Spoiler:
In post 1226, Shuichi Saihara wrote:I would still like some specifics. I'm wondering how you came to this conclusion based on what they posted between A and B, and also whether you can convince me they're not scum.In post 1198, Lie Ren wrote:In post 1168, Shuichi Saihara wrote:Can I get some details here?In post 1165, Lie Ren wrote:I honestly think Trojan actually has been putting in some serious work, I have a solid townread on them nowWhen I say "serious work", I don't mean actual game solving effort. I just liked the direction they were going and how they were interacting with me. Essentially they shaped up.In post 1169, Trojan Horses wrote:I'm also interested in this. I'm clearly not taking this game super seriously... I am doing some amount of solving though but I'm curious to hear about what you mean by "serious work".In post 1168, Shuichi Saihara wrote:Can I get some details here?In post 1165, Lie Ren wrote:I honestly think Trojan actually has been putting in some serious work, I have a solid townread on them now
This is also a mastina scumpost. I believe I recall some game where she went on and on about excuses why she didn't match up to her normal self but was totally town, possibly in the absence of anyone pressing her on it.In post 1203, mastina wrote:Oh that's a really good way of describing it yeah.In post 1142, Trojan Horses wrote:Mastina isn’t an easy read but she seems to be pretty genuine here, where she seems kind of off as scum.
As scum I've tried a lifetime to not feel "off" to myself but to this day, never had a scumgame where I didn't feel 'off'. And when I can tell I am 'off' as scum, I can tell that others can tell, too.
Similarly so for as town. Like this game, I can recognize I'm not the normal town mastina but can still feel that I'm *a* town mastina and am not 'off' to a degree where scumreads on me should exist. They shouldn't.
In post 1227, Shuichi Saihara wrote:1. If it's not funny, theres nothing stopping this from becoming a post facto excuse. Which I currently think it really may be, as I suspect you could see you messed up and decided to invent this "loljk" thing.In post 1225, Trojan Horses wrote:1. Doing for the lulz != explicitly funnyIn post 1223, Shuichi Saihara wrote:I don't really understand what you're going on about here but yes I am assuming you mean what you post and it's going to make my life very hard if I can't do that. Jokes are typically funny, and if you're not being serious or funny then I don't know what you're doing.
If your turbo townread gobbles agreed with me that this post was weird, how are you getting to thinking it's weird for me to take issue with it?
I am confused by this dichotomy between "critical thought" and "great solves" because those seem like the same thing to me.
2. Read post, I yawned at both
3.Establishedcritical thought vsPotentialgreat solves, that better?
2. Right, yet you said my concern was weird. I feel it's one of the better points I've had this game, so I find the dismissal less than thrilling. Did you not mean that as shade?
3. Not really. Is it a potential great solve or something you said for the lols? These things appear to be contradictory. Also, if you have a great solve I'd like to hear it, since I don't believe you've voiced anything of the sort.
In post 1232, Shuichi Saihara wrote:1. I would rate that as pretty close to a strawman.In post 1228, Trojan Horses wrote:On a scale of seriousness 1-10 how would you rate the bolded parts?
2. Define "shade". I find it surprising that it's not read as merely me trolling around, but given Gobbles also did that, maybe I'm expecting wrong?
3. Yes, I was making arguments from the perceived viewpoint of you guys who interpreted it seriously - i.e. even if it was serious, why assume it's based on in-thread material over Gob's potential solving given he's obvtown etc. Say, the equivalent of "RC is IC, cool so I'll just vote where he tells me to". As an observer my actual problem with this whole thing would be thatit gives me an excuse not to solve and attach my vote to someone else, thus making myself more unreadable.
2. Yes, you clearly at best were expecting wrong.
3a. I assume that you are reading gobble as very town based on in thread material, yes. At no point have I suggested you were saying your opinions line up with those of gobbles. I have not checked to see if they do. I am interpreting this as similar to you saying gobbles is confirmed town so you'll follow him. Again I'll cite my original post saying you shouldn't need to sheep a townread while being a three headed hydra.
3-bolded. Yeah... no shit... that's why it's a weird thing for you to say you want to sheep someone when you already have reads, since that is a thing people who don't feel good about their reads do...
In post 1233, Shuichi Saihara wrote:That would be very helpful actually.In post 1231, Trojan Horses wrote:What do you want us to do, just claim scum and be done with it?In post 1229, Baezu wrote:I'm hating that scum is obfuscating this game rn
/s or something
In post 1234, Shuichi Saihara wrote:I'm going to quit wasting my time on this argument, it's too many layers at this point for anyone else to bother following and even I'm losing track of it in places. You can have the last word if you want.
Im not convinced. This seems like the typical argument engagement to appear to look good. You know you do those as well RC. Most scum that operate on a decent level can fabricate this shit.
Also, this probably was what ceph even referred to "you havent gotten to my towny posts yet". Written with the goal of appearing towny.
I dont really see the towny thought process behind it in actually slapping on horsey. Maybe im just dense.
