| Sparks said: 1. Town winning >> living till the game ends. 2. It's not that at all. I noticed several tactics, too subtle for a newcomer to spot. Someone who isn't paying attention wouldn't notice them either. Not answering my question right away so he could glean as much info as possible from the situation (it worked), the trick he tried on IkePoR with daytalk and no one even corrected him except noname2200, which in turn gave me a hunch about IkePoR...etc. 3. No, it's because what he was saying wasn't all that accusational to begin with. It was written to elicit responses, encourage participation, which it most certainly did. Again, it's the subtle things. Besides, before he and I got started with everything, everyone else was all "ew day 1, whatever, meh...etc.". I like it better our way. @bolded: nice attitude. Maybe I should save my virtual breath. |
It seemed accusational to me. All I was saying with the bold was that, if I'm wrong, I don't see it as a bad thing. While my emotions might be coloring my actions, my commitment to my vote is based on my reasoning. As for an attitude, at least I have the guts to admit I'm pissed off here. He called my spineless and flipflopping when I wasn't. Come to think of it, you're right, he WAS trying to elicit a reaction! But a mafia would benefit from that just as much, so I'm not changing my vote.
As for "town winning >> living till the game ends", I can't argue with that, but I would also add that "town winning >> having everyone in the town survive even if they're causing problems". I know you think he's had a positive effect, and I agree he's upped participation, but I stand firm on my position that he holds too much sway over the town's attention, which I see as a problem. We disagree on whether his effects are positive and negative. Let's agree to disagree here, and agree that there may be both positive and negative effects of it?
