Self-Meta for Null Tells

[Plotinus]

I agree that pointing out something as null is beneficial. I think "I'm always like this" is a valid response to attack.

[Plotinus]

You don't have to agree with them just because they say something's null for them. It's not a get out of scumreading free card. It's okay to reply with "I still think you're scum". But I don't think it's scummy to say "yeah I do that every game that's just who I am".

They're saying it's null, which means they do it as both alignments, which means they could still be scum or they could be town after all.

[Plotinus]

Perhaps they are. What matters is that they think, or want you to think, that it's a null tell for them. So you can either do some legwork to find out whether it's really null, or you can continue scumreading them based on deeper things -- motivation, how they're affecting the game state -- rather than surface level stuff (which is usually the kind of things that people claim are null for them anyway).

For example: I wall post a lot. I can't help it very much, even when I'm trying to be brief. I wall post as town and I wall post as scum and I wall post as 3rd party. The fact that I'm wall posting doesn't mean very much. Saying I'm town because I wouldn't be efforting if I were scum will make me suspicious if I think you have a reason to know better. Saying I'm scum because I'm writing too many words will piss me off. Saying I'm 3rd party for walling will make me wonder why you're 3rd party hunting instead of scumhunting

What you need to do is look at what i'm saying. How am I affecting the game state? What am I trying to accomplish with the post that I have written? Is the wall post a town wall or a scum wall? Saying "it's too many words, must be [alignment]" is lazy and you'll only be accidentally correct, and it makes your argument weaker because there will be other players who have seen me do it as the opposite alignment to what you're suggesting I am.

"They consistently derailed scum wagons onto town even when there was a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest the person was guilty" is a good argument for me being scum and will convince people to vote me.

"They wrote a lot of words but I didn't read them" is a meaningless statement.

[Plotinus]

like if you say "in post 1337, Plotinus looked like they were really reluctant to their buddy" nobody is ever going to say "looking reluctant to bus people is a null tell for me. i do it as both alignments."

And if you say "in post 666, Plotinus posted a kitten picture so they're probably scum" then i'll probably reply with:





pedit: it is, yeah. I used that example specifically because people have attacked me from that angle in a bunch of games (as both alignments)