In post 171, Squirrel Girl wrote: In post 169, Yates wrote:Except if you actually read the posts, you'll see that my beef it isn't a defense - it's noticing meta. I would have said pretty much the same thing if he did this to about three other people off the top of my head. So, again, you're just wrong.
I can understand that's your stance. I disagree with you.
This is basically him wanting to nitpick a debate with me as regards whether his defense post also qualified as scumhunting. I really didn't care much one way or the other and saw no real win in havving the debate as obviously neither of us were going to cede our stances. Therefore I just accepted that was one way to look at what he did. It was not my way, but it is a potentially truthful interpretation. I did take pains to note that I didn't agree with it - I just chose not to debate it. Later you and Umbrage will somehow take this as a town call and call my vote weird...
In post 169, Yates wrote:I "cherry picked" the front half because you said he was scumhunting "right out the gate" and his first 4 posts [you know - the ones "out the gate"] were zero content and an RVS vote. We also obviously define scum
hunting
quite differently. Giving reads without context is not the same as advancing the game. And I'm not saying this because I have a scum read [or any read] on pidgey but specifically because you are making claims that do not hold up under scrutiny. This is pertinent because this is what ACTUAL scum hunting looks like and I was afraid you wouldn't recognize it.
Further, I asked you point blank for specific posts that indicated pidgey "scum hunting" to you and you failed to do so. There are only two qualified statements in his entire ISO, in fact, and those are simply qualifying a read on displaced. So how you quantify that as "50% scumhunting" remains a mystery.
Okay...let's be specific for you then.
Post 125 is scumhunting - he is taking stances and pressing scum reads.
Post 135 is scumhunting - he is presenting a stance and seeking reactions.
Post 136 is scumhunting - he is clarifying a read and providing reasoning.
He has a grand total of 7 posts. I feel that calling 3 of them scumhunting qualifies me to call it 50% though I will agree the specific math would be 42.857%
I do find your presentation to be cherry picking since all of his posts came on the same day and within 4 hours but you apparently decided that only the first half were "out of the gate" That was a sketchy distinction to make and looked like you trying to massage the evidence to fit your claims.
However, further into the post there's a HUGE issue to my mind. He is flat out presenting a false case and doing the literal definition of misrepping, which is to present only part of the info with the express goal as to paint it bad. AsI described, the Pidgey posts happened in 1 day, within 4 hours of each other. I don't even think I posted anywhere inbetween them, meaning I read them all in one go. But, somehow, in Yates' view, it's illogical to call those posts "out of the gate" no, no, no "out of the gate" can ONLY mean the very early intro posts, and CERTAINLY not the later posts that contained...well...y'know, scumhunting.
It's a strategic misrep, and the more I thought about it the less I could see it as an accidental one. I don't think he went into an ISO of 7 posts and just grabbed the first few. he did it on purpose. Then, he crows at me when I "fail" to rebut him. He was trying to set me up.
In post 169, Yates wrote:I don't care about the reads right now - I just want to know how you claim to have arrived at them. I want to know because I'm not following your purported logic. Any statements you have made that I have inquired about are problematic for me because I don't understand your posts or motivation. If I don't understand those two very important things then I can't read you. If I can't read you AND I disagree with your reads? I want you dead. Because like any good Renaissance Man, I fear what I do not understand. That's just how I roll.
I feel you're more excited to attack me than to try to figure out what I'm thinking. I believe this is shown in your theatrics and cherry picking. Like, take the "out of the gate" thing. You apparently decided that could only mean his first 3 posts for some reason...why? What lead you to that? There's no reason to believe that and 'out of the gate' hardly means I couldn't be assessing all of his posts (which were all made in one day in a short span of time) as his out of the gate posting. But you didn't even care to ask me what I meant, you drew your own conclusion for what I meant and attacked it immediately - and even the attack. I have called Pidgey null with a very slight town lean as compared to another null read.
This is a continuation of the realization that I'm not talking to someone who appears interested in understanding where I'm coming from. He's not waiting for my answers. He's not saying "It's interesting that you think he's scumhunting...can you describe what you think is scumhunting?" or even a "I think i did scumhunt because these specific acts will glean for me info - why do you think that's just defense"
No, he's just attacking me. Moreso, he's attacking me over calling him null and Pidgey null with a slight gut town. It doesn't make sense, why in the world would he freak out that I find his play null? Why would he try to attack me over a town read he disagrees with...when the townread is expressed as exceedingly weak and null in nature? Basically, I realized he was trying to call me scum simply because he thought he could bully me and that my play looked weak and exploitable to him. Unless you think I should believe that he's worried scum is lying and fabricating cases to express mild null reads? I mean, y'know, as scum does...
That's...not exactly a "this is town!" call. That is a null read that is more town than a different null read call. Yet, somehow, you want me to try to make and defend a case for calling one null read more townish than another?
It doesn't make sense to me - please clarify why this deserved to be attacked since you apparently don't even find him scummy?
This kind of occured to me at the end and I just tossed it out there, and I address this a bit above, but it's my realization that his stance just makes no sense. After I posted the thought was there rumbling in my head, and that's why I then voted, because I just didn't believe he was shooting straight with me.
