Ok I'll read the first page instead of dicking about.
These two posts here read awkwardly. Like, he's trying too hard to be openly scummy and at the same time he's letting everyone know that he is doing it on purpose.
Meta this. Meta that. Meta Everything. Meta is not a good scum-hunting tool. PEOPLE CAN MANIPULATE THEIR META. Stop it. Stop. It. Now.
33 - Reverend you accuse me here of wanting to avoid conflict. I'm going to let this pass because you haven't played with me before, but, if you truly believe this; do you think I'm likely to avoid conflict by hopping to the biggest wagons consistently?
82 - I initially liked this post until I read it a little closer.
Note that you appear to have a problem with Reverend
if his attack on me was serious.
85 - Now, Reverend tells you that his attack on me
was serious
and you completely side-step the issue. You make no comment of his attack on me at all when you clearly had a problem with it in 82 if he was serious. This makes no sense.
88 - However, I do agree with Dannflor that this post looks town on the surface, but when you actually read it, there isn't a whole lot of content. Just a lot of 'could be this, could be that.'
Meta this. Meta that. Meta Everything. Meta is not a good scum-hunting tool. PEOPLE CAN MANIPULATE THEIR META. Stop it. Stop. It. Now.
P.edit - I didnt like his reaction to your "wagon" especially when it wasn't even a wagon yet. Felt like he was reaching too early and didn't feel genuine
Robbed of a scummy for what had to be the best unvote in mafiascum history.
In post 104, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:33 - Reverend you accuse me here of wanting to avoid conflict. I'm going to let this pass because you haven't played with me before, but, if you truly believe this; do you think I'm likely to avoid conflict by hopping to the biggest wagons consistently?
I'm saying it struck me as weird that someone who was happy to wagon hop in RVS would not start a wagon on someone who had done something that you felt was worthy of your displeasure. That made me think you were trying to avoid conflict with me. I'm certainly not expecting you to continue to avoid conflict, whatever your alignment. I just found it odd that was your reaction to my self vote.
In post 103, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:These two posts here read awkwardly. Like, he's trying too hard to be openly scummy and at the same time he's letting everyone know that he is doing it on purpose.
Why is my self vote scummy? Have you ever seen scum self vote first post? Do you see the town motivation in self voting first post?
In post 85, Dannflor wrote:I don't think his wagon fetish and ignoring your self vote is scummy.
He didn't ignore my self vote. He said he should vote me for it but there's no wagon. That's what I felt was weird. Why does town not start a wagon there? Why does town even care if there's an existing wagon or not, especially in RVS?
In post 113, TheReverend wrote:
I'm saying it struck me as weird that someone who was happy to wagon hop in RVS would not start a wagon on someone who had done something that you felt was worthy of your displeasure. That made me think you were trying to avoid conflict with me. I'm certainly not expecting you to continue to avoid conflict, whatever your alignment. I just found it odd that was your reaction to my self vote.
Is there any reason you think I would want to avoid conflict with you as opposed to everybody else in the thread?
In post 113, TheReverend wrote:
Why is my self vote scummy? Have you ever seen scum self vote first post? Do you see the town motivation in self voting first post?
It's the way you did it and what you posted afterwards. You're trying to be overtly scummy whilst explaining that you're being scummy. I see this most likely coming from scum.
No, there is no town motivation in self voting.
Also, if you don't think self voting is scummy, what made you think it would 'give people something to talk about'?
Meta this. Meta that. Meta Everything. Meta is not a good scum-hunting tool. PEOPLE CAN MANIPULATE THEIR META. Stop it. Stop. It. Now.
In post 117, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Is there any reason you think I would want to avoid conflict with you as opposed to everybody else in the thread?
You might not have played with me before, but you know me from the poker forum, and you surely know how tenacious I can be. You certainly know I'm a high content player.
In post 117, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:Also, if you don't think self voting is scummy, what made you think it would 'give people something to talk about'?
Just because I don't think it's scummy, doesn't mean I'm not going to get anything from the reactions. Other people might think it's scummy, or better still, other people might say they think it's scummy while doing a bad job of convincing me of the sincerity of that position.
In post 118, TheReverend wrote:
You might not have played with me before, but you know me from the poker forum, and you surely know how tenacious I can be. You certainly know I'm a high content player.
I can't say I do know this. I certainly would prefer conflict with one person over potentially a whole game's worth of people.
In post 118, TheReverend wrote:
Just because I don't think it's scummy, doesn't mean I'm not going to get anything from the reactions. Other people might think it's scummy, or better still, other people might say they think it's scummy while doing a bad job of convincing me of the sincerity of that position.
Right, so you knew self-voting would be considered scummy?
Is that why you had to make clear you knew it would be scummy before you did it?
Meta this. Meta that. Meta Everything. Meta is not a good scum-hunting tool. PEOPLE CAN MANIPULATE THEIR META. Stop it. Stop. It. Now.
I think you made some decent points in response to my posts, and I agree that I did not have particularly strong scumreads at that point - at this point that would be impressive [if accurate].
The purpose of me posting what I feel could be scummy and what I feel is insufficient [and therefore null] is to hold people accountable. Obviously my comment on Jake was fluff, but he responded explaining why he hasn't posted so far yet. To me, that validates my post about him. I will be scumhunting from the pool of the 12 other players in this game, not only the 3 or 4 who are active, and so I think it is important to hold people accountable for their post count, post length and quality (PB - really not doing a great job here), etc... and not let lurking slide. And obviously I didn't call everyone out for it yet, but as we progress, if I want to see more from someone, I will not hesitate to say so.
I understand being wary of my light reads, but if there is a point in them that you actually disagree with I'd be more than happy to discuss it further.
Regarding my vote on BBT, it was essentially his own logic but applied to what I considered to be an anti-town position. At this point, looking at the vote count, I am not happy with my vote, as I both like BBT's play better and also am wary of my voting companions.
VOTE: unvote
My strongest read right now is on Brain, who has managed to post a lot but without adding any content, and I'd discourage that. At the very least, his behaviour seems quite anti-town.
I expected it to get a reaction. As for being considered "scummy", that depends on who is reacting to it. Scum won't find it scummy because they know I'm not one of them, but they might pretend to find it scummy. Town might or might not find it scummy, and will be honest.