Mini 1717 Alfred Hitchcock UPick [GAME OVER]

[pistachi0n]

@ Davsto, Pistachion, and Cataphant

:

Can you post a list of your reads?

Town--Concrete Angels, Lying Cat, Wingback, Thor
Scum--Davesto, Hecatia, farside

[Wingback]

@ Davsto, Pistachion, and Cataphant

:

Can you post a list of your reads?

Town--Concrete Angels, Lying Cat, Wingback, Thor
Scum--Davesto, Hecatia, farside

Can you post explanations for your reads? And I'd like thoughts on all players, not just a few. Arrange them in an order from town to scum if you will.

[Lying Cat]

Your pushes being lackluster and for Smurfy reasons is about as alignment indicative as it gets from you. But what really takes the cake is the hypocrisy. You were yelling at me for voting you and asking other people questions while not actually doing anything about my vote while YOU were voting Ved and asking other people questions while not actually doing anything about your vote.

There is zero hypocrisy from me - I made it very explicitly clear that my issue was single vote wagons - which I was never part of.

So you are either lying and intentionally misleading, or are too dense to understand the difference between a single and multiple vote wagon and why I would have an issue with one moreso than another.

Which is it?

Hmmm. Your issue with single vote wagons is that they are useless and unlikely to go anywhere, correct? And I'm saying your vote was useless and unlikely to go anywhere. I don't see a purpose in saying "Yeah, other people were voting on the wagon with me" when my issue is hypocrisy in intentions, not hypocrisy in words. Unless you'd like to argue that your vote was useful and likely to actually lead to something?

[Lying Cat]

Only because he asked me to support my vote. When people ask me stuff I provide.

News to me. Let me go find all of the places I asked you to convince me to vote someone. Or any of the games where people asked you to read the thread after you replaced in. Hell, AFAIK, let me go find any of your games at all.

Now stop talking out of your ass.

[Hecatia Lapislazuli]

I actually missed those questions (I kinda skimmed that wall sorry)

Why are you more interested in assauging Cataphant's read on you as "playstyle" rather than digging into their motivation for making that read? No interest in why he found your aggression "weird" or whether he sees any scum motive there or is just making stuff up?

A lot of people tend to scumread my playstyle because it's very aggresive and finds suspicion on almost everything (Although i've tried toning it down over time), I figured that was the case due to their post, and it didnt look like any other way to me.

Who has Farside tunneled on? In fact, I don't recall a single scumread she had.

Hmm...
Actually you have a point and i don't really remember, i haven't been paying as much attention to this game as i'd like to however.

The other points were for notty's posts so i'll let him reply to those.

Also yes, both me and notty disagree about Davsto and i pointed out my reasons for thinking he's town, but apparently Davsto only cares about notty's scumread on him. I wonder whether that says anything about him, and I hope i just didn't find a Saki clone *shrug*
~Sakura

[Vedith]

Prodge.

I was going to do a catch up last night but I had something come up.
Fridays are always bad for me, but I'll be on once I can tonight to do so.

[Thor665]

Thor I think this more of a matter of ETL being a Smurfhole than alignment indicative, convince me?

Since I'm voting Ank and didn't call Concrete scummy for being rude - convince you of what?

Hmmm. Your issue with single vote wagons is that they are useless and unlikely to go anywhere, correct?

That is correct - but your issue holds the belief that a 2 vote (second largest wagon at the time) wagon is the same as a one vote silent for many pages wagon (since RVS, basically) are equal in my mind for it to be hypocrisy.
They are not equal in my mind, and nothing I said indicated as such.
What I'm asking you to defend is the hypocrisy issue.
If your simple issue is "Thor, I also find your vote useless" I suppose we can debate that (I will note, since then, I angled my vote somewhere quite different in line with my apparent mental concept of optimal voting as expressed, while you are still diddling about and, as far as I can tell, derp lying to my face)

I don't see a purpose in saying "Yeah, other people were voting on the wagon with me" when my issue is hypocrisy in intentions, not hypocrisy in words. Unless you'd like to argue that your vote was useful and likely to actually lead to something?

My vote was more useful than yours.
At the time it had been placed had more use than yours.
And has since been moved to a wagon with more use than yours.
Yes - I would argue that.

What I'm asking you to defend is the claim of hypocrisy - you seem to be shifting to "similar to hypocrisy in a general theme, but not quite hypocrisy" am I correct in that?
Insomuch as your raised issue is now being reworked to "Your vote was useless, so whether or not mine was useless for different reasons you're not allowed to call it out" <-- is that about right?
I disagree with that premise, but is that your raised issue?

Only because he asked me to support my vote. When people ask me stuff I provide.

News to me. Let me go find all of the places I asked you to convince me to vote someone. Or any of the games where people asked you to read the thread after you replaced in. Hell, AFAIK, let me go find any of your games at all.

Wow.
Are you having an argument with me about things that are not about alignment but about a personal issue with how I play?
Let's run these down.

1. Asking me to talk you into who to vote when I want to understand who and why you want to vote someone is "slightly" different than being asked "why are you voting someone" especially when I'd already explained why I was voting Vedith quite clearly - unless you weren't reading gak. I don't even get the issue here - you claimed to be aware of my presented case, so why were you asking for it to be repeated?

2. Demanding that I read the game and being told why I won't is a request and a provided answer - whether or not it is the answer you want is another matter. Being asked to advance your case or move to what you consider a better case and being told "why don't you tell me who to vote" is a reply - but it is a dodge and abdication of responsibility - therefore it is not valid to what is, in effect, push a top functional scumread of yours instead of sitting silent on a dead wahgon.

3. Feel free to search my games to find me refusing to state my top scumread, reasons for voting them, a desire to advance the L-1 lynch condition of Day 1, and an annoyance at people sitting on no votes or 1 vote wagons while doing nothing. I am suuuuure you'll find a lot of evidence to back your hypocrisy claim.[/sarcasm and attitude of ownership towards weak attack]

Whassup?

[massive]

Ank & Wingback -- let's work together on this? Can we agree a lynch target between the three of us?

Hecatia -- who's the scum on Ank's wagon?

( as of last vote count -- Ankamius - 4 (The Bulge, Vedith, Thor665, Hecatia Lapislazuli) )

[Lying Cat]

Hmmm. Your issue with single vote wagons is that they are useless and unlikely to go anywhere, correct?

That is correct - but your issue holds the belief that a 2 vote (second largest wagon at the time) wagon is the same as a one vote silent for many pages wagon (since RVS, basically) are equal in my mind for it to be hypocrisy.
They are not equal in my mind, and nothing I said indicated as such.
What I'm asking you to defend is the hypocrisy issue.
If your simple issue is "Thor, I also find your vote useless" I suppose we can debate that (I will note, since then, I angled my vote somewhere quite different in line with my apparent mental concept of optimal voting as expressed, while you are still diddling about and, as far as I can tell, derp lying to my face)

I am flat out saying that your wagon was useless and not likely going anywhere. I am flat out saying that you were doing the same questioning from the sidelines while not actually changing your vote that I was doing. I am stating that your stated issue with my behavior is bullsmurf, and that "yeah, but there was someone else voting with me" is disingenuous. If you'd like to argue that yours is a prettier shade of grey than mine, then have at it, but I dislike being forced to define terms.

I don't see a purpose in saying "Yeah, other people were voting on the wagon with me" when my issue is hypocrisy in intentions, not hypocrisy in words. Unless you'd like to argue that your vote was useful and likely to actually lead to something?

My vote was more useful than yours.
At the time it had been placed had more use than yours.
And has since been moved to a wagon with more use than yours.
Yes - I would argue that.

What I'm asking you to defend is the claim of hypocrisy - you seem to be shifting to "similar to hypocrisy in a general theme, but not quite hypocrisy" am I correct in that?
Insomuch as your raised issue is now being reworked to "Your vote was useless, so whether or not mine was useless for different reasons you're not allowed to call it out" <-- is that about right?
I disagree with that premise, but is that your raised issue?

No it wasn't. Your vote was on a dying wagon. A bad dying wagon. And no. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. You were criticizing me for a behavior that you yourself were engaged in, calling it useless and scummy. More to the point, both of us had roughly the same presence in thread without our votes, and yet what I was doing still ranks as useless.

On the other note, let's talk about where your vote is now. Do you disagree with my perceived reason for you Ank vote? If so, what was your reason for your Ank vote?

Only because he asked me to support my vote. When people ask me stuff I provide.

News to me. Let me go find all of the places I asked you to convince me to vote someone. Or any of the games where people asked you to read the thread after you replaced in. Hell, AFAIK, let me go find any of your games at all.

Wow.
Are you having an argument with me about things that are not about alignment but about a personal issue with how I play?
Let's run these down.

1. Asking me to talk you into who to vote when I want to understand who and why you want to vote someone is "slightly" different than being asked "why are you voting someone" especially when I'd already explained why I was voting Vedith quite clearly - unless you weren't reading gak. I don't even get the issue here - you claimed to be aware of my presented case, so why were you asking for it to be repeated?

2. Demanding that I read the game and being told why I won't is a request and a provided answer - whether or not it is the answer you want is another matter. Being asked to advance your case or move to what you consider a better case and being told "why don't you tell me who to vote" is a reply - but it is a dodge and abdication of responsibility - therefore it is not valid to what is, in effect, push a top functional scumread of yours instead of sitting silent on a dead wahgon.

3. Feel free to search my games to find me refusing to state my top scumread, reasons for voting them, a desire to advance the L-1 lynch condition of Day 1, and an annoyance at people sitting on no votes or 1 vote wagons while doing nothing. I am suuuuure you'll find a lot of evidence to back your hypocrisy claim.[/sarcasm and attitude of ownership towards weak attack]

Whassup?

No, I actually don't take issue with any of those things. I do them myself in fact. I'm taking offense at you talking out of your ass to deflect questions. Which, actually, I do myself, too. Only I do that last bit mostly as scum.

1. Is it your assertion that your presented case on Vedith was the reason you were voting him until your vote changed, and that you had no additional case or reasons? Because I think your case on Vedith was gak.

2. I made no secret of the fact that I didn't particularly have someone I wanted to vote at the time. That'd be part of the reason for asking people who they think is scummy and why, to weigh those responses and decide who is or is not vote worthy. If you can't understand that, you may be playing the wrong game.

3. Nah, I know enough about your modus operandi to not need to search your games. I do have a question for you. What about the Vedith wagon was: stating your top scumread, reasons for voting them, or meaningfully working to advance the L-1 lynch condition of Day 1? Cause that'd be my problem here. I don't believe Vedith was your top scumread at the time. I can't believe town you held the vote there for so long on such shaky ground when you obviously had other suspisions, and you were sitting on a wagon that was obviously going no where.

[Thor665]

I am stating that your stated issue with my behavior is bullsmurf, and that "yeah, but there was someone else voting with me" is disingenuous. If you'd like to argue that yours is a prettier shade of grey than mine, then have at it, but I dislike being forced to define terms.

No it wasn't. Your vote was on a dying wagon. A bad dying wagon. And no. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. You were criticizing me for a behavior that you yourself were engaged in, calling it useless and scummy. More to the point, both of us had roughly the same presence in thread without our votes, and yet what I was doing still ranks as useless.

I got off the wagon after death - as opposed to still sitting there with my thumb up my butt - as you appeared contented to do with your vote on me.
No, you are stretching for the hypocrisy call.
And even if you think it's hypocritical and that I consider them identical situations - it hardly raises an actual valid issue with me not being willing to justify where you should move to when I asked you to move or start pushing. Nor why you were asking me to explain a case you were aware I'd already explained (an issue you didn't deem worthy of addressing even though I asked you about it).

On the other note, let's talk about where your vote is now. Do you disagree with my perceived reason for you Ank vote?

Dunno - to the best of my awareness all you have offered is "it sucks".
Are you seriously asking me to address that? Don't be a dick.
If not - hat was your assessment?

If so, what was your reason for your Ank vote?

The way he responded to Vedith offering up a case on him was to point out how townish Vedith was.
I basically never see that reaction from anyone - no one agrees with a case made on them, because either they're scum and defending or town and know it's wrong.
I see it as more likely to be scum trying to act town than town suddenly deciding the case on them is good.

What are your thoughts on Ank?

1. Is it your assertion that your presented case on Vedith was the reason you were voting him until your vote changed, and that you had no additional case or reasons? Because I think your case on Vedith was gak.

Yes, I am taking the shocking stance that the case I offered on Vedith is, indeed, my case.
That is actually, even if it's a "Gak case" a more logical presumption then that I was just making up stuff as a joke and had a hidden real case that you needed to ask me about to hear.
Seriously?

2. I made no secret of the fact that I didn't particularly have someone I wanted to vote at the time. That'd be part of the reason for asking people who they think is scummy and why, to weigh those responses and decide who is or is not vote worthy. If you can't understand that, you may be playing the wrong game.

If you have no scum reads Day 1, you should sheep a town read.
If you have no reads at all Day 1 you should vote a wagon with activity just to add pressure while asking questions to develop reads.
Which of those statements do you disagree with via your understanding of the game?

3. Nah, I know enough about your modus operandi to not need to search your games.

So we agree that, whether you like my play or not, it's not alignment indicative what you're digging at me over?
because otherwise - what are you on about?

I do have a question for you. What about the Vedith wagon was: stating your top scumread, reasons for voting them, or meaningfully working to advance the L-1 lynch condition of Day 1? Cause that'd be my problem here.

Um - I don't follow.
By voting him, I called him my top scumread.
I gave reasons for voting him.
I added to a sudden snap wagon that had an assured chance to advance to L-1 moreso than any other current wagon at that point.

Even if you disagree and think I'm wrong - it's clear that I was voting someone while calling them scummy and adding to a wagon, so even if you think i did it sloppily, gakkily, and in a weak-arse manner; I do appear to be trying to be aggressive with my vote and push a wagon. So...?

I don't believe Vedith was your top scumread at the time.

So?

I can't believe town you held the vote there for so long on such shaky ground when you obviously had other suspisions

Nothing about my play in any other game should lead to this conclusion.

and you were sitting on a wagon that was obviously going no where.

And moved off it shortly after it dismantled.

[Thor665]

@Lying Cat

What are you even complaining about?

What I'm getting from that back and forth is "I knwo Thor plays bad, but I don't think he plays *this* bad, and I needed him to explain something he'd already explained because I think he was lying about his reason as town/scum because it was a weaker reason then I'd expect from him as town/scum"

Like - I really don't even understand where you're going.
You seem to just be needling me awkwardly while not actually showing why anything you're bringing up is different from a playstyle issue.

Am I wrong?

[Ankamius]

Town =/= correct.

[Thor665]

Yes, I basically just said that.
Unless you're agreeing with me?

[Ankamius]

The way he responded to Vedith offering up a case on him was to point out how townish Vedith was.
I basically never see that reaction from anyone - no one agrees with a case made on them, because either they're scum and defending or town and know it's wrong.
I see it as more likely to be scum trying to act town than town suddenly deciding the case on them is good.

You're assuming that I'm agreeing with the case. My point is that he's not scum manufacturing a case; I believe he's legitimately trying to scumhunt. There's a huge difference there.

[Thor665]

So your first instinct on seeing a case from him was to go, he's wrong, but, man, how obvious he's scumhunting what with those wrong conclusions I can see and understand the town and not scum thought process?

I don't really buy that, I have to say.

[Ankamius]

You don't know me very well.

[Thor665]

This is true - can you link to examples of you reacting this way as town before?

[Ankamius]

Can't right now since I'm at work.

It shouldn't be difficult to see how I respond to pressure since its generally the same across all my town games and it shows up in almost all of them.

[Thor665]

Clearly you don't know me - I'm incredibly lazy

If you are refusing to pull it up yourself, let me know. Otherwise I am content to vote you and wait.

[Lying Cat]

Spoiler: Walls for the Wall God (A back and forth with Thor)

No it wasn't. Your vote was on a dying wagon. A bad dying wagon. And no. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. You were criticizing me for a behavior that you yourself were engaged in, calling it useless and scummy. More to the point, both of us had roughly the same presence in thread without our votes, and yet what I was doing still ranks as useless.

I got off the wagon after death - as opposed to still sitting there with my thumb up my butt - as you appeared contented to do with your vote on me.
No, you are stretching for the hypocrisy call.
And even if you think it's hypocritical and that I consider them identical situations - it hardly raises an actual valid issue with me not being willing to justify where you should move to when I asked you to move or start pushing. Nor why you were asking me to explain a case you were aware I'd already explained (an issue you didn't deem worthy of addressing even though I asked you about it).

Ok. 418 you mention there are many places you are poking that have support. ETL asked you to vote her. Your wagon was dead. Why did you not move your vote?

On the other note, let's talk about where your vote is now. Do you disagree with my perceived reason for you Ank vote?

Dunno - to the best of my awareness all you have offered is "it sucks".
Are you seriously asking me to address that? Don't be a dick.
If not - hat was your assessment?

I think that it sucks largely because there was no stated reasons (or indeed, anything I saw as a valid reason.) In 551 I clearly addressed your push as being a reaction to Ank defending Vedith. In a post I apparently didn't end up making (which is my fault and I retract the issue) I asked you if the extent of your case was that Ank was defending a townread.

If so, what was your reason for your Ank vote?

The way he responded to Vedith offering up a case on him was to point out how townish Vedith was.
I basically never see that reaction from anyone - no one agrees with a case made on them, because either they're scum and defending or town and know it's wrong.
I see it as more likely to be scum trying to act town than town suddenly deciding the case on them is good.

What are your thoughts on Ank?

I've had that reaction before as both alignments. The logical opposite to your assertion is that everyone who thinks you are scum must certainly be scum. Which is laughable.

I think Ank is probably town as of right now. I didn't see anything in his ISO to justify the amount of pressure he's currently under, which is usually a slight situational towntell at this point in the game.

1. Is it your assertion that your presented case on Vedith was the reason you were voting him until your vote changed, and that you had no additional case or reasons? Because I think your case on Vedith was gak.

Yes, I am taking the shocking stance that the case I offered on Vedith is, indeed, my case.
That is actually, even if it's a "Gak case" a more logical presumption then that I was just making up stuff as a joke and had a hidden real case that you needed to ask me about to hear.
Seriously?

You'd be surprised how often I see people keep reasons close to their chest, for good or ill. But do you dispute that at [p]418[/p] in the thread you had stronger scumreads with more viable wagons? Why did you cling to the Vedith case so long?

2. I made no secret of the fact that I didn't particularly have someone I wanted to vote at the time. That'd be part of the reason for asking people who they think is scummy and why, to weigh those responses and decide who is or is not vote worthy. If you can't understand that, you may be playing the wrong game.

If you have no scum reads Day 1, you should sheep a town read.
If you have no reads at all Day 1 you should vote a wagon with activity just to add pressure while asking questions to develop reads.
Which of those statements do you disagree with via your understanding of the game?

Both, actually, but mostly the second. If you don't have any reads, you do what you need to do to develop them or you replace out because you're obviously not playing the game. Voting blindly is counterproductive. Even if you have scumreads, it's sometimes worth more to engage them without a vote.

3. Nah, I know enough about your modus operandi to not need to search your games.

So we agree that, whether you like my play or not, it's not alignment indicative what you're digging at me over?
because otherwise - what are you on about?

Because I've never seen you cling to a nonindicative case to the exclusion of actual scumreads before, and it's making me think you're scum.

I do have a question for you. What about the Vedith wagon was: stating your top scumread, reasons for voting them, or meaningfully working to advance the L-1 lynch condition of Day 1? Cause that'd be my problem here.

Um - I don't follow.
By voting him, I called him my top scumread.
I gave reasons for voting him.
I added to a sudden snap wagon that had an assured chance to advance to L-1 moreso than any other current wagon at that point.

Even if you disagree and think I'm wrong - it's clear that I was voting someone while calling them scummy and adding to a wagon, so even if you think i did it sloppily, gakkily, and in a weak-arse manner; I do appear to be trying to be aggressive with my vote and push a wagon. So...?

At first, sure. But you stopped fighting for your lynch. You treated others, particularly Farside and CA, with much more suspicion than you treated Vedith, and your stated reason of him lurking while being active elsewhere was resolved.

I don't believe Vedith was your top scumread at the time.

So?

So, the stated intention and the perceived intention do not align. Meaning, likely, that you are scum.

I can't believe town you held the vote there for so long on such shaky ground when you obviously had other suspisions

Nothing about my play in any other game should lead to this conclusion.

and you were sitting on a wagon that was obviously going no where.

And moved off it shortly after it dismantled.

[/quote]

Are you telling me that as town, you have a habit of pursuing weaker scumreads over strong ones? Because that's like, the opposite of what I've come to expect of you. You're confident and outspoken (at least on site) and you have no problems with doggedly going after whoever you think is scummiest. Or am I confused? Also:

Vedith - 2 (Thor665, Cataphant)

Vedith - 2 (Thor665, Cataphant)

Roughly five days, only paying attention to Vote Counts, is shortly after?

I suppose the meat and potatoes of this post is:

Thor, how has your read of farside changed throughout the thread? Specifically, what was it at post 418 and what is it now?

[Lying Cat]

@Lying Cat

What are you even complaining about?

What I'm getting from that back and forth is "I knwo Thor plays bad, but I don't think he plays *this* bad, and I needed him to explain something he'd already explained because I think he was lying about his reason as town/scum because it was a weaker reason then I'd expect from him as town/scum"

Like - I really don't even understand where you're going.
You seem to just be needling me awkwardly while not actually showing why anything you're bringing up is different from a playstyle issue.

Am I wrong?

Yes, you are. I don't think Thor plays bad. I think Thor plays a hard and fast aggressive game that leaves little for him to be read on. I also think that Thor is misrepresenting his reads, which makes the most sense from scum-Thor either attempting to forge or hide connections between him and other players.

[Thor665]

Ok. 418 you mention there are many places you are poking that have support. ETL asked you to vote her. Your wagon was dead. Why did you not move your vote?

Because I was not particularly of the belief that anyone would sheep my stated issues with ETL (note that, to my awareness, no one besides ETL even noted them as worthwhile issues)
Also, I liked how Vedith was feeling pressure to contribute, and was curious to see where the wagon noise about me being scummy for my vote would go.
Why do you think town Thor would have accepted the invitation?
Because if you don't - this is a pointless question.
I am suspecting it is pointless, because you admit that I present as stubborn and convinced I am right - which means I was convinced that my vote was better served elsewhere or else I would have already been voting Concrete. So, you already understand that town Thor either would have already been doing it, or would have a reason for not doing it - so...seriously, where is this going?

I've had that reaction before as both alignments. The logical opposite to your assertion is that everyone who thinks you are scum must certainly be scum. Which is laughable.

If you think that I didn't explain the issue clearly. Allow me to re-parse.

Vedith makes a case on Ank.
Ank holds it up as an example of how town Vedith is.
To have this belief, theoretically, Ank would need to look at the scumhunting and see logic and town intent.
But, at the same point, being town, Ank should be well aware that Vedith is wrong or using poor logic.
Sure, maybe he thinks Vedith is town for days - but he shouldn't think that a case suggesting he is scum equates to good work for people to see good work and town intent.
It doesn't follow.

But do you dispute that at [p]418[/p] in the thread you had stronger scumreads with more viable wagons?

Yes, I fully dispute that, don't be daft.

Why did you cling to the Vedith case so long?

Which of my "stronger" and "more viable" scumspects and wagons should I have moved to?

Both, actually, but mostly the second. If you don't have any reads, you do what you need to do to develop them or you replace out because you're obviously not playing the game. Voting blindly is counterproductive. Even if you have scumreads, it's sometimes worth more to engage them without a vote.

There is a strong difference between what I'm saying and "vting blindly".
Are you unable to tell that difference?

Because I've never seen you cling to a nonindicative case to the exclusion of actual scumreads before, and it's making me think you're scum.

As I recall I was voting Vedith over voting elsewhere and not in this thread - I know for a fact I have always considered that a scumtell.
So whether or not *YOU* think it's nonindicative - why the hell should that matter for deciding whether I do?
Because I know you can't find me ever claiming it as non-indicative - so...?

It doesn't matter how you read it, it matters how I read it.
And I think you should be aware of that rather important distinction in reading people.
Because your issue, as stated, is utter BS.

I'm intentionally skipping the rest till your final question because I want this point to stand loud and clear.

I suppose the meat and potatoes of this post is:

Thor, how has your read of farside changed throughout the thread? Specifically, what was it at post 418 and what is it now?

Throughout the thread?
I dunno. Started at null and ended up scummy, maybe with some dips in there.
At post 418 judging by post 405 he was on the scum side.
Since then he has flaked out and nothing has changed.

[Thor665]

Yes, you are. I don't think Thor plays bad. I think Thor plays a hard and fast aggressive game that leaves little for him to be read on. I also think that Thor is misrepresenting his reads, which makes the most sense from scum-Thor either attempting to forge or hide connections between him and other players.

I have openly stated in multiple newbie games that you should misrepresent your reads as town when voting for pressure.

So...whut?

[Lying Cat]

I'm splitting this into two posts, because there's really two different concerns here. First your initial behavior and defense thereof. But you weren't putting pressure on Ved at that point. The wagon had already derailed, and you hadn't mentioned him in pages. On the other hand, you were pushing hard at both ETL and farside, but voting neither of them. I'll admit that getting a wagon on ETL would have been difficult, but there was more than enough tacit support for a farside wagon at the time. Your actions support a farside scumread over a Vedith one, but your vote doesn't.

For reference, what is your thought process on why someone posting elsewhere but not here makes them scum?

Also, are you admitting to overstating your read on Vedith and were voting for pressure? Or at least to misrepresenting your reads?

[Lying Cat]

Vedith makes a case on Ank.
Ank holds it up as an example of how town Vedith is.
To have this belief, theoretically, Ank would need to look at the scumhunting and see logic and town intent.
But, at the same point, being town, Ank should be well aware that Vedith is wrong or using poor logic.
Sure, maybe he thinks Vedith is town for days - but he shouldn't think that a case suggesting he is scum equates to good work for people to see good work and town intent.
It doesn't follow.

Is the supposition here that it is impossible to follow a logical progression and be wrong? Or that you cannot see town intent in something that is wrong? In that vein, I notice you have not yet called me scum. What is your read on me?