I'm not scumreading both halves of my pairing, view my previous post.In post 1973, Lady 5 wrote:ErrIn post 1971, Lady 3 wrote:since I'm going to oppose my own exile regardless of degree.
Why?
It's a really easy—perhaps even generic—criticism to make against any sort of "long" post that it's all fluff and no substance, but I don't think that it could actually be substantiated in my case. With the exception of some poems and some brief interludes talking about identities, I'd say that I've been extremely focused on the game and avoiding fluff.In post 1930, Lady 1 wrote:Yeah thisIn post 1928, Gentleman 9 wrote:i reverse my read on shrlock g3 after realizing that a bunch of his stuff is wall fluff, and i talk about gorilla 7, in terms of I don't think he's town, but I think he's more town than 2.
I actually disagree that a random read change across a large number of posts is indicative of an agenda. Actually, I'm of the opinion that scum take much more effort to pay attention to their own reads and avoid inconsistencies. It's really natural for townies to change their reads suddenly, especially on players that they haven't mentioned or thought about in a while. This exact progression was why I said earlier that Gentleman 9 seemed to not be partnered with Gentleman 7: his progression there seems fairly natural to me.In post 1944, Lady 7 wrote:Again, you had no reason to change the read.In post 1938, Gentleman 9 wrote:this "progression" is also 400 posts apart
I scouted your entire ISO, those 3 posts are your only mentions of the flipped wolf player.
And your read on him lines up with exactly how I expect wolves to treat their partner.
But you are just talking around me saying I am misrepresenting you.
It's actually crazy.
i thought the poems were some of your better postsIn post 1979, Gentleman 3 wrote:With the exception of some poems
I’m like... not sure I like this from you two, as I have doubts on both of you independently and I think we’d all benefit from seeing you work through things publicly? I mean obv I cant stop you doing it that way if you want to, but my initial response is I’d like to see you two particularly engaging in publicIn post 1978, Gentleman 9 wrote:i plan to hash out domestic disputes in house
I'm glad to hear it, but I'd prefer to hear you talk about where you think I've been posting fluff rather than content.In post 1980, Gentleman 9 wrote:i thought the poems were some of your better postsIn post 1979, Gentleman 3 wrote:With the exception of some poems
In post 1984, Lady 7 wrote:A storm is brewing, not the game literally just real life.
If I lose power and can't post for 10 minutes, remember I love all of you.
A ten minute break? I hope you're ready to catch up on about fifty pages. Don't worry, I'll start keeping a summary for you.In post 1984, Lady 7 wrote:A storm is brewing, not the game literally just real life.
If I lose power and can't post for 10 minutes, remember I love all of you.
so like, I feel like your posts focus on "describing what's going on" rather than "actively responding to what's going on" in fact, going back to the ISO, I find that you have 1 set of clear opnion here, which is you don't like any of the pairing, which I opposed to since you were scumreading my pair and you agreedIn post 925, Gentleman 3 wrote:Why does Gentleman 6 have to be paired? Actually, at the moment I think he may be the best Gentleman to leave out.In post 913, Gentleman 2 wrote:Gents 6 and 8 still must be paired up, so it leaves Gents 2, 3, 4 and 7. We need three brave ladies.
In any case, I don't think a Lady voluntarily choosing to not pair in order to get more flips is a good idea. Personally, as a group I suspect people who are already paired more than people who aren't, and anyone who would agree to that plan is already more likely to be town than not.
In post 917, Gentleman 6 wrote:Do you mind if I ask which side of each pair is the unlikable bit? Or is it something inherent to the union itself?In post 911, Gentleman 3 wrote:Funnily enough, I just realized that I don't like any of the pairs we have so far.I don't like either one of Gentleman 9 or Lady 3. Neither are overtly all that scummy and I suspect that G9 proposed to L3 more out of recognition than game reasons, but I still don't like either. Sans is the weak point for me in his pairing. I think that earlier I said that I townread him, but I think over time I started to realize that that was more a function of him simply posting a lot and having decent commentary. I don't think he's done anything truly town-indicative. And finally my thoughts on Ghost (L8) I've talked about already. As I'm trying to make clear, these reads aren't strong by any means.In post 918, Gentleman 9 wrote:Why not g3
So as for if it's the people or the bond, in the G9-L3 case it is because of both of them, so I suppose the pair itself is fine as I have a similar read on the members. For the other two pairs, however, I would've preferred if L7 and G5 could've been paired with different people.
I don't think it's an underdeveloped topic?In post 1977, Lady 5 wrote:I’m ngl L3 we are a long way from a world where I’d be comfortable with you as an endgame pairing
Can you explain what went through your head on G7 as end of predance was unfolding?
This should help somewhat, thank you.In post 1793, Lady 7 wrote:My ISO is probably a rough parse, but I am active enough where you can likely form a read without reading it.In post 1785, Gentleman 1 wrote:I’m definitely not reading all of this. Summary please?
My scum read that matters the most right now is on Gentlemen 9, you should probably read through his ISO in particular if you want to be up to date on my town reads.
The pair I think has the highest odds of being town is Lady 6 the seal and Gentleman 3 Sherlock.
Otherwise the other pair I am sort of into is Gentlemen 5 boromir and Lady 8 the ghost. Lady 8 being the least confident of the bunch.
Not much has happened in terms of game actions for me to give you a good summary on so I am just listing notable players to you that you can try and depend on.
Those are pretty ok reads to anchor yourself on this game at the very least the town reads are.
In post 1984, Lady 7 wrote:A storm is brewing, not the game literally just real life.
If I lose power and can't post for 10 minutes, remember I love all of you.
Basically every single sentence in the post that you quoted is me giving my own opinion. I'm finding it difficult to match that with the idea that I was "describing what's going on".In post 1989, Gentleman 9 wrote:so like, I feel like your posts focus on "describing what's going on" rather than "actively responding to what's going on" in fact, going back to the ISO, I find that you have 1 set of clear opnion here, which is you don't like any of the pairing, which I opposed to since you were scumreading my pair and you agreed
but furthermore concentrating on L8-G5 pair, note explicitly the context was that G5 chose L8 because he thinks he can read L8 well. Based on your reads on L8, you should like that pairing rather than dislike. This makes me think that even when you are "describing what's going on", you're not actively interpreting
Unfortunate that wasn't productive and I think I believe what Lady 3 Misty is saying recently.In post 1994, Gentleman 1 wrote:So I didn’t get much from that but I’d guess if you’re reading G9 as scum you’re reading L3 as town based on his treatment of her?
hmm I didn't explain clearly I guess.In post 1995, Gentleman 3 wrote:Basically every single sentence in the post that you quoted is me giving my own opinion. I'm finding it difficult to match that with the idea that I was "describing what's going on".
Why should I like that pairing rather than dislike it? It was a pairing of someone who I townread and someone that I scumread. I would agree with you if they were both people that I scumread, but they aren't. What is it about my Lady 8 read that means that I should like that pairing?