Newbie 1889: Ice Cream (Game Over)

[MarioManiac4]

Votecount 1.3

Thor665 (2) - horrordude0215, Reundo
NotNova (1) - volxen
RCEnigma (1) - Thor665
xwing (1) - NotNova

Not Voting (4) - RCEnigma, StandingWind, UC Voyager, xwing

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch.

Deadline is in (expired on 2018-09-18 02:50:39).

[volxen]

I need to read through everything and get caught up.

[Thor665]

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?

I would find addressing new issues to be less scummy than trying to reword the same issue multiple ways.
I don't think it's the same (or different) than a static approach.
I'm suspicious you might be using different definitions of some of these words than I am because I basically feel you're asking 'is it less scummy to eat pasta or to penguin.'

To my mind a static approach is an unchanging position. It may or may not be scummy.
Attacking responses as they cam could be done with a static approach.
My claim that you're going with new angles is that I believe as each time your position is shown as weak you fuge your words or what you claim the words meant in order to maintain your core claim while changing the evidence/beliefs making you draw it - which I do find scummy.

Feel free to clarify to me if I'm still missing your question.

Volxen is a townlean

Why?

Also, since you narrowed yourself down to a few possible scum possibilities - why did you not vote one of them? You seemed very willing to RVS and to vote me, why being wimpy at this point?

Who would you like to lynch right now?
And if the answer is 'no one' I submit you are scum playing poorly or town who fails to understand that we can't catch scum without lynching someone, and that you're allowed to reassess your vote regularly if you find a read becoming weaker/stronger, yeah?

@Reundo - RCE's post made me look back, and in looking at my "vote now, right this second!" question I quite blatantly discuss the idea of saying 'no one' and also express that votes can be reassessed off reads.

I feel your stretch is bigger than you're admitting, yeah? Or did you think I meant only that you get to reassess after a flip or something, since we must lynch immediately, or only in the odd 24 hours till everyone slams a vote through?

Don't get distracted from my attack on you for hypocrisy though - that's the one I really want to see you unpack as to how my voting in one post and pointing out the issue later is scum intent and you pointing out the issue and voting in the same post is super valid.

[RCEnigma]

I would find addressing new issues to be less scummy than trying to reword the same issue multiple ways.
I don't think it's the same (or different) than a static approach.
I'm suspicious you might be using different definitions of some of these words than I am because I basically feel you're asking 'is it less scummy to eat pasta or to penguin.'

To my mind a static approach is an unchanging position. It may or may not be scummy.
Attacking responses as they cam could be done with a static approach.
My claim that you're going with new angles is that I believe as each time your position is shown as weak you fuge your words or what you claim the words meant in order to maintain your core claim while changing the evidence/beliefs making you draw it - which I do find scummy.

Feel free to clarify to me if I'm still missing your question

I havent changed any evidence it's all there and I'm relaying what I'm interpreting. If my point isn't getting across with the examples I give. Then I have to find another way that A. Might be more easily understood it B.) better illustrate my point at a whole.

I'll go through my Volxen read in a bit.

I'm not voting in a three man PoE because two of the three have one non game relating post a piece. If it's scummy of me not to place a vote with no basis then feel free to scumread me for it.

Voting you was natural since fmpov I know I'm town and a slot is trying to gather town against me for what I still consider was weak reasoning but better than no reasoning. Is that a fair reaction? I've already stated I waffled with reading you, since I'm not solid one way or the other my vote no longer reflected my view.

[RCEnigma]

Please don’t misinterpret my question, Thor. I’m all about aggressively putting pressure on someone when it is warranted. But who do I want to lynch right now? No one yet, as there is not enough content in this game yet, in my opinion, to develop a solid scumread (or townread for that matter) on anyone.

I think you also read quite a lot into my question. I was legitimately asking you, in essence, if RC is a serious scumread for you, and if your vote for him was serious. You seem very eager to put pressure on him for what may have simply been a non-serious RVS joke vote for Reundo. I also disagree that a vote can’t be RVS, or at least non-serious. My vote for NotNova, for example, was a completely non-serious joke vote.

At this point I want to simply start gathering as much information as possible and get reads on people and understand their motivations. But in order to do that, the game needs more content. Once I start developing some reads, I will be more than happy to start pressuring my scumread(s).

But by all means, we can dig deeper into RC’s motivation behind his vote. I’m certainly not going to try and stop you from seeing how RC responds to your pressure, but I did want you to clarify why you are pressuring him.

RC, are you seriously scumreading Reundo, or is your vote for him completely non-serious? Were you serious when you said that it would be worth it to take a gambit and lynch Reundo on the basis that he is too dangerous to keep alive if he is in fact scum based on the quality of his town game?

I think Volxens resolve to stick to his game philosophy was kind of townie, it's akin to the way Thor presented his "unvoters are scummy" statement to Xwing. I also feel Volxen handled that better than Xwing did. I also like the way this interaction played out. Not necessarily that he soft defended me but pointed out non indicative behavior is just that and was still on board for Thor to continue pressuring me as opposed to cutting it off by simply calling Thor wrong and hard defending or joining the lynch. It is a town mindset to determine motivations, which is the way Volxen's questioning of Thor felt to me.

[Thor665]

Allow me to showcase what I see as your changing reads;

viewtopic.php?p=10433039#p10433039
Here you claim I'm fabricating stances.
I ask what stances I'm fabricating.
You slip and slid away from this and never came back to it - now your issue becomes I'm being manipulative and showing too much conviction.
I ask what's wrong with the level of conviction I've shown (which, incidentally is voting you and asking one other person to vote you with me)

1. Theres a difference between aggressive and ...apathetic isn't really the word, indifferent I guess? What you are showing (not saying) is that you are willing to lynch based on 0 information, that doesn't scream town to me.

My conviction now becomes that I appear indifferent as to who I lynch - so it's not that I believe you're scum too strongly, it's that I don't care who I lynch.

You eventually clarify that to I'm likely scum because I didn't have enough info.
I point out I had info (about the same amount of info you had on me) and acted on that info.
You then shift your stance again here;
viewtopic.php?p=10434898#p10434898
Stating that I claimed I had all the info I needed and that such a claim was ridiculous.
I point out that I never claimed that.

You never address that issue and come back and unvote me citing it as playstyle differences (Reundo doesn't freak out that you are addressing a response by an action as opposed to directly ).

So, I was fabricating stuff, which is scummy.
Then I am showing too much conviction which is scummy.
Then I'm claiming full knowledge.
Then it's dropped.

What was actually shown in that interchange was, if *anyone* was fabricating info it was YOU. I have you dead to rights making up a claim (though I will agree you backed off from two claims twice as opposed to doubling down on them, which is a point in your favor) However, to go from fabrication, to conviction, to making up a claim I never said and being countered each time the argument kept shifting as to exactly what was the scummy behavior. You did the same in our discussion of my manipulations.

That's the shifting I see - you would get caught and try to softly swing away from the issue you were caught on without having to fully backtrack.
Do you see the above as a consistent communication from you with a clear core point?

[Thor665]

I'm not voting in a three man PoE because two of the three have one non game relating post a piece. If it's scummy of me not to place a vote with no basis then feel free to scumread me for it.

I would note you voted me with one RVS vote and one non-RVS vote quite comfortably.
Feels like, if not a double standard, at least not an equally assessed issue.

Voting you was natural since fmpov I know I'm town and a slot is trying to gather town against me for what I still consider was weak reasoning but better than no reasoning. Is that a fair reaction? I've already stated I waffled with reading you, since I'm not solid one way or the other my vote no longer reflected my view.

I think OMGUS is an understandable reaction, but not one that generates pro-town play and needs to be quashed to further yourself as a better player.
If everyone time anyone questions you your response is to attack them and call them scum it will generally backfire - as town vote and lynch fellow town quite a bit.

[RCEnigma]

I'll go quote from the beginning then. I wanted to avoid multi-quoting your posts because of how they're formatted but it doesn't look like we will get anywhere without it so.

Before I do that I want to say that my use of fabricating stances and manipulation are pretty closely connected and they hinge more on, as I said, things that I think are scummy but are subjectively so.

And you absolutely did voice your conviction at a point in the game where I believe it is unwarranted to have a solid scumread especially in the way you stated it but did not directly address. I never said you claimed you had all the info you need, but that seemed to me how you were going about your read.

[RCEnigma]

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.

I dont like the argument that you shouldn't be assessed here as possible since anyone can be possible scum, thats what we play the game for. I specifically think the ending is particularly manipulative since it forces Voyager to back away by belittling his fear of you being scum. Which he as a player that claims to be familiar with your scum capabilities is justified in having. Can he prove it at that moment? probably not, telling him its not a debate worth having means he now definitely cannot.

Who would you like to lynch right now?
And if the answer is 'no one' I submit you are scum playing poorly or town who fails to understand that we can't catch scum without lynching someone, and that you're allowed to reassess your vote regularly if you find a read becoming weaker/stronger, yeah?

This has already been spoken on, again though the implication is "If you aren't voting your scumread right now then you're just playing bad." Knowing that a large portion of the players are somewhat experienced it isn't as much of an issue since they can easily disregard this as playstyle. However considering the setting of a newbies game, where it is possible that some of the players have no experience this doesn't sit well with me. Said inexperienced player could take this at face value. New players want to play well naturally. Telling them, if you arent doing this thing i'm doing or suggesting then you aren't playing well, is exactly what I'm talking about.

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.
Also, as a bookeeping thing - anyone who wants to hammer me (cast the final vote to lynch me) should state hammer intent and request a claim from me. That will give me time to claim my role for people to assess, and also time for anyone who isn't confident in lynching me to state as such, prove they are wimps and unvote

This is more or less the same with the addition that it can be used as fuel to swing a wagon. Not that it has been done at this point.

Fabricating stances may have been a poor phrase or term but this is what I meant in terms of manipulation. There have been other posts since these three that have a similar vibe/tone/bravado whatever you want to call it but this is what I had in mind at the time I made the case. Regarding the later posts it occurs to me that the pattern may very well be the manner you post that comes of this way, or possibly the way you view the playerlist.

[Reundo]

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

Sorry, I don't really feel like quoting half my ISO. I mean, even in my vote post it can be fairly easily implied that I had difficulty with seeing your thought process coming from town, and did I really need to explain why "telling instead of showing" is scum motivated? Agree/disagree with my opinion it's a bit ridiculous to presume that every point I make has to be complemented with "and I think such and such is scummy because...", and that it can't be scum-hunting w/o having to over-explain each and every point. Some things can be fairly easily implied, you know.

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.

No, I'm taking the stance that people are in fact discussing what they find troubling about you, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not its "flim flam". A shitty case is still a case, and the fact you're still arguing that there somehow isn't a case against you is baffling to me.

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.

Explain the difference between "right now" and "as soon as possible" or admit you don't actually have a point.

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?

So what, do you feel town always has flawless logic? Reading through RCEnigma's ISO, I don't really know what exactly you find scummy of him, and I find some of the "changing reads" and "lapses of logic" you note aren't really all that notable. As a whole I don't find much of RCEnigma's play fueled by a scum agenda whereas with you I can point several instances where your play is more likely to benefit scum than town.

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.

Were you not testing to see who jumped on/off your wagon against RCEnigma? Would that not be a reaction test then?

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.

Again, the only apparent basis for you wanting to wagon RCEnigma was that you didn't like his opening vote, and not following up with his response read like you were completely ignoring it. Why would it be appropriate to take you not following up with his response and wagoning him regardless his as "oh, well he obviously thinks RCE's response is scummy" and not "oh, well if RCE is still his scum-read, then why didn't he bother following up with him"?

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?

How the hell did you miss the phrase "in isolation" there? You only explained how that post was scummy in relation to future posts RCEnigma made -- I want to know why you thought it was scummy based solely on the first two posts he made that game, the only posts you would have known about when you apparently made the assessment that you didn't like his response. So far, you haven't explained why you thought his response was scum-motivated at that specific time, only relating it to future posts.

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?

I didn't really care for your response here -- I just wanted to show an instance of many where you were question dodging. Also, your response doesn't change the fact that in your initial response, starting with "His explanation was that...", you didn't directly answer the question I asked until further probing -- even if you did address it later it's still blatant question dodging in that instant.

[Reundo]

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

I meant to say you did explain why wagons in general are good, but not that the RCEnigma wagon in particular is good. It seemed counter-intiuitive to talk about your theory to playing the game instead of just playing the game (i.e. following up with RCEnigma, explaining your scum-read, etc.).

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... )

As far as page 1 goes, then yes that was essentially the extent of your scumminess. I already explained numerous times how I don't find it natural for town not to follow up on a question they asked, especially if the answer is unsatisfactory. It was less that you were "demanding everyone lynch him immediately" and more that you were more interested in garnering support for your wagon instead of developing your scum-read.

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

I was debating whether or not to hear you out first, but your lack of follow-up pinged me enough as to where that alone was good enough of a vote regardless of your answer. If I did like your answers then I probably would've unvoted or shifted gears later down the road, but at the moment there was nothing that was really that scummy so I would be content to stay on the wagon regardless. I don't really like to play the waiting game, and I felt it was better to place a vote that I likely to place later regardless sooner than to wait for an answer that I felt wasn't likely to be satisfactory and vote you later.

Those things still seem really similar - you disagree?

You just threw two completely different things together and called it hypocrisy. Explain to be how they're supposed to be similar exactly, because I'm not really seeing it.

Who would you like to lynch right now?
And if the answer is 'no one' I submit you are scum playing poorly or town who fails to understand that we can't catch scum without lynching someone, and that you're allowed to reassess your vote regularly if you find a read becoming weaker/stronger, yeah?

@Reundo - RCE's post made me look back, and in looking at my "vote now, right this second!" question I quite blatantly discuss the idea of saying 'no one' and also express that votes can be reassessed off reads.

I feel your stretch is bigger than you're admitting, yeah? Or did you think I meant only that you get to reassess after a flip or something, since we must lynch immediately, or only in the odd 24 hours till everyone slams a vote through?

The only point I was trying to make was that asking "Who would you like to lynch right now?" would likely glean a "no one" response merely because of the timing (page 1 of day 1, half the people haven't posted, etc.), and yeah I can see that you probably didn't mean "lynch immediately" in hindsight, but I already explained how I didn't really stand by this that much and that I was probably wrong, so I don't see what's the issue here?


The explanation you gave for not following up with RCEnigma is semi-believable to me, but there's still a few aspects about your play that bother me / is scum-motivated:
>You're still trying to minimize player's concerns of you (points against you are apparently "flim flam") and trying to find a roundabout way to not admit that people have voiced their concerns about you.
>What you point out as "hypocrisies" aren't really that hypocritical at all. I mean, if the timing is completely different (me explaining my reasoning "immediately", you explaining your reasons "later") then shouldn't it be obvious I treat them on separate playing fields? (ftr, I feel the quality of the reasoning is probably more important than timing, but that's another topic
>I don't really understand your case on RCEnigma at all, and as a whole I think you're over-exaggerating his "changing reads".
>You're still answering a lot of my questions in a roundabout way, and a lot of your responses and follow up questions force me to repeat stances I've already made or are just narrowing down on specific sentences w/o considering the context as to why I've said them.

[Thor665]

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.

I dont like the argument that you shouldn't be assessed here as possible since anyone can be possible scum, thats what we play the game for. I specifically think the ending is particularly manipulative since it forces Voyager to back away by belittling his fear of you being scum. Which he as a player that claims to be familiar with your scum capabilities is justified in having. Can he prove it at that moment? probably not, telling him its not a debate worth having means he now definitely cannot.

I don't think I'm saying what you say I'm saying.

This has already been spoken on, again though the implication is "If you aren't voting your scumread right now then you're just playing bad." Knowing that a large portion of the players are somewhat experienced it isn't as much of an issue since they can easily disregard this as playstyle. However considering the setting of a newbies game, where it is possible that some of the players have no experience this doesn't sit well with me. Said inexperienced player could take this at face value. New players want to play well naturally. Telling them, if you arent doing this thing i'm doing or suggesting then you aren't playing well, is exactly what I'm talking about.

So my goal was to fool new players into voting their scumread?
I don't follow the issue - they *should* be voting their scumread. if they're voting a townread they're doing it wrong. If they're voting someone for no reason they're doing it wrong. That leaves them to vote for a scumread - which is doing it right.

Fabricating stances may have been a poor phrase or term but this is what I meant in terms of manipulation.

So my manipulation is;

1, Not saying what you say I'm saying.
2. Telling people to vote their scumread.
3. Telling people they're wimps if they are voting me and unvote after a hammer intent.

...am I missing something?

[Thor665]

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

I meant to say you did explain why wagons in general are good, but not that the RCEnigma wagon in particular is good. It seemed counter-intiuitive to talk about your theory to playing the game instead of just playing the game (i.e. following up with RCEnigma, explaining your scum-read, etc.).

Except when I was asked why I thought the wagon was good I answered that question also.
You can argue maybe I should have been more self-motivated forthcoming - but to argue I was avoiding providing my thoughts is clearly incorrect. Am I missing something here? I feel like this point as I understand it is silly, but you seem very serious about it. Clarify?

As far as page 1 goes, then yes that was essentially the extent of your scumminess. I already explained numerous times how I don't find it natural for town not to follow up on a question they asked, especially if the answer is unsatisfactory. It was less that you were "demanding everyone lynch him immediately" and more that you were more interested in garnering support for your wagon instead of developing your scum-read.

Theory reality;
I ask - are you scum?
They answer - yes! (which is certainly possibly a joke, though in that joke they may be scum answering with a joke answer since jokes are playstyle, not alignment driven)
I ask for someone else to put their vote on them.

Is this not a natural progression?
Should I have a follow up question to that answer?
Does asking for additional support preclude an ability to develop my scum read?

I was debating whether or not to hear you out first, but your lack of follow-up pinged me enough as to where that alone was good enough of a vote regardless of your answer.

Pot meet kettle, yeah?
Or am I *not* allowed to be pinged enough like you were?
Why do you get to be pinged and I don't?

You just threw two completely different things together and called it hypocrisy. Explain to be how they're supposed to be similar exactly, because I'm not really seeing it.

You call me scummy for asking for a vote without a follow up question and/or explaining my read.
You vote me with a follow up question before hearing an answer.

Both indicate that it is possible to vote and feel scum intent from behavior without having discussion first.
That indicates you're holding me to a different level of play than you practice.
That's the hypocrisy I see.
How do you see the two actions as totally unconnected?

yeah I can see that you probably didn't mean "lynch immediately" in hindsight, but I already explained how I didn't really stand by this that much and that I was probably wrong, so I don't see what's the issue here?

I'm curious about your current stance considering your current vote.

>You're still trying to minimize player's concerns of you (points against you are apparently "flim flam") and trying to find a roundabout way to not admit that people have voiced their concerns about you.

People's points against me *are* flim flam and I have directly explained why I believe that to be so.
Why is it scummy to not agree that the case on me is good? It is assuredly possible to be town and have a case put upon you that is not good.
Even in your above comment you agree you attacked me about something that is probably not true.
RCE has done the same.
Xwing has agreed that he voted me for no reason other than to pressure me.
So - that appears to be direct evidence that the case wasn't good and was poorly explained.
Why are you acting like me being right is scummy?

>What you point out as "hypocrisies" aren't really that hypocritical at all. I mean, if the timing is completely different (me explaining my reasoning "immediately", you explaining your reasons "later") then shouldn't it be obvious I treat them on separate playing fields? (ftr, I feel the quality of the reasoning is probably more important than timing, but that's another topic
>I don't really understand your case on RCEnigma at all, and as a whole I think you're over-exaggerating his "changing reads".

So you disagree with me, but aren't actually discussing one disagreement and we literally just started the other - ergo I'm scummy?
Okay?

>You're still answering a lot of my questions in a roundabout way, and a lot of your responses and follow up questions force me to repeat stances I've already made or are just narrowing down on specific sentences w/o considering the context as to why I've said them.

I invited you to readdress your confusions - you came at me with one that I rexplained very directly and you haven't followed up.
If there is a communication breakdown i don't think it's in my answers. I'll agree I can be long winded, and I agree I can be precise - but note that you're complaining that I'm making you explain things a lot (almost as if I'm trying to understand your point) and are equally complaining that I'm being intentionally obfuscatory (while apparently you refuse to bother to make me clarify myself)
If you think that makes me scum I really disagree with you.
At worst that makes me bad at explaining things - maybe that's just me as a person, unless you can showcase how I'm trying to avoid stuff. Which I don't think you can.

[RCEnigma]

1. As scum you wouldn't tell town your intentions, agenda, or motivation. So just saying no that's not what you think it is just doesn't do anything for me.
2. You ignored everything around that point. It's implied town will vote their scumreads. New town area also prone to sheep players they believe to be strong. You've already sown doubt by saying their vote is useless if it isn't on your snap scumread, 20 posts in.
3. .....yes, that's anti-town if you are town in the position to be lynched. If they want to avoid being scumread for something so petty it's holding your own wagon hostage which is ????

You aren't missing anything you know exactly what you're doing. I tried to get away from the back and forth once already, I'm pretty over it honestly.

[MarioManiac4]

Prodding UC Voyager, he has (expired on 2018-09-12 12:04:59) to post or he will be replaced.

[NotNova]

I need to read through everything and get caught up.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: volxen

All the lurking going around has seriously hampered town's ability to sort. Other than asking a few simple questions at the beginning and arguing a bit of theory, you haven't done anything to push the gamestate further. Our two SEs at least ate their prods, whereas you seem to be aware of them if you post obvious prod dodges like these. I'm tired of all the promises people have made for more content, and at this point, I would be willing to call for a policy lynch.

You're lurking, plain as day. Lurking is anti-town - what's your excuse?

[UC Voyager]

I'm still here. I will try to put together a post later today. I thought I could yesterday but I didn't.

[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?

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?

obviously i know you see both RCE and my action(s) as scummy, otherwise i wouldnt have used the word "scummier" right? i was simply asking after all the interactions you had with RCE vs my actions, you still find RCE the scummier one? i will take it the short answer as "yes", since your vote is still on him..yeah?

[xwing]

i feel like hitting my head to the wall when i interact with thor..lemme try something else..

@RCE and @notnova: IIRC you were the first ones to vocally express my action/vote scummy..i was expecting follow up questions or interactions at least to flesh me out..anything for me?

@notnova: i know you already questioned me, but i got no follow up after..does that mean you're satisfied with my answer? or pausing to see what comes out of the thor/rce/reundo exchange, or something else?

[xwing]

I'm still here. I will try to put together a post later today. I thought I could yesterday but I didn't.

okay..we'll expect to hear your thoughts later..
also please let me know what you were thinking with your vote unvote action (your initial post)..

[xwing]

I need to read through everything and get caught up.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: volxen

All the lurking going around has seriously hampered town's ability to sort. Other than asking a few simple questions at the beginning and arguing a bit of theory, you haven't done anything to push the gamestate further. Our two SEs at least ate their prods, whereas you seem to be aware of them if you post obvious prod dodges like these. I'm tired of all the promises people have made for more content, and at this point, I would be willing to call for a policy lynch.

You're lurking, plain as day. Lurking is anti-town - what's your excuse?

to be fair, these guys have posted less content that volxen:
StandingWind (none) - you there?
horrordude0215 (will post soon..said latest Wed..which is today..so we're expecting..)
UC Voyager (will post soon..expecting today..)

[Thor665]

1. As scum you wouldn't tell town your intentions, agenda, or motivation. So just saying no that's not what you think it is just doesn't do anything for me.
2. You ignored everything around that point. It's implied town will vote their scumreads. New town area also prone to sheep players they believe to be strong. You've already sown doubt by saying their vote is useless if it isn't on your snap scumread, 20 posts in.
3. .....yes, that's anti-town if you are town in the position to be lynched. If they want to avoid being scumread for something so petty it's holding your own wagon hostage which is ????

You aren't missing anything you know exactly what you're doing. I tried to get away from the back and forth once already, I'm pretty over it honestly.

1. Well...I literally bolded my quote that shows that you're saying I'm saying the opposite of what I actually said. So unless your claim is I can see the future and headed you off at the pass...
2. Nowhere do I say what you're citing here as objectionable - why do you keep inventing stances for me and then complain about them?
3. So it's scummy - but only if I'm town? That makes no sense.

[RCEnigma]

Eh you answered Why you were on the wagon and your process there. It's OK I guess. I'm interested though, what about Voyagers no vote struck you as scummy? Would you agree with Thor that it's scum playing poorly on town playing poorly?

I also find it interesting that no one has entertained a TvS possibility in the interactions between myself/Thor/Reundo with the exception of Thor.

[RCEnigma]

Nope you're right Thor, I'm wrong.

[Thor665]

to be fair, these guys have posted less content that volxen:
StandingWind (none) - you there?
horrordude0215 (will post soon..said latest Wed..which is today..so we're expecting..)
UC Voyager (will post soon..expecting today..)

Do you find them scummier than Volxen?
If not - do you find Nova objectionable for attacking him?

And to answer your head into wall - you quoted me answering your question (and asking you a question you didn't answer) and then acted like I hadn't answered the question.
This concerns me.
Are you skimming the game or do you not understand all the words I'm using? Is there another possible explanation I'm missing?