redtail wrote:First of all, to the claim that I am latching: yeah, I suppose I am. And it will, of course, do no good to claim that I had independently come up with many of these points, and AGar simply beat me to the punch. I tried to differentiate my case as much as possible, but there's no getting around the fact that we had many of the same points. Such is life. You can't expect every single person on a wagon to come up with a unique, different case. That's neither reasonable or possible. At least I tried: Zach just copied my case and went with it.
Ok. So do you think AGar's original vote on me (which was based soley on latching) was unfounded, then? What about Zach?
You see, I actually agree with you that agreeing with other players isn't a bad thing. But other people don't agree with that and are being inconsistent about how they apply that standard (e.g., I'm scummy for using some of AGar's argument, but Zach isn't for posting "lol i agree." This makes no sense.
redtail wrote:1. 2 people that I'm happy to name: myself and Hoopla. I would bet others here would agree, but I don't want to speak for anybody. And there are any number of reasons to think it might be a logical move (as noted by Hoopla, a PGO claim that the town generally believes is rather bad for scum).
2. If you see the pros and cons of such a play, why are you saying that it's definitely illogical? There are logical reasons to do it. It got rid of RVS, and it gave us plenty of material to work with. Even without the unclaim, you don't get to just state that it was an illogical play. That's what I was objecting to.
I don't get what the point of this argument is. Hoopla isn't even a PGO anymore. Why are my opinions on whether claiming PGO is a good or bad idea relevant?
If this debate actually matters, fine, we can sit around and argue. But it seems to me like this is 1) a theory smokescreen plopped in front of finding scum and 2) that the real issue is whether I changed my advocacy or not, not what the advocacy actually was. And the advocacy issue has already been addressed / is being debated below.
redtail wrote:From what I understand, what you really mean is, "VI's that are unreadable are Vigbait." Is that accurate.
Yes.
If there is actually somebody else SCREAMING scum, then fine, you Vig them, but that usually isn't the case D1. AND OH LOOK, shotty is being a total moron and flipping between claiming scum and claiming town PR. Sounds like a mighty fine target for a VIGGIN'.
redtail wrote:I didn't fully understand this section. Could you elaborate? At the time of the vote, you said the meta argument was the main reason, but now you claim that the claim was the main reason. Which is it? Because the way it was phrased, it didn't seem that both were "necessary but not sufficient."
They are BOTH important and need each other to exist.
Saying the argument was "mainly" about in prior posts was probably poor choice of words; I was merely trying to emphasize that AGar's argument alone was not enough to warrant the vote and that the other half of the analysis was cruically important.
If you think that this wasn't sufficiently outlined previously, then fine, feel free to think that I'm backpedaling. I'm not going to try and defend the semantics of my prior positions; I know what I meant and I am trying to be more clear now, but if it wasn't clear before and you don't get it now, there's nothing to be done. But what is more relevant is...
I don't get any of this line of attack. It's all like, lets hurl a thousand differnet poorly constructed arguments at AGM and see what happens. Why am I SCUM? Nobody has bothered to argue that at all except for Hoopla, and she's not even voting for me. WHOOSH.
VRK in particular, your vote is very uninformed, I addressed all of redtails argument in my previous post.