Battle Mage already explained that he searches for his username, which is a completely reasonable explanation for him answering posts that mention or are near posts that mention him.In post 1173, Polar Bear Express wrote:Okie so methinks that the main reason people's are sus of BM is not ze inactivity but that he cherrypicked a few posts to reply to in ze middle of nowhere. Makes him look like he lurking.
Also, let's be honest. The most scummy thing Battle Mage has done by this point in time is have more posts than me at this time point. What I mean by this is that he has spent several posts saying something akin to "I'm V/LA" when in that time, he could have just not posted. That being said, this isn't a major scummy issue because several people are calling him out for not posting, so he has to reiterate his point.
There's around a 30-45 minute delay between his post before that one and that post. That's not enough evidence to support the alternative hypothesis that Battle Mage is beetlejuicing. You can skim the thread to check if you're mentioned. It's really not that unreasonable of a thing to do.In post 1174, Polar Bear Express wrote:See. Dis is wut me means. Whenever mentioned, he pops up out of the mist and mefeels like saying "coincidink? I think not!"
I will point out that Creature does this as either alignment.In post 1175, mastina wrote:Because if that is indeed the sort of artificially raising your postcount that you think at least one scum will do...
This is what I was getting at above and probably better worded than my attempt. Still, while I agree it's something to take not of, I don't think it's strong enough for the confidence people are expressing in their Battle Mage scumreads.In post 1178, mastina wrote:Instead of one post explaining it and eleven of doing anything resembling scumhunting.
Or one post explaining, a second post clarifying, and ten posts of some rudimentary basic scumhunting.
Or even just one post where you officially and publicly declare to the mod that you're V/LA over the weekend, leaving it at just that.
You've made twelve posts, and all of them are excuses to avoid making content.
I feel this is based on older meta. His meta has warped quite some, and I have seen ambivalent town!Creature before.In post 1188, Spiffeh wrote:In my experience, town!Creature is always actively engaged with the game and has one of the highest post counts in the thread, whereas scum!Creature lurks and constantly plays catch up
I agree with the premise here but not the conclusion. It can be dangerous (from a reads accuracy perspective) to make conclusions from a surface-level skim.In post 1189, Double the Trouble wrote:i'm getting more the impression he's skimming the game and not drawing any conclusions from it because he is not in a solving mindset.
So, in other words, Dunnstral is scum because 1) OMGUS 2) voting people you townread 3) scunreading your slot. (I guess that is covered by #1, but hey, you mentioned it twice, so...)In post 1190, Polar Bear Express wrote:Total scumbutt. Barely any content. Keeps shading me for no literal reason. doesn't justify any of their votes whatsoever. The one on me was trash. The current on on double is pretty trash too.
Literal definition of scumbutt.
Also, I realize that is somewhat a misrepresentation of your stance, but my point is that your read on Dunnstral (and in this game in general) seem to boil down to agreeing/disagreeing with you. That seems rather surface level.
Yes, @Noraa --> Dunnstral never said he scumread you in 243. All he said was that you are acting different from a recent game that you played (probably a scum game of yours?) and that he doesn't like the style. You can dislike a player's posts while still thinking they are town or having a mixed read on them. That's not really shading. Also, posts like 321 are factually true and thus cannot count as shading.
Okay, this is a good point actually. He does like commanding a dominating presence in the thread.In post 1206, Double the Trouble wrote:Battle Mage for feeling like a soft tee-ball compared to their usual townie assertiveness.
Eh, I don't think this is alignment-indicative at all. Particularly, it is more a sign of not reading close enough or misremembering rather than being a misrepresentation that is driving a scum agenda.In post 1206, Double the Trouble wrote:Dunnstral for their line: "nobody vouches for Double the Trouble."
And this is scum-indicative because __________?In post 1217, Polar Bear Express wrote:but only bc my main problem with Ircher is that what he's saying makes absolutely no sense to me.
There's like zero reason for you not to share your reads. Stuff like this make me think you are scum, Murder.In post 1247, MURDERCAT wrote:So I am here and caught up. There is a ton of noise still. I'm gunna like, not really share my reads? I kind of feel like Pooky should be leading more?
If any of you want anything from me let me know.
At bottom of page 50.