In post 593, pieguyn wrote:you continue to handwave jason's angle as "OMGUS" when there is a lot more to it than that.
No - I continue to call the specific post in question 'OMGUS' and suggest that is not a valid case.
I *do* continue to handwave his overall case against Boon as playstyle - and have not seen you present anything to change that value call. Do not suggest I am summing up his case as OMGUS - I am not, not even close, I would not wish to argue that.
In post 593, pieguyn wrote:it's as I said. there is a distinction between OMGUS'ing someone, and objectively analyzing a push and finding issues with it. I doubt jason would have pushed Boon over it so strongly if he had stated jason was scum before he was actually prompted for a scum read, nor if he had any reasons for jason being scum that were particularly good.
I am not even disagreeing that it is OMGUS - I can agree it's OMGUS.
I don't think OMGUS is a good case - I see town OMGUS exactly like this all the ruddy time.
Bloody Jason OMGUSed me in this game - brilliant case against him that needs immediate respect? Nah.
In post 593, pieguyn wrote:if someone on my team has an exceedingly strong read on someone, especially a town read, then I would absolutely make use of it, yes. see: me thinking Mala might be scum but notsci being relatively sure she's town (even discounting RL factors).
So if you disagree with one of your team members - you'll take their value call over your own?
I do that if multiple teammates see it and I don't - but 1 v 1? I certainly wouldn't flip a read to their style.
Maybe this is just a really dramatic difference of opinion about how to play we have - I don't short shrift my thoughts as an active player versus my mates as outside readers. I think being in the swamp can maybe get you tunneled, but assuredly gives you sharper reads.
In post 593, pieguyn wrote:it amounts to Nacho missing something I would have expected him to see if he was town.
You'd expect him to see the policy push as not a policy push? That's silly.
In post 594, sthar8 wrote:Conclusions before analysis generally implies some addiional factor. It could be looking for reactions, but that wasn't borne out by egg's following posts. It could be a meta factor, but I've never played with egg before. My scenario fits better than any town motivation, so it's the one I'm going with.
In post 594, sthar8 wrote:I still don't believe that if I said to you 'You're scum because you OMGUSsed jason and I didn't like your fen vote and your STD position is the most popular in the thread' the expected response would be you listing all of your reads and positions.
I wouldn't expect that either, and I suspect neither would Egg - but neither of us claimed that, so you're strawmanning the position.
What both of us did imply was that you would react.
You did react.
Ergo: we are right.
In post 594, sthar8 wrote:Sure but where you're seeing 'caught scum' I'm seeing 'pissed at Thor'
No, we're both seeing pissed at Thor - but I'm reading into the way he's presenting being pissed and seeing scum motivation in what he's still doing.
You're seeing emotion and apparently declaring it town...for no discernible reason.
In post 594, sthar8 wrote:Not looking for an easy lynch, but trying to suss out motivations behind the posts. And he's been open with his thought process, even wrt you, and trying to cut the bias out of his reads. He's playing an uninformed game, and that means town. I do hate the boon vote, but I'm pretty solid on this read.
Your last sentence feels like it diminishes everything that came before.
So you agree he's not making a good vote (ergo - is using poor logic on some level) yet you think he's functionally scumhunting? So, you see evidence of fail and deduce it still equates to proper hunting...I don't follow. I see a scummy vote and see it as questionable.
