In post 3504, Untrod Tripod wrote:1. you didn't disprove jack shit
2. I don't have to do anything you say
3. I answered the part that was wrong on an objective basis rather than just a misunderstanding of basic motivations and behaviors basis, since it seemed important to get that part cleared up for the rest of the audience
1. Yes. Yes, I did.
In post 3377, Oversoul wrote:UT having me, Mastin, Titus, and Singer as scum reads is fine and dandy, but two of those people have viable wagons and you *still* arent voting. You're not thinking like a townie trying to actively suss out scum. And that is scummy as fuck.
More votes on the UT wagon please.
Why are you thinking I could be scum? Because I'm pushing you?
In post 3379, Untrod Tripod wrote:bro I think I've more than proven that I'm willing to throw my vote around
your reasoning is bad and you should feel bad
whatevs though, time is short and etc.
vote singer
In post 3450, Oversoul wrote:That is not what my post said. Did you ignore parts of my post? I do not understand how you came to this conclusion given what I actually said in the post. My scum read on you is not because at the time you were not voting. It is your passive, reactive play. You are not actively scumhunting or earnestly trying to figure out the game. When I called you out, you had scum reads on both Singer and Espeonage who had viable wagons, yet you were not voting either of them. You were not actually trying to get them lynched, you were talking and making reads for the sake of talking and having reads. There is a difference.
This post is a perfect example of your passive and reactive play. You did not actually vote a wagon on your scum read until I called you out.
Read these three quotes and tell me that I didn't disprove what you were saying.
Your response to my suspicion on you was "Yes, I have been moving my vote around your point is wrong". I replied saying to you that your vote and your scum reads did not match up at all at a point in the game when they SHOULD have. You were complaining about this day dragging on so you voted TSO to end the day quicker. You have scumreads on not ONE but TWO viable wagons at a point that is now CLOSER TO DEADLINE and you still are not even voting LET ALONE the fact that you had scum reads.
2. Sure you don't. But that isn't what a townie thinks. A townie who wants to accomplish something and work with other towns people would at least be trying to engage me in discussion. You're just telling me wrong I am wrong, not going into ANY depth at all to explain that opinion.
3. I'm not following. What does this mean?
In post 3508, Untrod Tripod wrote:this is shitty and illogical and I am willing to admit that, but I'm gonna go ahead and do it anyway when we have actual options that aren't just a vanity wagon for me THAT I AM WILLING TO LYNCH is vote for a vanity wagon
I've explained this numerous times. I THINK YOU'RE SCUM. I think that of *all* the lynch candidates today that *you* are more scummy than any of them. I am going to fight for your lynch.
I gave everyone else parameters for a lynch because I knew it was going to be an uphill battle to get you lynched but I specifically DID NOT WANT a lynch on a person who was not already discussed today. I admitted you are an exception to the rule but the only reason is because *I* think you're scum. Yes, that is selfish and egotistical but no one else in this game has really given me any indication that they ACTUALLY CARE about who gets lynched today. Given that, I am MORE THAN OKAY to push people around/bruise some people to get you lynched or at least prevent another lurker lynch.
My parameters have LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU AS A SCUM READ OR MY BASIS FOR SCUM READING YOU. Yet here you are. Choosing to try and discredit me rather than talk about things.
In post 3509, ActionDan wrote: In post 3506, Oversoul wrote:I'm trying to get in good by shitting on their play? Ok.
I only want UT's lynch, Dan. When you put it that way, yeah it does look shitty and illogical.
i think I should clarify that I am only limiting the options because we are so close to deadline and this day has largely been inefficient. If a lynch does land on one of those five, at least that restores some efficiency to the game. Yes UT death makes the game less efficient but I think he is scum and don't want another "let's settle and vote some random dude" lynch. The list also forestalls that type of activity so in general I think it is pro-town to do at a time like this
I think a good thing to do would be at least take a look at Espe. (And also, like an opinion on me for completion)
Ok. I'll look into Espeonage later today.
I think you're town although I'm not entirely sure how strong I feel about that. I disliked your early game when I was reading it, but I never fancied your style of play even when I was more active. It always felt scummy to me. I didn't like your Espeonage case because it seemed more like "pay attention to me! I'm doing town things" rather than you wanting to analyze Espeonage's play.
That said, I thought your Singer analysis was a step in the right direction and that your conversations with me are fairly town. I do think that this is a bit of a recency issue though (recency is also why I think some people voted for TSO despite him having a fairly strong early town game).
