In post 2264, DarthPunk wrote:
Ugh, its impossible to engage with you when you literally twist and lie about everything.
Here is the progression and I know you are going to have some lies about why this is not really the truth, but for everyone else THIS IS REALLY THE TRUTH.
1.) you hard agree with ninja's post. and say 'reflects my thoughts on the game almost entirely' with the exception implied being the oats read
In post 773, Luca Blight wrote:
499 is brilliant - it reflects my thoughts on the game almost entirely, and offers many insights that I had not yet considered. I've seen scum act far worse than oats this game (perhaps I'm desensitised to rudeness at this point) so I don't necessarily agree that he's town just for being rude, but I generally feel as though his play has been proactive and his pushes haven't lacked conviction. I need to catch up more but will review this slot again.
The read progression on Darth Punk is very natural. I really like the analysis of Dunn and the bit about trying to trap scum into being more active - that puts to rest one of the slight doubts I had after Dann's case highlighted such posts, and I read the passion behind these comments as being sincere. The analysis of Gob and Roden is spot on as well. I was pretty null on Gob before reading this post, but I'm definitely leaning scum on him now following some of the observations made here. I also resonate with the mixed reaction to Vivax - so far I have disagreed or seen flaws in much of what he has said, and yet something about his style of play makes me naturally want to townread him. I will be sure to review Vivax later as well.
Both Dann and Ninja are clear town reads at this point.
2.)Outoforder and I Discuss concerns with the basic failures of logically consistency in that exact post and raise the issue that it 'reflects your thoughts on the game almost entirely' because you have failed to identify and consider the issues in Ninja's post
In post 786, outoforder wrote:
- I can understand your take on Ninja / Roden, however do you think just making a big post makes her town? I mean like... it shouldnt, and i don't see any more reasoning there other than she made a big post.
Well I liked that ninja said she was trying to do something with the activity stuff in that post. I do have a soft spot for big effort posts though.
In post 788, outoforder wrote:
Also do you have any read on Luca Blight and/or Vivax?
As Ninja is your town read, do you think she can have that kind of confidence in her read on Luca, if you can't have a read on Luca? Why?
I liked the last post Luca made about ninja's post, other than that I don't have much thought. Vivax has been making posts that seem weird to me but I wrote it off as playstyle differences.
And sure I don't have to agree with everything someone says to think they are town. I often don't.
Of course you dont, i wouldnt hold that against you.
But like, we've expressed some concerns in Ninja's post (with DP). Like... if Ninja posts like that (makes big posts with a lot of effort) as town, i wouldnt think she would act differently as mafia. For the posters who make wall of texts, it's often small nuances that give them out -- as you can look reasonable by posting 90% truth about other players as long as your vote ends up on someone who isnt mafia.
What we were discussing was:
- Ninja placed Dann on town pile for reasons she probably shouldnt (the real reasons came after she did that)
- Ninja placed Luca in "conf town" position but the reasoning in her post didn't include what she actually said makes Luca "conf town"
- Ninja called me out for conf bias, when that "conf bias" actually meant that i shouldnt know i am town
I find these to be those kind of small nuances that
could make her mafia
. I am not sure of it, but it's definitely something to look into imo.
In a similar sense, in case Ninja is actually town, Luca's "100% agree to that post" doesn't look good to me, because there is DEFINITELY stuff you should not agree with. It's just very easy thing to say as mafia in case you know it's actually a townie who wrote that post.
3.) Dunn agrees with the good point because it was.
In post 793, outoforder wrote:
What we were discussing was:
- Ninja placed Dann on town pile for reasons she probably shouldnt (the real reasons came after she did that)
- Ninja placed Luca in "conf town" position but the reasoning in her post didn't include what she actually said makes Luca "conf town"
- Ninja called me out for conf bias, when that "conf bias" actually meant that i shouldnt know i am town
I didn't have a problem with Ninja's read on Dann. They talk about how they missed the post and then talked about their reads after.
Looking back at 499 they do seem to point to a Luca post they liked and explain their read.
And I don't see where they talk about confirmation bias regarding you.
In post 793, outoforder wrote:
In a similar sense, in case Ninja is actually town, Luca's "100% agree to that post" doesn't look good to me, because there is DEFINITELY stuff you should not agree with. It's just very easy thing to say as mafia in case you know it's actually a townie who wrote that post.
This is a good point.
4.) Much later Luca uses out of context snips of quotes and completely fabricates the historical narrative when ostensibly he is supposed to be 'sorting' implying an open mind.
I'm looking through Dunn's posts now (I'm not finished yet), and I really don't feel great about how he began the game, talking mainly about theory and hardly engaging with anything else. I also didn't like this:
In post 793, outoforder wrote:
In a similar sense, in case Ninja is actually town, Luca's "100% agree to that post" doesn't look good to me, because there is DEFINITELY stuff you should not agree with. It's just very easy thing to say as mafia in case you know it's actually a townie who wrote that post.
This is a good point.
Because it wasn't a good point, in fact outoforder misread my post as I explicitly said that i disagreed with ninja on things such as the reasoning behind her oats read, and I would expect Dunn, as careful as he has been in this game, to pick up on that if he was genuinely trying to read me in this situation. Especially when Dunn mentioned/implied he only comments on posts he finds worthy. He also does nothing with this - it leads nowhere, and is never mentioned or referenced again, so he couldn't have believed it was that good a point.
It was a good point though.
It can't be a good point when it's provably wrong.
5. Luca is mafia
Here is DP's case on you Luca.
In this case DP says:
- you hard agree with ninja's post. and say
'reflects my thoughts on the game almost entirely'
with the exception implied being the oats read
- multiple people discuss the points Ninja made in her post, and point out there are points why the post shouldn't be agreed with, namely me, DP, Dunnstral at least
- we discuss on how it could make you mafia (before DP's case), that you
agree with the post almost entirely
, why that is possibly a scummy thing to do, because any townie should not do that
- you counter that point with
[...]"outoforder misread my post as I explicitly said that i disagreed with ninja on things such as the reasoning behind her oats read"
Now this is not the point we were discussing. We were discussing entirely other parts of that post. I mean like
'reflects my thoughts on the game almost entirely'
cannot really be considered ONLY as
"i disagreed with ninja on things such as the reasoning behind her oats read"
. It's just simply an "over-townread" on Ninja regarding the situation without better explanation on this. It is true that you are not explicitly "lying", but you have to understand if you say
'reflects my thoughts on the game
almost entirely
'
, you just cannot brush off the other discrepancies of the post just because you had one different read. Which i can fairly see DP thinks you are doing.
You did the similar thing a few times before also.
You literally said:
In post 270, Luca Blight wrote:
I don't resonate with Roden's level of conviction at all here, nor do I think he really believes it himself.
Although it wouldn't surprise me if Oats/Roden is S/S - this whole interaction feels contrived to me.
A bit after that you even enforce the statement with this:
In post 272, Luca Blight wrote:
It's also the second time a seemingly passive player has burst into life and suddenly gone ultra-aggressive, which as I said earlier I read as more likely to come from scum who are having a hard time blending it otherwise and feel the need to create waves.
Doing so against a partner would be a safer route of achieving this.
Outoforder at least comes across as Townie to some extent, which I'm not seeing from Roden yet.
And after this you are questioning Oats on his read or non-read on gob.
What am i supposed to think??? You give every single piece of clue that you're scumreading both Roden and Oats, just to later on say that you didn't do so and you have never said so.
Again, yeah you are not explicitly lying, but whatever you posted in the thread between there that sure seems like that's the thought you had in your head.
Same thing again with your read on Roden as full. You call him out on being defensive, aggressive and potentially power wolfing (i dont care who said that first, you basically did call him out on that). When i question you on "how does being defensive or aggressive make anyone mafia?", you say you never said those things, it was Roden who brought it up. It's very very twisted how you build your posts just to backtrack on them -- again, by not lying, but you give the impression you DEFINITELY think something, and when it's called out you have a way to back off of it. Like here:
In post 457, outoforder wrote:
I am not saying inconsistencies are purely a mafia trait. Regarding Luca's town reads, i don't understand why he posts 5 town reads while saying he doesn't want to post town reads too early,
and also while thinking both Roden and Oats are mafia. Is that his best use of time, rather than idk.. questioning his scumreads or something?
And also when he does that, why does he want Oats to discuss gob??? Like the best situation interaction-wise a townie can get to, is to make mafia tell why another mafia is mafia. :D
Same here with Dann's comment on Dunstrall. It's very easy to see what Dann sees. There is a lot of content in the game so far. Why does Dunstrall think discussing lurkers is the most interesting point of discussion at the time?
You seem to massively contradict yourself from one sentence to another, unless I just don't understand what you're saying here.
I also don't have a strong SR on Oats and never have - just his interaction with Roden seemed off to me. I do, however, read Roden as scum independently.
You seem to be making out like I'm throwing all my chips on Oats and Roden being partners, which isn't the case at all. You're overblowing everything I've said.
In post 270, Luca Blight wrote:
I don't resonate with Roden's level of conviction at all here, nor do I think he really believes it himself.
Although it wouldn't surprise me if Oats/Roden is S/S - this whole interaction feels contrived to me.
You literally said this, so i don't know what else to think other than you seem to be thinking they are or could be mafia with each other.
If you don't believe they are mafia together at this point, why say so?
It was my initial reaction to the interaction. I even used the expression 'it wouldn't surprise me', so why are you trying to frame this as me being convinced that they are scum partners?
This is why I don't think your recent analysis is in good faith - I could see where you were coming from with your opening push, but now it feels like you're nitpicking anything to justify maintaining your read on me.
Please don't do this if youre town. I am trying to understand why you are coming to the conclusions and why you feel the need to post what you post.
I already said i can see your PoV from town perspective regarding Oats/Roden. I also think
it's possible
you are coming from town PoV regarding Dann.
However, you cannot just take one part of a case that's wrong and
because of that only
, try to brush the whole thing away. That's something i find scummy tbh. Take one part of the case where you know you are right and discredit everything else because of it. That's not how it works. I'm here to figure out yours and everyone's alignment, and i am pressing things that i feel like are alignment indicative. If something was not, it doesn't mean the person is not mafia, especially when there are other things that concern me on that person.
I haven't brushed anything away - I literally just said i understood where you were going from initially, which is why I made an effort to present my reads in a more transparent way.
In post 475, outoforder wrote:
Now i would still like you to explain how:
- If you don't "normally" solve by giving townreads at the time, then what made you think to post them just because i said you're not solving (after all that's not even what i meant)?
If you don't think that's good town play for you, why did you decide to do it
, if you're not sure of yourself to give those reads at any level of confidence at that time? Just because i am voting for you, should not be a reason. If someone asked me to do things i don't find helpful doing as town, i wouldn't do it. Why would i?
I've answered that already, and once again just above.
In post 475, outoforder wrote:
- If the above is something you did as town, why do you think Roden is mafia partly because he is being "defensive"? Because i would say the above there is way more "scummy defensive" than what Roden did towards Oats. Like if you believe being defensive is a scummy trait, wouldn't you consider yourself defensive towards my accusation (when there should be no reason for you to be defensive in your mind -- unless
you actually think you are not solving the game
, which you shouldn't as town)
The problem is that you're not reading properly.
I never specifically said Roden was scummy for being defensive, although I do think entering the thread purely to defend yourself is quite scummy, which is what happened initially.
What I said was that most of the things Roden accused oat of, including defensiveness, had also been displayed by Roden himself.
Nowhere have I ever said that being defensive automatically equals scum, because that would be ridiculous. I'm not sure why this even needs to be explained, as it should be obvious?
Like in that post you literally contradicted yourself in one sentence.
Basically, at best you are not doing very good job at being clear in what you think and how it reflects into the thread. When you are called out for your literal words you have written in this game, you say they meant something else. That's a big problem to me.
This is perhaps the most convoluted reason for scumreading someone I've ever encountered. I'm having a hard time following exactly what you're saying, but I'll try my best to respond. Also, Dunn snipped that one part of the post, which he said he agreed with, and it wasn't accurate based on what was said. Darth then immediately jumped on this, despite the fact that I even pointed out to him that Dunn had snipped the post, and if you snip the post then it's a safe assumption that you've done so for a reason - because the rest of the post isn't relevant to your point.
You're actually doing what you're accusing me of here, outoforder, by saying that I 100% agree with something and then taking issue with me pointing out that this wasn't the case, and then saying it's based on other factors. Well, don't misrepresent what I say then, and perhaps this kind of confusion could be avoided in the first place.
First section:
1.
This all stemmed from you saying I '100% agreed' with Ninja's post, which as you've just acknowledged simply wasn't true, and also dismisses the fact I explained my own reasons for agreeing with most of it in the post in question.
2.
Are you aware that I responded to your other points on why you didn't like Ninja's post in 810? I've pointed this out a few times already.
3.
You're right that I wasn't lying, and the fact that Darth keeps making out I am is scummy, because it's twisting what actually happened here.
Regarding Roden:
1.
My immediate reaction was that Roden and oats could be S/S, and I later changed my mind. In fact, I later said I believed the opposite that it definitely wasn't S/S. What is your point, and what I am supposed to have done wrong here? I never claimed I never said they might be S/S, what I said was that I was never absolutely convinced on the idea as you were making out. I don't understand why you still haven't grasped this point, as I've explained it at length already.
2.
Once again, Roden was the one who accused oats of behaviours that he himself was displaying - that was my point. He was scumreading someone for something he was doing himself. A bit like how Darth is supposedly scumreading me for twisting things and lying, when he is doing so himself.
3.
i did not 'contradict myself' in one sentence in the way you're trying to make out - I was adding clarification. I had never specifically before said that Roden was scummy for being defensive, but then i clarified that yes, in the context I did indeed think his defensiveness could be scummy for the reasons provided. That is not to say that *all* defensiveness is scummy, because that obviously isn't the case. This was the point that oats was questioning me about. This was explained in that very quote - the part that you didn't highlight.
In post 3063, outoforder wrote:
Grackaroni can you explain to me why your case on DP makes him mafia?
Because i know if i was mafia i would definitely, in his position, get rid of (or try to) Luca rather than Dunn, since it has already been shown that Luca can and will articulate and at least tries to defend himself (aka has a higher chance of getting townread than Dunnstral). Just "he can continue pushing Luca D2 and that's why he joined Dunn lynch" is not good enough. DP is better than that, he would most likely look much better (being consistent) if he just kept his vote on Luca instead of swapping -- and he would most likely be able to make that prediction as mafia at EoD1.
I'm not going to argue over what I think the ideal play would be for DP to make as mafia. My only goal is to judge whether his posts make sense from a town point of view.
The confidence he feels in his case based off Luca 'lying' about whether the point about his post was good doesn't vibe with me. I could get behind Luca's Dunnstral vote as being a forced read and a bad justification for a vote, but then just write that outright in two sentences rather than writing out this whole history about Ninja's post as irrefutable evidence of Luca being scum and that Luca is trying to cover up this incontrovertible evidence. I feel the reasoning behind this has come almost entirely from you and is the kind of thing you would normally tend to tunnel on.
I realized while re-reading through DP's ISO that I misinterpreted his vote post. In his post he said he had legit reasons to yeet both of them when replying to you asking him to yeet Dunnstral, but he was actually referring to Hu Tao/Luca in the post before that, so that refutes the largest part of the contradiction that I wrote about yesterday.
In post 3063, outoforder wrote:
Grackaroni can you explain to me why your case on DP makes him mafia?
Because i know if i was mafia i would definitely, in his position, get rid of (or try to) Luca rather than Dunn, since it has already been shown that Luca can and will articulate and at least tries to defend himself (aka has a higher chance of getting townread than Dunnstral). Just "he can continue pushing Luca D2 and that's why he joined Dunn lynch" is not good enough. DP is better than that, he would most likely look much better (being consistent) if he just kept his vote on Luca instead of swapping -- and he would most likely be able to make that prediction as mafia at EoD1.
I'm not going to argue over what I think the ideal play would be for DP to make as mafia. My only goal is to judge whether his posts make sense from a town point of view.
The confidence he feels in his case based off Luca 'lying' about whether the point about his post was good doesn't vibe with me. I could get behind Luca's Dunnstral vote as being a forced read and a bad justification for a vote, but then just write that outright in two sentences rather than writing out this whole history about Ninja's post as irrefutable evidence of Luca being scum and that Luca is trying to cover up this incontrovertible evidence. I feel the reasoning behind this has come almost entirely from you and is the kind of thing you would normally tend to tunnel on.
I realized while re-reading through DP's ISO that I misinterpreted his vote post. In his post he said he had legit reasons to yeet both of them when replying to you asking him to yeet Dunnstral, but he was actually referring to Hu Tao/Luca in the post before that, so that refutes the largest part of the contradiction that I wrote about yesterday
.
Does this change your read.
As to the first part, my case was my own, I guess I didn't articulate it was well as OOO did. but it definately came from me, cause the dunn thing bothered me as soon as I saw it in the thread.
"If I wanted your opinion, I'd have told you what it was."
In post 3063, outoforder wrote:
Grackaroni can you explain to me why your case on DP makes him mafia?
Because i know if i was mafia i would definitely, in his position, get rid of (or try to) Luca rather than Dunn, since it has already been shown that Luca can and will articulate and at least tries to defend himself (aka has a higher chance of getting townread than Dunnstral). Just "he can continue pushing Luca D2 and that's why he joined Dunn lynch" is not good enough. DP is better than that, he would most likely look much better (being consistent) if he just kept his vote on Luca instead of swapping -- and he would most likely be able to make that prediction as mafia at EoD1.
I'm not going to argue over what I think the ideal play would be for DP to make as mafia. My only goal is to judge whether his posts make sense from a town point of view.
The confidence he feels in his case based off Luca 'lying' about whether the point about his post was good doesn't vibe with me. I could get behind Luca's Dunnstral vote as being a forced read and a bad justification for a vote, but then just write that outright in two sentences rather than writing out this whole history about Ninja's post as irrefutable evidence of Luca being scum and that Luca is trying to cover up this incontrovertible evidence. I feel the reasoning behind this has come almost entirely from you and is the kind of thing you would normally tend to tunnel on.
I realized while re-reading through DP's ISO that I misinterpreted his vote post. In his post he said he had legit reasons to yeet both of them when replying to you asking him to yeet Dunnstral, but he was actually referring to Hu Tao/Luca in the post before that, so that refutes the largest part of the contradiction that I wrote about yesterday
.
Does this change your read.
As to the first part, my case was my own, I guess I didn't articulate it was well as OOO did. but it definately came from me, cause the dunn thing bothered me as soon as I saw it in the thread.
It does somewhat. I don't think you're the right person to vote off today.
In post 3247, Vivax wrote:
I don't like how Luca and Ninja kept trying to resort to bring up toxicity or the implication that our site players all play together.
That is why I will still try to yeet Luca.
It's a way of defending himself that takes away responsibility from what he posted and completely derails the talk from the post content to what are going to be discussions that have nothing to do with mafia.
Once that doesn't work, the two of them might be capable of kicking off discussions on why the earth is flat.
Anyway. Case in point, I had to talk about basically useless stuff because of that right there.
Look at Luca's D1 and his list with Roden as the only scum in it that I already found bad earlier and tell me he wasn't lacking in suspicion on too many players as opposed to strategically positioning his reads according to sentiment.
VOTE: Luca Blight
So, if I'm playing strategically, then tell me this: In what world would I pick a fight with, and deliberately alienate myself from, the majority of tl players if I were scum? When I first opposed Darth's case on Dann, Darth had been townreading me the whole game up until that point, and from his previous behaviour it was obviously a case of poking the bear. Why, strategically, would I do that if I'm scum and Darth is town? Obviously his tl friends, especially oats and outoforder, are going to sheep him every time. Especially oats, I think outoforder isn't quite as sheep-like.
Btw, I've noticed a pattern: every time I cast suspicion on Vivax, I wake up to find he's voting me again. I'm going to prioritise Iso'ing him today as I haven't liked his recent posts at all.
In post 3111, DarthPunk wrote:
Grack and vivax saying I do t believe in my read or whatever.
This is me being heavily restrained in my interactions compared to what they are used to. (To be nice as a guest)
I think they are misreading that as lack of belief or whatever.
I don't think you've been as heavily restrained as you think you have.
well definitely not with you, but with the others I have.
I'm not bothered - it's just half the player base is saying this has been the most hostile unpleasant game that they've been a part of and you're like... you haven't seen anything yet!!!!
In post 3111, DarthPunk wrote:
Grack and vivax saying I do t believe in my read or whatever.
This is me being heavily restrained in my interactions compared to what they are used to. (To be nice as a guest)
I think they are misreading that as lack of belief or whatever.
I don't think you've been as heavily restrained as you think you have. :lol:
well definitely not with you, but with the others I have.
I'm not bothered - it's just half the player base is saying this has been the most hostile unpleasant game that they've been a part of and you're like... you haven't seen anything yet!!!!
It's more than ganging up that has made it unpleasant for me rather than the hostility. Having to argue against Darth and his little sidekick oats simultaneously for large periods the game while I'm also trying to catch up with the thread and do other things just sucks. At times outoforder as well and Vivax as well, although nowhere near as bad.
I appreciate that Darth has toned it down recently at least.
In post 3434, Grackaroni wrote:
Luca I think you should stop making the DP-case related posts. They're not going to lead anywhere and just flood out the thread at this point.
You mean Darth's case on me?
I was just responding to outoforder's long post, as I would be expected to. I just said that I'm going to prioritise Vivax from now, so as to not become tunnelled and to get a broader view of the game. I still haven't fully caught up, though, so I will respond to things as necessary.
In post 3434, Grackaroni wrote:
Luca I think you should stop making the DP-case related posts. They're not going to lead anywhere and just flood out the thread at this point.
You mean Darth's case on me?
I was just responding to outoforder's long post, as I would be expected to. I just said that I'm going to prioritise Vivax from now, so as to not become tunnelled and to get a broader view of the game. I still haven't fully caught up, though, so I will respond to things as necessary.
I see I thought it was more response to DP and scanned over it.
In post 3065, Luca Blight wrote:
Let's do a 1v1, me vs Darth, and if one of us flips town then the other is automatically the next day's elimination. I have full confidence in my read, and Darth seemingly does too.
And if you both flip scum?
:shifty:
Regardless of Darth's alignment, this is a pretty 'strategic' position for scum to take:
If Darth flips town, then he can feel justified to push me elimination.
If Darth flips scum, then he can feel justified to push my elimination.
I don't believe anyone can genuinely believe that me and Darth are partners at this point.
Regarding Naerys - I'm not reading too much into that supposed town-slip. I actually once played a game before where this happened - a player was so disengaged that they missed the claim of the player who was NK, or something like that, and everyone townread them for it. It actually turned out that they were scum but not pretending to town-slip - they had barely read the posts in the mafia pt either, and were genuinely unaware of the claim.
In post 3253, Vivax wrote:
Town: OOO, Hu Tao, Ninja
Lean town: Oats, gob, Dann, Naerys
Null:
Naerys
Mafia: Luca, Grack, Dp
This is still my view of the game. But DP's argument on why Naerys spewed herself town was good so I'm upgrading her to lean town.
I saw zero reasons for deviating from this save for a shower of arguments between DP and Luca.
In terms of people I could be wrong on being town, it could be Oats and Dann but currently I don't want to second guess my thoughts I formed after reviewing D1.
Luca and Ninja scum together seems impossible to me. They work together too obviously when it comes to derailing the thread.
How is it reasonable for me to mafia with Luca here.
That's a problem for another day.
Maybe it's time to do another combined ISO of you two.
Dannflor should be caught up? He was one of the strongest proponents of a DP yeet on D1.
If Luca was town though why isn't he considering Dann, DP, Grack for example? That'd be my next guess if Luca was town I think.
No steam against DP left from Dannflor for some reason.
I'm not into pre-flip associatives unless there's good reason for it. Even with Darth and oats, both of whom I heavily scumread, I realise the possibility that one is just buddying the other.
The real question is, why
should
I being coming to the conclusion that it's Darth/Dann/grack?
Btw, I think just about every person in this game has called me mafia at one point or another, with the exception of Ninja (and even she has expressed a willingness to vote me), so it's inevitable that I will consider people who have called me mafia.
Also, when someone suspects you based on bogus reasons, then it's a pretty useful scumhunting tool, given that I know my own alignment.
I didn't say Darth Punk was scummy in that post? My point was that Dann isn't scummy.
So dann said dp is scummy for doing something that you don’t think makes darth punk scummy but that makes dann town.
Explain how that makes sense.
1:
Oats snips 1 sentence out of my long post defending Dann. This is cherry-picking of the highest order. He also doesn't even bother to read the post I referenced correctly, because Dann was giving an example of why he thought Darth was scum, as I explain in my next post.
2:
Having completely missed the mark in his previous post, Oats then changes direction to why Darth Punk isn't scummy for scumreading Dann, which is irrelevant to the point I was making - I was defending Dann, not casing Punk at this point, and I'd explained everything already in my long defence post. This is an example of Oats moving the goalposts in a repeated attempt to win the argument, while not acknowledging any points that I've made.
3:
Oats asks for an explanation as to why I townread Dann even though I didn't at the time fully agree with his reasons for scumreading Darth, even though I had already explained it at length.
This is a strategy of circular arguing that achieves absolutely nothing, apart from making me lose the will to play the game.
The main point to consider here is how Oats isn't arguing in good faith - he's doing anything possible to disparage my points - even when he's clearly wrong, like in point 2, he moves the goalposts to another point that wasn't even relevant to what I was talking about, and then brings it back around to a circle by asking me to explain it again. Also, not once does he ever consider the matter from my point of view, or question anything that Darth has said, despite the obvious flaws in his case again Dann which I pointed out.
If I had continued repeating my explanations, do you think we would have got anywhere? No, other than confusing the thread and causing frustration, which is what scum want to achieve. The same with his argument against me supposedly bussing Roden - it went in circles, and nothing I say makes any difference to him. It smacks of having an agenda, because he asks plenty of questions but then never actually takes the answers into consideration.
The bolded in particular is something I don't understand from a townie pov.
Why is Oats so important to him that he has to pick him out of all people to constantly argue with ? Before he went to DP that is.
I don't feel obligated to even adress or interact with someone who makes me want to stop playing the game and if they're mafia, it's the others I have to convince and not Oats in this case.
So it reads bad as in that Luca is making up an obligation to argue with/about Oats that doesn't exist.
At the time I was having the arguments in question with oats I was townreading him. It's only since the start of D2 that it's dawned on me that this is most likely an actual scum tactic. So now I raise these points to demonstrate why I think oats is likely to be scum.
In post 3111, DarthPunk wrote:
Grack and vivax saying I do t believe in my read or whatever.
This is me being heavily restrained in my interactions compared to what they are used to. (To be nice as a guest)
I think they are misreading that as lack of belief or whatever.
I don't think you've been as heavily restrained as you think you have.
well definitely not with you, but with the others I have.
I'm not bothered - it's just half the player base is saying this has been the most hostile unpleasant game that they've been a part of and you're like... you haven't seen anything yet!!!!
Its true tho, me or OOO in full flight is actually wild.
"If I wanted your opinion, I'd have told you what it was."
In post 3268, Vivax wrote:
The post in general screams of Luca being frustrated about being scumread by Oats in ways he tries hard to pick apart, but it suggests a high amount of defensiveness in that he only analyzes what makes Oats mafia based on what he's calling Luca scum for instead of looking at him as a whole.
Just plain wrong on many levels.
1
. It had nothing to do with oats scum reading me - the arguments were about Darth's case on Dann, and why Darth was supposedly right about everything and why I was wrong about everything.
2.
It's not defensive - I am showing examples of why I think oats is scum - examples that
oats himself asked for
, and Ninja subsequently asked for more of.
3.
You haven't even read the posts or tried to understand the context. The posts had nothing to do with me being mafia, and at the time of those posts on D1 oats was one of my strongest townreads.
4.
A large part of oats' game has been getting involved in these question-answer sessions that lead nowhere, because he is never willing to budge from his stance when it would interfere with his agenda. For example, there is no way oats would ever agree with me, or go against Darth, no matter what was said. This is shown with the example that ninja highlighted - when I get frustrated with a scumread it means I must be scum, but it's perfectly fine when Darth gets frustrated with his scumread. It actually makes me think this could be buddying more than S/S.
3273 - I agree with Dann on this, and I think he makes a great point about tl players who are scum being more likely to be careful and stay on the right side of their mates, knowing what kind of things they get tunnelled over. This further leads me to the conclusion that perhaps oats is the one buddying Darth here, as no-one has exhibited this kind of behaviour more than him.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: oatsmaster
I have to go out now so will continue my catch-up soon.
I just think Oats has more chance of being scum currently, and it's been nagging at me for a while now that he could have you pocketed if you are indeed town.
I know you say that i only scumread those who scumread me, but you should acknowledge that you are similar in that respect. I feel as though oats realises this, and is trying really hard to stay in your good books this game.
