No, you don't always have to defend yourself against every accusation. Doing so takes up unnecessary space and is often not productive. In fact, it is generally better to provide more content in the form of reads than to keep defending yourself.In post 1324, Roden wrote:Am I not supposed to defend myself when I'm being accused?
Let's see...In post 1324, Roden wrote:And at what point am I "treading the same ground again and again" when I'm not even the one bringing up those posts?
You ask Dragons in 1007 why he thinks you are scum when he has already explained multiple times in places like 560, 571, and 582. You are asking a player to explain their argument again for the one hundredth time when they had already explained it 99 other times. Your follow up in 1011, while it provides some insight into why you think Dragon's read of you is flawed, sticks mostly to the same tired argument where you reduce it to "I'm guilty if I do, and I am guilty if I don't," like you did in 591.
This is not the impression I got when reading your posts, though you are right that your reads have shifted towards town on them in your recent posts. My point made in the context of your previous posts like 578 where you call Dragons's approach to reading you "dishonest" and in 598 where you mention Cephrir "likeIn post 1324, Roden wrote:Also claiming OMGUS is lazy and not even factual because I town read two
making [his] life difficult". I admit, you do in the same post say that Dragons is town, but it's easy to glaze over when you spend so much time arguing back and forth. It suggests to me that you believe what is being argued is incorrect (which we agree is your stance), and that in turn implies that you scum read the people making the argument (because if you town read them, there's no point in continuing to argue; you argue to show an argument is flawed and that the person making it is not doing so with honest (read "townie") intentions).
Read to the bottom of page 57.
I feel this is incredibly easy to manipulate. It makes sense from a motivation standpoint, but I would be wary of trying to read a slot on this alone.In post 1330, The Three Bears wrote:scum roden is trying to shake people off by being pleasant. There's a certain amount of like jokey stuff in there.
town roden is just like what the fuck why are your reasons shit.
this is town roden. im pretty certain of it.
What is the point of asking if you are just going to exclude the thread's top scum reads? It would be more direct just to ask for a reads list.In post 1334, The Three Bears wrote:besides arcade and ircher as well
This has been asked so many times before, and Roden made it clear he wasn't going to give a straight answer to this. There was no need to ask for the sixteenth time.In post 1355, Val89 wrote:All I want is for you to explain the thinking there.
No, you explained it with circular reasoning and then countered any attempts to extract an honest answer with "I already explained/I didn't use circular reasoning" when you hadn't explained clearly. Your response in 1011 is clear evidence of such; you finally acknowledge that you did try to use circular reasoning, but you still hadn't addressed the original point even with that acknowledgement.In post 1359, Roden wrote:Val...I did explain it. I've explained it several times now. I'm not going to do it again.
Where? I looked at your ISO, and it seems to me that it's only Roden's Greeting and LLD read that caught your attention. Sure, that doesn't imply that it's the only thing that caught your attention, but it also doesn't imply that something else also grabbed your attention with regards to Roden. (In 1215, you give a detailed explanation of why you are interested in Roden answering it, but you don't actually mention or hint at there being other reasons you are interested in Roden.)In post 1361, Val89 wrote:I've already explained that it isn't. I'm not going to explain yet again to you or anyone else.
I find this comment weird as I only saw a few loud voices about Roden, but just because you are dismantling a poorly-argued argument doesn't imply you scum read that slot. Others have made passing comments, but that doesn't really count as "loud".In post 1370, tictac wrote:weird how few votes on roden despite people arguing 4 it so loudly
What you just proved is that you in fact did not answer the question as evidenced by Dragon's last response to you. Also, it's probably easy for you to find since you know what you're looking for (as you made the posts in questions). The rest of us do not have that luxury.In post 1372, Roden wrote:Interesting that I have to ISO both of us, and in under two minutes I can find the answer you're looking for while proving your answer doesn't exist.
In post 1384, Val89 wrote:At that's the last time we will have that discussion.
Call it scummy. Go on. I dare you.
(No additional comment needed.)In post 1385, Andante wrote:that's scummy!
I think your portrayal of the ISO is pretty accurate, but once again like with Roden before, I have trouble jumping straight to the conclusion. That is, the stubbornness could come (and in all honestly, is more likely to come) from stubborn town rather than caught scum that doesn't want to back out. What is scum Val gaining with this approach other than Roden's ire?In post 1417, The Three Bears wrote:Yeah Val is scum. Seeing what Mama and Baby bears think.
-- The Pinkinator.
No, the pacing was perfect at about 5-8 pages a day. 10-15 pages like what happened today is too many for those of us who aren't checking 24/7.In post 1420, Save The Dragons wrote:i was expecting the game to be paced a little faster but yeah i'm having fun
Read to the bottom of page 57.
