In post 146, Katsuki wrote: In post 136, Thestatusquo wrote:
What? What have I done that was picking on noobs? My play was the opposite, I attacked katsuki for what looked to me to be setting up an attack on a new player...
Aside from picking on me, a noob...
Is this what it was about? Why did you feel the need to be intentionally obtuse about the whole thing if you're voting me for that simple reason? I was not attacking the new player, merely trying to gather some info on how they think while it was still early in the game.
That would also partially explain you're utterly ludicrous attack on me, but it does not change the fact that you intentionally took everything in your grasp to twist in as scummy a way as you could, misrepresenting the majority, if not all the things I've said thus far.
I'm voting you for (now) 5 reasons.
1) I felt that your question to kage was setting up an attack on a newer player. I really didn't like the line of questioning on that slot in particular which is why I then attacked you for asking it. Your response to me didn't help, as you refused to answer my question and attacked me for "answering your question for him" which I didn't do. I never answered your question. I attacked you for asking it.
2) I feel like your tone with regards to yourself is wildly different from how you are interacting with other players. You want other people to be accountable for the things they do in thread, which is great, but you don't seem to want to hold yourself to the same standard. You continued to joke vote MoI while attacking other players for not being serious enough. You joke fake claimed. Basically it looked like you were trying to attack players for serious things while, when people called your behavior into question for similar reasons you basically were like "oh come on its still RVS"
3) One of the main things I look for in scum reading is what are the motivations of players when they're arguing with you. I wrote a whole long treatise about this in mafia discussion a long time ago. I think there is a fundamental difference in the way that town players and scum players argue. Town players tend to grant the possibility that the person they are arguing with is town, while scum players do not. This leads to different kinds of arguments. A town argument typically involves things like addressing all (or at least most) of the points, conceding arguments that they agree with, looking for other things about the player which are relevant. That is because town are interested in alignment. Scum are not, when they argue it typically looks like someone trying to score points in a debate. They attack weak arguments. They don't give credence to good points. They just simply point and try to make the other person look like an idiot because that makes them look like the "winner" of the argument. I feel like your arguing style much more closely aligns with this second pattern in the game then it does the first.
4) More to the point, you fell for a motivation tell that I deliberately threw out there to see who would attack it. You argued not in order to discern my alignment, but rather you attempted to discredit me by going for the low hanging fruit of the deliberately weak argument.
5) Your refusal to seriously claim is deliberately anti town because you're upset. Town refusing to claim (and fake claiming) when they're at l-1 hurts town in general. If you are town, I suggest you cut it out immediately. More importantly, I've seen town use this tactic far less than scum, in the hopes that the refusal to claim will diffuse the bandwagon.
Hope that helps!
