In post 1029, Fro99er wrote:@Keyser
In post 1026, Keyser Söze wrote:Please can you explain the development of your scum-read of davesaz
Thank you for interacting with me Fro99er. This is a positive step forward.
Here are my interactions with/about davesaz with added thought-processes included in
red
Spoiler:
In post 786, Keyser Söze wrote:In post 784, davesaz wrote:In the first quote you say you'll vote him if he's the scummiest, in the 2nd you say you'll vote him if you scum read him. Please explain.
Yes to both.
I will vote who I think is the scummiest.
I will vote who I scum-read.
@davesaz - is that scum-indicative?
That felt like a poor question to ask davesaz. What was you trying to clarify?
[]Does this aid his scum-hunting or does it keep active pressure on town?
In post 793, Keyser Söze wrote:In post 790, davesaz wrote:Going by the first post, you'll vote the scummiest. So if he is scummy but not the scummiest, then you wont vote him.
Going by the 2nd post, you'll vote him if he's scummy regardless.
Yes, I'll vote for him if he is my top scum read or if I scum-read him.
In post 790, davesaz wrote:Both can be true, if he's the only person you think is scummy. If not, then it's a logical inconsistency.
Or there may be a different explanation. In either case, with your answer (or lack of answer) I'll have more information for my reads.
It's quite simple: I vote for who I think is scum. If he is a town-read I won't be voting him. If I think he is the towniest player, I won't be voting him.The same logic applies.
Your failure to grasp this and to turn it into a "logical inconsistency" is pathetic davesaz. []Does this aid his scum-hunting or does it keep active pressure on town?
In post 797, Keyser Söze wrote:In post 795, davesaz wrote:If what you meant was that you won't vote him if you think he's town, then you should have just said that.
Do you realise what you are posting? It is pressure but without focus or direction. []Scum-indicative behaviour. Why does not davesaz put as much energy and purpose in his pursuit of scum?
In post 916, Keyser Söze wrote:In post 914, davesaz wrote:Every game someone takes a post of mine like the Keyser question and says it's not scumhunting, and I'm getting sick and tired of it.
In post 895, davesaz wrote:Keyser, I noticed a marked change in your posting style. I don't think it is alignment indicative, but I'm curious why you changed.
I am wondering why you are committing your energies into questions/pressure into non-alignment indicative discussion. I was personally frustrated when you were pushing a supposed "logical inconsistency" in my posts - was this helping you find scum?
You earlier described it as "checking your townreads by having conversations with them". I could potentially see the "train of thought" in that regard, but I question the motive and end-goal in regard to hunting scum.
Here is Nosferatu's concern/scum-read:
In post 882, Nosferatu wrote:The fact that there's no train of thought in his posts, and no actions in his posts either, points to the fact that he isn't interested in clearing the game, something town would want to do; thereby making dave obviously not town-aligned.In post 882, Nosferatu wrote:Out of all of dave's posts, only two contain actual statements that one could derive reads from. The rest are just a series of questions and a few fairly obvious statements.
Yes, I understand Nosferatu's frustration - most of davesaz's scum-reads end in neutral positions. []Will davesaz ever commit to a scum-read?
@davesaz - i) who are you scum-reading and ii) who are you willing to follow up with pressure (commitment to a read)? I am currently not town-reading you.
In post 789, davesaz wrote:Saying you have an idea is bad, but if Wicked is fishing, this is fishing squared.
Here you implied JarJarDrinks was role-fishing. Do you think this is scum-indicative? How does this effect your read of JarJarDrinks?
