Garmr wrote:
So ice can you explain why I'm your number 1 scum read even through you haven't really pushed me that much and
this post comes off as you town reading me
Incorrect. I stated that your vote helps people read your alignment, which is something that town WANTS people to do. I also called your vote bad. I don't have a case on you, per se, but you're reading a double personality here. Half of your posts are care free and include the tongue-out emoticon, and half of them seem nervous and unsettled. All of those posts regard me and my vote/read on you. It's giving me a gut read that you're faking stuff, and has resulted in my vote no longer being a tool with which to end the RVS, but instead an honest "I think you're more likely to be scum than anyone else based on the available information" vote.
----------
Alright as for Diego's first piece of actual content, let's tear it to pieces piece by piece.
Diego wrote:
Firebringer did not call you town. He said your trying to look like town, completely different.
Yup. And I tried to catch him backpedaling his statement which would have indicated scum. He did not, which slightly indicates not scum (though he definitely seems too competent to fall for that, and too abrasive to care what anyone thinks to back down either so I doubt my move would have worked regardless if he's scum or not). You're certainly focusing quite hard on what I did on page 1, care to comment on things that have developed since then?
Diego wrote:
Again, this is not scumhunting, this is throwing WIFOM into an argument to make someone else look bad.
I pointed out something that VERY SLIGHTLY indicated someone having a higher chance of being scum than town. How is that WIFOM? It's the opposite of WIFOM. I'm pretty confident you have absolutely no idea what WIFOM is, even moreso than the 60%+ of the time that the term is used incorrectly.
Based on what information I had, it was the best vote I could make. I've since applied a (admittingly somewhat weak and mostly gut based, but good enough for me early D1) scum read on him. Explain again how that isn't scum hunting, please.
Diego wrote:
This is LAMIST if I've ever seen it. Aggression is not alignment indicative.
When did I ever say that had anything to do with alignment? I have 2-5 votes on me the first few pages of virtually every game I'm in, scum or town. It was simply an honest statement.
Diego wrote:
I'm voting you because of the intent behind your aggression, which is to throw shit at the wall a see what sticks. That is scum indicative.
Ohhhhhh so scum hunting is scummy now, got it. I guess I'd better wait for sure fire logical facts that point to someone being scum before trying to find any, huh?
Honestly what I did early wasn't even town indicative, it was ICEninja indicative. I make early moves to get out of the RVS nearly always, because I find that stage of the game pointless.
----------
Alright so there's a ton of meta reads floating around right now. I'm 100% fine with people having them, as some people are quite good at finding alignment based on meta. I, personally, will not regard "this player is playing like how he plays town" or vice versa as alignment indicative unless there are specific examples, and usually only noticeable trends in somebody's scum game. So forgive me if I ignore any comments about, for example, Fire being town because this is how Fire acts as town. I'm not taking your word for it.