![Image](http://www.rawfoodscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/wagon.jpg)
VOTE: protector
We're out of RVS so there should be an explanation attached to a vote.In post 73, Earthquake wrote: Pictures usually mean you want to be liked.
Then, why was cdb's vote scummy? And still standing, why is dritan scummy?
In post 43, Not_Mafia wrote:Lia should have unvoted after saying that
In post 45, Dritan wrote:then why didnt you unvote ?In post 32, Lia wrote:I'm beginning to think this may be a serendipitous wagon.
He sheeped on my misunderstanding then admitted he didn't know what he was sheepingIn post 51, Not_Mafia wrote:Read serrendipitous as duplicitous.
OhIn post 175, Kid A wrote:VOTE: not_mafiaIn post 161, Not_Mafia wrote:Do you realise how scummy you are acting? You haven't ever tried to actually explain your posts despite people asking you to until now, you don't just get to troll and place random votes and say random crap until someone gets bored and stops asking you what you're doing
In post 180, Quill wrote:Tbh, Not_Mafia's reasons for votes have been pretty weak thus far too, despite him including them:
Spoiler:
Why is that a poor reason? My last vote on KidA was sarcasm showing how silly his argument on Earthquake is, according to him that's how a townie should have responded to his naked vote.
TL;DR: Voting Not_Mafia makes sense, although once again there's people already voting him who don't seem to have as good a reason to as they should.
Vote: Not_Mafia
Fair enough remark, I've responded to Quill now it's your turn, what did you think of KidA's vote on earthquake and his subsequent scumread?In post 182, Antihero wrote:nah, i got a better question/suggestionIn post 178, Not_Mafia wrote: To be serious though, Antihero, what did you think of KidA's vote on Earthquake?
there's a lack of quill in you iso. fix that.
Why say this the moment you replace in?In post 191, AngryPidgeon wrote:I was so sure this was a scum slot. But its not,
That was all really vague, any chance you could expand on those point/reads? In paticular how has the meta changed, I'm not asking for an essay or anything just enough so I can understand your read on CDBIn post 246, mastin2 wrote:
Buuuuuut, basically...Kid A's town because his posting comes from a town mindset. Earthquake's scum because their posting comes from a rather transparent scum mindset. (CDB gives off similar vibes, but I'm actually calling CDB the weaker read, since him being from that older generation, it's difficult to be certain that what I picked up on holds validity.) Kid A's posting seems to have no ulterior motive behind it, whereas Earthquake's play is highly artificial.
Okay, that explanation sucks. I'll try to think of a better way of saying it.
CDB's posting looks like logical scum rather than relic-town is the core version. Basically, CDB comes from an era of a different site meta, and you can tell that (regardless of whether he's adjusted to current site meta or not) he's antiquated. The thing is, his play immediately came off as being antiquated-scum rather than town.In post 220, Antihero wrote:please talk to me about cbd
(...See above for further details.)
Just to be transparent about my experience.In post 357, AngryPidgeon wrote:Not mafia. Not mafia? I disliked his recent post about Quill. It was SUCH a potshot on a player largely considered scummy that 1) discredits a potential future post by Quill and 2) buddies up to people who suspect Quill anyways. In general, his light hearted posting style is more likely to come from town (especially considering hes a newish player) but part of the issue with that read is that Im getting the impresison this guy is NOT a strictly newish player, so he very well could be invoking some intermediate level scumposting here. I just skimmed over his ISO which really doesn't have anything super-town looking in it (Aside from his overall attitude that I just waffled on). His votes are all for fairly easy reasons. Actually Post 178 seems more likely from town than not. Null leaning slightly town, paranoid though.
and you've been scumreading quite a few people without really purusing any particular one or twoIn post 283, Antihero wrote:/ugh
i hate the quill wagon because of earthquake
and i hate the earthquake wagon because of quill
It gives you an excuse to be on any potential mislynch, notice how I merely said you were on my radar, it's just something I'm keeping in mindIn post 370, Antihero wrote:yes, and this is scummy because....
ObviouslyIn post 370, Antihero wrote:if i wanted to vote quill or earthquake, i would have voted quill or earthquake
Scum don't like to keep their options open?In post 370, Antihero wrote:the "keeping open" theory rests on a stupid premise
Oh noesIn post 370, Antihero wrote:p.s. - i'm still scumreading you
"were" being the operative word, there is now a counterwagon on CDB, why did you jump on this one above all others? A scum advantage would be that if Quill is your partner you can try and avoid lynching him.In post 385, Antihero wrote:therewereclear frontrunners that are pretty close to actually being lynched; therefore there's no scum advantage to "keeping options open".
if your criticism of me is that i'm indecisive, then get over it and it's not a scumtell.
It isn't defending a scumbuddy it's floating a scumread on them so you can bus them if need be but not jumping on their wagon so you still have an excuse to jump on a future counterwagon i.e CDB's. Also I don't know why you're putting decisive in quotation marks since you've brought that up.In post 390, Antihero wrote:that's not keeping options open, that's just flat out defending a scumbuddy and it's independent of how "decisive" i appear; i could be aggressively pushing a counterwagon or notIn post 388, Not_Mafia wrote:"were" being the operative word, there is now a counterwagon on CDB, why did you jump on this one above all others? A scum advantage would be that if Quill is your partner you can try and avoid lynching him.
and that's not what you said originally
I pretty clearly stated my reasons for voting him, if you're talking about that naked vote then my vote was already on himIn post 391, AngryPidgeon wrote:votes KidA for nothing
It isn't? That's odd cos I could I swear my role pm says I'm townIn post 396, AngryPidgeon wrote:Nice try, but that isn't how town would respond to my accusation.
This all spawned from some throwaway comment in my reads list, I didn't feel the need to present that hypothetical at that moment in time, you brought the conversation to that point so don't pretend I'm changing my argument or misreppingIn post 401, Antihero wrote:if you think i'm quill's/earthquake's buddy and i'm defending him, i could maybe see how you think that, but that's not the argument you made
you're twisting me trying to sort out / make sense of earthquake and quill into a scumtell and i think it's really frickin weaselly
1) Did I say that? I saw your vote on me as a really transparent reaction test since if you are partnered with AH then when I flip town you'd look really scummyIn post 402, AngryPidgeon wrote:1) You aren't even remotely suspicious about my vote on you? If I voted you for nothing, might I be.... PLAYING TO A SCUM WINCON? I don't recall you having a read on me other than commenting on me/mastin being BFFs in the thread, soooo?
2) I DID talk about your KidA vote being scummy and you acknowledge that there (by defneding against it) whilst trying to argue there WAS NO CASE ON YOU? Ok. So play it off like my vote on you is 100% meaningless AND defend the case on you at the same time. Have your cake and eat it too then.
3) A townie would have been upset that I accused them of being anti-town. A scum player just sees that as a non-reason for being voted.
If you are just going to misrep what I said and then say I haven't been to explain it and say my argument is fake then I'm just going to stop responding to youIn post 409, Antihero wrote:for every "throw away" comment, there's a thought process (at least if you're town), and i just wanted to know what it was.In post 407, Not_Mafia wrote:This all spawned from some throwaway comment in my reads list, I didn't feel the need to present that hypothetical at that moment in time, you brought the conversation to that point so don't pretend I'm changing my argument or misrepping
And yes I think you could be scum with Quill
i still don't know what it is.
and i don't think there is one. i think you just kind of repeated what AP was saying about me but changed it around a little so it looked like your original thought. and if it was your original thought, you would be able to explain it.
you can't.
it's fake.
you're scum.
I didn't say it was inherently scummy, I said you were on my scum radar and I was keeping it in my mind asIn post 412, Antihero wrote:none of that changes the fact that "keeping options open" is a really vague accusation and it's not inherently scummy
response or not