Right. I agree that the tone of his response is pretty towny, if not that he responded that way in itself.In post 98, Flavor Leaf wrote:He realized that he worded it in a way that could have been worded better and actively tried clearing it up for people.
Prolly means a normal day and not a game-day.In post 84, Ariane wrote:by this do you mean you're not gonna vote for the whole day...? How do you expect the day to go then?In post 11, snowbeast wrote:I'm not psychic - yet. Will hold my vote for a day until I understand this game a bit more
Yeah the volx reaction to my case is only making me more confident in my read.In post 102, Auro wrote:The Transformer's behavior struck me very odd. The brave Lionheart had stepped up and voiced suspicion on Volxen, and Volxen chose to rather look at me and ask what *I* thought of it. I told him I'd much rather let him engage directly, but to my surprise, he... Began to nap again!
Volxen, I notice you're active elsewhere on site, and you seem to be ignoring Lionheart's case -- your last post simply dismissing it and diving into wagon analysis spec. I get the feeling you're waiting for something more significant to happen.
Scumlean.
I was not "mudslinging" at Auro, I was merely stating the fact that sorting his slot is something that I am going to prioritize, because I have firsthand experience with his scumgame. That is not the same as me automatically coming to the conclusion that he is scum based on our past game together. I will be evaluating him based on what he does in this game.In post 62, lionheart1492 wrote:Volxen's long-winded paragraph in #51 where he mentions that auro played rvs similarly in a previous scum game but then also mentions that he doesn't really know auro's meta having only played the one game together bugs me a lot. He's going back and forth on whether or not he wants to go after auro for a weak (at best) meta read. Also, he backs up this meta read with some mudslinging about how auro is really good at being mafia and we need to be afraid of him! I understand we're barely out of rvs so it's hard to have much but why bother with all of the mudslinging and wishy-washiness?
UNVOTE: Yuriko_Jasmine
VOTE: Volxen
Feels like the posts between auro and lamees are auro reaction testing and getting nothing. I didn't get anything from it either really.
Yuriko popping in to be like "why lamees" still has me unhappy but not worth a vote when I feel the way I do about volxen's post. To elaborate on why I find it suspicious though, in effect Yuriko sees auro attempting to make discussion happen very early in the game and tries to poke holes in it in a very non-committal way. This is especially bad because it happened so early. If at the time we had several active players and lots of content auro going for a specific person's vote could be scummy depending on the situation. At the very beginning of the game with less than half of the game posting he's clearly just messing around seeing what will happen and yuriko's post sets her up to either say "ha I knew that was scummy!" or "yeah that wasn't a big deal."
I asked you about this because I would like to know your thoughts on Lion's case, and the back-and-forth that has now started between us. I still would like you respond to this, as it will help me to read your slot.In post 74, Auro wrote:Why not engage with Lion in that case? At the moment I'm interested in seeing how that interaction goes.
I don't think I'd want to hijack an exchange that barely started just to help you form a read on me, at this point. My own thoughts on his case wouldn't be different depending on my own alignment, though, so I'm not quite sure how you were intending to read off that.In post 105, volxen wrote:I asked you about this because I would like to know your thoughts on Lion's case, and the back-and-forth that has now started between us. I still would like you respond to this, as it will help me to read your slot.
So I did clarify that a better word would be fearmongering and this was one of the reasons. Broadcasting to the entire game that Auro is good at being mafia and deserves special attention would qualify as fearmongering. I consider fearmongering very scummy. Especially when, as you say yourself, you're nullreading the person in question.In post 104, volxen wrote: I was not "mudslinging" at Auro, I was merely stating the fact that sorting his slot is something that I am going to prioritize, because I have firsthand experience with his scumgame. That is not the same as me automatically coming to the conclusion that he is scum based on our past game together. I will be evaluating him based on what he does in this game.
My vote for Auro itself was to see how he would react, just as he voted for me to see how I would react. In our back-and-forth conversation, we both admitted as much. You seem to be suggesting that I am trying to push a case against scum!Auro based on our previous game together, which is not the case. He is still a nullread for me at the moment.
Also, I think you really overreacted to Yuriko's "Why Lamees" question to Auro. I believe she literally was just asking, "Why are you asking Lamees specifically to vote for Volxen?". I did not at all read that as her trying to stifle discussion or discourage Auro from trying to get people to vote for me. I think she was just genuinely curious why Auro asked Lamees specifically (as opposed to someone else) to vote for me.
Why? Reading previous games isn't my style. I play the current game. Only time I use past games is if I was in the game personally.In post 96, Auro wrote:Lamees, I'd like you to clarify on this.In post 78, Auro wrote:Read his ISOs from other games. Tell me the difference.
Else that's a policy lynch you're advocating.
Totally, except I cannot vote myself twice.In post 112, Not_Mafia wrote:Yuriko should be at L-1, no excuses
And why automatically jump to the conclusion that it was “fearmongering” to paint Auro in a negative light? All I said was that I, personally, would likely have a hard time accurately reading Auro based on our past experience together. I was not suggesting that everyone else would have a hard time reading him, nor was I saying that I would be making a decision on his slot based on our past game together. If I had said something along the lines of “Auro had a really good scum game in our last game together, and he is probably scum here again”, THAT would be fearmongering, because I would be using his past scum game to argue that he is likely scum again in this game, which is not a reasonable argument since him being scum in a previous game does not increase his chances of being scum again in this game.In post 108, lionheart1492 wrote:So I did clarify that a better word would be fearmongering and this was one of the reasons. Broadcasting to the entire game that Auro is good at being mafia and deserves special attention would qualify as fearmongering. I consider fearmongering very scummy. Especially when, as you say yourself, you're nullreading the person in question.In post 104, volxen wrote: I was not "mudslinging" at Auro, I was merely stating the fact that sorting his slot is something that I am going to prioritize, because I have firsthand experience with his scumgame. That is not the same as me automatically coming to the conclusion that he is scum based on our past game together. I will be evaluating him based on what he does in this game.
My vote for Auro itself was to see how he would react, just as he voted for me to see how I would react. In our back-and-forth conversation, we both admitted as much. You seem to be suggesting that I am trying to push a case against scum!Auro based on our previous game together, which is not the case. He is still a nullread for me at the moment.
Also, I think you really overreacted to Yuriko's "Why Lamees" question to Auro. I believe she literally was just asking, "Why are you asking Lamees specifically to vote for Volxen?". I did not at all read that as her trying to stifle discussion or discourage Auro from trying to get people to vote for me. I think she was just genuinely curious why Auro asked Lamees specifically (as opposed to someone else) to vote for me.
The Yuriko post is definitely not a strong point but it's something that I found scummy so I brought it up.
You wouldn’t be hijacking it, though. You can still comment on Lion’s case and the exchange between Lion and I while it is ongoing. You joining in on the conversation won’t get in the way of Lion and I having our back-and-forth.In post 106, Auro wrote:I don't think I'd want to hijack an exchange that barely started just to help you form a read on me, at this point.In post 105, volxen wrote:I asked you about this because I would like to know your thoughts on Lion's case, and the back-and-forth that has now started between us. I still would like you respond to this, as it will help me to read your slot., though, so I'm not quite sure how you were intending to read off that.My own thoughts on his case wouldn't be different depending on my own alignment
I'll give my views at a later point.
Meta means nothing to you?In post 109, Lamees wrote:Why? Reading previous games isn't my style. I play the current game. Only time I use past games is if I was in the game personally.
Uh huh. You said you'd have something more substantial to say soon, and you *are* checking in and reading. You still have a self-vote. What's up?In post 113, YurikoJasmine wrote:Totally, except I cannot vote myself twice.In post 112, Not_Mafia wrote:Yuriko should be at L-1, no excuses
There's plenty of time left. This is not even close to a tunnel forming.In post 117, Auro wrote:Meta means nothing to you?In post 109, Lamees wrote:Why? Reading previous games isn't my style. I play the current game. Only time I use past games is if I was in the game personally.
Okay, take it from me - Not_Mafia does this every game. Your scumread on him for his ISO on this game alone is *wrong*.
Apart from a weak early jab at Flavor, you're just comfortably settling into a tunnel based on an incorrect meta-ignorant read, no?
