In post 145, borkjerfkin wrote:the way he reached out to me specifically as if i was in danger of dissecting the issue too much before people talked about it fully. I don't think scum would have cared if i did that.
I don't feel that 71 feels like a backpedal because people didn't like him jumping on the wagon, it feels like an earnest mindset.
I don't know how to better explain it. A lot of people seem to want to shoot down this townread without doing anything other than replace it with nothing substantial.
I don't agree with this. I think he'd be more than aware that he couldn't just make up a "reaction test" without following through and actually treating it like one.
besides that, it isn't that I just want to shoot down your read for no reason; I just don't have the same sense you do at this point in the game and am hoping to 1. refine my read and make it easier for me to come to the same conclusion as you later if he is town, 2. try to interact with you to hopefully firm up my read on you some.
In post 148, borkjerfkin wrote: In post 132, Seiko x Naomi wrote:second, Charl is town. I don't think 87 comes from scum, and beyond that I'm fine with his posts in general. I pretty obviously disagree with notty's read here; ideally I'd let him handle it himself, but if he continues not to be here poke me again and I can talk more about it.
I think you should talk more about it; 87 is, by his own admission, not a legitimate claim. Why is this a slam dunk town post for you?
I think notty, no offense, has a stick up his ass about people lying when they shouldn't be or, generalized, doing things that he perceives as anti-town or bad play that they shouldn't do. he's absolutely right about a lot of things (spam posting being a huge issue for him), but he's wrong about the issue here (that lying during a mass claim is always a bad thing).
I'm pretty sure he realizes that his original point was weak in terms of scum reading Charl, but I didn't really see any reason to get in the way of it when it could generate pressure/discussion (which is something Charl himself pointed out).
anyway, about 87, it read to me as a very tongue-in-cheek way of saying "all of you people who take these claims at face value are dumb", which is a thought process that 1. strikes me as somewhat more unlikely from scum, but also 2. even if he thought along those lines as scum I don't think he'd be likely to express it by fake claiming; it'd have been a lot easier to just say as much and complain hoping to seek town cred from it.
