Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk because a push on a claimed VT is pretty terrible, actually.
Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk because a push on a claimed VT is pretty terrible, actually.
Really? Thank you for telling me what my post means now fucking die scum.In post 248, Selkies wrote:In post 184, Amrun wrote:I interpreted that as a town read, as only people I read as town are people I "wouldn't consider a lynch at all."In post 80, Nero Cain wrote:
I'll always be wary of Matt. Him lying/gambiting/reaction fishing is null but I'd strongly consider his lynch in a few days if we seem to not be hitting on scum. My vote is on Selk and yea it was RVS.I wouldn't consider a Selk lynch at all.I haven't found anything to yell at yet hence why I'm sitting on my RVS.No, that's not how that post works. When you say you wouldn't consider somebody's lynch at all,In post 185, Nero Cain wrote:No. I had no reason to suspect Selk yet. They weren't a "town" read but they weren't a scum read and I try to lynch my scum reads and not my null reads.you imply that you wouldn't consider them being scum(assuming you want to lynch scum).
Forced misrepresentation of own post to make your OMGUS on us seem more natural. Pretty sure scum intentions.
Also this. He has a meta of fakeclaiming not that of necessarily claiming vt.In post 250, Selkies wrote:Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk because a push on a claimed VT is pretty terrible, actually.
Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
Neither did you. Town players usually don't give a shit about "die scum".In post 253, Nero Cain wrote:Orc doesn't deny they are a scum slot.
????In post 250, Selkies wrote:Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk because a push on a claimed VT is pretty terrible, actually.
Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
You can have an unfirm opinion on page 3, but you were trying to weasel out of saying anything one way or another until you were asked directly. The scum motivation is not committing to a stance early on so you can take whatever stance is most advantageous later on. The most dangerous thing scum can do is take an early arbitrary stance.In post 249, Selkies wrote:What firm opinions do you want me to have on like page 3In post 181, Amrun wrote:This post pinged my scumdar hard. Demon is right on the money that Selkies is saying a lot without having any firm opinions, and this post (while it gets points for being unapologetic about it) only makes matters worse.
Matt is null, but I'm voting him while criticizing others for not voting scum reads, "but I think we can figure him out."
Tell me, HOW is making a vote and then declaring that you only read him as null going to help you "figure him out?" You haven't engaged Matt in any way. You are NOT trying to figure him out.
And early image consciousness.
Yup, definitely liking Selkie for scum at this point.
That's why I throw my vote around and see what sticks. To establish those firm opinions.
In retrospect, my answer to that question probably wasn't optimal wrt scumhunting or determining Matt's alliance. But I was asked it straight up by a person who was scumreading me, so I thought it best to be honest in that situation.
Anyways, you've shown it to be bad town play, but not scummy. Where's the scum intention?
Agree with this. It's NOT terrible ... at all.In post 250, Selkies wrote:Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk because a push on a claimed VT is pretty terrible, actually.
Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
We're having more of a mismatch in terms of online time this game due to school and stuff than in our previous game. There's a 15 hour time zone difference involved. This delays our discussions about the game and players' posts.In post 258, Amrun wrote:You can have an unfirm opinion on page 3, but you were trying to weasel out of saying anything one way or another until you were asked directly. The scum motivation is not committing to a stance early on so you can take whatever stance is most advantageous later on. The most dangerous thing scum can do is take an early arbitrary stance.In post 249, Selkies wrote:What firm opinions do you want me to have on like page 3In post 181, Amrun wrote:This post pinged my scumdar hard. Demon is right on the money that Selkies is saying a lot without having any firm opinions, and this post (while it gets points for being unapologetic about it) only makes matters worse.
Matt is null, but I'm voting him while criticizing others for not voting scum reads, "but I think we can figure him out."
Tell me, HOW is making a vote and then declaring that you only read him as null going to help you "figure him out?" You haven't engaged Matt in any way. You are NOT trying to figure him out.
And early image consciousness.
Yup, definitely liking Selkie for scum at this point.
That's why I throw my vote around and see what sticks. To establish those firm opinions.
In retrospect, my answer to that question probably wasn't optimal wrt scumhunting or determining Matt's alliance. But I was asked it straight up by a person who was scumreading me, so I thought it best to be honest in that situation.
Anyways, you've shown it to be bad town play, but not scummy. Where's the scum intention?
Agree with this. It's NOT terrible ... at all.In post 250, Selkies wrote:Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk because a push on a claimed VT is pretty terrible, actually.
Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
so not what Ghost saidIn post 256, Belisarius wrote:????In post 250, Selkies wrote:Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk because a push on a claimed VT is pretty terrible, actually.
Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
It's MattP who has the meta for claiming VT, not Milkshake.
so not what Ghost saidIn post 256, Belisarius wrote:????In post 250, Selkies wrote:Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk because a push on a claimed VT is pretty terrible, actually.
Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
It's MattP who has the meta for claiming VT, not Milkshake.
...yeah, scum.In post 256, Belisarius wrote:????In post 250, Selkies wrote:Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk because a push on a claimed VT is pretty terrible, actually.
Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
It's MattP who has the meta for claiming VT, not Milkshake.
^^ - oIn post 264, orcinus_theoriginal wrote:...yeah, scum.In post 256, Belisarius wrote:????In post 250, Selkies wrote:Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk because a push on a claimed VT is pretty terrible, actually.
Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
It's MattP who has the meta for claiming VT, not Milkshake.
You didn't read the post at all, did you?In post 256, Belisarius wrote:????In post 250, Selkies wrote:Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk becausea push on a claimed VTis pretty terrible, actually.
Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
It's MattP who has the meta for claiming VT, not Milkshake.
Feeling slightly queasy about that slot. Like it's..not something I can name, actually. They hadn't been town or scum for me until that last post clanged. There's no point in such...cordiality from a hydra, particularly since you occupied a slot that was low activity and somewhat suspicious.In post 230, Amrun wrote:Summarize your opinion of Selkies for me, Ghostlin.
You don't know if such a person is telling the truth to get reactions, lying to get reactions or toIn post 250, Selkies wrote:Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
Quote a single post where this is true. I'll wait.In post 241, fferyllt wrote:Apologies. I got you confused with Ghostlin.In post 239, Nero Cain wrote:I accused you of sucking up to Amrun? no. I think I rather kill this today instead of Milkshake. Make it so guys.In post 236, Selkies wrote:IMO Cain is doing exactly what he accuses me of doing. He's sucking up to you.
- f
@Ghostlin I attributed this post of yours to Nero Cain. The behaviors I thought were sucking up (and still do) were his solicitous conversations going over assorted potential scum partners of mine.In post 228, Ghostlin wrote:In post 226, Amrun wrote:Ghostlin, if you mean that they're sucking up to me and I suspect them, well, yes, that's true, but I haven't decided if it's genuine or not. It's something scum might do to town that enters the game strong and it's also something town might do with a town read, so...That was it. The kind of sucking up+the not a defense.