In post 205, Sobolev Space wrote:
In post 192, Writers Bloque wrote:This is what I was saying. You reacting this way defeats the purpose. The premise of us not convincing you our posts are real is based on us having lazy scum play.
I mean, if something doesn't look like it comes from town or tryharding scum then Occam's Razor says it comes from lazy scum sure. All cases are based on scum not playing perfectly, because if they played perfectly they would look town.
I mean when you apply Occam's Razor as a way to dismiss having to reasonably defend something with context, then you can use it so you literally never have to explain anything. You were basically asserting our scum game is so weak we get noticed the first few pages or I was explaining something wrong -- wait... we'll get to that
In post 205, Sobolev Space wrote:
All cases are based on scum not playing perfectly, because if they played perfectly they would look town.
This is so general though and you're applying it right here. Your position basically started off as you were trying to sort me and my responses were unsatisfactory for some reason so basically it boils down to me not explaining properly or you having another problem. LET'S GET INTO THAT:
Sobolev Space wrote:
In post 192, Writers Bloque wrote:
Sobolev Space wrote:
Posts I didn't like from you:
28 with later explanations
31,
47 and
61 not very convincing
I can't really find fault with you not liking the way posts are posted unless you have a specific problem with what's stated... you're not convinced I believe what I say? You're not convinced it's right? You're not convinced the statements are grounded in something tangible?
I mean all of the above. It sounds like you threw out an explanation for your early suspicion of Mario to distance yourselves from others who were skeptical of him (i.e. Jason). Then when you were pressed on it you couldn't go in enough depth to make it look like it was something you really believed or had thought through.
Gee except you never said this though... let's revisit your initial post:
In post 183, Sobolev Space wrote: Something about their posts keep gut pinging me and their responses to my questions haven't been enough to convince me their content isn't faked.
This is a really ambiguous statement. At the time the implication to me here was you either have a vague read or a very specific one. Wait.. I guess we know what it is now, because once we started engaging, you literally now have several "reasons" to SR me in the post above. Like you picked "all of the above" multiple choice reasons to scumread us. If we were actually that scummy you wouldn't have made such a vague open to interpretation post here. It literally looks like you were trying to sort me (with the questions), this post here says that something is unclear, the correct procedure should be to interact with me to clarify what specifically is wrong with my posts. But it looks like you just doubled down as to not reverse your stance and put me as scum. I said before it reads like you were setting up to push me. Like you questioned me, I just answered the questions. It appears you had a problem with HOW I answered the questions, but rather than press that specifically, you just skip over that entire step and put me as scum. I don't feel like you actually sorted.
1. "It sounds like you threw out an explanation for your early suspicion of Mario to distance yourselves from others who were skeptical of him (i.e. Jason)."
discredit. This is clearly a unique setup, the first thing I expect someone to do is not "hey lets massclaim who were in a hood with". Even if it's a nonissue that's not what a entrance should be imo. But I asked him and he clarified his thought process. I literally found something out. It looks like you're trying to fake doing that. Did you just call this distancing? lol
2. "Then when you were pressed on it you couldn't go in enough depth to make it look like it was something you really believed or had thought through."
"Appear a certain way or you're scum!" is what I read here. Literally nothing specific that I can respond to or clarify in capacity. If a motive is unclear you question it.. why push?
Sobolev Space wrote:
In post 192, Writers Bloque wrote:Sobolev Space wrote:154 and
155 hedging on Jason (although I did like the last line of 155)
This was because Treblesome asserted
-snip-
this. I know it wasn't addressed at me I just wanted to make clear that I looked at the whole Treble vs Jason and this stuff and my read there right now is well founded IMO. Jason hasn't done enough stuff though I will admit. This game's a little quiet
Fair enough. Looks a little like posturing still to me but not horrible.
Posturing? Your scumread on us literally went from 0-1000 lol.. you literally say "Writers needs to die" At the end of your post and completely abandon Zulfy vote lmaoo. COMPLETE contrast from your own #183
see at best our scumread on you probably went from like...... 40.. to 100.....
Sobolev Space wrote:
In post 192, Writers Bloque wrote:Sobolev Space wrote:
158 just feels like a weird justification for a vote
It was how I justified it. The reason I haven't invested into that vote is because I don't believe it to hold that much weight anymore.
Posts like those below have been somewhat of an explanation to most of my initial reasons to scumread her:
-snip-
I can understand the read changing. My problem with
158 is the distancing you do from the vote at the same time with stuff like "Nothing personal" or the going through your reads on other people to make it seem like PoE. Neither of those seem necessary from a town PoV (if anything town wants people to think they're pushing them harder than they actually are to get reactions) but are useful for scum who wants to seem like they're doing something without actually committing.
I said that cause Gingham said "where your fascination with me comes from" like I was really tunneling her LMFAO. She said half my posts in the game at that point were about her, which isn't true. At that point in time 7/18 of my posts mentioned or replied to her. Not even tunnel. I was attempting to sort.
Sobolev Space wrote:
In post 196, Writers Bloque wrote:This is what I thought you meant but I already addressed this when you asked me about it before.
You act like I took a hardline stance on Zulfy then 180'd. It's not the case. You've said you know I wasn't calling him scum with that initial post. All things considered you can't even get anything AI from our interaction and my "backing off". You have to stretch something a little.
No the reversal is that in
64 you threatened Zulfy with rope if he didn't keep posting. And then later you say you're not okay with someone's vote being on Zulfy. How is he going to be "sat down permanently" without any votes on him? I don't know what the scum motive is here but it looks pretty blatantly inconsistent to me.
and now a word from our sponsors
In post 176, Sobolev Space wrote: In post 62, Zulfy wrote:
It's me I am here.
I think I'll sit this out for now.
In post 173, Writers Bloque wrote:Not true. Zulfy has a post saying he wasn't going to do anything at the moment. I don't think it's scummy from him.
This looks like a big change in attitude to me. I get that you weren't calling him scummy in
64 but it still seems like you've reversed your opinion on him deciding to 'sit out'. Why?
No way around this. The clear implication was that you knew I wasn't calling him scummy, yet by directly saying
Sobolev Space wrote:
No the reversal is that in
64 you threatened Zulfy with rope if he didn't keep posting.
So if I threatened him with rope I must have thought he was scum. Except you knew that's not what I was doing.
That's
inconsistent. Are you not contradicting your stance?
Sobolev Space wrote:
In post 196, Writers Bloque wrote:? You act like I put you as lock scum. Even you said I outlined why that doesn't really mean anything, and I said you weren't someone I was genuinely pushing especially since you explained your thought processes.
I'm not quite sure how to parse this.
I think Mario thought I had a genuine scumread on him at that point when really I thought what he did was scummy but I'm on the level with what he thought once he said something so that's why I said that.
Sobolev Space wrote:
@WB - why didn't you vote for me in
187? All the posts which you said caused you to TR Gingham had been made by that point so it doesn't seem like you had any real reason to keep your vote there. I see no town motive to saying "I wanted to vote you too" at that point without actually following through.
Votes can be placed anytime. You can be lynched any time before the day ends. We weren't speedlynching anyone.
You're creating an issue where there is none.
Half meme, Half real, All Aristophanes ;)- JingleAri has appeared way too competent for me to even pretend to know what they're thinking