Kalse, on 06 January 2010 - 01:23 PM, said:
Eloth, on 06 January 2010 - 01:16 PM, said:
Not everyone is middle of the road enough to say that uncle ben is either playing cautiously or boldy. Why even bother stating something like that? You then voted because I fit the "cautious or bold" bill. That and I had apparently been lynch hungry; though you kindly explained how no-one could be blamed for that...
It's not an explanation of how you thought UB would play if you completely contradict every two seconds, it's just making an excuse to vote out of thin air...
And you're the one whining that players strawman you with what you said when you voted Tulas.
I didn't say that UB was either cautious or bold, I said that I expected him to be cautious, with the provision that because of something we don't know he might be
bolder than expected.
I also didn't say you were lynch-hungry, but that I would expect UB would want lynches, and you put Tulas at L+1. Again, with the provision that Tulas was a walking ass.
And now tell me why you would expect UB to "make excuses to vote out of thin air" someone, and I'll remove the IMGUS accusations.
I'm sorry, but you said I fit a pattern.
Why bother speculating whether he's cautious or bold when it's under specification from
something we don't know. Because by extension that means we don't know whether he's being cautious or bold. So if we don't know how to expect UB to play, and have no way of telling, why vote based on it?
Also, you voted me for fitting both the patterns, after saying you expected UB to be lynch-hungry. That is the same as saying that I am lynch hungry(or there's no cause for the vote) and if Tulas deserved the votes(you said people couldn't be blamed for voting him) surely that means that the point about appearing to want a lynch by voting Tulas is somewhat nullified.