So, why do I get townvibes from this? Well, I think I need to clarify first that when I was going through, I was not focusing on what the post says so much as trying to understand from what perspective it most likely was coming from. Why would scum!Harambey stay silent in the first place? Nacho gave a possible explanation in the previous post, but is it the most probable explanation? I think not; I feel like scum in general would be more likely to actually do something than stay silent, even if they do not directly address their wagon. Also, I don't think the second half of the post comes from scum that often; it registers as something that a townie would say if they know they have been lynched for such in the past multiple times.Harambey wrote:The wagon was mostly formed thanks to RVS so I didn't have much to defend against. Besides, wagons this early on hardly ever get said person lynched. Why would I try to 'defend' myself against a wagon this early on? By staying silent I also won't give scum more information / opportunities to throw more shade in me. And the more I talk, the more I'm putting myself in a losing position based on the past. Because of how I verbalize things, I guess.
What I mean is that the post does not feel to me like an attempt to garner towncred or to place a "pro-town" explanation to his actions. Instead, it seems to me like his genuine perspective on his wagon formation. More so than that (though this is a bit subjective), it really feels like a post that is much more likely to be expressed by town than by scum. (And no, it doesn't read as an attempt to play it safe, but rather as I said before, an honest presentation of thoughts on the matter.)
---
45:
Okay, so this is more or less a very minor reason to townread a person for, but like I said earlier, I was placing emphasis on looking at the underlying perspective expressed by the post versus the post's content itself. So basically, this post has town!vibes because of the fact that Harambey acknowledges what he is doing here. Like, I could see the rest of the post being made by either alignment. It is this last part that makes me go, "Oh, that looks like it came from town." (Honestly, this isn't easy to explain because this is a very subjective, more gut-based read than anything.)Harambey wrote:I don't know how familiar you are with mafia games so I approached you here as if you're pretty new to the game. I hope this is okay as how it is.
---
210:
Unlike the previous post I commented on, this post can basically be summed up as LAMIST (Look At Me, I'm So Town!). It is fine playing a central role in the game; however, when you go as far as saying, "Hey, let's appoint some leaders that decide everything" while subtly implying "I would be a great candidate for the town leader", it basically amounts to a LAMIST argument. They are trying to draw attention to their "positive" and "town" aspects in a way that goes beyond that of a self-centered townie (which we all are).Harambey wrote:Should we need one or two people as team leader(s) to coordinate everything that happens in this game? Things like: making sure that one discussion doesn't go out of hand, let people take turns, make sure that two topics aren't discussed at the same time (because that's less efficient imo). That's what I'm thinking of rn.
