cheeky really did that, and she say it herself on 87, when pressured by quick. openly saying she wants a response from me = openly saying her vote is a reaction test. my point is: if cheeky wanted to have a response from me, putting a vote on my slot and then saying she wants a response is counter productive, it redirects the discussion away from why I voted her. she could've, you know, just asked.In post 222, northsidegal wrote:it didn't seem like you were around, so i thought i'd use my vote a bit more productively. like i said, pretty happy with the outcome of that. you say that explicitly saying your vote is a reaction test defeats the purpose (and i agree), but did cheeky really do that? assuming we're both talking about 72, all she said was "serious omgus vote". you could take it that any vote that explicitly announces omgus isn't serious, but i would say it could also be used as just a term for voting the person who just voted you. you could just ignore the vote, but like i said in 171, choosing not to react is still a reaction in itself. not sure i get your point on "lack of pressure to talk". someone voting you usually necessitates some kind of answer. if you're trying to make the point that cheeky's lack of follow-up questions makes the vote useless, i'm not sure i agree. i guess a big problem i have with you is this interaction here:
Spoiler:
you're not being forthcoming here, and i don't think it shows town-motivation. it's not always bad to secretive with your reads or the reasons, but here you make it seem as if you know for a fact that cheeky is scum and you don't need any further evidence or reactions. why not elaborate on why you scumread cheeky? why would you not want a response from voting someone? if you believe cheeky is scum then certainly you would want to convince other people, so why be so quiet in your confidence? the reason i would suspect from your meta is because you plan to point out all the reasons later, without giving scum a chance to change their behavior mid-day, but i haven't really seen that yet. 208 doesn't entirely satisfy that for me, so unless there's something spectacular later i think i'll keep my eye on you.
there was nothing spetacular, it was my first non-rvs vote, on page 5. I don't need a full case on somebody. my reasons for voting her were expressed on post 206. at the time, it was the scummiest thing on the game. so I voted her. I never said I know for a fact that cheeky is scum. in fact, I quote: "because I think you are scum". where did I say I know she is scum or that I don't need evidence? I was engaging with her at that moment. I was furthering my read at that moment.
so, let's talk: what's my motivation as scum to accuse cheeky without any reasons here?