In post 1011, Roden wrote:We argued sure but I don't think we're on the same wavelength. I don't understand the crux of your argument, or at least I don't understand why you think my behavior comes from scum.
you said a thing, you backtracked on thing, instead of answering points against you, you discredited the argument which is something scum does because they can't argue normally because they come from a place of untruth. you dropped ATE which looks scummy as hell to try and divert suspicion off of you.
In post 1011, Roden wrote:The only thing I kind of get is the backtrack/backpedal argument but I don't really agree with it. I don't like the idea that backpedaling is scummy, it would be one thing if I never gave a solid read ever but that wasn't what happened. I gave some shotgun reads a little over 24 hours into the game and even said they weren't solid but wanted to get my starting thoughts out there. But I'm not going to be receptive to adjusting my reads or acknowledging a scum case on me, if the reaction to seeing me go back on a read is to call it backpedaling and tell me I'm scummy for backpedaling. Like, I'm just going to fight it and not even say I'm backpedaling if you're going to frame it as scummy, and it isn't really reasonable to believe I should react differently. I'm just never going say I'm doing "X Act" when someone says "X Act" is scummy, that's just my initial reaction to everything, if not outright arguing against the notion the "X Act" is scummy.
the point was to prove you were backpedalling, i don't really care how you fight it. saying x and y were related and then jumping back is testing the waters as scum and then realizing you made a mistake, that's the way i see it. town doesn't need to backpedal because they tell the truth
In post 1011, Roden wrote:Especially since it puts me in a situation where I'm being called scummy for backpedaling but also scummy for not admitting I'm backpedaling.
wrong. all you had to do was explain why you backpedaled. you failed to do that.
