Newbie 1889: Ice Cream (Game Over)

[Thor665]

I believe you are more than capable of applying pressure and the reason you might not have is because of all the fire coming your way in a short timespan.

At the point you are thinking I was called out for poor pressure (which I don't think I was called out for and am still uncertain why you think I was) I had two posts.

My reasoning about asking this went like this: if Thor is town, does he believe anything about his play could have led a townie to suspect him as scum? Naturally, you are going to disagree with a wagon on you, but I wanted to see your reads on members of your own wagon and potentially fallacious reasoning. You've certainly delivered in fairly detailed posts.

I would describe myself as fairly mild in how much analysis I've offered on my wagon (though I am sadly miffed people missed my thoughts on Xwing and applied them to you, but...eh, I'm full of myself so them's the breaks)
Why are you blowing so much sweet smoke at me though?
I feel like you're buddying me.

I think people are very much describing their issues with you.

People are saying lots of words - but they aren't painting a scumcase.
They're saying I didn't do 'behavior X' and did 'behavior Y' but I have seen nothing to suggest that X is less scummy then Y nor that Y is scummy at all. Have you? If you could quote it I would be highly grateful.

I didn't like your lack of follow up with RCE, RCE himself didn't like how you were talking around him and directly to him and felt it was manipulative

If I were to ask you to pass me the ketchup would I be manipulative?
If the answer is yes - why? If the answer is no - how is what I did manipulative?
I'll agree I asked someone to do something - I fail to grok how that is manipulative unless we're going with the theory that requesting anything is manipulation - and if so, then I dismiss it as remotely scummy at all.

And as far as you saying "anyone should be lynched ASAP"...

Who would you like to lynch

right now?

I don't think equating "right now" with "ASAP" is really that much of a stretch.

If you had a Dayvig and I asked you "who would you like to shoot right now" would you interpret that as whatever answer you gave requiring you to immediately use your power?

If I asked "are you hungry right now?" does it mean if you answer yes you must immediately begin to eat?

I'm pretty sure you have to admit that, however big of a stretch you're willing to admit it is, it's a stretch - yeah?

I interpreted this as you asking volxen "if you can end the day right now with a lynch who would it be?"

Good - it's exactly what I was asking.

which would make the answer "no one"

Then he should be voting no lynch and I would explain why that is bad play.

Except that RCEnigma calling his own response a fallacy clearly read off as a joke to me -- I'm actually struggling to find a serious interpretation to his answer. By that logic, you also didn't have to call out RCE's initial post, since it's obvious scum-reading someone for having a good town game is a petty case. If his response did ping you, I'd think it would be more natural as town to call out his response as a fallacy regardless instead of just assuming everyone has the same mindset as you -- town imo generally don't think about the latter that much at all in fact.

He just did it a second time, do you also read that one as a joke?
I'm reading it as a dodge.
A continued dodge, that is trying to excuse bad play.
You can take it as a joke, but I think you're wrong - and just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I think a wagon should be run on you for that point or for you not asking him why he was joking, or anything else that you theory could have done.

The problem is that it's a pretty indirect way of applying pressure, and I'd think it'd be more town motivated to engage with RCEnigma directly and build up your case against him instead of merely asking people to vote for him when the case against him wasn't that strong to begin with -- in fact, stating it in the way you did almost ruins the reaction test you seemed to be going for. Of course, it's entirely possible for you as town to not follow up with RCEnigma, but imo as town it would make sense to follow up to something that pings you instead of holding back because it's scumminess is "obvious".

Voting someone and trying to build a wagon on them is indirect pressure? Eh, I disagree with that.
How does it ruin the reaction test? I submit it doesn't. A wagon is a wagon, even if it's a derp wagon.
How is my "holding back" scummy? If not, all you're doing is voting me and walling with me as a debate about playstyle, yeah? That's kind of boring to me.

The thing though is that I don't think you've made your thought process very clear.

I supplied multiple links to theory posts I've made *and* described my process the instant I was asked about it.
How have I not been clear?

It wasn't apparent at all that you asked for more votes on RCEnigma because you thought his answer was scummy

Sorry, guess that might have been taken as me town reading him...?

In fact, what would be the scum motive in RCE admitting his own logic was fueled by a fallacy anyhow?

The scum motive is admitting bad logic and not changing behavior - that suggests either he really is lying about being aware his logic is bad (in which case he is a semi-literate rock with fingers and an internet connection) or he is not actually interested in divining the truth - in which case he is more likely scum.
Can you describe the town motivation for admitting your logic is flawed and continuing on the same path regardless?

As of what's been happening recently, I didn't like how in your original wall response a lot of your responses didn't relate directly to the questions I asked

Bullhooey - ask again, I'm answering directly.
Quote the answer and explain how it's a dodge and I'll un-dodge.

and I also don't see much town motivation in trying to minimize the case against you by claiming players "aren't actually really describing their issues with me" when they very clearly are.

The theory town motivation in explaining that the wagon on you is weak is to dismantle the wagon - town doesn't win by lynching town, and since I know 100% I'm not scum it behooves me to have town lynch a slot other than my own.
Would you advocate a town player letting the wagon advance on them easily?

Also - as direct evidence that the case on me is poorly explained, please reference NotNova's belief that the case on me is because I didn't push on RCE hard enough/constantly enough in my two posts.
Then show me who is claiming that other than NotNova.
The case on me *is* badly explained because it's a hash of emptiness.

[Thor665]

Because scum doesn't need information to be fine with a lynch? I'm not really getting your angle here, thats kind of self evident.

I had information though - does that make me town? Or is it now the amount of info I'm allowed to claim to make me fine with a lynch.
You were fine with my lynch after two posts - why couldn't I be fine with yours after two posts?

A few things jump out like goading the vote onto me to push specifically YOUR agenda, its not a stretch to view that as Personal gain > Town gain. Also as I've stated elsewhere, the issue around fearing or not fearing players as scum. It should, in my opinion be an IC tone to address that but it felt more like pushing Voyager away from that line of thinking because it isn't optimal to YOU.

So your idea is that I am scum who was manipulating Player A into not voting Player B because I wanted him to vote Player C?
Couldn't that be identical to saying I was town who explained to Player A why voting Player B was bad, and asked if he was willing to vote Player C?
It sounds like conversation, not manipulation.

I also fail to see how that point is fallacious, thats a bit of a stretch. Scum is capable of anything town is capable of and vice versa, so should you disregard any scum reads because town could also do the same as scum in a certain situation. Or disregard townreads for the same reason?

I disregard a lot of reads for those exact reasons - you don't? Every read is 100% infallible to your mind?

I'm actually being negative towards people who would unvote me - is that scummy somehow?

This is a loaded question since yes it absolutely can be. It feels like you aren't taking context into account at all. If the answer to your question is yes and no simultaneously then there isn't really a reason to ask it in the first place.

How is it scummy to suggest that people who unvote me are wimps?

I also note you avoided addressing your bad logic dodge again.
I begin to have doubts others will notice.
But I do.
I'd point it out to people, but then I'd be manipulative

[RCEnigma]

If you are basing your vote on the first RVS vote then no, I find it Anti-town. As opposed to your initial stance that you had all you needed to know who you wanted lynched. It is scummy at worst, extremely jaded at best.

Your second point is semantics. Yes that is exactly what a conversation is, yes you are swaying player A's vote in both examples. That's manipulation if it pushes your agenda.

I'm not suggesting my reads are infallible don't take it to an extreme. Feel free to point out how I'm logic dodging, I'm still not understanding how that thought process was flawed. It's not even a process I applied. So please explain to me like I'm a semi-literate rock with hands and as internet connection.

[Thor665]

If you are basing your vote on the first RVS vote then no, I find it Anti-town. As opposed to your initial stance that you had all you needed to know who you wanted lynched. It is scummy at worst, extremely jaded at best.

I never claimed I had all I wanted to know, and despite the hysteria some people are making up, I never even asked you to be lynched, I asked you to be put at L-2.
But, yeah, if you make up stances about my beliefs not backed by my actions or statements I suppose I can look like a sloppy scum player.

Your second point is semantics. Yes that is exactly what a conversation is, yes you are swaying player A's vote in both examples. That's manipulation if it pushes your agenda.

How can I push my agenda without manipulation if conversation is manipulation?
Wouldn't then everyone be manipulating and your point be meaningless?

I'm not suggesting my reads are infallible don't take it to an extreme. Feel free to point out how I'm logic dodging, I'm still not understanding how that thought process was flawed. It's not even a process I applied. So please explain to me like I'm a semi-literate rock with hands and as internet connection.

By claiming fallacies and not changing behavior (as I have already said) that is logic dodging.
Does that make sense?
If not - where does it lose you?

[Thor665]

Basically I feel like you're playing roper-dope with logic.
I point out where you're wrong and you basically appear to reply "yeah, sure I guess" and keep on trucking.

[Thor665]

Like follow the manipulation claim from you.
Currently I'm manipulating by having an agenda (getting votes on a scumread) and talking to people about it.
Like...what?

[Thor665]

@Reundo - went back and looked at your progression on me. Something reads odd to it; I'm going to spell it out and want to see if you can make it have more sense. I'll number it - please let me know where you think I'm wrong or misunderstanding something;

1. Your case (or at least part of your case) for why I'm scum is that I didn't follow up with RCE when I found something scummy and instead applied pressure via a vote.
2. You have repeated this to me a couple of times, that I should have asked questions.
3. When I did this you considered it scummy.
4. You voted me and asked me questions in the same post.

This feels like a potential logic hole to me - if I follow the above correctly, if I'd asked for someone else to vote him and *also* explained why i didn't like his response in the same post I would have done exactly as you did (and, presumably, therefore have behaved like proper town).
What's the difference in explaining my reasons for disliking the post when asked as opposed to immediately that transforms me from proper town play to likely scum play?
No?
Or is asking for an additional vote in and of itself the highly questionable action even if I'd explained my issue immediately?

[Thor665]

To restate #1 "applied pressure via an additional vote request.

[RCEnigma]

You're basing that argument on the fact that anything in any game can be done by any alignment. By nature yes but that doesn't help me sus out your motivations. Take the question you gave Xwing for example.

Is it scummy to call out unvoters. No because you could argue scum is backing down from your lynch. Yes because you could then turn around and use that same argument to push a mislynch on town.

It's driven by your motivations. Am I logically flawed in thinking that way? Well if you could do it as scum or as town then I suppose I have to assume there's no scum motivation behind it ergo he must be town.

[RCEnigma]

Fwiw I think it's fair to dislike my opening. You didn't like my joke and that's fine. You and I going back and forth telling the other their wrong isn't productive.

If I'm scum from your perspective my unvote won't matter so.
UNVOTE:

[RCEnigma]

They're* no trigger please.

[NotNova]

I believe you are more than capable of applying pressure and the reason you might not have is because of all the fire coming your way in a short timespan.

At the point you are thinking I was called out for poor pressure (which I don't think I was called out for and am still uncertain why you think I was) I had two posts.

This is the second time you state this belief. I refer you to Reundo's original vote:

RCEnigma responded to your initial question about why he'd want to lynch someone who has a good scum game, so why didn't you follow up with his response if he's your strongest scum-read?

As far as I can tell, a no-response is as good as the issue being resolved, so I don't see why he's still a scum-read to you if this is the case, and if this isn't the case then I don't see why you would just let his response fly under your radar.

I'm seeing a lot of telling but not a lot of showing from you, and if RCEnigma truly is a scum-read I'd expect you to treat him more like one instead of just stating he is one

.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Thor665

Seeing as I didn't see anything more convincing than this and that RCE used this as one of his reasons for voting you, I don't know why you would have missed this? Perhaps I was overstating its importance.

My reasoning about asking this went like this: if Thor is town, does he believe anything about his play could have led a townie to suspect him as scum? Naturally, you are going to disagree with a wagon on you, but I wanted to see your reads on members of your own wagon and potentially fallacious reasoning. You've certainly delivered in fairly detailed posts.

I would describe myself as fairly mild in how much analysis I've offered on my wagon (though I am sadly miffed people missed my thoughts on Xwing and applied them to you, but...eh, I'm full of myself so them's the breaks)
Why are you blowing so much sweet smoke at me though?
I feel like you're buddying me.

I'm buddying you? Why would I be trying to buddy up to you when you're the single most focused-on person in this thread? Assuming I'm scum, what possible benefit do I have from buddying up to you? If you get lynched and flip scum, all eyes are on me for defending you, which I see as a huge risk for something like this. If you're town and everyone turns their eyes away from you, you're the only one who might see me in a better light and I expect you to be far more intelligent than that. And why wouldn't I join in on the wagon if I somehow know you are town? You're already L-1, I can apply further pressure without much worry. If you're town and you get lynched, which without some serious predictive power I cannot possibly expect, then I might possibly get brownie points for defending town. I don't think this is an incredibly likely scenario, ergo the risk/reward ratio looks awful. I believe this would be a nonsensical way to play. If you think scum has good incentive to try to buddy you, I'd like you to explain your theory.

I don't having good gut-feeling regarding someone's alignment is one of my strong suits, which is why I value logical reasoning so highly in people's posts. Yes, it might give me some confirmation bias towards analytical players, but picking up on fallacious or unsupported reasoning is a lot easier for me. By no stretch of the imagination do I believe you to be cleared or playing a strongly pro-town game, I simply find the case against you unconvincing, which I have repeated several times.

Regarding my suspicion of xwing, I don't think you ought to be given much credit for mentioning it in passing. I think I've done my part in explaining my reasoning on why I think the way they joined the wagon was suspicious, as well as having pointed out that they're mostly parroting RCE and Reundo, while what little original reasoning they have is far too weak.


Despite you potentially accusing me of buddying up even more, I think I was on the right trajectory when I made that prior judgement - you point out the holes in the case against you in a very clear-cut way that I do find to be convincing. I currently believe your defense to be better than the arguments against you, if that makes me someone trying to buddy up to you, sue me.

[Thor665]

You're basing that argument on the fact that anything in any game can be done by any alignment. By nature yes but that doesn't help me sus out your motivations. Take the question you gave Xwing for example.

Is it scummy to call out unvoters. No because you could argue scum is backing down from your lynch. Yes because you could then turn around and use that same argument to push a mislynch on town.

It's driven by your motivations. Am I logically flawed in thinking that way? Well if you could do it as scum or as town then I suppose I have to assume there's no scum motivation behind it ergo he must be town.

I agree, all things can be done by town or scum.
The point is to be able to explain why something is *more likely* to come from a given alignment if you use it as a tell.
You don't do that.

Why would I be trying to buddy up to you when you're the single most focused-on person in this thread? Assuming I'm scum, what possible benefit do I have from buddying up to you? If you get lynched and flip scum, all eyes are on me for defending you, which I see as a huge risk for something like this. If you're town and everyone turns their eyes away from you, you're the only one who might see me in a better light and I expect you to be far more intelligent than that. And why wouldn't I join in on the wagon if I somehow know you are town? You're already L-1, I can apply further pressure without much worry. If you're town and you get lynched, which without some serious predictive power I cannot possibly expect, then I might possibly get brownie points for defending town. I don't think this is an incredibly likely scenario, ergo the risk/reward ratio looks awful. I believe this would be a nonsensical way to play. If you think scum has good incentive to try to buddy you, I'd like you to explain your theory.

You dodged a number of potential possibilities in there, let's just run down a possible list of scum reasons to buddy me;

1. How likely do you think a derp flashwagon on Page 2 is to go through? (reality: low) so, for starters, buddying me now is decent to get me on your side.
2. If I am lynched you, as scum, know I'm going to flip town - ergo you get the points for being 'right' and chiding town on their bad play.

So, if I am lynched, you get a dead IC and a lot of ability to pull sway in Day 2's lynch decision.
If I'm not lynched you buddy the IC and arguably get me as an ally and/or not looking at you for lynch target for today.

Win/win, yeah?

This seems like a shocking and unheard of thought for you?

I don't having good gut-feeling regarding someone's alignment is one of my strong suits, which is why I value logical reasoning so highly in people's posts. Yes, it might give me some confirmation bias towards analytical players, but picking up on fallacious or unsupported reasoning is a lot easier for me. By no stretch of the imagination do I believe you to be cleared or playing a strongly pro-town game, I simply find the case against you unconvincing, which I have repeated several times.

It's not that you're disagreeing with the case being the buddying - it's how you're doing it.
When you're all like "oh, masterfully laid out info" to me when I know I haven't laid out much it makes me feel like you're blowing smoke.
I made that very clear.
Why aren't you addressing how I *did* do the thing you're blowing smoke for, thereby justifying the smoke as opposed to acting shocked at the very notion that buddying can exist in a white knight situation (which considering there's even a name for white knighting and buddying suggests both things are things people have seen scum do repeatedly).

[NotNova]

You are correct, there were situations I failed to account for and I acknowledge the scenario I presented is not completely sound. I'll go through some of your ISO prior to post #58 and show some of the things that left an impression on me.

Spoiler: Long wall ahead

aren't you supposed to be one of the best scumplayers on site???

According to whom?
I imagine some would agree with you and some would disagree with you.

Should we be afraid of the possibility of scum you?

I would suggest as the theory most experienced player there is probably a certain increased value to trying to sort me early, which I can see as a valuable strategic play.

Not sure why you'd be generically afraid though? Do you think you should be generically afraid of me more than anyone else? In pure statistics I am more likely to be town than scum, so therefore should you not be generically trusting of me? (I submit the answer to that question is clearly no - but then suggest your inverse of fear is also clearly no and wonder why you want me to debate it like a valid concern)

Want to put your vote on RCEnigma with me? I think I'd like to put him to three votes

.

Shows me you are not afraid to be put on the stand very early. You could chalk it up to thinking that you can defend yourself as an experienced player, but sticking your head out projects a lot of confidence and I think your no-nonsense attitude theory is what you gave you the heat you got in the first place. I place value on this, if it's potentially misguided, I would like to know why.

As far as the second bolded part goes: I do think other players had a feeling this was an attempt to control town opinion early, but this strikes me as a gamble for scum to make. I don't know your scum play so I'm going off of some general principles from my own experience, it is quite possible that you do this often as scum. It is, however, perfectly in line with what you stated in your wiki link and your general attitude toward aggressively trying to get out of RVS, which I believe to be sound, and have stated so. Therefore, if you truly believe it is the correct way to play, it is not alignment indicative.

My short reply is I find it really funny how people are putting me to L-1 because of not liking me wanting people at L-2.

Judging from what Reundo and RCE pointed out, I didn't think this was the main reason you were voted, though it did put eyes on you. I isolated the initial argument for your suspicion in Reundo's vote as the main catalyst for the wagon in you, in addition to what I said above. Reading Reundo's and RCE's later posts shows me this might not have been true, though I will point out that neither of them had any issues with me stating my belief that this was the central suspicion of you. Any of them can feel free to pitch in whether or not this was true.


A lot of the rest of your post was about your aggressive playstyle, which showed me that doubts against it were unfounded. I won't go through every single detail of it, this post is going to be long enough as it is, but like I said before, I strongly agree with your principles and don't think you should be isolated for them in any way. This put a strong impression on me. In hindsight I think it lead to me overstating my lack of suspicion of you and I don't think you were unjustified for thinking I'm "blowing smoke up your ass."

RCEnigma responded to your initial question about why he'd want to lynch someone who has a good scum game, so why didn't you follow up with his response if he's your strongest scum-read? As far as I can tell, a no-response is as good as the issue being resolved, so I don't see why he's still a scum-read to you if this is the case, and if this isn't the case then I don't see why you would just let his response fly under your radar. I'm seeing a lot of telling but not a lot of showing from you, and if RCEnigma truly is a scum-read I'd expect you to treat him more like one instead of just stating he is one.

His explanation was that his thought process was a fallacy - why should that relax me or appease me?

How would you expect me to treat scum and why would you have that expectation? I don't think you know how I play the game at all - have you researched me? If you haven't researched me then why are you holding me to made up expectations?

The lack of follow up is troubling but even more troubling is your decision to talk around me to the rest of town, about me. Instead of interacting directly with me, which feels manipulative for one. Or this is a disingenuous read in the first place and your efforts would be better placed elsewhere. So let me take your
model a step further and ask what you think of Reundo and Volxen both of whom have soft defended me early. Do you find either of them to be scummy with me? They cant both be scum if I am indeed mafia.

WHat interaction did you expect after you admitted openly that your thought process was flawed and you did it anyway?

Why wouldn't you expect me to try to get other people to vote you by talking to them?

The follow up responses to whether or not these accusations were well-founded lead me to believe that they were not. Pointing out fallacious thinking is strongly pro-town way to play in my view - even though everyone makes mistakes, it shows us whether or not we should trust someone's case. I didn't find their responses satisfactory.

@thor: thanks for the explanations, just getting a bit of a feeling of defensiveness from your post about L-2..

What about my answer seems defensive?

Something I pointed out as well - part of the reason I feel xwing might be scum is that their reasoning is incredibly surface-level, pointing something out without explaining why something is scummy. This was the feeling I got from reading their posts too, but it was something I felt even prior to reading this post. However, it still shows me that we have a similar thought process.

In the part you replied to is the answer. Maybe interact with me about it.

You admitted you had bad logic and kept your vote where it was - I see no value in further interaction.
Are you saying you were open to being *more* convinced your vote was bad and I should have done that?
Eh...

vNow maybe you are absolutely certain I'm scum, which you can't be. Or you aren't voting who you truly believe to be scum. Because if you have the conviction you claim to have in that you found scum in post 1 then a mislynch is just a sacrifice you are willing to accept. Correct or am I off base? If you are making decisions already based on information you have, it leads me to believe you have more information available than the rest of us. which means, well you get the gist.

Where have I suggested absolute conviction exactly?
Sounds like you're putting words in my mouth and then calling me scummy for saying them, yeah?
Quote my expression of super conviction? [/quote]

This accusation pointedly wasn't true and hinged on the much-discussed way you said "would you like to lynch?" which came out of your theory philosophy rather than being a true scumtell i.e. came out of your belief that you have to put conviction in your votes to get reactions.

Also I gather you have at least a townlean on Volxen but not Reundo?

I have not expressed either thought and am not sure where you're getting that.
I have a neutral take on both currently. I'd be willing to lynch either.

I was also completely dumbfounded by this accusation, since you didn't seem to be giving much of a read on anyone so far.

I agree that putting pressure on a player is a good way to glean reactions, but you can do that without wanting them lynched ASAP. It sounded like you thought that someone voted for a player meant they want that player lynched, so it seemed like you did disagree with my theory. Can you tell me what parts you agree with then, because I'm kind of confused tbh.

I have implied (and do believe) that voting a player shows you want to lynch them. I don't support voting players you aren't willing to lynch (or at least will go to your death claiming as such) because otherwise there's no reason or point in voting them.
Please quote me saying anyone should be lynched ASAP - you are making up that belief and applying it to me. If I had said that I would at least somewhat understand your issue with me.

This completely convinced me that there was any reason to suspect you supposed willingness to lynch in any way was remotely true. Therefore, I dismissed it as a possible reason to scumread you when making my post, and gleaned by Reundo's quote that he supposedly does not find issue with your theory as such, but got what I believe to be a false impression of your overall tone.

Well, asking the question to "Who would you like to lynch right now?" then following up with more/less "if you say 'no one' then you're playing sub-optimally as both scum and town" reads very much like you're correlating the two ideas together, and asking someone who would they want to lynch right now at RVS when most of the players haven't said so much as "hello" and judging them negatively if they say "no one" is a ridiculous notion, and probably won't glean any AI responses when both scum and town can respond "no one" with the simple reasoning that "it's RVS". Not wanting to pressure is more related to skill level, I agree, but players can do that w/o calling for someone's lynch this early on, and that idea wasn't the one that was bothering me.

I barely understand your rebuttal here I admit.
I think you're confusing me saying 'state lynch desire' with 'lynch immediately, YOLO!' which, if you had read the links I provided or presumed I wasn't really, really bad at the game wouldn't make sense.
To clarify - yes, it is poor play if you can't express a lynch interest right now (or as early as Day 1 minute 1)
No, that is not a locked belief that you can't change (and I linked a discussion that directly explains that stance)
I think if you read me 'lynch interest' and replace it with 'apply pressure' my stance would become more clear and have less made up stances in it for you.

This was part theory disagreement, part misunderstanding, and therefore wasn't a valid reason to suspect you. The way I read your initial post was consistent with your last sentence here. Therefore, I dismissed it as well.

Below we get the answers to my post, which I believed most important.

Thor, I do not believe anyone is trying to lynch you because of your playstyle: it's because of your inability to consistently and adequately apply pressure on what you claimed to be your scumread, RVCEnigma.

How have I not been consistant and adequately applying pressure?
Also, what is the theory scumcase if that is their belief, that I'm scum who is unable to pressure someone I want lynched? That he's my scumbuddy and I'm doing sloppy distancing? Neither of those make sense.

This was true. I gleaned it from Reundo's initial post above, and following your response I thought about it, and didn't think it was a) a fair accusation, considering how much you had on your plate with the numerous questions and responses to post to really "apply pressure" - I think this is obvious from the rest of my posts
b) didn't mean you were scum at all, since at best it means that your read of RCE is superficial. I didn't see anything else to lead me to believe otherwise.

I would like Thor to answer a few of my questions: Who, if anyone, is scum in your wagon? Do you think the suspicions and overall development of arguments against you have been logical? Do you think you have mishandled your pressure on RVC?

There is absolutely scum on my wagon, I would tend to currently favor RCEnigma (who I am voting) as my top pick.
Could possibly do XWing, but I'm still scumhunting that slot. Wouldn't mind the speed wagon for lulz though.

I do not think there is much logic at all in the push on me, as this wall and my last tend to showcase. Even your theory explanation has massive holes in it. Do you think there is logic? Why even ask me this? As town or scum I, as the person the wagon is on, am going to disagree with the logic, yeah?

I don't see any issue with my pressure on RCE - can you explain any issue you see?
If you don't see one, why are you asking this question?

The to the answer first question was a fairly transparent reads list that made sense from the perspective of town!Thor. Your second answer made me reassess the reasoning for your vote. I believe I put slightly too much importance on L-1 being a big deal as I generally think one should have strong reasoning for why someone should be put in such a tight slot. Reading on some other games, it seems more common than I thought. Regardless, I was at a loss for why I should seriously scumread you after reading the case against you. I dismissed the "pressure" reason as a legitimate concern for the above reasons and overall didn't see anything in your other posts to suggest that you were really scum.

In hindsight I admit I was most likely impressed by the way you were playing rather than your actual content, leading to me using vocabulary which was too strong. I still stand by my original point, though - I don't see any good reason to scumread you and every single one of your responses shows a logical and thorough mind using reasoning I mostly tend to agree with. For the record, you were one of the players I recognized when entering this game and I fully acknowledge I might have some sort of bias toward you. I trust other players can point out when this is the case - I have no intention of misleading anyone, and I think most of my posts show a willingness to be as transparent as possible.

Sorry if I made any typos or mistakes trying to post this, I'm still getting used to the multiquote feature and it took me quite a while to post this. If anyone has any questions for me and also suspects me of buddying Thor, I urge them not to be shy about asking. I'll do my best to present the way I am thinking.

[Thor665]

Okay Nova, you can be town for today.

Why do you find xwing's sketchiness more vote worthy than RCE's?

[xwing]

Spoiler: response to thor

Lots of stuff all about me, I'm going to try to keep it succinct but the wall is as the wall does.

@thor: last night i read your L-2 beginning statement as [paraphrased] "before anyone questions me, here are the links as to why i did it.."..which on reread is wrong, so i apologize..

that said, im still leaving my vote parked on you for the above logic (paragraph 1)..i would have placed it at ucvoyager because of his weird "vote" on you but i dont want to derail the current momentum..

lastly, i loathe rvs..as you said in your wiki, more info = better..so im satisfied with my vote right now..

If you agree tht you're making up things/being wrong in how you're attacking me, why are you happy with your vote on me specifically?

answer was already there, bolding for emphasis..
i'm okay with you saying "im wrong" as opposed to you saying i'm "making things up"..both are technically correct, but coz of semantics they evoke different feelings/implications..like saying "you made it up" implies there's malicious intent, whereas saying "you're wrong" is just well, you being wrong..so i can understand where RCE is coming from..
notnova already dissected my reasoning in a previous post as well..
but never mind i'll repeat in a shortcut fashion:
i thought that placing my vote on you (biggest wagon) would generate content, and let the "strong" players show their alignments early..

What is bad about the tone exactly?
I'm actually being negative towards people who would unvote me - is that scummy somehow?

again, notnova has dissected this already and i agreed it was a play style difference..i should step back and start reading your posts rationally..it's just that words have different connotations, which scum can use to their advantage and choke up to play style..

What do you like about each of their cases (I'm curious since neither actually made a case that I can spot)

i'll answer this after you've posted your takes on the newer posts..do remind me to come back to this..

I am very good at reminding - consider this a reminder that I will want to see answered from the older posts.

[/quote]

the answer is nothing much, really..
during my first game, the players were scum reading me because i was playing "safe" and being overly cautious/paranoid..so here in my second game, i thought it would be a good idea to cast my vote on the biggest wagon (e.g. you), so that could be considered "sticking out"..
on hindsight, i think they meant/implied to "stick your head out for something you believe in"..and obviously it's hard to attack someone when i dont have genuine suspicion of you yet..so maybe i should have stuck with UCvoyager, but i didnt want to derail the momentum on you coz i was sure it would generate content (it did)..though im unsure if it was helpful to town (i didnt find it too helpful personally..i think the arguments are mainly play style/semantics)..

lastly, did i join a newbie game? im feeling overwhelmed, really..no one is striking me as new here per se (you're all like analytical robots lol)..and honestly feeling a bit embarrassed/reserved to post especially with my poor plays here (looking back, that vote was OMGUS gaaah..i think i should have probed more instead of casting a vote hastily)..i really dont expect i'd accomplish much, but at the very least i didnt want to hamper town..
of course, i'm not gonna roll over and give up..i will still continue posting and try to do my part.. so im more than ready for those who have further questions..

i didnt want to do this out of emotional response to being called a wimp, but rationally i think focusing on a different angle is more helpful, unless of course anyone thinks otherwise, and can continue with the discussion..

UNVOTE:

my gut is saying town is killing itself right now..i believe there's no scum in the wagon (not counting clown coz his was an RVS vote)..the silent players should come out now and say something..there's a high chance there's scum there who are content to just sit back and let us shred ourselves..silence is still a reaction..

@notnova im not appeasing you but you're still town for me, and your comment about me to shape up and play better [paraphrased] to make my alignment better known is appreciated..

Spoiler: not important

the atmosphere this game is heavy/intense..unlike my first game..just saying..

[xwing]

@thor: basically you scum read RCE because he voted reundo, whom RCE perceived has a strong town game..even if it was obviously a joke..did i get the gist right? you still think that action was scummier than me joining your wagon with no original reasoning at all?

why did you pick UCvoyager to be the one to join you in voting for RCE, and not someone else?

more importantly, how did you intend to strengthen your case against RCE by asking other people to vote for him?

[Thor665]

again, notnova has dissected this already and i agreed it was a play style difference..i should step back and start reading your posts rationally..it's just that words have different connotations, which scum can use to their advantage and choke up to play style..

So when you said I had a bad tone what you meant was 'Thor is aggressive in a way I'm not used to'?
Why would you call that tone?
Or is there something else about my play that has a tone you think scum would have?
You make getting an answer out of you feel like trying to hold onto an oily fish.

during my first game, the players were scum reading me because i was playing "safe" and being overly cautious/paranoid..so here in my second game, i thought it would be a good idea to cast my vote on the biggest wagon (e.g. you), so that could be considered "sticking out"..

I would suggest that voting the biggest wagon and listing your reasons as 'what those guys said' is pretty much the definition of safe play.

on hindsight, i think they meant/implied to "stick your head out for something you believe in"..and obviously it's hard to attack someone when i dont have genuine suspicion of you yet..so maybe i should have stuck with UCvoyager, but i didnt want to derail the momentum on you coz i was sure it would generate content (it did)..though im unsure if it was helpful to town (i didnt find it too helpful personally..i think the arguments are mainly play style/semantics)..

The arguments are blatantly that for everyone who voted me, it's why you're getting heat for agreeing and sheeping it.

i believe there's no scum in the wagon (not counting clown coz his was an RVS vote)..the silent players should come out now and say something..there's a high chance there's scum there who are content to just sit back and let us shred ourselves..silence is still a reaction..

Silence is a lot of things.
Considering we had (if you count me, whom the wagon was on) over half the players involved in the game either voting me or being me - the odds that at least one is scum are pretty high. Why rule it out as a town wagon totally to then call out lurkers?

[IC Hat]
Let me also say, I think the players in your last game were being silly. Being non-aggressive with your vote is not much different from being aggressive with it. The actual issue is *Are you scumhunting*. The goal is to do "things to help you figure out alignments" If for you that is asking questions and not voting - great. If for someone else it's wildly voting, awesome. But the part that is bad is when you don't appear to be scumhunting - then you look like you don't care, then you look like scum.

As an example in this game; your push on me "hey, I agree with these guys, I'll tell you my answers later, no really!" didn't look like you were scumhunting, it looked like you wanted me to get lynched. That's why you look like scum (at least to me - others may disagree)

RCE is similar - "lol, me admitting to bad logic while continuing doing the same thing - it was a joke man, c'mon now...let me keep changing the angle of what I'm attacking you over" it makes him look like scum also.

Compare/Contrast with two other possibilities;

Reundo is attacking me. His case is at least generically his own whether I agree or disagree with it, and though I have some suspicion of hypocrisy and want to sort that he is currently sitting at neutral because he at least appears to believe what he's attacking me over. In other words, I can at least image that he believes he's attacking me for something scummy (even if he can't actually describe why it's scummy )

Nova has presented at least two thoughts that are generically mostly unique, and though he sounds a little uncutous to me he at least fielded the attack pretty well, and seems interested in asking questions about motivation and not just calling a surface level thing scummy because...well, it sounds sexy and easy to call it scummy, yay! That suggests that he is actually trying to game solve, which implies town - hence town read for today.

I might be wrong on any and all of these, but I suggest they are fairly functional universal realities of "what is scumhunting and how to do it".
[/hat]

You are still a scum read for me, your current stance just feels like an appeal to emotion to back out of a wagon you now realize is more empty than you thought.

[Thor665]

@thor: basically you scum read RCE because he voted reundo, whom RCE perceived has a strong town game..even if it was obviously a joke..did i get the gist right? you still think that action was scummier than me joining your wagon with no original reasoning at all?

I indicated both actions as scummy, I'll also add that jokes don't make votes meaningless - all votes have meanings. Otherwise I'd just make a pun with every vote and be uncatchable as scum.
I have also indicated deeper actions by RCE that I find expressly objectionable (and just outlined in my last post to you, as well as a back and forth with RCE and Nova or Renudo earlier as well - I don't think I'm being coy with my reasoning, are you skimming my posts for some reason?

why did you pick UCvoyager to be the one to join you in voting for RCE, and not someone else?

Because I was talking to him.

more importantly, how did you intend to strengthen your case against RCE by asking other people to vote for him?

You just got done saying you didn't want to weaken a wagon so you voted it - and now you're asking me to explain how a vote on a wagon can help it?
Short answer; it would help the same way your claimed reasoning for voting me helped the wagon on me.

[Reundo]

I think people are very much describing their issues with you.

People are saying lots of words - but they aren't painting a scumcase.
They're saying I didn't do 'behavior X' and did 'behavior Y' but I have seen nothing to suggest that X is less scummy then Y nor that Y is scummy at all. Have you? If you could quote it I would be highly grateful.

To be fair, I don't really think you developed your scum case against RCEnigma all too well either. Most of it seems to be based around RCEnigma's opening, and there was another point that you mentioned that I'll address later down but other than that it just looks like you're just arguing with him. Maybe there's something I missed in between your and RCE's responses, but from what I know you've addressed I'm not too convinced. For the record, I have been explaining why I think your actions are scummy, and I don't really get how you think that I'm somehow not doing that.

I didn't like your lack of follow up with RCE, RCE himself didn't like how you were talking around him and directly to him and felt it was manipulative

If I were to ask you to pass me the ketchup would I be manipulative?
If the answer is yes - why? If the answer is no - how is what I did manipulative?
I'll agree I asked someone to do something - I fail to grok how that is manipulative unless we're going with the theory that requesting anything is manipulation - and if so, then I dismiss it as remotely scummy at all.

Why are you addressing me about RCE's talking points? While I could see where he's coming from, I'm not scum-reading you for the reasons he mentioned. I only mentioned it to refute your point that others weren't describing their issues with you -- I felt that was obvious from the way I was prioritizing how RCE felt and not me personally and from the sentence that was just before this one.

And as far as you saying "anyone should be lynched ASAP"...

Who would you like to lynch

right now?

I don't think equating "right now" with "ASAP" is really that much of a stretch.

If you had a Dayvig and I asked you "who would you like to shoot right now" would you interpret that as whatever answer you gave requiring you to immediately use your power?

If I asked "are you hungry right now?" does it mean if you answer yes you must immediately begin to eat?

I'm pretty sure you have to admit that, however big of a stretch you're willing to admit it is, it's a stretch - yeah?

I mean, I wouldn't shoot immediately, but if hypothetically you were to ask me that question right now I would say no one just due to the timing (D1, 3 pages in, little participation from a third of the slots, etc.), and the timing of your initial "who would you want me to lynch?" was what I was dissatisfied with, but I don't really feel that strongly about it anyways and I consent that I did probably misread your intentions in that regard. I still think there's not a huge difference between "right now" and "as soon as possible" though, so I don't get why you're so focused on semantics.

I interpreted this as you asking volxen "if you can end the day right now with a lynch who would it be?"

Good - it's exactly what I was asking.

Then why would you expect any answer other than "no one" given that no sane town player would want to end the day right now so early into D1 no matter how much they scum-read a player?

which would make the answer "no one"

Then he should be voting no lynch and I would explain why that is bad play.

The key phrase here is "right now". He already explained that the answer is "no one" because he felt there wasn't enough content to develop a solid scum-read, which I felt was a just explanation. Why in the world would he ever vote no lynch during D1?

Except that RCEnigma calling his own response a fallacy clearly read off as a joke to me -- I'm actually struggling to find a serious interpretation to his answer. By that logic, you also didn't have to call out RCE's initial post, since it's obvious scum-reading someone for having a good town game is a petty case. If his response did ping you, I'd think it would be more natural as town to call out his response as a fallacy regardless instead of just assuming everyone has the same mindset as you -- town imo generally don't think about the latter that much at all in fact.

He just did it a second time, do you also read that one as a joke?
I'm reading it as a dodge.
A continued dodge, that is trying to excuse bad play.
You can take it as a joke, but I think you're wrong - and just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I think a wagon should be run on you for that point or for you not asking him why he was joking, or anything else that you theory could have done.

Are you talking about this?

3. Um...no. If it applies to both town and scum then no that doesn't make it a good scumtell at all.

Because if so then I don't really see how it's all that scummy? I mean, town can admit when they've made a mistake too, and it's not like this one point was the entire foundation of his scum-read/suspicions on you. I definitely don't think he's joking here, but this quote is miles apart from the first time he "admitted to a fallacy". "Reundos die for a scum game. Gambles fallacy but sue me," is him essentially him backing up a joke vote with a literal fallacy. This was him blatantly admitting his vote was bad -- which was find because he didn't hold much value to it anyhow -- but the quote above is less admitting he's bad and more correcting his logic, at least that's how I interpreted it. Town can have bad logic too, and in this case I don't see how this lapse in logic is necessarily a scummy one.

The problem is that it's a pretty indirect way of applying pressure, and I'd think it'd be more town motivated to engage with RCEnigma directly and build up your case against him instead of merely asking people to vote for him when the case against him wasn't that strong to begin with -- in fact, stating it in the way you did almost ruins the reaction test you seemed to be going for. Of course, it's entirely possible for you as town to not follow up with RCEnigma, but imo as town it would make sense to follow up to something that pings you instead of holding back because it's scumminess is "obvious".

Voting someone and trying to build a wagon on them is indirect pressure? Eh, I disagree with that.
How does it ruin the reaction test? I submit it doesn't. A wagon is a wagon, even if it's a derp wagon.
How is my "holding back" scummy? If not, all you're doing is voting me and walling with me as a debate about playstyle, yeah? That's kind of boring to me.

I'm saying it doesn't make too much sense why as town you wouldn't follow up with something that pinged you. Town wouldn't really have a reason to hold back regarding something that genuinely pings them, especially when their goal is to get them wagon-ed and potentially lynched. The best reaction test is one that's unannounced -- that's all I'm saying on your second point.

The thing though is that I don't think you've made your thought process very clear.

I supplied multiple links to theory posts I've made *and* described my process the instant I was asked about it.
How have I not been clear?

I explained it in the sentences I've made right after this??? I was referring to specific instances where I thought your thought process was unclear. I didn't mean to say that it was unclear as a whole, though I get how you interpreted that way and I'd admit that I was probably wrong on that part.

It wasn't apparent at all that you asked for more votes on RCEnigma because you thought his answer was scummy

Sorry, guess that might have been taken as me town reading him...?

It was only clear that you thought his initial post was scummy because you voted him for it. Afterwards it looked like you completely ignored his response and was set on wagoning him w/o assessing his response, which didn't make much sense to me.

In fact, what would be the scum motive in RCE admitting his own logic was fueled by a fallacy anyhow?

The scum motive is admitting bad logic and not changing behavior - that suggests either he really is lying about being aware his logic is bad (in which case he is a semi-literate rock with fingers and an internet connection) or he is not actually interested in divining the truth - in which case he is more likely scum.
Can you describe the town motivation for admitting your logic is flawed and continuing on the same path regardless?

Again, I don't see much connections between RCE's first post and the other post you mentioned, and I want to know why you thought his initial post was scum-motivated in isolation, disregarding everything that happened page 1, because you certainly couldn't foresee him "not changing behavior" back when he made his initial response, and from what I can tell you certainly didn't like his response even before the wagon on you escalated.

As of what's been happening recently, I didn't like how in your original wall response a lot of your responses didn't relate directly to the questions I asked

Bullhooey - ask again, I'm answering directly.
Quote the answer and explain how it's a dodge and I'll un-dodge.

So, like here for example:

RCEnigma responded to your initial question about why he'd want to lynch someone who has a good scum game, so why didn't you follow up with his response if he's your strongest scum-read? As far as I can tell, a no-response is as good as the issue being resolved, so I don't see why he's still a scum-read to you if this is the case, and if this isn't the case then I don't see why you would just let his response fly under your radar. I'm seeing a lot of telling but not a lot of showing from you, and if RCEnigma truly is a scum-read I'd expect you to treat him more like one instead of just stating he is one.

His explanation was that his thought process was a fallacy - why should that relax me or appease me?
How would you expect me to treat scum and why would you have that expectation? I don't think you know how I play the game at all - have you researched me? If you haven't researched me then why are you holding me to made up expectations?

My question was "why didn't you follow up with his response if he's your strongest scum-read?", and instead of answering it you explained that RCE's response didn't appease you, which didn't answer my question. You did something similar to this a few other times, but I don't care about your answers so much as the fact that you did question dodge a couple times like this.

and I also don't see much town motivation in trying to minimize the case against you by claiming players "aren't actually really describing their issues with me" when they very clearly are.

The theory town motivation in explaining that the wagon on you is weak is to dismantle the wagon - town doesn't win by lynching town, and since I know 100% I'm not scum it behooves me to have town lynch a slot other than my own.
Would you advocate a town player letting the wagon advance on them easily?

The thing though is that you can do all that without stretching the truth. You can prove that other player's POVs are wrong without having to wrongly attribute the accusations against you as players voting you "for wanting RCEnigma at L-2" or wrongly stating that players "aren't actually really describing their issues with you". This kind of talk reads like you're more interested in getting pressure off of you than actually addressing other's concerns, and while town certainly doesn't want to be wagoned or lynched it's clear that mafia has a lot more to lose through either of those things.

[Reundo]

What's the difference in explaining my reasons for disliking the post when asked as opposed to immediately that transforms me from proper town play to likely scum play?

To me, it's natural town instinct to point out something you find scummy. Town's goal is to lynch scum, and they can't do that if they keep their reasoning for scum-reading players hush-hush or don't elaborate on why they want said player lynched, and when you're scum-reading someone, you're usually more on alert of their any potentially scummy behavior than normal, which can be both a blessing and a curse, but either way it generally means you're going to be pick out a lot more flaws than not in their posts. Not following up with RCE's initial response read to me like you were lacking this instinct, that you were more concerned with talking about your theory to RVS and wagons and such than actually trying to scum-hunt. It was almost like you cared more about looking town than doing town-motivated things. Why did you apparently decide to hold back your reasons instead of immediately addressing why you didn't like his response in the first place? Iirc I don't think I ever asked you this.

Or is asking for an additional vote in and of itself the highly questionable action even if I'd explained my issue immediately?

Asking for an additional vote isn't scummy -- it's that to me it would make more sense as town to expand upon your case on RCEnimga instead of asking people for votes and explaining why wagons in general are good w/o explaining why the RCEnimga wagon in particular is good. Actually, you could technically ask for additional votes and expand on your scum-case -- there's nothing wrong with that, and in hindsight I don't think I made this that clear -- but if you had to choose one I'd say the latter would definitely be more productive than the former, and a route that I'd feel would be more natural for town to travel on.

[Thor665]

I think people are very much describing their issues with you.

People are saying lots of words - but they aren't painting a scumcase.
They're saying I didn't do 'behavior X' and did 'behavior Y' but I have seen nothing to suggest that X is less scummy then Y nor that Y is scummy at all. Have you?

If you could quote it I would be highly grateful.

To be fair, I don't really think you developed your scum case against RCEnigma all too well either. Most of it seems to be based around RCEnigma's opening, and there was another point that you mentioned that I'll address later down but other than that it just looks like you're just arguing with him. Maybe there's something I missed in between your and RCE's responses, but from what I know you've addressed I'm not too convinced. For the record, I have been explaining why I think your actions are scummy, and I don't really get how you think that I'm somehow not doing that.

Calls it clear. Proceeds not to quote it...
I'm just suggesting the communication breakdown is not as much on my end

Why are you addressing me about RCE's talking points?

Because you're taking the stance the case on me has been presented, and I'm pointing out its unsupportable flim flam.
If you agree with that, but want me to act like presented flim flam is a case, just say so.

I still think there's not a huge difference between "right now" and "as soon as possible" though, so I don't get why you're so focused on semantics.

I'm focusing on the semantics because your claimed issue with me requires those semantics to be true to have any validity.
And, as noted, if you'd read what I wrote and linked - nothing besides the semantics you decided are the real one supports your stance.
And I'm wondering why you're so focused on that, as opposed to trying to figure out my alignment.

Then why would you expect any answer other than "no one" given that no sane town player would want to end the day right now so early into D1 no matter how much they scum-read a player?

Because it's a hypothetical question that precludes the wimp answer.
It's like FMK - the point is you need to make a value call, not that the answer is locked in stone brilliant.

but the quote above is less admitting he's bad and more correcting his logic, at least that's how I interpreted it. Town can have bad logic too, and in this case I don't see how this lapse in logic is necessarily a scummy one.

I really disagree with that take.
Why do I feel like you're bending over backwards to semantic suggest I am scum, and then bending the other way to see him as squeaky clean?

The best reaction test is one that's unannounced -- that's all I'm saying on your second point.

I never claimed it as a reaction test, even now I'd still like to lynch him over all others - all I did was ask for a vote.
That's all I'm saying about your rebuttal.
It's flim flam, again.

It was only clear that you thought his initial post was scummy because you voted him for it. Afterwards it looked like you completely ignored his response and was set on wagoning him w/o assessing his response, which didn't make much sense to me.

I agree - that I ignored his post and decided to blindly wagon him wouldn't make much sense for behavior on my part.

and I want to know why you thought his initial post was scum-motivated in isolation

Don't you mean "wanted" since I've answered this in posts you're quoting here?
I'm not sure if you're looking for more info? Am I losing you somewhere or was it just a mistype in the tense you used here?

So, like here for example:

When it comes to "dodges" I don't need examples, I want em all.
I would think you would too...if I was fully convinced you were scumhunting me

RCEnigma responded to your initial question about why he'd want to lynch someone who has a good scum game, so why didn't you follow up with his response if he's your strongest scum-read? As far as I can tell, a no-response is as good as the issue being resolved, so I don't see why he's still a scum-read to you if this is the case, and if this isn't the case then I don't see why you would just let his response fly under your radar. I'm seeing a lot of telling but not a lot of showing from you, and if RCEnigma truly is a scum-read I'd expect you to treat him more like one instead of just stating he is one.

His explanation was that his thought process was a fallacy - why should that relax me or appease me?
How would you expect me to treat scum and why would you have that expectation? I don't think you know how I play the game at all - have you researched me? If you haven't researched me then why are you holding me to made up expectations?

My question was "why didn't you follow up with his response if he's your strongest scum-read?", and instead of answering it you explained that RCE's response didn't appease you, which didn't answer my question. You did something similar to this a few other times, but I don't care about your answers so much as the fact that you did question dodge a couple times like this.

I actually answered directly why I didn't follow up with a question.
I didn't follow up with a question because I followed up by asking for another vote to be placed on him.
That's not a dodge. That's a direct answer.
I agree you, for some reason, wanted me to question him - but I don't get why it's so confusing that I decided to respond via action as opposed to question outside of your disagreement in the playstyle choice.

How is this answer confusing or dodging?

[Thor665]

Why did you apparently decide to hold back your reasons instead of immediately addressing why you didn't like his response in the first place? Iirc I don't think I ever asked you this.

You never did. Maybe that's something you thought I dodged?
The reason I didn't advertise the thought is that, to a certain extent, I considered it fairly obvious, and to a secondary, at that stage of RVS all cases are thin enough that I like to sort of test people's willingness to move on and off cases that they are advancing that could otherwise be called "jokes" or "not that serious" in order to test the reality of how serious they are. It's amazing to me how often supposed joke case votes refuse to be moved.

Asking for an additional vote isn't scummy -- it's that to me it would make more sense as town to expand upon your case on RCEnimga instead of asking people for votes and explaining why wagons in general are good w/o explaining why the RCEnimga wagon in particular is good. Actually, you could technically ask for additional votes and expand on your scum-case -- there's nothing wrong with that, and in hindsight I don't think I made this that clear -- but if you had to choose one I'd say the latter would definitely be more productive than the former, and a route that I'd feel would be more natural for town to travel on.

I explained why wagons are good when asked directly why I was trying to make a wagon, so...

So me asking for the vote wasn't scummy.
The entirety of my scumminess is that I didn't respond about why I didn't like RCE's response before my third post of the game? (and maybe was demanding everyone lynch him immediately just because I said so - a tactic I'm sure I use all the time with great success as scum... )

But you voting me right away while not yet hearing my answer about what I did is totally cool?

Those things still seem really similar - you disagree?

[RCEnigma]

Mobile posting so I'll try to keep everything brief.

Thor I would argue that I'm attacking responses as they come as opposed to the same issues from different angles. Do you find that more or less scummy than a static approach?

Also when I posted the statement about your assessment of volxen and Reundo I stated it that way because you had already expressed a connection between myself (your scumread) and Reundo. But not with Volxen. If I were scum with one person on your wagon it would naturally make the other town. So if you scumread me, one of the two has to absolutely be town. It's been clarified through later posts so there wasn't much need to bring it back up.

Overall state of the game I think Volxen is a townlean, Reundo is a townlean. Despite our views being very different Nova is probably my strongest Townread. At the moment Xwing is null to me. I don't necessarily think Thor is scum, he can scumread me back that's fine. We just bump heads on what I feel like he is doing and the converse is true and well. I will cede that most of my issue with Thor is what he COULD do with the things he has set up, not so much what he's already done. Which isnt a good basis for a scumread. My poe is in line with Reundos in that I think at least one scum lies within horror/wind/xwing.

[MarioManiac4]

-