Tom, you keep asking about this question I asked you to respond to and you can't find...
The thing is? There is no question I have. What I said was that you completely ignored my point of how one of the points I held against you initially was implying that Rat was stifling discussion, which I noted, he clearly was doing the opposite, in that by ending one discussion (if you can call it that), he was starting another that could probably go further. Your responses to me were all about how I went after you instead of a lurker based on faulty logic of how you voted for a different lurker and tried to start a train.
Yes, I admit now that was faulty logic, but the tone you responded in, and how you only dealt with one of my two points (again, If I have to spell it out for you, its claiming Rat is stifling arguments.)
Your recent posts haven't done much better. Now, your vote against me? Fair enough; you brought up some points and voted against me.
...but right after, you do something really weird. You talk about GTAU.
Now, I can understand why you'd bring him up, however, the way you did it, it sounds like you were questioning why Rat and Excal had kept their votes.
The reason was obvious though:
Neither had posted since Gate indicated the Mod Kill verification scenario.
Now, yes, I'd agree something would be weird if the Mod Kill was announced, then Rat/Excal posted something, didn't change his vote, THEN you questioned them, that'd be reasonable. But that wasn't the case.
Did you mean to do something like "Rat, Excal, given the mod kill, are you going to remove your votes?" as a simple question regarding the scenario, then yeah, I wouldn't see anything wrong with that. You're basically questioning if they still think there's a case when they finally decide to speak, and not accusing. Notice there's no "why" in this case.
BUT what you said is this:
I'm suspicious of those who still have their vote on GTAU. The way it's going, he's going to be modkilled. If he doesn't (and returns with an excuse like "I was in hospital" or something to that ilk) then those votes are unjustified. Either way, I really don't see the benefit to town of voting for GTAU.
Therefore, Excal and C-Rat: Why are your votes on GTAU? I think it's time to look at other suspects. I'm not making accusations, but it's easy for scum to hide with a vote on GTAU right now.
The bolded parts are the ones that stick out to me.
Why?
First off, you state the word "suspicious" quite blatantly. Then you claim to *NOT* have accusations? How does this work? You state you're suspicious of votes still there, even spell out who still has them...then claim you're not making accusations. I don't follow this logic.
Then, the way you question them: you use the word "why" as in, you think they're keeping their votes willing.
Again, had Rat/Excal posted between Gate's warning and your post, then yes, that question is justified. But that's not what happened. You claim to not accuse, but you still say you're suspicious, and say its easy for them to hide.
I'd be willing to go with the why scenario as a miswording when you meant what I said earlier (the whole "Do you plan to keep your votes?" I mentioned.)
Now Rat speaks and...then you vote on him cause he is suspicious of you? Your reasoning seems to fall under "OMGUS!" in the grand scheme of things.
Observe!
Rat now looks very suspicious to me. The way he responded sounds a lot like a ScumRat(tm) response. The way it's structured as an assault-response and the tone.. sounds a lot like scum. It's subtle, but Rat does a great job of concealing his intentions, and he's leaning towards the scum side this time.
Rat looks suspicious cause he attacked your post with odd logic built around the parts not related to me. Rat looks suspicious cause he's calling you out for being inconsistent with actions, which makes the post look forced. Rat looks suspicious cause he ended up voting for you in the end, based on these points combined with your earlier attitude. Rat looks suspicious cause he is playing like he did when he was scum!
Am I reading this right? So we have...being suspicious over someone for bringing several legit cases against you and voting against you based off that, COMBINED with a pure Metagame "RAT IS ALWAYS SCUM!" point. I...just don't see the case on Rat as very strong. As I said before, and I still think this, Rat actually seems pretty townie to me.
You know why Rat seems very scummy at the moment? Its because he's Rat. Rat has been Scum so many times, his play style probably has been associated with scum by default. He plays all his games the same, just happens he's been scum so many times, his actions seem scummy. So when he comes in as Town, and plays the same as always, externally anyway, he seems scum based on this.
(No offense Rat, just stating that you probably look scummy by default regardless of how you play based on your history of being scum; something that can't largely be helped.)
With his latest posts, Eviltom just keeps feeding my suspicions. My original reason was shaky, but then he has the harsh attitude (which may have been overstated, I'll admit), combined with trying to call out people for keeping a vote when they haven't even posted, inconsistent play style that Rat has noted, and lastly, an OMGUS vote against Rat...yeah.
----
On that note, I'm turning in for the night. There's a chance I won't be around until late tomorrow given I have school most of the day, followed by work right after, with at best two hours to spare, so if I'm gone for a while, that's why.
And then I get NINJA'D BY RAT!
