Made it to page 8 now. Lots of walls :p
Already gonig to bring up some things:
I really felt strong agreement when reading post
146, which is likeabauss' case on fferylt.
Fferyllt's replies in
147 and
148 are petty at best.
This short interactions screamed "SCUM USSING" to me:
In post 153, fferyllt wrote: In post 150, imkingdavid wrote:fferyllt - is your vote on me simply pressure or what? I see in #133 you say that bauss is your "strongest scum read" but I don't see a vote on him. I find it odd that you'd place your first vote in the game on a self-admitted inactive player rather than on your strongest suspect. Also, you're voting me, as I understand it, due to inactivity. But as others have rightfully pointed out, you've done a lot of talking without saying much (up till recently when you posted your reads on a few players). I don't see the difference between my inactive inactivity and your active inactivity.
Anyway, I won't be voting you at the moment. Inactivity is a fact and not really something you can defend against, and I don't find it strong enough to be a reason for you to be lynched, especially this early on.
That's two people who misunderstood my post about bauss. To clarify, bauss was my strongest scum read up to the point where he started making a case on me. He went from indirect to direct stance of attack, though I think his case is mostly rehashing others' comments.
I never put a vote down purely for pressure. If I vote then at that point in the game, I am willing to lynch. You have been inactive, though you've been slightly more of a presence than Lynx. But, lynx' two posts had IMO good, thoughtful content and questions. I like questions. Prior to this, though you had 5 posts, there was only one with even a little bit of content.
(note: imkingdavid was replaced by Cheery Dog)
I find the whole thing cringeworthy. First, imkingdavid sets himself up for an awesome argument against fferyllt: fferyllt is voting him due to inactivity (which, from an experienced IC, is a truly awful substitute for actual scumhunting and using your vote as a pressure-tool), while she claims to have a stronger scumread on someone else. This in itself is bizarre.
Yet instead of pointing that out, he doesn't really comment on the bad vote, but on fferyllt's "active inactivity". Which is also a good argument. A very good one. Someone "playing active" who votes "someone obviously inactive" has a tad of hypocrisy around them, and I don't like it.
But imkingdavid's reasons for not voting fferyllt really take the cake. "I won't vote you because inactivity can't be defended against". Really? He just explained the difference between "active inactivity" and the inactive kind. Surely you can explain yourself for having dissappointing content in your posts?
He also says "Not strong enough for a reason to be lynched?"? Who's talking about a lynch already? We're talking about a vote. Pressure.
Somehow the idea of fferyllt being lynched is prevalent in his mind, and the only reason I can think of as to why that is, is because fferyllt is his scumbuddy he's slightly bussing but is at the same time worried it would get her lynched as an end-result.
Fferyllt's reaction to it also sounds completely unnatural to me, first of all for not noticing the things I just noticed, or not appearing to. But she did. And that's why she distances herself. She uses very strong talk through expressing her willingness to lynch him because he's been too little of a presence. Again it's hypocritical in a way, and "willing toh ave someone lynched" because they posted five times and only meaningful once doesn't seem like an argument that would come naturally to anyone.
Right now I'm thinking fferyllt and Cheery Dog are the scum.
Be back later with further catch-ups. I realize this isn't the way this is usually done, but this conversation really stood out for me tremendously. Too bad imkingdavid replaced out.
