In post 419, Kasumeat wrote:My play is similar in that it's aggressive, guileless, and I push people who do scummy things. It's mostly methodical but with occasional outbursts of emotion, mostly when I get pushed by terrible cases or think I've caught scum.
Have you had such an outburst yet? If not, then I hope you do because it should help me read you. (I'm only unsure because I don't know what you consider an emotional outburst)
In post 420, Kasumeat wrote:And honestly that's enough of this 1v1, it's distracting from the big picture which is making sure we don't take your incredibly scummy advice by no lynching
It's not a 1v1 to me. I'm not that confident that you're scum; I'm trying to sort you. I don't know what you're trying to do.
In post 421, Kasumeat wrote:Here is a question to everyone: Realeo is 100% lying about not advocating for a no-lynch. Does this bother you? Why or why not?
No, because it's not scum-motivated. If Realeo is scum, the best result for him is to lynch any player not of his faction.
In post 425, Something_Smart wrote:No, because it's not scum-motivated. If Realeo is scum, the best result for him is to lynch any player not of his faction.
And for that matter, how do you know with 100% certainty his motivation?
Except that we've got a short list of people who might be lynched, and none of them is especially close to a lynch. (With possible exception of Ari, but he was voting Ari for a while. Also partner speculation Day 1 is a bad idea in general, even worse in a 13-player game with 2-person scumteams.)
In post 421, Kasumeat wrote:Here is a question to everyone: Realeo is 100% lying about not advocating for a no-lynch. Does this bother you? Why or why not?
No, because it's not directly in his faction's favor as scum. If Realeo is scum, the best result for him is to lynch any player not of his faction.
I wrote "scum-motivated" when I meant "in his scum faction's favor" because writing "pro-scum" would be confusing with two scumteams. Then I noticed my error and corrected it.
So for God's sake will you stop jumping to conclusions?
Also for the record, your scumhunting is extremely naive. It assumes that scum are going to make themselves easy to hunt by doing things like blatantly contradicting themselves.
Scum don't do that any more than town. If you want to find scum you actually have to look past what someone is saying and analyze WHY they're saying it. It isn't easy, and if you think you've caught an entire scumteam already you're almost certainly wrong. (And I'm not just saying that because I'm on most of the scumteams you've posited so far; I think most players will agree with me on this.)
In post 437, Something_Smart wrote:Also for the record, your scumhunting is extremely naive. It assumes that scum are going to make themselves easy to hunt by doing things like blatantly contradicting themselves.
Scum don't do that any more than town. If you want to find scum you actually have to look past what someone is saying and analyze WHY they're saying it. It isn't easy, and if you think you've caught an entire scumteam already you're almost certainly wrong. (And I'm not just saying that because I'm on most of the scumteams you've posited so far; I think most players will agree with me on this.)
Why am I scumhunting all of a sudden and not scum pushing an agenda?
In post 437, Something_Smart wrote:Also for the record, your scumhunting is extremely naive. It assumes that scum are going to make themselves easy to hunt by doing things like blatantly contradicting themselves.
Scum don't do that any more than town. If you want to find scum you actually have to look past what someone is saying and analyze WHY they're saying it. It isn't easy, and if you think you've caught an entire scumteam already you're almost certainly wrong. (And I'm not just saying that because I'm on most of the scumteams you've posited so far; I think most players will agree with me on this.)
Here is the motivation behind this post: You know that I'm legitimately scumhunting and want to discredit me. Now, in a multiball game by itself, that doesn't 100% clear me as town, BUT it's contrary to the narrative you've been pushing which is that I'm scum with an agenda. You believe that I believe in my case on you, which is correct.
I never said I was completely sure that you're scum pushing an agenda. Even if that were true, it still could have changed. You're very likely scumhunting me here but you're doing it in a horrible way.
"The debate on whether short multi postings or a long wall of post is good or not is like a debate on gun control--we would never understand each other and we have to make peace with it." -Realeo
In post 421, Kasumeat wrote:Here is a question to everyone: Realeo is 100% lying about not advocating for a no-lynch. Does this bother you? Why or why not?
It's kind of strange for sure. I agree with Ari that he didn't really advocate but he did make a case for it and it seemed like he wanted a no vote. After it was explained that it was a bad idea he denied ever pushing for it (even if it was only a slight push). I'm not really sure why he did that since if he changed his mind based on the conversation that came after his vote he could have just said that. That said, while it is strange I think it would be a bit of a bold move for scum to make.
