In post 549, Flubbernugget wrote:Kat
The problem with that is that I'm more convinced on hop's portrayal than hum.
Though tbf, that's more along the lines of HUM being scum than me checking the citations
you should probably check the citations because hop's perspective is wrong and continues to be wrong even when he's held accountable...?
humaneatingmonkey wrote:im not caustic. im the friendliest person. im just calling it how it s. there are way worse people in mafiscum than me stop this fakenews
i dont really know how else to describe it
people obviously seemed to be annoyed by you bc this feels very you + me vs everyone else and sheep kind of unsure
Flubbernugget wrote:Kat,
Let's argue from the premise that hum was attempting genuine reaction tests.
Why can HUM then not point to a single thing about how they forwarded town? Why do you have to do that for him?
What does this say about him not willing to interact with me like he did with hop until there's evidence that people are starting to see what I'm catching on to? What does this say about the fact that it looks like he's faking reads? What does it say about him trying to get pressure off himself by calling my aggression uneccesary?
Because most people don't argue why they're town and let their own ISO shine or let other people step in? I'd be doing the same thing here.
Your other questions are all kind of loaded but uh
i can understand why he'd be annoyed interacting with you considering there's definitely an agenda being pushed on HEM, he doesn't look like he's faking reads, and i dont really have any qualms about that
humaneatingmonkey wrote:You know what this means, Kat. Hydra time after this game. If you're scum, I'll avoid playing with you again for leashing me.
dw im town
im definitely guilty of like lazy white knighting when i'm scum and i'm putting way more effort here than i actually want to
Sephiroth wrote: In post 560, Katyusha wrote:I think these three posts show that HEM's intentions are transparently not to just off Flubber.
Him asking for a votecount and pointing out that a lack of a VC is an easy excuse for scum to "accidentally" quickhammer shows that he's at least taking precautions. If he was being careless and just wanted Flubber to get quicklynched, there's no point in doing this. He could plausibly be scum trying to get towncred from this but that's not the argument being made.
Sure, there's risk involved in leaving someone at L-1, but 193 and him taking precautions shows that he's aware of that and is specifically creating an environment where if that were to happen there would be sufficient grounds to analyze the hammer beyond an ambiguous "oh, well, it was an accident!".
I suppose. I just don't think its particularly hard to take that stance and appear protown as scum here. At the end of the day he does want a quick lynch, if not a 'quicklynch', namean?
Like I said, it's possible he's scum and acting protown to achieve an anti-town and scum motivated (assuming they are different here) goal. But I think weighed against the rest of my read on him it's more likely he's town using this for information.
I don't think it's remotely close to a best case scenario but there definitely would be some utility in a lolhammer happening at that point if I didn't unvote considering what HEM did, so I guess that's the difference between it being a quick lynch and a "quicklynch". There's information to be gotten from a quick lynch, a "quicklynch" is obfuscation.
Flubbernugget wrote:Kat,
You keep doing this thing where you wallpost your reads but still don't comment on the aggregate of their play.
I mean it's easier to summarize the aggregate of someone's play by just giving a sentence or two like I did with town!HEM and did with scum!Hop at the end of my case. The point of giving a wall is to show individual points that lead to the conclusion. Sometimes it just doesn't work out.
pedit: yall i just want to post
