1) criteria for scun as a whole aren't a thing. it's a player by player thing. that is literally how the concept of meta works.In post 2508, frog wrote:Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? In order:In post 2480, Eddie Cane wrote:irrelevant bullshit level: 10
saying I'm doing the same things as you and I can't scumread you for themis admitting you're being a scumfuck because I'm intentionally being scummy. good point! and being a hypocrite means jack shit in mafia, I don't care if I shitpost, shitposting and posting one liners isn't the same as attempting to make a constructive catch up and flat our failing because you aren't experienced enough to fake a real catch up. i have lots of posts, you having less doesn't make you scum, but you're attempting to look contributing while doing nothing. your catchup offered nothing productive to the thread as does the test of your content.
that's not what a misrep is, nice buzzwording though.you already acknowledged it was a valid point by saying you answered it earlierso don't try and play the misrep card. i didn't "understand" it, I stopped commenting on it because there were bigger fish to fry. never mind how hard you're peddling me and thor as your strongest scum reads when anyone who isn't a squawking cactus can tell we almost certainly aren't partners. lolz. and advice for the future: next time just fake a 4th scumread so it isn't blatantly obvious you're scum faking a team read and confbiasing it to fit.
I never said I don't want the catchup.show me where I said that. you wanna talk about misrepping? you just openly did it. your catchup was awful, that doesn't even close to equate to the bullshit you're trying to pedal. i never said "scum if you do, scum if you don't" in any world. losing another 30 pages of horrible catchup isn't a big loss, which is true. random snips at random comments followed by disconnected reads is not a good catchup.I've isod lots of players btw, so idk where that line comes from, but sure, keep trying to discredit me. it's not "complete and informative"... scratch that. it's informative. reporting on information instead of analyzing. hey Thor, found a wiki tell for us to use! you said it yourself, it's informative, it's not analytical and stating things about a bunch of people IS fluff.
P-edit: you're getting lynched today.
1) I said the logic of your scumread of me supports the logic of my scumread of you. In other words, if I followed your criteria, I should be scumreading you!
2) I said thatyouresolved the criticism earlier (and even quoted the post where you did so), notme. Shall we count this exchange as one misrep or two?
3) I said, with that comment about 'scum if I do, scum if I don't', that you had judged the catch-up before it was forthcoming. If what I produced was bad and useless and you had already sorted me, then it stands to reason that any more is, at best, superfluous. Maybe saying you do not want the catch-up was a stretch, but you certainly did not enjoy it and you certainly did not need it, which is near enough not wanting it in my eyes.
4) I said 'ISO' where perhaps I meant something more like 'pbpa'. A phrase that might have served the same purpose is 'a post where you tried'.
I think, unless you manage to read a post without misunderstanding and without recourse to the Oxford English Dictionary to produce overfine distinctions to use in your excuses for responses, we had better not engage again. Your posting when irreverent was not enlightening, but it seems that it only gets worse when you begin to expend energy.
2) no?
3) no?
4) that's not what iso means. if you meant something else fine. don't spread your b.s. though.
now for someone who likes big words such as "overfine distinctions" to cover up for critical thinking, try actually understanding how to play mafia at above the level of a 12 year old. maybe next time you'll last past day 2 as scum.
