NM is a perfect example of why it's not, they will never look towny but you will always have doubts about whether they are scumIn post 397, Disaster Cartel wrote:idgi how are those two things not the same? like the people who are most towny looking are surely also the ones you have the most doubts about being scum?
are you saying you SR nacho or nah?In post 400, Infinity 324 wrote:NM is a perfect example of why it's not, they will never look towny but you will always have doubts about whether they are scumIn post 397, Disaster Cartel wrote:idgi how are those two things not the same? like the people who are most towny looking are surely also the ones you have the most doubts about being scum?
Nacho looks relatively towny from an Objective StandpointTM but I don't have that many doubts about him being scum
These responses make sense, thanks for the clarification.
Welcome
You're not responding to my point at all.In post 358, SirCakez wrote:That's because of how long my catchup was. I read like 10 pages of posts in one go, so it wasn't like "hmm this is scummy" "hmm this is weird" it was like a whole bunch of posts that added up at once.
Yeah I do. Basically if someone has a strong scumgame they can still be >rand scum on play whereas NM can't unless you're notsci I guess. This may just be something we fundamentally disagree on thoughIn post 402, Disaster Cartel wrote:are you saying you SR nacho or nah?
I made that exact point in a post directed at skitter so. I agree with it.In post 407, Disaster Cartel wrote:I would also love to hear thoughts on my point that I think scum are bus!disincentivised unless in a lot of trouble, and the fact that there seems to be no appetite for NM is therefore +scum
-Mena
Do you think this is scum-indicative (for cakez)?In post 409, Nachomamma8 wrote:My point is just is that you kept pointing out things that were weird and not scummy. And you called them weird not scummy. Three weird posts doesn't normally equal a scumread so when did your read change from "what Nacho is doing is weird" to "what Nacho is doing is scummy"?
this just doesn’t make any senseIn post 410, Infinity 324 wrote:Yeah I do. Basically if someone has a strong scumgame they can still be >rand scum on play whereas NM can't unless you're notsci I guess. This may just be something we fundamentally disagree on thoughIn post 402, Disaster Cartel wrote:are you saying you SR nacho or nah?
PEdit: maybe? I think a lot of the people defending NM are towny
page 13-14In post 393, Disaster Cartel wrote:The 13-14 range? Not following
How am I obsessing over an NM push? I brought it up. I explained reasons why. Why are my reasons for pushing him incorrect?In post 358, SirCakez wrote:My main hangup is I don't understand your obsession with elimming NM and I don't feel it like town!you at all.
I don't really see a path to elimming you right now anyways, but I am genuinely baffled by your early posts this game in a way that I wasn't in Popcorn.
I don't understand this question. The assumption is that NM is always gonna be =rand scum (I disagree, but w/e)In post 413, Disaster Cartel wrote:how are they more likely than rand to be scum than the do nothing slot?
I'll rephrase this, I have doubts about being scum but he's still >rand scum which is scummier than NMIn post 400, Infinity 324 wrote:Nacho looks relatively towny from an Objective StandpointTM but I don't have that many doubts about him being scum
I don't understand the argument that you're making here.In post 400, Infinity 324 wrote:NM is a perfect example of why it's not, they will never look towny but you will always have doubts about whether they are scumIn post 397, Disaster Cartel wrote:idgi how are those two things not the same? like the people who are most towny looking are surely also the ones you have the most doubts about being scum?
Nacho looks relatively towny from an Objective StandpointTM but I don't have that many doubts about him being scum
Should have kept reading.In post 410, Infinity 324 wrote:Yeah I do. Basically if someone has a strong scumgame they can still be >rand scum on play whereas NM can't unless you're notsci I guess. This may just be something we fundamentally disagree on though
Screw 100% confident, if someone is 1% more likely than rand to be scum I'm limming them over someone who's =rand scumIn post 418, Nachomamma8 wrote:You shouldn't be 100% confident someone is flipping scum before you flip them or you have ego issues. It is a more valuable skill to fight off a lynch on you then it is to lurk so much that people can't confidently write a case on you.
I think it's a fundamentally weak point because it requires that scum came into the game in this headspace and you have no way of testing that assertionIn post 407, Disaster Cartel wrote:I would also love to hear thoughts on my point that I think scum are bus!disincentivised unless in a lot of trouble, and the fact that there seems to be no appetite for NM is therefore +scum
I agree, though in the past few months my day 1 scumreads have been >>rand scumIn post 419, Nachomamma8 wrote:I think people also value their scumreads more highly than they should - case in point, you scumreading me here.
=/In post 419, Nachomamma8 wrote:I think people also value their scumreads more highly than they should - case in point, you scumreading me here.
I find that Cakez might take this approach as either alignment because, as I've talked about in thread several times now, he's done it before.In post 412, Infinity 324 wrote:Do you think this is scum-indicative (for cakez)?In post 409, Nachomamma8 wrote:My point is just is that you kept pointing out things that were weird and not scummy. And you called them weird not scummy. Three weird posts doesn't normally equal a scumread so when did your read change from "what Nacho is doing is weird" to "what Nacho is doing is scummy"?