Of course in ISOing redtea I got to the part where they reply to GL's wallpost and now i'm thinking about GL again ._. I want to make one amendment which is that I think my read on GL does depend on redtea's alignment, it's just that I think his play is scummy in different ways depending on what redtea is. If redtea is town then I default to the argument of "GL has spent the game happily pushing multiple LHF town players". If redtea is scum then well GL's play makes plenty of sense as a bus where redtea is kind of dead weight to the scumteam, yada yada. This is like obviously very logically unsatisfying because it's a sort of damned if you do damned if you don't but idk. i just still don't like his push toward redtea and I like it less now that I'm reviewing his wallish post (
1470) and redtea's responses to it. It all just looks like either scum who decided they saw something they thought they could push from redtea and then let that color their reading of all of redtea's posts or, if GL is town, confirmation bias; I think a lot of the reasons in that post to scumread redtea are just flatly bad reasons that won't indicate scum more often than town. And ISOing redtea has also made me feel like redtea is town so I think I'll just try to loosely towncase them, though I am confirmation biased as well certainly.
In post 1470, GuiltyLion wrote: In post 1298, Cephrir wrote:i suppose i would be interested in why he chose redtea specifically.
right so I finally have the time/energy to specifically go into what I didn't like in redtea's ISO
let me break it down:
330 - it seems a little odd to me to open by saying that
328 made you laugh while also claiming to have not read the game fully yet. There'd be missing context for what I was pushing fua for, no reads on fua/myself to interpret our interaction - like is that post still as funny if fua is scum trying to discredit me? just seemed to me like an odd entry in the game and something that's more likely to come from an informed perspective re:fua and I's alignments, rather than town who hasn't read up
331 is a bad post. redtea doesn't give any indication of whether they are townreading fua, all they do is strawman the reason for suspecting fua and push against that strawman, while joking about themselves. Vibes exactly to me like scum who want to make a buddy in fua and also get a joking foothold into the game. The "conversationalist" remark feels like fake analysis, again there's no evidence of a thought process regarding whether town or scum is more likely to be "conversationalist", no evidence of trying to reason about fua's alignment.
332 is also inconsistent with
331 - if redtea only read between posts 248 and 330, and didn't read the beginning of the game, how are they making comments about fua's entry or their ISO? Did redtea read fua in ISO but not the game? why?
879-
882 reminds me of stuff I do as scum to try to make it seem like I don't have an agenda, giving one opinion then immediately reversing it. it was also just an immediate hasty misrepresentation of my position, redtea acted like I was demanding a lim immediately ("we have 12 days left") when I wasn't.
as for a general pattern of play remark, a lot of redtea's content is in response to stuff happening in the thread when they are here, which indicates that they're at least reading along at some points in the game, but redtea doesn't give any indication whatsoever of their reads or how they see the game until
1209. I don't see proactive effort to engage with people or an obvious direction redtea wants to go for lim or pressure. Very much gives me scum coasting and not giving information vibes
And then
1209 is a janky post in that the questions/thoughts section doesn't correlate to the reads at all, as far as I can tell. It's also weird to have a "can go" category (which presumably means scumreads), but then a "flip would help" category for Tejate/Cephrir - what's the difference between "can go" and "flip would help", like is "flip would help" null? Why is that different than the "???" tier? I don't think that part of their post is inherently scum indicative but it sure doesn't show me a solvey/uninformed mindset, it's missing indicators of a town mindset that show me how the reads relate to each other or how they were arrived at.
I never got to this post when I was ISOing GL and I did respond to it a while ago saying I didn't buy it but I think it merits a longer form response both for the sake of sorting GL and of sorting redtea.
330 is kind of a wild claim; the claim is that redtea-town wouldn't have been likely to find
328 as funny without context. First of all I personally think that post is funny in isolation and I think it's kind of unreasonable to think that someone wouldn't be able to find it funny in isolation with phrases like "hop in balls-out into a pre-existing feud" and "because I'm eager to get away from the pressure of zero votes". But like, the fact that I have to say this is just absurd. Litigating whether the humor of a post is intrinsic or extrinsic and whether someone's finding humor in that post must necessitate them having read more than they claimed or be informed of alignments. It's just like, so far removed from how I think about games, to the point where I feel like I have to be misinterpreting GL's point somehow but I literally cannot see what else the point means.
331 is fine and I probably agree with GL's analysis of redtea here and that post is a little scummy.
332 is like a "gotcha" moment that is meaningless. Like, so what if redtea saying they only read between two posts is inconsistent with them saying they saw fua's entry. They did also say that they ISO'd fua. I think it's obvious to interpret 331-332 as redtea saying they only read those posts + fua's iso. But instead GL is calling this out as an inconsistency, and, in context of the whole post, implying that inconsistency is scummy. Again, I feel like I have to be misinterpreting GL's point somehow because it seems really weird to me. Either he's implying that redtea is lying about what they've read and is therefore scummy for lying, or he's saying that... idk what else. And there's no reason for scum to lie about what they've read. The asking why redtea specifically read those posts + fua's iso is fine but like, also not an implicitly scummy thing. I've certainly read random ISOs as I catch up if someone catches my eye.
I just remembered GL did clarify this point so ignore the piece about lying (I'm not deleting it because I'm lazy):
GL wrote:I don't think I said redtea was lying about how much they've read of the thread? The point was more I don't understand how they could genuinely engage with things in the way that they did, if they hadn't read the thread.
Well, they said they read fua's ISO. Seems like perfectly enough to make that comment.
No major comments on the rest of the post, these are the two points that just feel really weird to me. I'll say more about redtea later
