In post 674, flow trap wrote:I mean you can't be aware of a successful pocket attempt, nor do I think a pocket attempt would be done in one postIn post 673, Salsabil Faria wrote:Nah... I don't think he tried to pocket me. Can you mention the post number where do you think the attempt to pocket me happened?
I've fallen for the scum tactic in #549 so many times, so I'm very wary of thatIn post 675, Salsabil Faria wrote:In post 674, flow trap wrote:I mean you can't be aware of a successful pocket attempt, nor do I think a pocket attempt would be done in one postIn post 673, Salsabil Faria wrote:Nah... I don't think he tried to pocket me. Can you mention the post number where do you think the attempt to pocket me happened?Well, I have to re-read his iso again then. But, why do you think he can be a scum?
In post 676, flow trap wrote:I've fallen for the scum tactic in #549 so many times, so I'm very wary of thatIn post 675, Salsabil Faria wrote:In post 674, flow trap wrote:I mean you can't be aware of a successful pocket attempt, nor do I think a pocket attempt would be done in one postIn post 673, Salsabil Faria wrote:Nah... I don't think he tried to pocket me. Can you mention the post number where do you think the attempt to pocket me happened?Well, I have to re-read his iso again then. But, why do you think he can be a scum?
In post 684, esotericzoomer wrote:yes me and flow trap plotted the big brain theater of
“can you vote enchant”
“maybe”
fooled you didnt we
In post 687, quiet wrote:Is the “if at E-1 then I hammer” thing still a thing?
That was enchant yes?
Your comments about 365 assume that Enchant and Fredrick are scumpartners. Let's say that Fredrick is town, however, regardless of Enchant's alignment. Then he would just be asking you to read Enchant in a different way that is more logically sound, which is perfectly normal for town to do. I haven't read/thought enough about if it is likely that Enchant and Fredrick are partners.In post 531, Salsabil Faria wrote:Okay, so I just go throughFredrick A Campbell's iso, these are the things I found:
Post= 166, 169 and 173 are good, feels like a town post
Post= 212 seems opportunistic vote onFloo, not getting town vibe
Post= 365 by keepingesotericzoomer's post 444, it actually makes sense, like you tried to protect/defend your scum partner (in this caseEnchant) there
Post= 494 here I asked your reads which is a serious question and game-related question which you avoided. But you interacted with me in those posts which were not game-related, from which I feel you're somewhat lurking at this point or want to be the second mysterious player here, not a town thing for me.
VOTE: Fredrick A Campbell
AboutPrism, their posts are less but really meaningful and can be counted almost all. Getting a good town vibe at the moment.
In post 211, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:I third that.In post 209, Salsabil Faria wrote:In post 150, Enchant wrote:I probably ask something nonsense, but really want.In post 139, floo wrote:Right, as I explained I said it was "partially serious" to avoid seeming scummy / too random.In post 136, Spartan117 wrote: Found this sus to even insinuate it is somewhat serious a vote this early on with such little discussion, unless ofc this is to obtain a reaction and read responses.
Why you think placing votes suspicious? Do you really care how suspicious are you?
Of course explaining votes is good, but doing that and claiming you did that just to don't seem suspicious for that is really something strange.
Town supposed to push suspicious people, you know.I second that. Not your vote but your explanation is suspicious : "to avoid seeming scummy"
In post 604, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:Why I agreed with that is because I think that is a possibility and the best lead I have had since then.In post 498, Prism wrote:Actually I'll try directly quotingI am saying I directly disagree with this, particularly Salsabil's reasoning here. I think this is a natural thought for relative beginners. I am wondering why someone who has been around the block more often agrees with this.In post 211, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:I third that.In post 209, Salsabil Faria wrote:In post 150, Enchant wrote:I probably ask something nonsense, but really want.In post 139, floo wrote:Right, as I explained I said it was "partially serious" to avoid seeming scummy / too random.In post 136, Spartan117 wrote: Found this sus to even insinuate it is somewhat serious a vote this early on with such little discussion, unless ofc this is to obtain a reaction and read responses.
Why you think placing votes suspicious? Do you really care how suspicious are you?
Of course explaining votes is good, but doing that and claiming you did that just to don't seem suspicious for that is really something strange.
Town supposed to push suspicious people, you know.I second that. Not your vote but your explanation is suspicious : "to avoid seeming scummy"
At this level I don't see any scum openly admit to being insecure about their appearance with 0 prompting, because scumfear being perceived as selfconcious
I assumed that 211 was the reason for your vote. I didn't feel like commenting too much more because I had explained my early motivation already. I can understand where this is coming from as town. You'd want to pressure a player who is self-admittedly conscious about his perception to see what the fear of being scumread would cause. This action by itself would be NAI to me, but in 604 you say that my post was a scum hint. So there is a pivot from possible scumtell -> just a reaction test. This is dishonest; the honest answer would be "possible scum, want to test for reactions as I believe this player will produce useful reactions, but I do not believe this player is scum anymore" rather than "just a reaction test." The idea to scumread me came from Enchant in the first place, but I don't see any leads in this about an Enchant-Fredrick partnership.In post 644, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:I was actually voting floo to see what would happen, not because I truly believed they were very probably scum.
As for opinions, I don't formulate them unless it is a rather sure thing.
you werent on l-1In post 692, Enchant wrote:Oh sorry, i dind't saw this is on E-1.
