In post 1466, Expedience wrote:Glitch only realized that he was lynched in
1363, I agree that his post sounded genuine but did Chuck think that? I doubt it, his only justification for the rest of his pre-flip analysis was "if this flips town", didn't specify that he thought Glitch would flip town or why.
It wasn't like he claimed town after being hammered like you're making it seem.
See, the thing is, your scum read on Chuck feels like you're trying to fit your reasons for scum reading him into your actual scum read without having any genuine reasons, a.k.a. conf-bias. You indicated in
1409 that there was no way a town!Chuck could have possibly thought that Glitch's post before him was town, because you thought it was a scum claim(but now you're saying it was genuine). However, did you ever stop to think that Chuck never thought Glitch was town because of his hammer post? Go read
1364 again. Chuck clearly indicates he thinks the wagon on Glitch was a wagon on town because of the swing and the fact that it was built-up quickly while Glitch was gone. At no point did Chuck ever say he thought
1363 was genuine or a town claim. This is what YOU said he thought, not what he actually thought. His
1470 indicates this even further.
Not really, I think you're reading too much into that. I can make up my own story as to how it has scum motivation just as easily.
So, I'm reading too much into rb's responses, but you're not reading too much into Chuck's responses? I can also make up my own story as to how what Chuck did has town motivation just as easily, but guess what, that's not a real argument, that's just a counter-punch. How about giving some actual reasons as to why I'm reading too much into what rb said and then we can have a real discussion about it?
In post 1462, Expedience wrote:You're right I know, he feels town to me though and I think it's more than just that
Okay, "passive involvement" is an oxymoron.
It's not forced, it's a weak gut read that you got bothered by semantics. I just think that BBT is scumreading him for null things.
This doesn't make much sense. Let's see: you admit that you have MORE reasons other than the ones initially stated to be town reading Dier(but you never give them), but you also agree that your words "passive involvement" is an oxymoron(which was your only reason stated to be town reading Dier), yet you still have Dier as a gut town read instead of null? Why are you town reading Dier for something you admit is BS and also something you admit is null at best. That doesn't add up and clearly looks forced.
In post 1469, rb wrote:I think with Saru, they made good points against Dierfire initially but it was an overreaction. The stuff Dier said was flimsy but when I re-read it didn't feel scummy, just genuinely flimsy. I think a few people detected that too, people who I townread strongly and I don't think would be buddying scum and/or defending a scumbuddy.
So even though Saru was right that Dier's entrance kinda sucked, I don't think Dier's entrance was scummy and I felt like Saru sat with that a lot and hasn't done much outside of that.
His game also fits the pattern of lurkerscum pretty much to a T. Make some decent, coherent and thoughtful posts, disappear, never really get too involved or interact overly much, low profile.
Did you read what I said about my interactions with Dier?
930. My goal with Dier was to get to understand him better because I can never read him. It wasn't an overreaction more than it was something to see if I could place him either way, which I didn't succeed in, which is why I stopped trying. I would have to disagree that my push onto Dier didn't allow me to interact outside of that or be a catalyst for interaction. I had questions for golden about his weak sheep of me onto Dier, which he neglected to keep answering after a while, as well as general questions that help me sort people into reads. I'm not going to be a catalyst for interaction just for the sake of it, if that's what you mean. If I feel something is suspicious or I'm confused about it, I will investigate further with questioning and a back-and-forth discussion(i.e. Dierfire). I'm not going to be like Ryan and just throw out questions to force/fake activity, which is what scum tends to do.
You also say in
1467 that my posts fit the lurker-scum persona better than Dierfire, but the definition you gave for lurker-scum is exactly what Dier has been doing as well, but I'm supposedly a better lynch? Not sure how you justify that.
In post 1493, Cass wrote:Saru is defending rb and Chuck (means nothing now, but noted for later). His lynch pool is Ryan, Golden, Dier - this looks very opportunistic and kinda lazy. Lynch the lurkers that aren't around to defend themselves. Very safe.
This is false. I gave reasons as to why they were in my lynch pool(
1465). To be fair, it's something that comes out of PoE because I have lots of town/null-town reads, so I don't necessarily think that (Ryan, Golden, Dier) is the scum team; this is very unlikely, but I'm working within my reads at the moment. If they change, my lynch pool will also change.
I would also have to disagree that Ryan or Dier have been lurkers. As rb stated, Ryan is around to answer questions pretty much 24/7(at-least he was on D1) and so I don't see how Ryan would never be around to defend himself. And as previously stated, Dier is someone who tries to come in once a day and comb through the game and gives updated reads and answer questions. He's not a lurker. The only one who could be considered one at this point is Golden, but he's being replaced so I have him on the back-burner until his replacement shows up.
