Debonair Danny DiPietro 37 wrote:alexhans wrote:Forgive me, DDD...
I'll consider it.
Unvote; Vote: KMD
What the Senators' fan said.
I do not like this bandwagoning.
Debonair Danny DiPietro 38 wrote:alexhans wrote:DDD mentions KMD even less... He's only in a 50-50 % pool of 4 people in wich 2 are supposedly scum (with jammer, SpyreX and BCC)
Seems like decent enough odds to me. Couple that with GIEFF's 2048 and add that to the very basic bandwagon = more information hypothesis and it looks and feels like a solid vote to me.
I do not agree with this reasoning at all. Rather weak to put anyone that close to a lynch.
Debonair Danny DiPietro 40 wrote:It bothers me that SpyreX is doing his best to carve out a difference between myself and Sens, seems like he’s digging for whatever extremely weak justification he can find to support my lynch and not that of Sens. If we could actually get the SpyreX lynch that I’d like and he flips scum I’d have to re-evaluate my stance on Sens.
How is it scummy to look for a difference between 2 players who ¨lurk¨? You find yourself completely equal to SF?
Debonair Danny DiPietro 41 wrote:Furthermore, such analysis only looks at whether a lynch is easy, not whether it's good. I'm much more concerned with someone pushing for bad lynches then someone who has or accepts good reasoning as a reason for their vote.
Finally, it also only looks at whether a lynch is easy, not whether it's consistent with the player's gameplay. Again, another issue which I generally believe to be a more pressing concern.
1) I find going for easy lynches somewhat scummy.
2) I can not really say being consistant is a ¨towntell¨.
3) Going for bad lynches is scummy indeed, agreed.(I found the lynch you followed bad).
Vote: DDD