ignore the question in thread and ask it privately, then mention his answer if/when I find that information useful. Everyone can then verify that I'm being truthful about mykonian's answer by each sending an individual PM asking him the same question.
