It kinds of irks me that either everyone else understood these or I actually am confusing and nobody else actually read my posts and brought it up or pointed it out
In post 940, Hoppic wrote: In post 912, Raskolnikov wrote:I scumread redcoyote for his entire post there initially, but then I realized the murph vote which was part of it wasn't actually that bad. I still didn't like red because it read to me that he scumread wgeurts on essentially BS in that post and I still scumread him, but not as much as before since I had misunderstood and sort of jumped to conclusions with the murph vote reasoning.
Could you please explain the misunderstanding to me again, and especially, why we're you embarrassed?
I think that was explained decently already but okay.
1. I read Red's post (
70) and think it's terrible because he scumreads murph and wguerts and I don't see any of his points as valid (and I don't expect IC to screw up analysis that hard).
2. I go back and look at murph again and I don't think red's vote on him is that bad anymore; I thought
60 was innocent as my first impression but on next read I could see how people would dislike it. I didn't scumread murph then but I could see why other people did.
3. Based on that, what seemed like redcoyote quoting what looked like an innocent response and saying it was scummy (which I thought was the case, and it looked scummy af) was actually reasonable and I was mistaken to scumread him on that specifically.
4. Even without the murph vote (which was most of it), I still didn't like red's comments on wgeurts in that post which felt like discrediting wguerts on BS reasoning, and I still scumread red but I was a lot less sure than before.
5. Seeing what looked like an incredibly scummy post and then rereading and seeing I misunderstood parts of it and jumped to conclusions was embarrassing, especially from a personal standpoint since I thought I really caught IC-scum that early and I was on a high and then I saw I fucked up and it wasn't actually clear cut and the self doubt crept in and I switched to seth soon after.
In post 941, Hoppic wrote: In post 913, Raskolnikov wrote:For the record opening up with suspicions on someone which you never follow up on or mention again is actually worse association than nothing. Scum feel compelled to do some distancing out of paranoia whereas ignoring someone entirely is usual if they're a townread.
What are you referring to?
That was in response to you talking about murph/alpaca associations; I was disagreeing that the early posts there are indicative of them not being partners. From my own experience scum more likely than not will throw in a brief mention consciously at some point (usually pointing out something dodgy but not making a big fuss) at a partner and then pretty much never returning to it; in practice I see them too self conscious about associations to completely up ignore reach other usually. Although yeah, it is wifom at this point; in general I only heavily rely on this research if its a big meaty exchange that DISPROVES an association (I think you/murph is essentially impossible for ex.).