well, I survived finals once more. HURRAY
Anyway, lets get to the happy fun times here. My thoughts:
PMC: I pretty much buy your gambit. However I am slightly wary of some of your actions. It seems to me that once the heat was on you were mainly focused on surviving. For instance, not picking up on the dazza scumtell, pointing out inactives in the middle of your discussion and the speed with which you decided nag was townie all seem to suggest you were more concerned with your well-being than scum-hunting. Which, of course, is particularly weird considering you made the gambit to start with. Don't really know what to make of it.
Also, I thought this was interesting:
pmchugh wrote:MOD GIVE ME POWAH
unvote vote Nagerous- For not responding with anything of worth to prods
vote Victor- For not posting anything other than jokes
vote Dazza- For illogical voting and then refusing to explain his fos
vote Haggis- For promising contribute but not delivering.
vote Leitz- For not posting in the game.
vote zimmah- For being completely useless.
So this means you consider clever's and soundman's contributions adequate? (also, not delivering?
it's still the weekend over here).
Anyway, not quite fos worthy, but seemed worth mentioning all the same.
Soundman:
Had 3 serious-ish posts, 2 of them defending PMC AFTER the threat of the bandwaggon had ended, one agreeing with PMC about zimmah being a lurker.
Doesn't necessarily imply a connection with PMC, but being quiet while the debate about PMCs tactic was ragging only to appear as a staunch supporter after the bw died down is mighty suspicious IMO. Screams like a "look I'm contributing" kind of action, without having to actually take any of the risks associated with contributing for real.
FOS Soundman Dazza:
Don't like his play at all. He seems to be digging in his heels against PMC while ignoring all arguments and repeating "He seemed suspicious" like a mantra.
That's not good enough, address the arguments or admit you were mistaken in thinking he's suspicious.
Also, I never like the "aww shucks guys, I'm just not good at debating" defence. What does it imply, that we're supposed to treat you special and let you get away with scummy actions? No thanks.
If you're telling the truth, you don't need to be good at debating, just explain your thoughts. When you need to be good at debating is when you're fabricating lies.
I want to see what happens when some pressure is put on dazza.
vote dazza Besides, the only way to improve is practice, so think of this as an incentive to get better.
You're welcome.
at the secret request of another player
)
)
