Oh.In post 893, Nachomamma8 wrote:I can say that scum think that I am dangerous. I can say that scum think CES is dangerous. I can say that scum find Vi dangerous. These are not scumslips, and they are not falsehoods.In post 892, Whiskers wrote:The heck is bad about my post there? he's saying, "Scum think this is dangerous!" Either he's town and he's bullshitting us-- very anti-town, yes?-- or he's scum and he's [right / trying to mislead us].
Yes. This doesn't matter a whole lot unless you're pulling the Burden of Proficiency card.In post 899, Lastsurvivor wrote:a) Yes, you hopped onto a wagon/started suspecting someone, but you were actually right on both counts.
OK, but I didn't just hop on the popular wagon and hop along; I chose a lynch that I liked and I went along with it. Next day, I not only led a wagon of my own, but I disabled that wagon last minute and found myself another. You're saying I'm scum for being an opportunist and for being wrong, but I've done a lot to bring activity and content to this game.In post 899, Lastsurvivor wrote:b) In the second link, you weren't just hopping on the popular wagon, and the first link didn't even have wagons so I can't really gauge whether or not ff was a popular target.
Those were also games where I lynched more scum. I'm usually more happy in games where I tell scum to die and they die and not game where they flip around. Sometimes I click with the game, sometimes I don't. I've been clicking a lot more often now, yes. That doesn't mean I don't have games I haven't clicked in; I like fast paced games where I confront my scumreads and they interact with me. Here, I've had that happen as of the end of yesterday and today.In post 899, Lastsurvivor wrote:c) Especially in the second link, you have this confidence in those two games that you just seem to lack.
Yes. I explained why I said I didn't find him that scummy already.In post 899, Lastsurvivor wrote:Alright, nice work side-stepping the question. Was TAM your second highest scumspect or not...? And if that's a yes, why did you say that you didn't find him that scummy?
If you'll remember, one of your attackers-- Fitz, I think--In post 903, Nachomamma8 wrote:Yes. This doesn't matter a whole lot unless you're pulling the Burden of Proficiency card.In post 899, Lastsurvivor wrote:a) Yes, you hopped onto a wagon/started suspecting someone, but you were actually right on both counts.
Do you think DCL is scum?In post 880, mikeburnfire wrote:I definitely can't see Nacho making that one statement (I refuse to lynch DCL, ever) if they're both scum
How so?In post 906, Whiskers wrote:If you'll remember, one of your attackers-- Fitz, I think--
IS
playing that card.
So you're basing your logic on an "if"? What "if" TAM and Feng WEREN'T both town?In post 873, mikeburnfire wrote:Here's my logic:
"That wagon was fast because we were hours from a deadline. If TAM and Feng were both town, then it really doesn't matter which wagon the scum were on, and they were probably the ones who dragged their feet or showed indifference between the two.
Among those that showed ambivalence: {Nacho, Rach, Survivor, Fitz} It's highly likely that at least one of {Nacho, Fitz} is scum, or even both if Fitz is bussing right now.
How was I "backseat scumhunting" earlier on?In post 875, Fegelein wrote:Fitz is a null read, leaning scum generally for backseat scumhunting earlier on.
...said the person voting Nacho because he thinks Feng is scum.So you're basing your logic on an "if"? What "if" TAM and Feng WEREN'T both town?
Less ambivalent than others who explicitly didn't care who was lynched between the two, but you begrudgingly voted Feng, and didn't comment on TAM until he was lynched.And how was I ambivalent yesterday?
You didn't answer my question and show me where I base my vote on Nacho on Feng being scum.
You talk about people being ambivalent between Feng and TAM. HTF was I being ambivalent at all? Do you even know what the word means? And there is nothing "begrudging" about moving from one suspect to another when the wagon you're pushing is getting zero support. Nice negative painting.In post 911, mikeburnfire wrote:Less ambivalent than others who explicitly didn't care who was lynched between the two, but you begrudgingly voted Feng, and didn't comment on TAM until he was lynched.
As I remember it, your logic was that TAM's wagon shot up as an alternative to Feng's wagon, which made Feng scum. Therefore, two~three scum are on the wagon. There was also the argument that Nacho was scum because he's still alive even though he would be seen as a threat, and the argument that he's scum because he's been on both mislynches (and those two arguments contradict each other). The only other argument is that his 180 on Feng seemed scummy. Is that your main reason for suspecting him?You didn't answer my question and show me where I base my vote on Nacho on Feng being scum.
Backseat scumhunting is very much blending into the background, not posting things with a lot of substance, trying to avoid being suspicious, not throwing your vote about much.In post 910, havingfitz wrote:How was I "backseat scumhunting" earlier on?In post 875, Fegelein wrote:Fitz is a null read, leaning scum generally for backseat scumhunting earlier on.
The original question was "What made TAM so scummy as to make the last minute switch onto him?", but it wasn't him being that scummy, it was Feg being that townie. At that point, I figured he was scum because he's a worse scum player than he is a town player, and we had two days of him absolutely not doing anything at all for the game and instead prod-dodging like a champ. Fegelein was hitting all of the townbells, and there was no way in hell I wanted to lynch him.In post 904, Lastsurvivor wrote:I still don't really get what you're saying about TAM. You just didn't find your second highest scumspect that scummy then?
What did that make Whisk, your third highest, then?
1. I'm voting Fitz and am trying to kill him.In post 906, Whiskers wrote:If you'll remember, one of your attackers-- Fitz, I think--
IS
playing that card. And when I brought up, you agreed. You are plenty proficient and the burden is placed on you.
Respond to my latest post, please.In post 912, havingfitz wrote:You didn't answer my question and show me where I base my vote on Nacho on Feng being scum.
You talk about people being ambivalent between Feng and TAM. HTF was I being ambivalent at all? Do you even know what the word means? And there is nothing "begrudging" about moving from one suspect to another when the wagon you're pushing is getting zero support. Nice negative painting.In post 911, mikeburnfire wrote:Less ambivalent than others who explicitly didn't care who was lynched between the two, but you begrudgingly voted Feng, and didn't comment on TAM until he was lynched.
Monty hasn't done shit.Nacho wrote:Monty still looked fine
You mean post 916?In post 917, Nachomamma8 wrote:Respond to my latest post, please.
In post 913, mikeburnfire wrote:You didn't answer my question and show me where I base my vote on Nacho on Feng being scum.1)...As I remember it, your logic was that TAM's wagon shot up as an alternative to Feng's wagon, which made Feng scum.2)...Therefore, two~three scum are on the wagon.3)...There was also the argument that Nacho was scum because he's still alive even though he would be seen as a threat,4)...and the argument that he's scum because he's been on both mislynches5)...(and those two arguments contradict each other).6)...The only other argument is that his 180 on Feng seemed scummy.7)...Is that your main reason for suspecting him?
And yes,I know what the word ambivalent means.8)...It applies to others in that grouping more than you, but9)...I included you because you didn't express strong feelings about the lynch of Feng nor TAM.10)...You didn't give a read on TAM, and you had expressed some minimal suspicion of Feng. So yeah,ambivalent
P-edit: I looked it up. Apparently I don't know what ambivalent means.11)...The word I was looking for is "indifferent"
They are each reasons I suspect Nacho and combined (and in no way contradicting each other) they have enough weight for me to vote him.Uh...I'm posting plenty of substance. Perhaps you should ISO me. And I hardly think I'm staying in the background when I initiate wagons on two people I have suspicions towards (Monty and Whiskers) and supported your wagon D1 and Nacho's today. No blending in fmpov.In post 914, Fegelein wrote:Backseat scumhunting is very much blending into the background, not posting things with a lot of substance, trying to avoid being suspicious, not throwing your vote about much.In post 910, havingfitz wrote:How was I "backseat scumhunting" earlier on?In post 875, Fegelein wrote:Fitz is a null read, leaning scum generally for backseat scumhunting earlier on.
Uh, no it wasn't. DCLXVI made a sudden charge after TAM. Nacho and Rach expressed an interest in joining the wagon. You participated in the game since then, but didn't comment on TAM. If he was a townread for you, then I would expect a little bit of a defense or argument on your part. Since you said nothing, you were indifferent.... I did not find TAM especially suspect or I would have said as much. I do not typically go around saying I think so and so is more likely to be town. His town lean from me was evident from my lack of comment wrt him.
Defending yourself =/= substanceIn post 921, havingfitz wrote:Uh...I'm posting plenty of substance. Perhaps you should ISO me. And I hardly think I'm staying in the background when I initiate wagons on two people I have suspicions towards (Monty and Whiskers) and supported your wagon D1 and Nacho's today. No blending in fmpov.