In post 528, Kay Mask wrote:Even though you don't know who I am, I should hope you think highly enough of me to expect that I wouldn't intentionally misconstrue you to make you look bad, because that wouldn't even work?
I think you would intentionally misconstrue me to make you not look as bad. And yes, it works all the time, lol.
If you're trying to argue that townhunting isn't a real thing and that I'm making it up to push a scum agenda I... don't know what to tell you. I can go through some random games and look for examples of it but that sounds like hell. Better is to ask the other players here if they think it's legit or not.
I'm not arguing that it's scummy to think that. I'm arguing that thinking that townhunting is an effective measure to solve games, you're ignoring obvious statistics. I'm arguing that the approach of finding town vise scum is a failure to understand "scumhunting" as it is. Players with no capacity for reads will constantly consider themselves effective town hunters because 80% of the time they will be right - they will look at a player and say "this player is town for this reason," and regardless of whether or not that particular indicator has anything to do with alignment, 80% of the time they will be right. Then you get players who think they are significantly more competent and try to excuse this "I know what I"m doing, I'm townhunting" approach and it's anti-town because they find three players they think are town and then call the game over. Then you end up in lylo with that player and they realize they never had any clue what they were doing.
Regarding the dichotomy, it does really seem that we aren't understanding each other correctly. Can you try to state, in as simple terms as possible, what the dichotomy you are talking about is, and why you think I must be on one side of it rather than the other?
I have to go for a minute. If you stop reading all my posts as trying to implicate you as scum, that will help. Not everything I"m saying is trying to frame you or set you up. I will likely restate again later.