In post 862, Iecerint wrote:You are correct that you could be an irrational person -- i.e., not a good player. That is not outside of the universe of possibilities that I am considering. You can mentally replace "dumb" with "irrational" or "plays scummy" if it makes you feel better. There are lots of high-profile players on this site who play that way, including players who do it proudly and encourage others to do it more so that they can win more (e.g., because it's easier to maintain a neutral meta when one draws scum if they cultivate that playstyle). (I am contemptuous of that trend, and it's going to be reflected in how I talk about people who play that way.)
....I often get labelled as playing scummy but that doesn't make me any worse a player than you. And yes, I take offense to you saying so. Shocking that I would.
My point is you are arguing that I can only be one of two things without any basis to come to that conclusion.
I am not a player who is about making cases, nor am I amazing at convincing people that my reads are correct. That doesn't make me a shitty player. It just makes it tougher for me to get taken seriously. None of this is allignment indicative.
In post 862, Iecerint wrote:The main difference between town and scum is that town want to figure out alignments and scum already know them. If you are playing in a way suggesting that the content in the thread is interesting to you NOT primarily to the extent that it helps you discern alignments, you are playing the game the way scum do.
This is fundamentally untrue. For one, there are TONS of instances in which town players have "fixed" reads. Tunnelling is a common occurrence, and, again, not alignment indicative. In fact, if you are going for meta, I probably tunnel way more as town because I have a lot of confidence in my reads once I form them. My being
confident
in the reads I have does not make me scum. I've already discerned the alignments. In my mind the only thing that could change this is participation for Xayzeck and Peregrine, which has been minimal throughout the game.
Good scum play by going with the flow of a game. This means that their reads can change, or they could not. You seem to suggest that I'm not using any information to form my reads, when I have formed my reads over the course of four days. I didn't have a scum read on CTD day one. In fact, I thought burn was leaning town. Additionally, whereas I don't think claiming roleblocker clears CTD, note that I DID give him the chance to use it because I thought it could be gamechanging if true. I'm not as inflexible as you suggest.
In post 871, Iecerint wrote:Toasty's behavior seems like he entered today with an "easiest path to wincon" agenda and isn't deviating from it or reevaluating it in the face of new information. That is something that I do only when I am scum. I have a hard time believing that he is town.
Also, scumplay is dependent on the others within the game. I am not usually one to get into WIFOM/"well if I were scum" moments, but I think it is valid here. I am not an idiot. I do fairly well as scum, the few times I've had the chance to play (which, granted, is only 3 times--4 if you include my 3rd party win).
Whether there is one scum or two, if I were one of those scum, keeping Dry-fit alive would allow me to auto win. He had a STRONG town read on me, and we had the same opinions on the player list. I highly doubt he would have a sudden shift in logic if alive. In addition, Dry-fit had way more influence this game than myself, and I as scum could easily sheep him to victory.
The reason why I think mentioning this is appropriate is because this isn't really a situation where you can say "well, maybe you did that to throw off the trail!!!!!"
Like, if scum, I would have had a 95% chance of winning with Dry-fit still in the game.
If I am somehow being inflexible or coming to conclusions without using new information, then so are you.
Then why do you think my read on you is based on perceived incompetence?
In post 862, Iecerint wrote:I have never argued that you are scum by Process of Elimination, except in the context of 2-scum, which I have mostly discounted at this point, anyway, and even in that case it was just one of a few possible pairings.
...Which means you have argued I'm scum by process of elimination at some point.
In post 863, Xayzeck wrote: In post 860, ToastyToast wrote:Isn't white-knighting when you hard-defend someone who is being attacked by other players? Because that's not what I've done as all, and I don't know how you come to that conclusion. If you are referring to Aronis/Nacho, then you probably haven't read the game (shocker).
In my experience, it's defending someone or pushing for someone whose alignment you know, be it a scum or skills, and once they flip you can get other people to sheep you.
This is the best definition I could find for the given situation:
In forum parlance, it means rushing to the aid of another poster for whatever reason. An accusation typically reserved for when a poster is being hammered by another poster(s) and the accused leaps in to defend them, usually without thinking things through as to why the person is being attacked.