I know you are but what am I? Adding OMGUS to your list of crimes.In post 471, Ranger wrote:Weirdly, I get very strong scum pings of your posts being precisely this.In post 464, Porkens wrote:Ranger’s posts reek scum. The posting method they are following is super easy to do as scum.
I'm looking and I can see your posts being either alignment, so I can see how you'd reach this conclusion as town, but it feels like you are doing a super-easy to do style as scum.
{Doctor Drew, Botanical Rat, Empathice, TemporalLich, DragonEater70}
{KawaiiKame, Kyoko Kirigiri}
{Gimli, Flea The Magician}
{Save The Dragons}
{imaginality, Enchant}
{Clone}
{Porkens}
{Morning Tweet}
{MegAzumarill}
over defensive and over explanatory. my vote stays.
Bandwagoning.In post 483, DragonEater70 wrote: Actually let me correct that, I'm scumleaning Porkens due to tone because honestly tone is more important than content for my reads.
Town.In post 487, Doctor Drew wrote: I will say, Porkens shares a bit of dna with me, come out swinging when replacing in.
And they have a bit of a shit posting ruffle the feathers posting style sometimes, also in my dna.
I don't love their entrance, but think it is NAI.
Y’all need to take a break and a shower. Bunch of sweaty try-hards.“XYZ is towny, abc is scummy”
Quote quote quote
Meta meta
Self meta
Wall wall wall
Solve solve solve
In post 550, DragonEater70 wrote:To be honest this feels like a busywork assignment, butt sure. See above.In post 461, Porkens wrote:Doctor Drew - On initial read, I felt this was town Drew. Scum Drew feels more manipulative in my experience. However, on reread iso, I do see a couple scum indicators (there's a very suspicious "lol" in 402)
TemporalLich - Like obviously trying to solve in a protown way from the very beginning.
Morning Tweet - Again vibes felt this was town MT. Scum MT has less to contirbute.
Gimli - Not sure why I thought Gimli was townlean. Entrance is super scummy. Later on seemed to be engaging but I can't say it's super duper town. Tinfoil hat says DragonEater asked specifically for my top four reads to make me enforce their scumpartner's townread.
Enchant
imaginality
Flea The Magician
DragonEater70
MegAzumarill
KawaiiKame
Empathice
Save the Dragons
Kyoko Kirigiri - grilling like making sandwiches. It just catches me wrong like presuming they can figure out the setup by asking questions.
Botanical Rat (Radical Rat + biancospino) - first few posts feel very VERY "pressure of speech" motivated (scum just talking to talk, "oh hey look at that duck" kinda stuff)
Clone - one post very scummy thats all
Ranger - already explained
I would actually like your reasoning for bottom 4 reads (I find Kyoko's position especially curious) and top 4 reads as well.
I believe you that you read 19 pages, but if there's no reasoning it does feel a bit scummy and weird.
Look, it's all gut at this point I don't have solves or reasons beyond that. I read, I color coded, that's what you got. Now I'm under fire and feel like welp that's is what it is. Hope that helps.
Heartily support this analysis of the data bears it outIn post 670, TemporalLich wrote: as for meg, another ISO skim tells me meg is extremely good at simply having town consensus as their only opinion... this is worth scumreading Meg over, as fake effort is actually not towny
No, wrong, there is no such thing as “ooc” if it’s in the thread it counts. Also you are drilling down on a very strange grammatical issue here. Do you think I scumslipped with a “be” verb? Let me say this again:In post 662, Botanical Rat wrote: Catching up. For now I've just skimmed from where I left and I'll do a quick take of what pinged me, I'll do some ISOs perhaps later.
About Clone.
Spoiler: His ISO
Coming back just to prodgeisgross and my gut would indeed direct me to find this overtly scummy, however that's not what I find most incriminating. Now, he was Town in greentexts and that's it for meta, so ymmv on a metaread, but; there I confess that I was wrongly scumreading his slot, but for things he actually said. I had the impression that he was putting some effort in reacting to accusations levied toward him, which isn't what's happening here. What's happening here is he responded to a direct accusation by lashing out a vote bearing no conviction, much like he just did not care.
Some other random thoughts, mostly about Porkens/Ranger
I don't disagree with Ranger that Porkens is being somewhat of an hypocrite here. What I do disagree with is this brand of hypocrisy being on a vacuum +scum, the opposite in fact. I'd expect scum to be aware enough of what they're basing their false accusations on to be more likely not fail this blatantly at veering clear of getting caught doing the same thing.In post 471, Ranger wrote:Weirdly, I get very strong scum pings of your posts being precisely this.In post 464, Porkens wrote:Ranger’s posts reek scum. The posting method they are following is super easy to do as scum.Here. I assume Empath was trying to say the same thing I'm saying. Any sr of Porkens based chiefly on that hypocrisy is bad.In post 578, Empathice wrote:This particular hypocrisy is very open and indicates a lack of self-consciousness that I find to be towny/TWTBAW.In post 560, Ranger wrote: [...]
In post 563, Ranger wrote:I literally laid out two examples.In post 561, Porkens wrote:I don't ~think~ I'm being disingenuous but I suppose it's a possibility.
Clinging to OMGUS when my read on you has nothing to do with your read on me is disingenuous. Icouldn'thave had a read on you prior to your posts because your slot had no posts. Your very first post was scumreading me.
Quoting a--spoiled, titled appropriately to mark its ooc nature--post and stating it was an overreaction/overdefensive when it was marked as not game related is explicitly disingenuous.
Beyond those, stating my style is easy for scum to do is also disingenuous, because as plenty have noted: I've a long track record establishing my playstyle.boldingmine. I strongly disagree that it is actively disingenuous. I'm of the opinion that everything posted in-thread, discounting rl stuff like V/LAs and whatnot, is game related, otherwise there wouldn't be a reason to post it in the game. That said, I do wonder why exactly things got so fixated on the "disingenuity" allegation. Confront:In post 561, Porkens wrote: I don't ~think~ I'mbeingdisingenuous but I suppose it's a possibility.Now I'm going to do a semantic argument, but bear with me. Here Porkens is saying they concede they mayIn post 566, Porkens wrote: Doesn’t “disingenuous” refer to my intent?bedisingenuous (note the verb. Not "come off as", or "appear", but "be"),andthey say that they believe the word "disingenous" to refer to intent. Which is not a thing that globally makes sense, since surely Porkens would know what their intentwas.
That’sIn post 668, Ranger wrote:I'm disappointed in myself for having missed this and I am locktowning you for having noticed it where I did not. (I'm already voting Porkens but would be joining now from this.)In post 662, Botanical Rat wrote:Now I'm going to do a semantic argument, but bear with me. Here Porkens is saying they concede they maybedisingenuous (note the verb. Not "come off as", or "appear", but "be"),andthey say that they believe the word "disingenous" to refer to intent. Which is not a thing that globally makes sense, since surely Porkens would know what their intentwas.
Here what it looks to me; Porkens got a composite accusation. Debating one's own tone is fruitless, and they couldn't very well navigate the hypocrisy charge since they realized they just got caught up on that. So they tried to railroad toward the disingenuity allegation, attempting to be conciliating on it while at the same time trying to brush off the more damaging shades of it, those about intent.
VOTE: Porkens
{DragonEater70, Botanical Rat}
{Doctor Drew, TemporalLich}
{KawaiiKame, Kyoko Kirigiri, Gimli}
{Flea The Magician, Save The Dragons}
{Empathice, imaginality}
{Enchant}
{Clone, Morning Tweet, MegAzumarill}
{Porkens}
I don’t know the sourceIn post 804, DragonEater70 wrote:Hmmmmmmmm......In post 801, Porkens wrote: Sorry I was memeing I don’t have a gun. I did receive an ability last night though.
I kinda wabt to just forget about this and vote StD but at the same time this is a possible scumtell?
Porkens, what kind of ability did you get? Or if you don't want to tell, can you at least reveal whether or no you know it's source?
I don't believe this.In post 764, Save The Dragons wrote: I don't have a kill.
Why?In post 850, KawaiiKame wrote:I believe youIn post 764, Save The Dragons wrote: I don't have a kill.
I don't see why the mod would lie about that. I don't believe they are honestly trying to "expose the mods lie".In post 853, KawaiiKame wrote:Why don't you?In post 852, Porkens wrote:Why?In post 850, KawaiiKame wrote:I believe youIn post 764, Save The Dragons wrote: I don't have a kill.
It's possible the mod is lying is why
In post 880, TemporalLich wrote: idk either...
859 makes me think Porkens is probably more likely town than scum (though the Ranger flip still makes me want to scumread Porkens), so if not Clone then I'd have to vote MegAzumarill (very good at looking towny superficially)
ah nice yeah that's on me. thanks for inventing me <3In post 1041, imaginality wrote: The bit about becoming as powerful as a nightmare (the phrase I used D1 that led to discussion of whether it was a crumb (which it was since my ability was kinda the same as the Nightmare voters')).
Zowie! None of us registered this? Good hammer.In post 740, Empathice wrote:In post 587, MegAzumarill wrote: There's no actual reason for the huge shift of enchant in #443 by Ranger and that feels like a genuine town realization. Enchant Ranger S/S also works though, but I'd doubt an Ranger!scum, Enchant!town.Does fake!you have an explanation for their treatment of Ranger?In post 589, MegAzumarill wrote: HURT: MegA, Porkens, Ranger,
Interested what people think about the possible Imaginality signaling.