Ok wow, a lot of stuff has happened since I last posted.
In post 41, Keyser Söze wrote:
I like the aggression here. Moz has gone for the kill and hasn't flowered it up with an over-worded explanation.
-Do you think his aggressiveness is a townread, or are you just approving of it in general? If it is a townread, do you think scum wouldn't be aggressive?
-Again, is over-worded explanations and analysis' scumtells, or do you just like how Moz is being straightforward?
In post 52, aronagrundy wrote:Well I've just wanted to get a wagon going honestly.
That said 51 is bad. Why would scum!dogwatch be resisting town!fire's wagon at this stage in the game?
Do you think any resistance to a wagon is scummy? If so, can you elaborate why?
In post 100, mozamis wrote:aorngrundy's answers seem honest.
dogwatch looks like nervous scum.
What aspect of Arona's answers makes you think they are honest?
In post 120, aronagrundy wrote:VOTE: eddie cane
His case on shadow seems opportunistic. And he basically just repeats what others have said.
Do you disagree with any of shadows arguments? If so, what are your reasons/counterarguments? If not, how is it opportunistic?
In post 121, aronagrundy wrote:
Eh it's part because he seems experienced, part because I can see why he's focusing on dogwatch. A 180 now on my part but I can see the "inexperienced scum getting towncred" logic about dog.
So you admit to doing a 180 yourself, but are scumreading fire for his 180? Care to explain the contradiction?
In post 123, FireScreamer wrote:
If someone has pointed out the logical flaws in someone's posts and you agree with it, why shouldn't you vote them?
Are you saying there will never be a situation where you agree with a scum? Do you think you should follow any reads made by those you believe to be town, or come to your own conclusions? How alignment-indicative do you think flaws in logic are, considering this game is mostly based on discussion and judgement?
Can you go into any more detail? What elements of it are scummy?
Where and how?