And frankly Serela's reasonings were bad ones to lay down a vote on BT.
I'll quote the parts which are bad.
no
ok but that isn't scummy
unrelated but bad
for bad logic
Thanks for the helpful explanations.
The first one can be used to supplement a case but not start it.
For the Second, even though it's stepped in meta, it's a decent case to make, and was actually the part of the post that won me over to Serela's side.
Seeing BT's come clean post; BT isn't scum, Serela still isn't scum for pinging BT as scum when he did
Actiondan overreacting to Serela still has chance of being scum.
@Zakeri, can you clarify your vote on actiondan abit more? what part of actiondans post following serela post was an actual attack?
im also thinking zakeris post against actiondan is also some kind of soft attack on BT since he did agree with serelas post or something
I quoted his post 124 for a reason. I didn't like it because when I read it it seemed like he was attacking Serela because Serela made a case on BT- not for actually disagreeing with the case, but because it was on BT. Right now, I want to see more of his reasoning for what he said.
of course, now that I've reread it, I see that he said in the quote he wasn't actually thinking Serela was scum for it, but the fact that he didn't have a vote down at the time makes it harder to actually pin responsibility for the attack to him. That makes him scummy.
Also, yes it was a soft attack against BT, but I've retracted that as of this post.
