In post 131, Phillammon wrote:Scummy:
YYR- I'd like to emphasize hard that this is NOT a solid scumread, it's just... it's about equal parts gut and the phrasing in posts #53 and #99 that just ever so slightly worry me. It's not much, but YYR's the only player who, to my eyes, has not done anything particularly townish while giving me a gut feeling on them of scum.
i feel the same way
if only because yyr's passes at scumhunting were so disappointing
would you lynch after wgeurts?
(if you're reading this i give you permission to hammer btw)
Even though it's apparently an unpopular opinion, I'm still thinking YYR is where my next lynch would go if Wgeurts flipped town. If, on the other hand, Wgeurts flipped scum, I think I'd have to do a more thorough analysis of scum interactions to see if there's any more to go by. I have a bad feeling that Fokem (or Fokem's slot) may be scum, which would explain why there aren't any slots jumping out at me as excessively scummy.
I thought I'd made my stance clear before, but if not: I'm waiting for Fokem to get here and Wgeurts to post these reads that were promised before I drop the hammer. This said, I'm not convinced that either one is actually going to happen, so I am probably going to hammer at some point in the near future. If only to get us into a new phase so Thor and Blair can put their money where their collective mouths are.
(Side note, moving into Uni today- it's not long enough for me to declare V/LA in good faith, but just a "so you know")
Current Losing Streak: 4 (record: 9)
Probable record holder for most games played on site before managing to win one!
For the record, in light of recent events, Droog and Thor are moved to Solid Town, acryon has been provisionally placed as Townish, and Blair is staying right where she is at null, because I'm seeing more good town behaviour at the same time as things that scare me...
(Side note, Blair: #222 actually really amuses me because you're using a False Dichotomy to attack a perceived logical fallacy)(Don't do that, by the way)
Current Losing Streak: 4 (record: 9)
Probable record holder for most games played on site before managing to win one!
If that is indeed the case, please seriously consider reading over some old games and/or signing up for a game on the newbie queue, even if you aren't a total newbie. Getting an idea for the meta here is definitely a very very good thing, and you basically repeatedly stumbled into both terrible town behaviour and outright scum behaviour.
Current Losing Streak: 4 (record: 9)
Probable record holder for most games played on site before managing to win one!
Also, what is NM doing? Worst play I’ve ever seen.
I can't remember the last N_M post that wasn't bland, unimaginative and lame. Some shitposters are at least somewhat funny. You are the epitomy of the type of poster that nobody would miss if you were to suddenly disappear. You never add anything of value.
I'm guessing you haven't read the game and probably never will? Why even sign up to play?
Also, what is NM doing? Worst play I’ve ever seen.
I can't remember the last N_M post that wasn't bland, unimaginative and lame. Some shitposters are at least somewhat funny. You are the epitomy of the type of poster that nobody would miss if you were to suddenly disappear. You never add anything of value.
I'm guessing you haven't read the game and probably never will? Why even sign up to play?
Last edited by Not_Mafia on Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Also, what is NM doing? Worst play I’ve ever seen.
I can't remember the last N_M post that wasn't bland, unimaginative and lame. Some shitposters are at least somewhat funny. You are the epitomy of the type of poster that nobody would miss if you were to suddenly disappear. You never add anything of value.
I'm guessing you haven't read the game and probably never will? Why even sign up to play?
In post 183, Phillammon wrote:With Blair, it's a lot of the same things that Thor's been calling out, actually- the use of the word "illogical", for example, always has me a bit wary- even more so because it's being used not to describe Thor's argument when she uses it, but Thor himself- going for the man, not the argument strikes me as a bit off. It may be faulty reasoning on my part, but it almost feels like (and I want to make it absolutely clear I am not saying this is the case, it's just the feeling I get from the wording) Blair is conceding that the argument is accurate, and as she can't refute the argument to discredit it, she's trying to discredit the argument by discrediting Thor and getting the argument by association. That's not town behaviour, to my eyes.
I didn't really take it as a "going after the man". I think the whole thing between them is a lot of miscommunication and stubbornness from both sides and that could mean town or scum from either. Yay, conclusion!
In post 178, Dyslexicon wrote:1. And I still don't get it. I don't get why it's so logical to assume Cheetory was claiming scum. To me it is not. I think it should be clear that I don't understand it, and I'm asking you to try and explain it in a different way than what you have. I don't see why you're so opposed to this, and I don't think it's too much to ask.
Do you understand what I was calling her scum for? Whether or not you agree with me, do you understand my case?
If yes - then I don't get the point of this question.
If no - what part of my case confuses you and I'll expand on it.
I didn't. I do now, cause you made a pretty list. I didn't get it cause I didn't get at all that his supposed bad logic meant he was scum. And I didn't fint the logic too bad either (to clarify, the logic you get out of his posts is bad, but I don't think that's what he was really saying or meant to say).
I didn't want to get into it because I want wgerurts dead. I wanted him dead 12 hours ago, and for some reason town is derping around and wanting to be distracted. i do not think it is a good idea.
And I wondered why? See, it's not obvious to me why we should have lynched wgeurts 12 hours ago from this post of yours.
If you want it explained in a different way...well, first off ASK THAT. Don't say "you haven't explained it" say "I don't understand your stated reasoning". Those are two vastly different requests and will be approached in different ways.
Also, if you don't understand, it would be helpful to be told *what* you don't understand, so that I don't waste my time. And if it's "everything" then you really need to be totally up front with that because what you're asking for is a baby steps walkthrough...and I reserve the right to be snarky if that's what I need to do.
I will try to communicate in a more direct way with you. Sometimes I think information is implicit in my posts, but it doesn't come across the same way for everyone, obviously. I'm also not used to thinking in terms of A or not A in the degree I experience you do (from your posts, but I might be wrong), and my head is more like bunny! plane! jumping <3.
I'm going to take from your answer the following.
1. You agree you aren't reading things.
2. You agree you are asking me to explain cases further by claiming I haven't explained them at all - and recognize this is a poor way to go about it.
3. You admit to needing baby steps.
4. You admit to trying to slow and collapse the day in discussing cases that are pointless or that are not being actively pushed by me to get a "read" from me while ignoring my primary push that is unquestionably going through today and kind of joinging in the general town herp-derp of wasting time and energy instead of getting a flip now.
Definitely not what I've been trying to communicate. I don't know where you take this from. But it's probably all my fault and never yours. :3 *tries some snark as well*
Seriously though, this is just weird. I'm sure you can get something else out of my post if you try.
I find this bothersome, and refuse to avoid snark in responding to you, and frankly think if you're requesting this you should recognize that you deserve some snark.
I'll do up a step by step breakdown of both cases now.
In post 184, Thor665 wrote:I never claimed to oppose explaining it - why do you think I did? Please back up that statement with a quote or explain why you're trying to act like I'm doing something I very much am not doing.
I would like you to answer this though considering you admitted to not reading all my posts.
Because that's just screwy and anti-town.
I was refering to this.
In post 115, Thor665 wrote:
No, I accused you of coming up with a cover story to an attack on me that makes no sense at all as soon as anyone looks at it.
I would tell you to kill me, but you can't, so after wgeurts we'll have PLENTY of time for me to explain exactly how scummy what you just said was.
Also this, although it's different. But you took a long time to actually explain your initial leap (which so shockingly wasn't self evident for me). You just refered back to your first post all the time. I feel I get the picture of what you actually meant now. So yay!
In post 111, Thor665 wrote:
I'll explain it as soon as you explain to me how "I don't understand your logic, I'd love you to explain it" became "Thor's attack is illogical" until I forced you to explain it.
Because I'm pretty sure that makes you scum.
We'll verify with some rope in a little bit.
Basically, I'm thinking communication could be easier, and I'm trying to work towards that, believe it or not.
In post 46, Cheetory6 wrote:Firstly, I don't understand the point of bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning, especially since it seems to me like most of the players here seem experienced enough to know that bandwagon analysis can be useful for town. Why would scum not simply position themselves on a wagon in such a way that will protect them from the general analysis players apply to bandwagons? Unless the point is just to put pressure on someone? Which, again, scum equally stands to benefit from safe bandwagon votes for the sake of appearing to be playing protown.
droog's vote on me stands out as the most likely candidate for scum posing as a protown player for adding momentum to a wagon without really doing anything else, which reads as coasting to me. By extension, I'm also not particularly a fan of Dys's vote, but I feel worse about droog's. Droog also calls YYR's questioning of me bad scumhunting which almost makes me feel like he finds YYR more questionable than me and thus makes his vote on me for purely bandwagon's sake even more questionable.
Correct me if I'm wrong here. But you're pointing out that bandwagoning isn't helpful because scum can place themselves on bandwagons in a way to avoid suspicion.
You then vote Droog for the reasoning of "his position on the bandwagon looks suspicious"
I feel like I *must* be reading this wrong, because if I'm not I feel like you just claimed scum. Discuss?
In post 74, Thor665 wrote:That is not how I read her commentary. She indicated that bandwagon analysis is good for town, but that scum could use it against town by controlling where and how they place themselves, and does this while complaining about the wagon on her. So, basically, she's saying no town should be doing it because we should know scum would use it, yet she also thinks town are doing it and that scum are using it. Functionally she's suggesting that everyone here needs a combo of poor town play and good scum play in order for her case to make any sense. It's a wifom snarl, because there is no evidence presented as to why she thinks that way. To be frank, it's also weird because even though she's saying town should know not to do early bandwagons, her only scumhunting effort is based off of analysis of an early bandwagon, meaning that, as town, she understands that's *exactly* a good way to scumhunt whether or not we think scum can try to hide themselves. So...what's her boggle specifically? It doesn't gel for me.
Okay, the above represents my case.
Frankly, I ALREADY think this is a step by step breakdown, but I'll see what I can do to make it simpler.
1. Blair makes a post.
2. In this post she complains about town bandwagoning (her).
3. She admits bandwagoning is a potential scumhunting tool.
4. She lists reasons why bandwagoning is bad however.
5. That reason is that scum know it's a scumhunting tool and will play the game and use it against town.
6. Therefore it is bad that we're bandwagoning her, because we should be good enough to know there's no gain.
7. Oh, but she has some scumhunting.
8. Using bandwagon analysis.
9. That she just complained couldn't give good reads, so why are we doing it to her?
10. But she has the ability to spot scum doing the move the precludes the value of bandwagonig, and, hzzah! Has spotted scum!
11. So this begs a question.
12. If she agrees that even stealthy scum can be scumhunted on a bandwagon, and indeed *uses* bandwagoning as a scumhunting tool. Why is she against the bandwagon?
13. I theorized (incorrectly as we have discovered) that this showed she was lying about something for some purpose, because clearly she knew it was a tool and even more clearly she would choose to use it, so why complain about it happening.
14. My theory was that it was because the wagon was on her, specifically, and the crossed message was because she was scum trying to downplay the wagon on her by lying about her scumhunting beliefs...possibly instead she did feel that way about wagons but chose to fake scumhunt and call an attacker scum to try to defuse the wagon.
15. I point out the inherent lack of internal logic/lie/what have you, explain to her that I find it jarring and that I presume she must be claiming scum.
16. Certain town players are confused by this and choose to ask me about it in weird ways that don't involve just asking about it.
17. She and I talk.
If any of this confuses you please cite the number of the point that confuses you and explain the confusion as best you are able and I'll attempt to make it simpler.
Literally all of this information is already in my quoted posts.
So...I dunno, hope this helps.
Thanks! So here's the thing (or one thing, at least). I find what you take from Cheetory's posts selective and unnuanced. Why it was hard to follow in the first place is that I'm wasn't getting the same things from Cheetory's post (although admittedly I didn't read the last ones before after he had flipped town), and even if there is internal bad logic it isn't at all a case for him being scum imo. I was also not seeing why any of your earlier points on Blair was making her scum or town. I thought Acryon had more actual points to consider, although you were being more forceful about it. You point out a contradiction or something you don't agree with in #111 i.e and call her scum for it. I don't see why that makes her scum at all. It's like you jump from "I don't agree with your logic, and it can therefore not be seen as logical in any way, and therefore you are scum". I might be doing you unjustice, but this is the source of my confusion. My source of interest (in terms of alignment) is if you do this thing where you try to forcefully find holes in townie's logic to call them scum for it and the one comment from Johnny. I can see you coming from a town perspective too, but I'm wary cause I think you come across pretty similar as town and scum. I would be greatful if you provided me with a couple of games where you've been scum. I've already played with you as town, although that is a long time ago.
Thor's case on a living player that Thor is almost assuredly pursuing tomorrow but, despite the fact that neither Thor nor his target are lynch options and also despite the fact everyone will be around to discuss it with after a lynch that must go through today, we want to debate it now for a reason...of...not being able to figure out Thor's alignment without doing so...apparently?
Spoiler: Again, snark and wall behind here
Okay, so my issue with Blair. Let's start with this post.
This is an IMPORTANT post to remember. So, do your best to remember this post and when I go BUT REMEMBER THAT FIRST POST!?! That will be your cue to recall this post.
In post 64, Thor665 wrote:So you feel a strong urge to stand up for and defend this town read, i take it?
Yes, but not for it's own sake - it was more interesting to me that you appeared to be attacking poor logic... illogically.
Blair attacks me (or, by her language, talks to me...) I personally think calling someone illogical is an attack, but we can use whatever word you wish and my point will hold. Blair avocado's me, whichever.
Specifically she calls my
attack
avacado on Cheetory illogical. Read her reply a few times, let it sink in, and then we shall move on.
I respond and explain my issue with the logic of Cheetory, but we can leave that out for the sake of succictness, the important issue is that I ask this;
In post 74, Thor665 wrote:Why do you like the logic? Specifically as you can, please, I'm a little dense at times.
I will now post Blair's response and my rejoinder in one fell swoop, again to save space.
Why do you like the logic? Specifically as you can, please, I'm a little dense at times.
I don't like the logic, but I can believe that Cheetory meant it when he said it - and I do like that.
I'm tossing a flag on this play. You dinged me for attacking something illogically - I was attacking the logic of the statement. For me to have been illogical you *should* be able to defend the logic to show where your ding on me was coming from.
So please try this again, no dodging allowed. I have a vote and am ornery.
So, Blair was a little weird there, she didn't want to come out and defend the logic (or explain why I lacked logic, which would have been another way to answer the question)
Instead she didn't answer the question, she dodged it and tried to reframe it as "liking the honesty" from Cheetory.
Well...that's all well and good, but whether or not you think it is honest has *nothing* to do with me thinking it's illogical. In fact, if you agree her logic is bad (which Blair appears to do here) then...how am I being illogical in attacking bad logic?
Where am I being illogical in the *manner* I'm attacking the bad logic?
The answer does nothing for that.
It's a dodge.
My reply is a NOT ON MY WATCH, YO! reply, wherein I'm trying to force Blair to be specific.
I saw the dodge and was not happy.
In post 105, Thor665 wrote:Explain my illogic then. Because if the above is it I fail to see how you can justify calling something you don't understand 'illogical'.
Not understanding someone's logic is generally how I recognize poor logic, yes. It was also an invitation for you to explain that leap to me. Are you declining, or is it so self-evident that you don't feel it's necessary?
We follow this up. I am asking now for her to explain my illogic and why she found my logic illogical.
She replies with "well...I didn't even understand your logic, and really was inviting you to explain it"
But...REMEMBER THAT POST!?!
Her first commentary to me was an avacado - Thor is being illogical.
What she is saying now is that when she wrote that what she meant was "I do not understand your logic nd would like it explained...by the way, Thor, how can you think I was ever attacking you?"
Here's the real deal.
1. She *was* attacking me.
2. She never attempted to ask for my logic.
3. She ignored that in Post 74 I explained my logic (allowing her to now assess whether it was or was not illogical - something she hasn't done.
4. When I asked her straight up what she was about (and in her later claim what she was about was asking me to explain my logic) she *dodged* answering.
So, when her goal was "what was your logic" she said "you are illogical" ignored my logic explanation, and dodged my question the first time when I was questioning what she meant when she called me illogical.
You tell me, do you think any of her actions read as "what was your logic, Thor?"
Now read them again and ask if they make sense for a scum attacking me but then getting spooked when I challenged her to back up the attack and provide support and thoughts for it.
I know which I read it as.
And that's going to be my case on her tomorrow...which could come a lot sooner if town decides to attach its head straight.
I don't think any of this proves her alignment scum or town.
In post 206, droog wrote:what can we do in day 2 we cant do in day 3?
Talk to wgeurts.
In post 209, Thor665 wrote:I mean, we're even already having Day 3 discussion now. It's mind boggling.
To think such a strange occurance can come to be! Day 3 discussion in day 2. It's not the right order! I don't see the problem. But since wgeurts didn't want to help out anyway, I guess it's just the same. And yes. Pressure of killing is fun.
this is a textbook semantic wall argument
no one will decipher it all
classic town v. town tactics
which only makes me wonder if you're both scum. probably not.
am doing an iso of blair to elaborate on before
p-edit
this discussion is getting lamer by the post
I like you.
In post 230, Blair wrote:You think I am lying about seeing poor logic in your post.
I am saying that equating poor internal logic with a scum claim is illogical.
I am also saying that I see that equation in your post.
Subsequent dialing down is irrelevant, were you or were you not saying that if you understood Cheetory's post correctly then he was 100% scum? Because that's what "you just claimed scum" would indicate to me.
I must say though, that bolded is pretty obvious. I don't think Thor really thinks that is the case.
I'm looking; there is literally nothing suggesting that I was taking a hard line stance on her answers nor that any non-suitable answer would confirm her as scum. Every post is about me trying to understand her stance and get her to explain it. There is nothing to support your claim besides a "you claimed scum" comment...which is apparently the end of all discussion from me towards Cheetory despite being one of the very first things I said to her and never being mentioned by me again - yet that is your big hangup as far as my interactions with her goes?
How does that even work?
Like, why were you so worried that I was going hard line on her (And are till worried that I did) when, that one quote (which, I might suggest comes off as more pressure/joke than serious stance I expected people to sheep) is the only evidence you have and every other interaction showed me talking to her about her thoughts, agreeing with and disagreeing with various parts of them, and even discussing th logic of her vote and offering to help her wagon someone else.
Like...your case is so empty here. What is your boggle, where is the other support that I was being hard line? Where is the other evidence to show my belief was hard line? Where's the beef here?
You're taking one comment and trying to build a mountain of it - what am I missing?
You kind of write as you're hard line, probably more than you really are. Where I think you have a point about Blair is that it's possible she doesn't really care or need the discussion you're in as much as she pretends. Or rather, that there is pretending involved, which would come from scum. I don't think she has a "case" on you, and I don't think she was trying to. I think it's possible that she discuss things just to discuss. I don't see that as town.
In post 232, Thor665 wrote:Like...your case is so empty here. What is your boggle, where is the other support that I was being hard line? Where is the other evidence to show my belief was hard line? Where's the beef here?
i think youre really mistaken to call anything blair has said against you a case
actually, blair, im interested to know what your current thor read is
p-edit
thor i thought it was clear from the start that blair thought your logic was bad because you equated cheetory's bad logic on me to a scum claim
i think half the resulting kerfuffle is about how serious that original remark was
This will have to be later.
Right off the bat, I'm hesitant about a lot of my reads.
You read town to me.
Thor reads more town, but I still want to investigate him further because my feels said to D1.
I'm worried that Blair is purposfully derailing with useless things. And I'm also worried about her lack of commenting for me having town feels on her (I think I stated this earlier, possibly more than once). And so, she's down to null.
I think Phil have pretty posts, but I want to see more.
I have little opinion on YYR and Shodwz. Which bothers me. Especially Shadowz is getting my squinty stare.
Other people I forget. Oh, Acryon. Acryon could be scum.
Basically I have few strong stances on anyone. I haven't ruled anyone out yet. This will need to be fixed.
In post 271, droog wrote:i think i said earlier blair was null
your exchange was a classic town v town exchange
still null on blair, maybe null-town?
sure but my yyr goal isnt huge. i want to hear more from dyslex and shaddowez
gut feeling after day 1 tells me there's scum somewhere in yyr/dyslex/shaddowez
In this phase I support getting something out of the Fokem slot, even if it's just a replace and then a new player's thoughts...though, really, that would be about the same thing.
@Dys - I do second Droog's request for your reads. (edit - and hello wall, though I see you put off the read list. I guess I'll go and read it all though)
@Shaddowez - I would like your top scumspect please, also I would like your thoughts on both the Blair and YYR cases as they currently exist.
@Acryon - I would like your top scumspect please, also I would like your opinion on lurkers.
In post 286, Dyslexicon wrote:Basically I have few strong stances on anyone. I haven't ruled anyone out yet. This will need to be fixed.
This actually sums up Dyx's wall.
I have actually seen players post more to say even less, but not often.
There were about two actual points in that whole thing.
If you want scum games click on my topics list and pick and pluck away - I have a ton of them.
I will admit that I have a ard time believing you're actually going to meta me by reading other games though - as you can barely manage this one.
In post 286, Dyslexicon wrote:You read town to me.
Thor reads more town, but I still want to investigate him further because my feels said to D1.
I'm worried that Blair is purposfully derailing with useless things. And I'm also worried about her lack of commenting for me having town feels on her (I think I stated this earlier, possibly more than once). And so, she's down to null.
I think Phil have pretty posts, but I want to see more.
I have little opinion on YYR and Shodwz. Which bothers me. Especially Shadowz is getting my squinty stare.
Other people I forget. Oh, Acryon. Acryon could be scum.
Basically I have few strong stances on anyone. I haven't ruled anyone out yet. This will need to be fixed.
im having a great deal of difficulty telling if your reads are
"oh oh, scum!" or
"oh oh, shiny!"
this inches you toward my town pile
and makes me want to ignore your reads
In post 286, Dyslexicon wrote:Basically I have few strong stances on anyone. I haven't ruled anyone out yet. This will need to be fixed.
This actually sums up Dyx's wall.
I have actually seen players post more to say even less, but not often.
There were about two actual points in that whole thing.
If you want scum games click on my topics list and pick and pluck away - I have a ton of them.
I will admit that I have a ard time believing you're actually going to meta me by reading other games though - as you can barely manage this one.
Unvote: Blair
Vote: Dyslexicon
I'm not a pointy kind of person. And in this particular game there's not a lot of content on alot of the players. A lot of the focus has been on you and Blair going back and forth.
I was actually wanting you to pick one and then also read another, but I guess I'll just have to find the one for myself :3
I'll read it, but not now (cause time issues).
So is your alligation that I "can barely manage the game", or that I'm scum? What is making me scummy in that case? Cause here you're not really accusing me of being scum apart from voting me which can be taken as an accusation. I would want to know why you think I'm scum rather than town.
Also, did you answer the question I had earlier about if you think Cheetory's lynch would have gone through if wgeurts hadn't quickhammered? I think not?
Also also, what do you make of how people read you, if anything?
In post 286, Dyslexicon wrote:You read town to me.
Thor reads more town, but I still want to investigate him further because my feels said to D1.
I'm worried that Blair is purposfully derailing with useless things. And I'm also worried about her lack of commenting for me having town feels on her (I think I stated this earlier, possibly more than once). And so, she's down to null.
I think Phil have pretty posts, but I want to see more.
I have little opinion on YYR and Shodwz. Which bothers me. Especially Shadowz is getting my squinty stare.
Other people I forget. Oh, Acryon. Acryon could be scum.
Basically I have few strong stances on anyone. I haven't ruled anyone out yet. This will need to be fixed.
im having a great deal of difficulty telling if your reads are
"oh oh, scum!" or
"oh oh, shiny!"
this inches you toward my town pile
and makes me want to ignore your reads
I don't have very strong reads right now. I don't think I'm alone on this, but that's not really relevant. What's relevant is that I don't and I'm not going to pretend I do.
I get the feeling that Thor doesn't really think I'm scum.
I'm confused by the town reads on him. Which is why I need to look over what scum!Thor looks like.
Apart from that there's basically a bunch of people I need to here more from.
First guess on scum on hunch from D1 would be Thor.
@Phil, can you please explain to me why Thor is solid town to you?
Thor is solidly town because he is actively hunting for scum, making well reasoned arguments, and in general looking genuine, and because he hasn't made any noticable slips in spite of having a very active slot (my reasoning is, the more posts you make, the more likely you are to make a scumslip, as he has not, activity is a minor towntell (emphasis on minor, the rest is more important to me)). Even though I don't entirely agree with his results, his methods are good, and that's what makes him look townish to me.
Current Losing Streak: 4 (record: 9)
Probable record holder for most games played on site before managing to win one!
In post 297, Phillammon wrote:scum, making well reasoned arguments, and in general looking genuine, and because he hasn't made any noticable slips in spite of having a very active slot (my reasoning is, the more posts you make, the more likely you are to make a scumslip, as he has not, activity is a minor towntell (emphasis on minor, the rest is more important to me)). Even though I don't entirely agree with his results, his methods are good, and that's what makes him look townish to me.
at a certain point this breaks down
the more effort you're putting into a game
the more you make sure to not have scumslips
mafia does have a 'zone'
anyways please provide some reads on players who are not me/blair/thor
In post 296, Dyslexicon wrote:So is your alligation that I "can barely manage the game", or that I'm scum? What is making me scummy in that case? Cause here you're not really accusing me of being scum apart from voting me which can be taken as an accusation. I would want to know why you think I'm scum rather than town.
My accusation is really pretty clear...but as far as I can tell no one in this game is capable of reading beyond surface level. It's very strange.
I pointed out that you were barely able to read this game.
I noted that you were asking for other games to read.
I suggested this is a sham - because if you don't have time to read this game then you certainly don't have time to meta dive others.
In short - I am saying that you're extroverting fake scumhunting commentary to try to cover for doing nothing, and am calling you scum because of it.
Hope that makes sense, who can tell anymore.
In post 296, Dyslexicon wrote:Also, did you answer the question I had earlier about if you think Cheetory's lynch would have gone through if wgeurts hadn't quickhammered? I think not?
I didn't, but it's kind of a dumb question. 'Maybe, but I don't know' is the best anyone could do in answering it if they were being remotely honest.
In post 296, Dyslexicon wrote:Also also, what do you make of how people read you, if anything?
As I've noted before, I'm not shy, if I got a read off of any of it I would have said so. Most people are town reading me or calling me some sort of nebulous thing, which is pretty normal. Most of the reasoning is pretty thin. No one has said anything particularly insightful nor strong opinioned as far as I go besides *maybe* Blair's commentary which I don't think makes sense, or your new recent flip flop which I'll discuss in a few.
