apologize - my mistake, i should have looked at that more closely. my read is basically "noraa is new, and their game is far closer to newbtown than newbscum. that being said, they are also doing things that i would generally consider scummy and antitown."In post 604, iamausername wrote:In post 579, TheGoldenParadox wrote: those three reads are entirely self-consistent.In post 528, TheGoldenParadox wrote:rn i think noraa is just newbie town, but being confident in bm!scum within the first daydoesn't really scream town; noraa will stay at a light townread.are you sure about that
i do tend to get lynched d1 - glad you noticed! you are completely correct about your meta, and it's going to be completely unhelpful to you because the last real games i played were something like two years ago. best practice would probably be to meta me like a newbie w/ no games played, because information about my playstyle and personality from that long ago isn't going to help you here.In post 614, Battle Mage wrote:It's too colloquial in my book. Just empty shade, with nothing backing it up. As is the red above. I definitely haven't buddied with you (you'd know it if I did, eh Bob?In post 591, TheGoldenParadox wrote:lit, glad you think so. to clarify - "especially for you, BM" was because you specifically were in a fight with nora and had produced quite a bit of content. and no,In post 582, Battle Mage wrote:I don't like some things about you.In post 579, TheGoldenParadox wrote:i was to some extent, but those three reads are entirely self-consistent. i think noraa is newbtown, i'm not confident about that read so it's more of a lean, but their actual reads are not reads that i believe are helpful or incredibly legitimate. town, especially newbtown, can generate empty content as well as opposed to actual reads, and town can create fluff. i know i did that when i was newbtown.In post 574, Battle Mage wrote:was he just catching up on the game? if so, kinda figures his reads would evolve quickly.In post 571, iamausername wrote:my fun fact is that i think both Ico and Noraa are town, and they're both voting TheGoldenParadox for what i think are bad reasons, but i think they've managed to hit scum anyway
In post 528, TheGoldenParadox wrote: scumreading Iconeum because i don't really see their logic on voting me as being town-motivated - my vote will stay where it is for now, but that will change if ico gets noticably scummier.neither of these quotes feel like TGP is talking his reads as about actual opinions that he has, they feel like they are conscious choices that he is making, and the way he is threatening to upgrade them to scumreads to try to get the people voting him to back off is scummy as hell.In post 535, TheGoldenParadox wrote:you're looking really defensive to me right now, so while i'm staying with my light townlean, i'm not confident in it either.
also, the progression fromtoIn post 528, TheGoldenParadox wrote:rn i think noraa is just newbie town, but being confident in bm!scum within the first day doesn't really scream town; noraa will stay at a light townread.toIn post 532, TheGoldenParadox wrote:also nora's reads on menal and me scream newbtown.in the space of like half an hour makes absolutely no senseIn post 535, TheGoldenParadox wrote:do i think your scumreads on menal and me are legitimate instead of simply trying to generate empty content? no, not really.
VOTE: TheGoldenParadox
In post 575, Battle Mage wrote:you were re-reading the post later then eh? why?In post 573, iamausername wrote:...i don't know how the word 'about' managed to move a whole three places to the right in this sentence. "talking about his reads as", that should say.In post 571, iamausername wrote: neither of these quotes feel like TGP is talking his reads as about actual opinions that he hasi really don't like this vote, buti haven't played with BM and don't know if this is normal for them- if someone has, that would be cool to know. for now, that vote feels really... random to me in a game that is by now definitely out of RVS,especially for you, BM.
1. I don't like how you over-egg things with emotive language like "really" all the time, to try and bolster your weak positions. In reality it just makes it look like you are tailspinning out of control.
2. I don't like how you have singled me (and only me?) out twice, with very little justification, for 2 unrelated, random and not particularly credible things. The second is worse, and feels a little like scum just trying to buy consistency points by targetting the same player, but being fundamentally too lazy to come up with anything robust.
3. I don't like that in red above, you initially acknowledged you hadn't played with me, and had no idea what my normal play is. Then in blue above, you pretend you do know how I play to strengthen your argument.
I'm amused that you didn't just lap up my defence of you, as it's consistent with my hypothesis - you are trying to keep targetting me to avoid attention - it wouldn't do to simply agree with me, even if you actually did, you had to spin in a way which made it sound like I was wrong (which in isolation, actually makes you look worse anyway).
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Golden Paradox
I got one, ma.i won't lap up your buddying attempts. sorry bout it.). You're just limply clutching at straws to try and appear like you are scumhunting.
Reading your previous games was not hugely conclusive about your alignment. You tend to get eliminated Day 1 all the freakin' time, so not much data to work with. You seem to be slightly higher on effort as scum, which goes in your favour here. However you are also decidedly more aggressive as town - and here you've been pretty gentle which is more like your scumgame.
