In post 1657, farside22 wrote:The two that say town he was town.
Not sure why you were confused or saying I mislead anything there squirel.
Well, you provided five links, four of them you labeled as him town, one you labeled as him scum - the reality was three were scum and two were town.
In post 1657, farside22 wrote:So he hammered one game and doesn't hammer here therefore he's town?
Please explain that logic compared to where he was town being voted and telling people his reads before he was lynched and not doing it here.
My point is that he isn't a cut and dry player. If he did the one thing as scum, and the one as town, and is doing neither here - then there is no functional conclusion to draw unless the argument is that he's 3rd party now.
Yeah...that would be a game he was nightkilled in.
This is *totally* selling me on your meta skills and your trustworthiness...no, wait, it's the other thing, the not trusting thing.
In post 1658, farside22 wrote:Why didn't you do your own meta research? If the behavior is scummy and I show a more active town pops why is he town based on not hammering squirel?
Of the games linked, his most active and aggressive one he was scum in.
I'd also be willing to take your 'last reads' challenge with him - I'll do it later today when I have time.
In post 1660, I Am Innocent wrote:Squirrel girl, what do u think of a player who is asked to produce his or her reads on all players but refuses to do so? Esp when they are tunneling one player, and have been on both confirmed town wagons?
I would find them anti-town.
I do not want to get into your weird world of town wagons debate because you make weird claims about what we can or cannot know.
I am sorry you take offense - to that I would offer this thought; do you think you are often mislynched because other players don't agree/understand your playstyle?
We can change the comment to 'most mislynchable looking players' and my point and stance will hold fine.
In post 1667, singersigner wrote:What's the point in replacing in and then giving a running commentary of who isn't living up to your standards.
What's the point of replacing in and not pointing out the players that are not?
In post 1667, singersigner wrote:Not to mention the fact that your target scum right now is because, as far as I can tell...she doesn't make sense? You're not the only one having a hard time understanding her but what about it makes her scum? That she should know better because of meta?
I have expressed a few times how I think the manuvers Farside is doing are scum minded. She is being selective and narrow minded in her scope - also, not that when I first called her out on meta (something she admitted to not doing) her first reaction was a sudden lash out at me - when literally all I had done was ask if she'd done that research. Then she does the research and - shock of shocks - finds evidence to support her claim...until you actually start looking at the evidence and asking questions. Also, note her attitude towards IAI as compared to Pops and then compare the cases. Even Sleepy the tunnel king actually feels comfortable admitting that he scum reads both - as well he should since they've done the same stuff. But Farside acts surprised I even have that conclusion - while still sticking to her guns that it is Pops, not IAI, who looks scummy...for reasons...
That doesn't make you nervy about her?
It makes me nervy as hell - what have you figured out from trying to understand her?
