In post 98, Huntress wrote:@ Nacho: ph is my only scum read at the moment. There are others I'm still mulling over and/or waiting to see their responses to posts. Basically, if someone's already queried something I'm not going to repeat that question but just wait and see how it pans out before following it up if I still need to.
I actually forgot about these exchanges, but I didn't like them then and I don't like them now. This was after a few pages of content had been generated, and Huntress's only read was a scumread on phok, who was arguably the easiest lynch at the time (and even if you don't believe him to be the easiest, you can at least acknowledge he was one of the easiest). Huntress claimed that everyone had already said everything she wanted to say and was just waiting for followup, but what follow up did Huntress find and follow up on? Nothing.
In post 131, Huntress wrote:It wasn't ph's lurking I was voting him for, more his first post, which read as buddying up to Nacho, or supporting a scum-buddy; particularly the phrase "effectively taking us out of RVS and getting the game going, which is the opposite of what the scum wants", the second part of which I don't think is particularly true. It may just be a difference of opinion but he was saying that something that I saw as anti-town, was pro-town.
This is the reason Huntress wants to vote phok near deadline: he was buddying up to me with his first post and she doesn't think scum wants to get the game going. This shows an absolute lack of investment in actually pushing that phok scumread; I think that I had more thoroughly developed scumreads than her at this point despite having nothing close to resembling a strong scumread. I don't think that Huntress as town would be happy with this as the best thing she could come up with for day 1.
In post 145, Huntress wrote:@ Nacho: Thanks for the reads. I find it interesting you mention scot as a suspect as he was the one I was thinking might be your scumpartner, if it's not ph .
Her case on me on this post is composed of absolutely nothing. And I'll admit I liked it at the time because I'm a masochist and love when people attack me since I'm not exactly an easy target, but this case sucked. One of her points is blaming me for the game starting slow, which is just
. Another one of her points is was that I picked on her questions but somehow I was supposed to know that those questions made her town? Some how?
Check out this reads list! Huntress criticizes every single person with the sole exception of Om. She had Formerfish, Hardy, phok, and scot as possible scumreads, while she attacked krish for suspicions not making sense and not being engaged enough, she attacked lowercase for not responding to questions, and she made sure to air that she was still wary about me even though her suspicion level of me was lowered. What was so town about Om at that point?
In post 408, Huntress wrote:It's certainly an interesting pattern, although on closer examination some of those votes aren't so close together timewise as they first look. Nevertheless, krish could definitely do with some more votes on him.
Vote: krish
This was a flip on an earlier townread she had on krish for pretty much no reason.
Note that she's been questioning Om while sort of dismissing the krish case as the Om wagon grows.
In post 477, Huntress wrote:Unvote:
Vote: Formerfish
I'd rather go back to this although I can see Mala as being his partner so I'm willing to switch if necessary.
@ Krish:
The unvotes don't mean you're excused from giving your reads. We need to know what you think and why.
And here she's happy to vote Formerfish and give lip service to Mala wagon, but no addressing the Om wagon at all? That's pretty fucking sketchy if you ask me.
In post 530, Huntress wrote:It looks like Nacho will have to wait for tomorrow.
Out of Hardy and Mala I prefer lynching Hardy. Mala's been scum-reading Om all along and was the second on his wagon. I don't think that was bussing.
Unvote
Vote: Hardy
That's L-1.
Now normally when I see someone call something a scum slip I give them my scrunched up face and go "really?", but this is a special case. Huntress votes Hardy and puts him at L-1 to save Mala despite not having a townread on Hardy and despite not seeming particularly convinced of me-scum, yet acts like there's going to be a tomorrow. It doesn't make sense how quickly she compromised if she really felt I was the last scum, and it doesn't make sense for her to have her exchanges with me over hating Mala's case when her vote was on Hardy the whole time. It does make sense from Huntress-scum, though, who is in a safe position for the day and thus doesn't mind white knighting Mala in order to set up for my discredit the next day.
In post 574, Huntress wrote:As we're now in MYLO I'm not going to vote yet but at the moment I'm thinking the last scum is Nacho; mainly due to the last-minute switch to Om on Day two after trying and failing to set up a counterwagon on Mala, but I also thought he was twisting things a bit in his case on her - see 551.
This case is also dumb.
Why is it scummy that I compromised and lynched Om when I couldn't get my Mala wagon to go through? Is it because Om flipped scum? Because that makes absolutely no sense. You've also failed completely to show where I've twisted things in the Mala case; you have areas where you go "Mala didn't want to fight with Lowercase, she said so!" (why should I take her word for it?), "Why was Mala following my reads scummy?" (you ask why it's scummy, but I didn't twist shit), etc. Yes, I was horribly and laughably wrong about Mala, but I didn't twist anything in my case against her and you making it seem that way is scummy scummy scummy.
"Playing with Nacho is like playing with a religious conservative." ~UncertainKitten
-- Fate, Vanilla Townie, was brutally stabbed by a throwing sword in endgame.
