In post 973, Titus wrote: VOTE: Aristela
Just following wagons. No following up on Clout. Only 2 mentions before the vote.
![Image](https://media1.tenor.com/m/MRrWq75cIxQAAAAC/chainsawman-chainsaw.gif)
In post 973, Titus wrote: VOTE: Aristela
Just following wagons. No following up on Clout. Only 2 mentions before the vote.
In a game state like this, assuming naerys and geraintm are both town (which I admit is a lot of assumptions) i think it's reasonable to expect scum to be very content and off the leading wagons completely - pushing their little vanity wagons and/or safely distancingIn post 850, Datisi wrote: Naerys [4]: Hu Tao, Naerys, Random Nurse, davesaz
geraintm [3]: Klick, Dannflor, Aristeia
Hu Tao [2]: NotAScum, geraintm
NotAScum [2]: Psyche, Titus
Psyche [1]: Political Clout
not voting [1]: KayJayQueue
That wagon is disintegrating.In post 976, Dannflor wrote: im not saying aristeia is definitely town but she is perfectly capable of faking a trajectory and looking towny
if you're voting someone for just following wagons im not sure why you'd vote aristeia over geraintm who has had a lot of support as a wagon already
She's done it twice and geratim has excuse of survival.In post 981, Dannflor wrote: for why
sounds like you might have known all along tbh.In post 905, Klick wrote:In post 861, Random Nurse wrote: And there was like NO resistance to my fail wagon until I played Uno Reverse card.Klick enters the chat
you're right. I misread.In post 947, Hu Tao wrote:In post 936, Hu Tao wrote: Last game I played with PC they were giving way more reads and were more engaged than whatever they are doing now. I can see some partner equity in Dann based on how they converse but that's a small read. I'd be fine with PC today
VOTE: aristeia for the omgus
Doubt itIn post 983, Political Clout wrote:sounds like you might have known all along tbh.In post 905, Klick wrote:In post 861, Random Nurse wrote: And there was like NO resistance to my fail wagon until I played Uno Reverse card.Klick enters the chat
I think we're talking past each other.In post 959, Dannflor wrote:my point was not that you didn't want to give a read on her, my point was that it didn't seem like the post was driven from the town motivation of eitherIn post 938, Political Clout wrote:Alright let's say I agree with you. And let's say that a statical analysis was done and it was determined yes that post was performative. I ask you to what end? To not to give a read on her? Gun to my head she is probably scum. Because the whole point of the being performative was that you wanted to make your next contention that I didn't want to give a read on her. Which imo was your main point. So where are we now I gave you my read on herIn post 935, Dannflor wrote: i don't think it's nitpicking to read a post as performative
1) having a read you want to share
2) engaging with people about a read in order to deduce people's alignments
my point was that it's the type of post made to show off your thought process and look towny
idk, it's a genre of post I see scum making a lot because it looks like it's doing something but idk what your actual motivation was to post that if you're town
i don't really care that you scum read Aristeia and it doesn't really seem like you care about that either
I’m interestedIn post 988, Political Clout wrote:I think we're talking past each other.In post 959, Dannflor wrote:my point was not that you didn't want to give a read on her, my point was that it didn't seem like the post was driven from the town motivation of eitherIn post 938, Political Clout wrote:Alright let's say I agree with you. And let's say that a statical analysis was done and it was determined yes that post was performative. I ask you to what end? To not to give a read on her? Gun to my head she is probably scum. Because the whole point of the being performative was that you wanted to make your next contention that I didn't want to give a read on her. Which imo was your main point. So where are we now I gave you my read on herIn post 935, Dannflor wrote: i don't think it's nitpicking to read a post as performative
1) having a read you want to share
2) engaging with people about a read in order to deduce people's alignments
my point was that it's the type of post made to show off your thought process and look towny
idk, it's a genre of post I see scum making a lot because it looks like it's doing something but idk what your actual motivation was to post that if you're town
i don't really care that you scum read Aristeia and it doesn't really seem like you care about that either
when I'm making a post I don't think hmmmmmm let me craft this post in such a way that it exudes town motivation I'm just posting. that's all you're seeing. my thoughts on a player my thoughts on this or my position or inkling about something. just like when I said my post about predicting things way back it was both a joke that aristeia wouldn't move on from naerys and that psyche wouldn't engage with me he just started to ignore me completely like ok whatever I'll just move on from him since no one is interested in my read on psyche.
the difference between my accusation of psyche is that their is evidence for it. my thoughts are clear and concise on it. I have no idea how to respond to this post doesn't have town motivation it reads as performative I can't defend against someone perspective that they came up with. The conclusion was already there baked into the accusation let me quote my case on psyche since you're interested.In post 989, KayJayQueue wrote:I’m interestedIn post 988, Political Clout wrote:I think we're talking past each other.In post 959, Dannflor wrote:my point was not that you didn't want to give a read on her, my point was that it didn't seem like the post was driven from the town motivation of eitherIn post 938, Political Clout wrote:Alright let's say I agree with you. And let's say that a statical analysis was done and it was determined yes that post was performative. I ask you to what end? To not to give a read on her? Gun to my head she is probably scum. Because the whole point of the being performative was that you wanted to make your next contention that I didn't want to give a read on her. Which imo was your main point. So where are we now I gave you my read on herIn post 935, Dannflor wrote: i don't think it's nitpicking to read a post as performative
1) having a read you want to share
2) engaging with people about a read in order to deduce people's alignments
my point was that it's the type of post made to show off your thought process and look towny
idk, it's a genre of post I see scum making a lot because it looks like it's doing something but idk what your actual motivation was to post that if you're town
i don't really care that you scum read Aristeia and it doesn't really seem like you care about that either
when I'm making a post I don't think hmmmmmm let me craft this post in such a way that it exudes town motivation I'm just posting. that's all you're seeing. my thoughts on a player my thoughts on this or my position or inkling about something. just like when I said my post about predicting things way back it was both a joke that aristeia wouldn't move on from naerys and that psyche wouldn't engage with me he just started to ignore me completely like ok whatever I'll just move on from him since no one is interested in my read on psyche.
In post 257, Political Clout wrote:In post 158, Psyche wrote:from the feeling so threatened by a page 3 wagon that you burn a PR to the selfvote+"Eliminate me and vote her out tomorrow!" the whole playerlist seems awfully melodramatic this game[1]In post 159, Hu Tao wrote: It is worth the sacrifice to get 1 scum out the game. But only if it is agreed that she is the elimination tomorrowIn post 160, Hu Tao wrote:Different things. I agree he shouldn't have done that on e-2 3 pages in. But in the last game I was in with him, i was hammered on page 3. So I get his reasoning for doing so if he felt the need to. Also Naerys was also in that game which is why her reasoning makes 0 senseIn post 158, Psyche wrote: from the feeling so threatened by a page 3 wagon that you burn a PR to the selfvote+"Eliminate me and vote her out tomorrow!" the whole playerlist seems awfully melodramatic this gameIn post 161, Psyche wrote:In post 159, Hu Tao wrote: It is worth the sacrifice to get 1 scum out the game. But only if it is agreed that she is the elimination tomorrowthat's really dumb! why would anyone agree to that? has an entire town ever agreed to that?[2]1. no intent other than to vent from my point of viewIn post 162, Psyche wrote:9 times out of 10 the person who is mislimmed D1 is completely forgotten and ignored past the first page of D2. i feel like you must have been in enough games by now to know this[3]
2. this looks more rhetorical than anything else to me personally
3. this to me looks like an informational post that begins and ends with the information presented
in contrast to now in the bottom post you're saying you had a reason to post other than to just post. You had a hidden intent when posting. it is as follows
am I making a mountain out of a molehill? If i am lmk I can move on and take what you said at face valueIn post 227, Psyche wrote: i knew what i wanted to say and said exactly all those things.that conversation w hu tao was probing the rationale and/or sincerity behind the self vote.
your conclusion to that exchange was this:
a bit hyperbolic imo. essentially you don't believe hu tao was emotional you think there was nefarious reasons and that's why you engaged when you did to find hidden intent. your read so far is mixed or it is contradictory. Why is your read ambivalent i.e. mixed or contradictory? what has hu tao done that on the one hand I assume makes you town read them and on the other scum read them.In post 236, Psyche wrote: i still can't understand how someone w hu tao's professed beliefs/personality exists in this world. it's a very incoherent sequence set in between an otherwise clear-thinking iso. when the read is not ambivalent, i'll announce it like a normal person.
if that is your interpretation I welcome it.In post 994, Psyche wrote: oh that post was a case and not just like an attempt at constructive criticism
notascum is clearly town.In post 996, Psyche wrote: i really can’t comprehend how people are classing this or naerys as scummier than notascum
Is this from Drew, or are you saying that Titus is town for not really saying anything?In post 992, Political Clout wrote: titus - leaning town
this is me asking you about thatIn post 997, Political Clout wrote:notascum is clearly town.In post 996, Psyche wrote: i really can’t comprehend how people are classing this or naerys as scummier than notascum