In post 428, BTD6_maker wrote: In post 425, Hopkirk wrote:Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6
383 – Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
421 - Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).
Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.
Why do you think my entrance is more likely to come from scum than Town?
Also, what makes my scumread on Cheeky more likely to be a bus than any other scumread?
Because scum benefits more from a no lynch/low activity. Also because hedging is opportunistic, but that's been covered.
I don't understand your second question. I scumread Cheeky (at this point, haven't caught up with their posts since they decided not to sub out), so that would make it a bus if you're scum. It looks like a bus because it's hedging significantly.
In post 430, BTD6_maker wrote: In post 425, Hopkirk wrote:Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6
383 – Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
421 - Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).
Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.
I would say that this is slightly scummy. It looks a bit like contradiction hunting, which I mentioned before. If someone's case has contradictions, it is more likely that they are simply confused than actively deceiving, but if scum can expose contradictions their case may look solid, as if they have discovered something that reveals the holes in a player's case. Of course, this is very weak. Town can easily do this as well and genuinely think that they have exposed scum. Hopkirk probably isn't intending on actual contradiction hunting. It's a possibility, though, and if Hopkirk is scum they can do this to try to "expose" me.
Like I said, I do not know if this is actually the case. It's just a possibility. This makes Hopkirk slightly more likely to be scum, but not much, which is why I would say that I have a very weak scumread on Hopkirk.
I am analysing these posts (that are voting me) a lot because I find it easier to read people from their interactions and reads on me, and in particular their reasons.
1.) I don't see how I'm contradiction hunting there. The way you describe it sounds like it's an unnecessary focus on trivial things. My comments are based on parts of your play that don't make sense (implicitly inviting an explination of them), or that seem scum motivated. The main difference is a focus on words vs a focus on motivation, and the fact that I'm not looking at any contradictions in words.
2.) If you think i'm 'contradiction hunting' in the way you described then it makes more sense for you to try and clarify what my thought processes are first, to try and work out if it's scum going hard on nothing, or town who've gotten fixated on something minor. I don't see why you'd attack it for being contradiction hunting before actually trying to question the intent, unless you're usually 'contradiction hunting' as an attack/defence/discredit instead of trying to make a better read.
3.) Given my points were in response to an entrance post, you seem to have read them as though I'm laying out a significantly strongest scumread on you than I am. Especially since I implied Cheeky was still a bigger scumread, and I'm still suspicious of North. It seems odd you'd go with the response you did, rather than explaining your thoughts (as your first reaction).
In post 437, BTD6_maker wrote: In post 431, Micc wrote:I moved my vote because your wagon is the biggest wagon of players who I have in my lynch pool and this game desperately needs a meaningful wagon.
Can you explain how Hopkirk's post is contradiction hunting? He didn't use the word contradiction or even compare anything as far as I can tell.
There were two main things I saw as possibly being contradiction hunting. (Of course, the word "contradiction" does not need to be used). Both were very weak, as is normally the nature with this.
The first was essentially that Hopkirk made the point that I expressed a scumread for CheekyTeeky but did not vote. It's not inherently a contradiction (I would rather wait until I had more solid reads before voting) but it did seem as though Hopkirk is trying to make it look like one. Of course, this is weak.
The other was that Hopkirk made the point that I was complaining about inactivity. My post did complain about the inactivity in Open 642, but with regard to this game it was more about the number of replacements.
These are only possibilities, and rather unlikely ones at that. That is why I regard them as being so weak.
@Micc: Do you have any opinion on
424 then? I was wondering whether that contributed to your scumread.
1.) I agree it's pretty weak, but it seemed pretty odd. Generally, I'd expect someone with a scumread to vote that person (unless there were lots of votes on them already, which doesn't apply here).
2.) The point about you complaining about inactivity wasn't an attack, it was something that made me laugh when I read it since it was ironic/funny. The points made after the numbers were a summary of your posts content- not specifically just the bad things.
You're acting far too much like my suspicion was major, as opposed to a lean based on an off opening- which i find more suspicious than the opening itself since that's an odd/self-focused reaction.