Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:21:39 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jul 30, 2007 15:21:39 GMT -5
Umm... really? Then how do you propose we move forward? By discussing Day One's posts and voting action. Right. But the only way that has any relevance is when it's coupled when we learn the allegiances of those who have died. If we don't analyze deaths, and go only on Day One's posts and voting action, we might as well not have gotten -any- information. That's why the mods give us allegiances when the players die. Otherwise, we've got nothing.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:21:55 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Jul 30, 2007 15:21:55 GMT -5
GreedyRead the above assuming Greedy is town and in the dark about everyone else's roles, go ahead, I'll wait. Ok, now read the above assuming Greedy is scum, knows that DrainBead is a fellow scum, and is able to communicate with her in private. He could even ask her permission before voting for her! That would have to be some seriously crafty meta-game thinking IMO if he were scum. Why would he take heat off himself and put it on another scum? If he were going to vote for a scum that might have been "sacrificial", he could just say that he gets a scum vibe from her and leave it at that. No need for any "sorry if you're town" business, unless he wanted to throw a wrench into our thinking. Keep in mind that DrainBead getting lynched was still up in the air at this point. Why am I saying this? I really don't think that the above actions are those of a scum. If they are, then color me fooled. I don't want to let any scum try to rekindle a bandwagon on Greedy and muddy the waters. I want a psychopath's head on a pike tonight! They got too lucky last night and they need to pay in blood. If there are any holes in my theory that anyone sees, feel free to point them out. If he turns out to be scum, I will actually punch myself in the face. I think the point that you're missing is that if Greedy Smurf was scum as well, then at that point it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that one of those two would be the lynchee yesterday. Thus, it didn't really matter where his vote went; however, by putting it on drainbead, he at least gains the opportunity to say "look, I voted for scum!" Unless I'm missing something...?
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:23:29 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jul 30, 2007 15:23:29 GMT -5
<snip> If he turns out to be scum, I will actually punch myself in the face.Will you put it on youtube?
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:24:34 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jul 30, 2007 15:24:34 GMT -5
Blaster Master's said it better than me. Hockeymonkey didn't have any investigation results she could breadcrumb, and her posts just read as an experienced, smart, analytical player. Whether or not she gave off any Cop tells, I figure the scum felt threatened enough by her to kill her off. Going to re-read Day One again and play the fun fun WIFOM game. As Hockeymonkey said, I've tried to work through the if X is scum, then Y can't be because of Z. It's getting me no where, and making my head hurt.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:25:53 GMT -5
Post by capybara on Jul 30, 2007 15:25:53 GMT -5
Thoughts: 1) Hockeymonkey, as has been noted, mentioned detailed notes she was keeping. Could this have been a) threatening enough in of itself to off her or b) seen as indicative of her being quite invested in the game, hence a possible role?
2) Does the fact the Hockey voiced suspicions of Mal 130 times of the course of Day One absolve Mal at all? (assuming that the scum wouldn't want to appear to kill someone who was after one of them that clearly-- her death implicates Mal in a superficial way, and they'd be smart enough to avoid that (as Roosh should know. . .). Or it is a triple bluff? Is Mal indeed scum but they knew someone would post this very post?)
3) Hey, Mhaye. The late vote was interesting, as was the very very detailed post that went with it. Your analysis of Malacandra never appeared to match the posts about Drain and Greedy, by the way. Your vote switch to Drain didn't make any difference (she was already doomed), except in moving some names around on the spreadsheet. Why bother?
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:39:41 GMT -5
Post by dnooman on Jul 30, 2007 15:39:41 GMT -5
I think the point that you're missing is that if Greedy Smurf was scum as well, then at that point it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that one of those two would be the lynchee yesterday. Thus, it didn't really matter where his vote went; however, by putting it on drainbead, he at least gains the opportunity to say "look, I voted for scum!" Unless I'm missing something...? Since they can talk privately during the day, it would have had to have been a team effort that ended in the worst possible way. Does that sound probable or even likely? And at that point the voting looked like this: drainbead (4) - storyteller0910, Roosh, Mad The Swine, Blaster Master GreedySmurf (3) - JSexton, Hal Briston, DiggitCamera dnooman (1) - Malacandra Malacandra (3) - hockeymonkey, drainbead, Cowgirl Mhaye (1) - kat 7 people had not voted yet, drainbead was already leading by one vote, a vote for Mal would have tied that up, if he wanted to vote with a fellow scum, a vote for Mal would have been with drainbead, he could have claimed the same reasons as the other Mal voters, or could have just made a random accusation. The case for him being scum voting for scum in that situation makes almost zero sense to me.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:41:27 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 30, 2007 15:41:27 GMT -5
Analyzing deaths doesn't seem all that useful to me...it's not like we can read the psycho's minds. (And it almost seems like a scummy thing to do, like the scum want to show off how smart they or something.) Huh? Analyzing deaths is one of the *only* useful things we can do-- those deaths and verified roles are the only information we actually have and we *have* to try to read the psychos minds. And it being scummy? That's a very strange suggestion and I don't get the argument. Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't analyze the reasons someone may have been killed? Please clarify. Hockeymonkey was presumably targeted for a reason, and if it's possible to determine a couple of good candidates for a reason it's a good thing, no? <sigh> I feel like it's Groundhog Day. We have this discussion every game. For the record: it is my opinion that analyzing night kills and trying to puzzle out the motivations behind them is at best utterly useless, and at worst dangerous. To answer your question directly: I absolutely don't think we should try to analyze the reasons someone may have been killed. Why? Because there is no way to puzzle out the answer, nor even to judge which among the possibilities is most likely. It's simply not possible to know why hockeymonkey was killed, unless the scum actually tell us (truthfully). And they won't.Consider: last night hockey monkey was killed. She voted for Malacandra yesterDay. So this could mean: (1) She was killed because she was suspicious of Mal, and Mal is town, and the scum wanted to make us more likely to lynch him. (2) She was killed because she was suspicious of Mal, and Mal is scum, and the scum wanted to eliminate a proponent of the "lynch Mal" movement. (3) She was killed for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with Malacandra and his status. Now, we can chat all Day about which of these three possibilities is the case, but we will never, never come any closer to an answer than we are right now. Given the evidence we currently have, possibilities 1, 2, and 3 are exactly equally likely. So, as I said, this line of discussion is at best useless. But at worst? Well, first of all, if we start basing lynching decisions on someone's assumptions as to why hockeymonkey died, we are basing our decisions on a piece of information given to us by the people who want us to screw up! The scum are chatting right along with us, and they know why they killed hockey monkey, so they have a huge advantage in terms of piloting the discussing in the direction that will be most advantageous to them. Plus, because the night kill can literally support any interpretation of the situation, it's going to be used as evidence by everyone. Each person will - maliciously or unconsciously - start using hockey monkey's death as support for whatever theory they had in mind in the first place, obscuring the real evidence. This is part of why I'm suspicious of Roosh, who leaped from gate to talk about how hockey monkey might have been killed because she was on to Malacandra and let's all go back to talking about Malcandra some more - almost like he was ready to jump in with that observation soon as the day opened. It's also why I'm abruptly suspicious of pygmy rugger, who knows very well from our long-ago partnership how night kills can be chosen by the scum to manipulate the town if the town pays too much attention to them. dotchan is definitely, 100%, correct. We study the posts of each player; we analyze their reasoning and their approach. The night kills are, at least to me, a red herring that we ought to simply ignore (there are exceptions to this, of course, but not this time).
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:44:43 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 30, 2007 15:44:43 GMT -5
By discussing Day One's posts and voting action. Right. But the only way that has any relevance is when it's coupled when we learn the allegiances of those who have died. If we don't analyze deaths, and go only on Day One's posts and voting action, we might as well not have gotten -any- information. That's why the mods give us allegiances when the players die. Otherwise, we've got nothing. You are conflating two concepts. One is using the definite information we have been given - the alignments of hockey monkey and kat - to gain a better understanding of the posts so far. This is obviously of value, and in this way, deaths add to our knowledge. This is altogether different from trying to find out why the kill was as the kill was, which is a venture doomed to failure.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:46:21 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jul 30, 2007 15:46:21 GMT -5
Hey, I didn't vote for Mal, I just put him on my FOS list to keep it as a reminder to myself of who i think is odd and should be tracked, the list so far as i can remember holds JSexton, and Mal. I didn't believe there's a case to vote for Mal yet, but this was simply a post to keep in mind his actions for the rest of the day.
(And no, i didn't realize that that's exactly what the scum would want us to think) It was my first accusatory post of the day, and I may have been falling into the scums' hand, but I never did factor in the idea of that's what the scum would WANT us to do.
Yet, i will not retract my FOS, but i certainly am not voting for Mal or anything yet. But jeez, Storyteller your quickness to vote me certainly seems odd. I know you did it yesterday w/ Drainbead, but sheesh. I'll keep an eye on you too.
Currently my thinking though is we need for people to just chime on the first day, I myself am not checking anything yet until probably later tonight/tomm morning. These posts are done off quick reply while i fill out a few forms. Therefore, there's no real content to them and they're just ideas off the top of my head. Later I'll prolly make a better post with arguements and such on who actually to vote.... But i will be keeping an eye on Jsexton, Mal, and i guess you too now Story, but i just happen to like using FOS rather than "smudges" to do so, the color catches my eye when i look back thru posts of mine.
anyways, till later~R
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:46:43 GMT -5
Post by Malacandra on Jul 30, 2007 15:46:43 GMT -5
Thoughts: 1) Hockeymonkey, as has been noted, mentioned detailed notes she was keeping. Could this have been a) threatening enough in of itself to off her or b) seen as indicative of her being quite invested in the game, hence a possible role? 2) Does the fact the Hockey voiced suspicions of Mal 130 times of the course of Day One absolve Mal at all? (assuming that the scum wouldn't want to appear to kill someone who was after one of them that clearly-- her death implicates Mal in a superficial way, and they'd be smart enough to avoid that (as Roosh should know. . .). Or it is a triple bluff? Is Mal indeed scum but they knew someone would post this very post?) 3) Hey, Mhaye. The late vote was interesting, as was the very very detailed post that went with it. Your analysis of Malacandra never appeared to match the posts about Drain and Greedy, by the way. Your vote switch to Drain didn't make any difference (she was already doomed), except in moving some names around on the spreadsheet. Why bother? On point 1, I'd guess it was a bit of both: Hockeymonkey is known to be a strong and thorough player (quite a bit better than me, alas) and I think she was playing reasonably true to form. And of course she's perfectly good enough a player to draw flak away from a power role on purpose if she hadn't been one herself, too. Or to play chicken with the scum by looking like a power player in the expectation that they'd think no-one would ever look so obviously like a power player. On point 2, I hope "130 times" is a typo, or I'll start to feel really paranoid picked on (can't say "paranoid" in this game, can you? ) On point 3, since MHaye has been lining up to join my fan club, I sorta feel uneasy about a counter-accusation at this stage. Maybe later when it looks less like an OMGUS.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:48:32 GMT -5
Post by capybara on Jul 30, 2007 15:48:32 GMT -5
(130 was a, um, hyperbole. She does mention you several times-- you appear to have become a pet project, which in itself I don't think means anything)
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:52:48 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jul 30, 2007 15:52:48 GMT -5
~snip~ But at worst? Well, first of all, if we start basing lynching decisions on someone's assumptions as to why hockeymonkey died, we are basing our decisions on a piece of information given to us by the people who want us to screw up! The scum are chatting right along with us, and they know why they killed hockey monkey, so they have a huge advantage in terms of piloting the discussing in the direction that will be most advantageous to them. Plus, because the night kill can literally support any interpretation of the situation, it's going to be used as evidence by everyone. Each person will - maliciously or unconsciously - start using hockey monkey's death as support for whatever theory they had in mind in the first place, obscuring the real evidence.~snip~ bolding mine. Okay.... THAT makes sense. I can see what you were getting at Story and i can see then why you'd vote for me. Though, i'd prolly just give myself a FOS if i was in your shoes and not a vote, but fine. Thanks for the clarification on how any one side could use the death. ...Though i did think Pygmyrunner made sense too in analyzing deaths.... But :shrug: I dunno now. I'll wait till later and see.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:54:24 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Jul 30, 2007 15:54:24 GMT -5
#!#$#! Argh! It never bolds! I hate that... (the 2nd paragraph was bolded)
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:55:26 GMT -5
Post by dnooman on Jul 30, 2007 15:55:26 GMT -5
For the most part I agree with Storyteller and his stance on analyzing night kills. In M1, we sometimes chose night kills just to make the town wonder why we did it, then we would keep conversations about the night kill going in order to keep the town from the important issues at hand.
For the record, I think the scum just got lucky. No discussion in the world could make that relevant to today's situation if that were the case.
We know that Hockey and Kat were voting honestly (though not necessarily correctly), and we know who DrainBead voted for, but her role was to primarily lie, so that gives us little. We need to primarily be looking at posting records with the knowledge that we have now, and analyzing today's posts and votes.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:55:31 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 30, 2007 15:55:31 GMT -5
Yet, i will not retract my FOS, but i certainly am not voting for Mal or anything yet. But jeez, Storyteller your quickness to vote me certainly seems odd. I know you did it yesterday w/ Drainbead, but sheesh. I'll keep an eye on you too. Be my guest! Everyone ought to be examined closely; there is no reason you should trust me. I would like to ask this, though - can you articulate any specific reason why you feel a quick vote, such as the one I gave you, seems a suspicious action to you? Right now, I consider you to be the person most likely to be scum; why should I not place a vote and document that fact?
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:55:50 GMT -5
Post by dnooman on Jul 30, 2007 15:55:50 GMT -5
<snip> If he turns out to be scum, I will actually punch myself in the face.Will you put it on youtube? I think I would have to.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 15:59:57 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jul 30, 2007 15:59:57 GMT -5
#!#$#! Argh! It never bolds! I hate that... (the 2nd paragraph was bolded) No, it is bolded, just hard to see (and the bold tag got broken a little because of the bolding of hockeymonkey's name). Next time, try italics?
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 16:13:24 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Jul 30, 2007 16:13:24 GMT -5
Meta-gamish question: Now that the Lovers are dead, does Cupid pick another two saps players to join via the red string of destiny? Another meta-gamish question: If one of the Lovers had been a Crazy Townie, would we have had a third death? Analyzing deaths doesn't seem all that useful to me...it's not like we can read the psycho's minds. (And it almost seems like a scummy thing to do, like the scum want to show off how smart they or something.) Well, if you really want to protect yourself from meta-gaming, I'd suggest you PM Idle Thoughts directly. On another note, I think it might be useful to check how the voting developed to see if: 1. Scum at some moment or another tried to save drainbead2. When (and if) they gave up on her
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 16:19:36 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jul 30, 2007 16:19:36 GMT -5
You are conflating two concepts. One is using the definite information we have been given - the alignments of hockey monkey and kat - to gain a better understanding of the posts so far. This is obviously of value, and in this way, deaths add to our knowledge. This is altogether different from trying to find out why the kill was as the kill was, which is a venture doomed to failure. That's what I meant. I completely agree that we can never determine why who was killed, there's simply too much WIFOM involved.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 16:23:37 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Jul 30, 2007 16:23:37 GMT -5
I think the confusion came from the use of the word "analyzing". dotchan was using it, correctly, to mean "try finding out why who was killed," while I was using it, correctly, to mean "using the information gleaned from the deaths to interpret past actions".
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 16:58:22 GMT -5
Post by Greedy Smurf on Jul 30, 2007 16:58:22 GMT -5
I have an anaylsis to put together of voting patterns from Day 1, however I'm about to get hammered here at work with a few urgent projects so it may be a little while (this afternoon prob.) before I can actually get it posted up here.
So please bear with me.
Oh and dnooman, never fear, no face punching required.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 17:15:12 GMT -5
Post by JSexton on Jul 30, 2007 17:15:12 GMT -5
I’m not quite ready to take my FOS off of Malacandra, but I think I’m ready to Vote for Mhaye. Did anyone read that post and not find it scummy sounding? I also boggled at that post. I was hoping someone would mention it, so I can put a little green townie star by their name. (enjoy your star, dnooman!) Anyway, I just went back a did a fresh read, now that we know some alignments. (and boy, hitting scum day one is sooooo good, not just because dead scum is the goal, but because people behave differently on day one.) General impressions: storyteller and Blaster Master started and drove the drainbead lynch, respectively. Townie cred. dnooman - I agree with the assessment that the dnooman wagon was likely an attempt to derail the drainbead wagon. Townie. GreedySmurf - Initially, my read was scum. However, I liked his posts after that. He's learning, whether through his own efforts or through coaching I can't say. I'm actually leaning town at the moment. Hal, Mad, capybara, nesta - neutral. Nothing stood out to me. Roosh - I can't explain it, but I get a gut scummy vibe. Watching. Digget - One small note, if GreedySmurf turns up town, I think Diggit might be scum by the way he jumped on the wagon. cowgirl - the vote to dnooman seemed possibly deflecty. Small yellow mark. dotchan - I don't like that the day ended without your vote somewhere. Voting records are important, and you deliberately avoided voting. Do not like. Pygmy - The vote for Hal was odd. There were three big bandwagons forming, and pygmy ignored them all. No comment, instead voting for Hal. Just seems weird to me. Malacandra - Lots of attention here. the dnooman vote did seem like an attempt to derail DrainBead's lynch. Then, later, Mal votes GreedySmurf even while acknowledges that DB is probably the better lynch. Wow. Scum. vote: MalacandraThere's my info dump post. I'd like to see this kind of post from everyone.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 17:29:59 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 30, 2007 17:29:59 GMT -5
Mhaye (1) - dnooman Roosh (1) - Storyteller0910 Malacandra (1) - JSexton
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 17:45:47 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 30, 2007 17:45:47 GMT -5
Damn. I'm kinda sorry I voted for the Lovers roles now! ;D
At least it wasn't due to me doing something stupid this time, though.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 18:04:32 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jul 30, 2007 18:04:32 GMT -5
Damn. I'm kinda sorry I voted for the Lovers roles now! ;D Better than a Mad Bomber role.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 18:33:26 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Jul 30, 2007 18:33:26 GMT -5
(snipped) General impressions: storyteller and Blaster Master started and drove the drainbead lynch, respectively. Townie cred. (snipped) ...you were in M2, weren't you? You do remember storyteller used a similar situation to establish his towniness in that game? In other words: I'm not diminishing their role in this lynch, but I definitely wouldn't give them "Townie cred" because they helped nail a newbie scum...
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 18:42:07 GMT -5
Post by JSexton on Jul 30, 2007 18:42:07 GMT -5
(snipped) General impressions: storyteller and Blaster Master started and drove the drainbead lynch, respectively. Townie cred. (snipped) ...you were in M2, weren't you? You do remember storyteller used a similar situation to establish his towniness in that game? In other words: I'm not diminishing their role in this lynch, but I definitely wouldn't give them "Townie cred" because they helped nail a newbie scum... Yeah, but day one? I doubt it. I mean, I'm not marking him as 100% confirmed townie forever, but lynching scum is a reasonably good barometer of town.
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 19:01:41 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Jul 30, 2007 19:01:41 GMT -5
...you were in M2, weren't you? You do remember storyteller used a similar situation to establish his towniness in that game? In other words: I'm not diminishing their role in this lynch, but I definitely wouldn't give them "Townie cred" because they helped nail a newbie scum... Yeah, but day one? I doubt it. I mean, I'm not marking him as 100% confirmed townie forever, but lynching scum is a reasonably good barometer of town. Nope. Not always, at least. Townie don't know townie Scum knows scum Yes, it's early to apply these kind of tactics. But don't forget, they can talk to each other during the Day, and could organize such a lynching. And "lynching scum is a reasonably good barometer of town" is simply not a true statement. Townies will reliably and most often lynch townies (because there are more townies than scum)
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 19:02:57 GMT -5
Post by dnooman on Jul 30, 2007 19:02:57 GMT -5
Probably town:
Storyteller
Leaning town:
Blaster Master Capybara GreedySmurf
No read yet:
Hal Briston DiggitCamera Nesta Pygmy Rugger Mad The Swine Jsexton
Leaning scum:
Malacandra Dotchan Roosh Cowgirl
Probably scum:
Mhaye
I know that I'm town, I had Hockey as leaning town, and Kat as leaning scum (can't predict 'em all). I'm very surprised at the lack of content in MTS's posts, not sure what to think of that. These are just gut feelings for the most part, although I can try to elaborate if pressed.
Anyone have any of these people pegged much differently than I?
|
|
|
Day Two
Jul 30, 2007 19:15:07 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Jul 30, 2007 19:15:07 GMT -5
(snip) Digget - One small note, if GreedySmurf turns up town, I think Diggit might be scum by the way he jumped on the wagon. (snip) Now that I think about it, another question: I "jumped on the wagon" (your words) on the strength of your accusations against GreedySmurf (I said as much in this post ). (snip) And since JSexton has made a pretty compelling argument against GreedySmurf, so I'll vote GreedySmurf (snip) My guess is that you made your arguments hoping to convince someone else. Why do you, once you achieved that effect, turn around and cast suspicions on the person that got convinced by your post?
|
|