Yes, that is precisely what I felt like responding to, because your entire argument as to why you feel my read can't be genuine begins as follows:
In post 102, Lukewarm wrote:For starters, he has now backed off of the Not_Mafia scum read -- So his theory appears to be:
But, you are very clear in post
96 that you are aware that it wasn't a serious read. Whatever argument then follows from an obviously false premise is worthless, no?
Trying to tell us you think 'Val is scum because he is trying to sell us an argument he doesn't genuinely believe. He can't believe it because it doesn't make sense to me when you look at it from this chain of reasoning that begins with him backing off his scum read of Not_Mafia' when you've already explicitly said you don't believe the Not_Mafia read was serious, and I've confirmed that to be case, seems borderline trying to insult our intelligence, frankly.
My 'read' in
99, which in actual fact was more "here is something I think might be scummy about Lukewarm, what does everyone else think" than a scumread, isn't predicated on scumreading Not Mafia in the slightest. The thing I think might potentially be scummy is the fact that you took something I thought was obviously non-serious, that you were defending a scum partner, as serious, when at least some other players did not. You've tried attacking the argument by sarcastically suggesting that others DID take me seriously, and used, for example, selective quoting of Alstros post
73 to suggest they thought I was being serious when a read of the whole post makes it clear they did not. When I've pointed that out, you've moved on to trying to frame an argument that my read can't be genuine on a false premise - and when I pointed that out by simply quoting the obviously contradictory parts between 96 and 102, you then attempt to frame me as scum for pointing out that contradiction.
My
99 was simply pointing out something that pinged me as scummy, but I entered into this conversation believing with further exploration it may well turn out to be NAI or even perhaps town motivated. I have to say, your reaction seems somewhat strange. I don't believe you are a bad player, so why you feel the need to resort to sarcasm, selective quoting, and obviously disingenuous arguments as town, I don't know.
I still feel discussing
THIS
is likely to lead to posts that allow us to start forming reads more effectively than discussing some other RVS stuff like Zyla's
10 for instance, so I think inviting others to give their thoughts on the matter is the appropriate way forward here.
try to fight this undeniable logic
