In post 127, MattP wrote: In post 108, iraonavp wrote:Yes, I would say that my comment was weird! It was not clear to me that it was a joke, since I did not know that Frozen Angel had changed avatars. But I don't see how that could be indicative of my alignment.
The way you're engaging the game over very nitpicky things (like explaining the theory behind an avatar change not being alignment indicative and parsing between bad vs scummy after garmr already commented to legitimize your popular vote) rather than generating new content bothers me.
I was very confused about Frozen Angel's comment about avatar changes, and approached it from a theory perspective in case Frozen Angel was taking Dwlee99's post seriously. I was simply agreeing with Garmr's statement. You probed me for further explanation and now you're accusing me on nitpicking, that's underhanded.
Accusing someone of not generating new content on d1 is weak. In general trying to find themes in a player's posting early in the game is silly. I also engaged with Taly about the wagon speed. Is that not enough "pro-town contribution" for you?
Similarly to everyone giving an opinion on my altered consciousness with the ambien and then you weighing in to say "maybe the ambien explains his posting but maybe not, let's wait and see" in a wordy post doesn't demonstrate any sort of complex thought beyond prolonging your vote on me.
I was the first to comment on the ambien situation, that is objectively false! I don't see why scum-aligned players are less likely to give complex thoughts. Prolonging my vote on you is the best way for me to discover your alignment.
In post 108, iraonavp wrote:I think that your outrage at being voted for what you consider play that benefits town shows that you know you aren't town-aligned, since you defend yourself on the basis of it being good play, rather than looking "scummy" because you know that you are scum-aligned and may inadvertently let this slip. It makes more sense in my head, but I have trouble putting it into words! Again, I don't see how me being hypothetically wrong here could be indicative of my alignment.
How? You're saying you have issue with me making a value judgment over the apparent utility of my posting when the foundation of the push garmr has on me is that there was clearly no utility to my post so why would I make it? Why wouldn't my response be to then explain why I made the initial post called into question so he could understand my reasoning for making it. An extension of me having a reason to post something is that I think there's some utility to it. Me disagreeing with your reasoning isn't why I think you're scummy anyway - I also disagree with Garmr.
I changed my opinion, you're correct. You have been persuasive and made me feel like I'm defending the wrong side of the argument in respect to this.
I just think you're riding an easy push and the scumhunting you've done is nitpicky and lacks any real depth.
I'm not riding an easy push, look!
UNVOTE: MattP
VOTE: Dierfire
To clarify, I am not unvoting you because you changed my mind regarding the "bad vs. scummy" thing.
