Calling it inexplicable was a reach. I would have preferred Bazuf answered for himself. And I would say that in my 8 or 9 games here it was probably the strongest defense I’ve seen given for an inactive player.In post 398, KatyKimFanClub wrote:Question since I sense things calming down. Do you think it's inexplicable to try to push someone away from a bad read? Surely you see the merit in my original points about Bazuf (that he has a strong town meta indicative post, that he uses emojis, that he pushes on people early in games). Sure, we disagreed about whether it was appropriate for him to give the caveat, but if you're me and you read someone whose push has a lot of points that don't deserve merit, you would speak up right?In post 396, KatyKimFanClub wrote:You didn't push on him for being inactive you made a bad meta argument based on things like emojis. Wagon the other one see if you stop you.In post 394, Civil Scum wrote: Well, one could argue I did do this and you inexplicably turned into their lawyer.
If it were me I probably would have voiced my issues with the case and then left it alone until Bazuf came back.