In post 1118, Pandora wrote:Feysal, I think everyone other then you stopped caring about Starbuck twenty pages ago. You're about to get a chance to bloody shoot her if you're so convinced that you can't present an opinion on what we're actually talking about in the future of page 45. Quilford still thinks you're a scumbag and nothing makes me agree more then blanket unvotes and a case that you know no one gives a hell about right now. Who out of the actually possible people do you want to vote and choose? Choose being the big one for you since you gonna die right now.
If everyone else has stopped caring about obvscum, the shame is entirely theirs. And I'm not going to blindly slap my vote and choice on the largest wagons, particularly now that we got an extension. It is because people have done that that there is a wagon on me.
To that end, I had a look at greenknight.
I have been getting mixed signals from his play. Some of his posts I have immediately disliked, in others he has seemed relaxed and townish. I also looked for meta on him, and learned he has very few games on site, although some may have been lost to the crash. AFFC was his only scum game I could find, but comparing his town and scum play proved fruitless. There is no difference I could see.
Reading greenknight in isolation proved more worthwhile.
In post 614, greenknight wrote:- Bandwagoning based on the 5 or so pages I read this morning when I got my replacement PM, in order to move the game forward, is
pro-town
.
This is one of the things that leapt at me immediately. The bolded is such an unnecessary addition, and makes the whole post worse.
In post 614, greenknight wrote:- My votes are actually explained in what I posted, I'm voting Minimum because I agreed with MoI (particularly #125) and Feysal because he opened up by attacking Starbuck
just
for proposing a dubious strategy for the use of Choose. IMO that isn't a scum tell but it's the sort of thing that scum love to jump on.
In post 619, greenknight wrote:The Choice strategy issue is different, there's no potential hidden knowledge involved there. I agree that the correct town play is to use it as a 2nd lynch, but being wrong on a strategy issue is not scummy - it's just being wrong - and I expect better from town Feysal.
These however I did not catch the first time I read them. According to greenknight I voted Starbuck only for a theory disagreement, when in fact I did mention two reasons in the very
post I voted in, and explained them further in
another post. My reason was no mere theory disagreement, but because I could not follow Starbuck's thought process, which she has never been able to explain. I had said this by the time greenknight replaced in, and he claimed to have read my posts in isolation. He should have known there was more to my case. The fact that he misrepresents and undermines it instead is simply awful.
In post 665, greenknight wrote:Well, look at what happened since I voted. Pushing the Minimum wagon caused reactions from both heads of the hydra, and also from people defending minimum. This gives us useful content to analyse, and speeds up the process of reaching a consensus on whether the wagon's good or not. So, if we decide the wagon's bad there'll be more time to conside other targets.
One thing I could add to Plumamma's case is that greenknight spends an awful lot of words here talking about analyzing content, rather than analyzing it. Something I saw scum do very recently.
I will be looking at bvoigt next. I can already say that I hated him attacking me instead of saying what about my case he disagreed with, and I believe it was the second time already.
Now
I'm intrigued.
