You still haven't explained why I, a person you assumed was attacking over the slip, got attacked whilst two other players who specifically were attacking over the slip were not.
In post 996, Benmage wrote:-I wholly disagree with your drastic conclusion that what you said and what I said are anywhere near similar.
As far as I was concerned, you connected a "slip" as a scum read, and wanted to lynch the person the slip is about as the next lynch if the first were to flip scum. I said the first may flip scum, but such a flip would have no reflection upon the second person, whom you wanted to see hung.... Whats the word...
'lining up lynches'
if you will.
Which is nothing like you saying that I'm lining up lynches does with your read of me if he flips scum?
It's the same sort of thing except you're using a different weak connection than the one you feel I'm using.
I don't think either is intrinsically scummy - but the double standard from you is.
What am I missing here?
In post 996, Benmage wrote:So since I seem to be confused by which connective tell you were using, please quote for me the Naut post you had issues with, and break down why this gave you a connective scum tell for me... as if I were a 5 year old (I simply hate ambiguity, see above confusion). Thank you.
I didn't connect them to you - what are you talking about?
I did say you connected us to them...is that what you mean? For that - you did it yourself, so I have no idea why you need me to quote it.
As far as the post I had issues with, it was Posts 834-835 on this page;
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... &start=825
The way both of them denied it in weaksauce ways wherein one was like "But Elli hasn't even been in the QT" which is not a defense, and the guy who *did* nameslip about Elli points out he has only ever played with Elli once, which seems to strengthen the value of the slip tell, not weaken it/ Both were too worked up over it, making me feel there is something there.
@Goat - if you want a good wagon, the Amrun one is right here for you. Why avoid it in favor of Safety?
@Chephir - you keep harping on the cherry pick and now bring up that I did the worst ones first...um...was my response to the 2nd set you demanded that hard? Both you (and her) even admitted the points I hadn't addressed were weak and silly, so...where are you coming from suggesting I avoided the tough ones? Can you support that claim?
Desp is winning the debate with Ceph easily.
Frankly he's re convincing me that Ceph needs death.
I like the Zdenek slot more now than I did - move it to nullish.
@Mollie - he did replace out for that, and I actually don't even think it was that rude on my part. Maybe I'm a total jerk and can't tell, but I personally think I hit too close to home and that's why he reacted so strongly. Draw your own conclusions. It's still pretty clear that a scumhunting style that can't be explained lacks logic - that's pretty much the definition of a method that can't be explained.
You're wrong about Alfred also - look at his defense and reasoning to clear Benmage. That's pretty amazing scum play if he's scum. (well, I guess the could be buddies...but then it's really ballsy scumplay, so same reasoning to call him townish)
@Tammy - so...discussing reads makes him town? Isn't that sort of scum 101 in a Neighborhood?
As a general note, I will add that I don't think Former has a clear handle on my meta, nor on how it shifts from a Newbie mini to an experienced Large.
He's still 'right' but for wrong reasons.
I'll actually slide Messiah into my slightly scum pile for it too, simply because I would expect Former to be a bit more inherently paranoid. This level of trust feels off.
