Mafiascum.net

In post 199, Val89 wrote:Go on, I'll bite. Where in 194 is the accusation I need to respond to?

For that matter, what specific part of the bit I snipped was relevant to my point that there was very clearly 2 AFK slots and you were only mentioning the existence of one of them?

I snipped it because it very clearly has no relevance to my point, and to include it would only confuse the issue. I'm so very glad you've decided to attempt this "baffle the newbies with buzzwords and bullshit" defense though, because I think you are about to find yourself in a bit of a bind explaining your way out of it now.

In post 196, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:
So, when is your meta dive on me happening or was it just for show?

You want that rushed, do you? Seems scummy as well, to be honest.

Because if it’s sincere, then it points to you being town more likely than not. I have an intense distrust for snipped posts, especially when I know my words have been either taken out of context or misinterpreted.

So, are you genuinely attempting to sort me, or is everything you say going to be “everything Nancy posts confirms she’s scum here”?

Because you don’t know anything about how to correctly read me in that case.

I would seriously like to know why insisting my posts be interpreted in full and pushing you to do that makes me scum?

See ooh, you’re saying things that make me think you’re actually trying to read me but then it also reads like you’re more interested in confibiasing me. I particularly am bothered by your “doubling down” on me when you claim not to have read any other players.

In post 199, Val89 wrote:Go on, I'll bite. Where in 194 is the accusation I need to respond to?

For that matter, what specific part of the bit I snipped was relevant to my point that there was very clearly 2 AFK slots and you were only mentioning the existence of one of them?

I snipped it because it very clearly has no relevance to my point, and to include it would only confuse the issue. I'm so very glad you've decided to attempt this "baffle the newbies with buzzwords and bullshit" defense though, because I think you are about to find yourself in a bit of a bind explaining your way out of it now.

In post 196, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:
So, when is your meta dive on me happening or was it just for show?

You want that rushed, do you? Seems scummy as well, to be honest.

What “buzzwords” are you referring to? This is my first Newbie, so I just talk here like I do in every game I’m in. You’re finding scummy intent in absolutely everything I post, it’s almost funny and not just because you’re wrong but because you’re making so many unsubstantiated assumptions about what I’ve been posting.

In post 189, Val89 wrote:Right then. First off, area tags are a new one to me; and look like they might be as useful as when someone pointed out I could use "post" tags instead of manually linking the URL, so cheers for that one!

GrandpaMo

I've just finished playing my first game with GrandpaMo. For context, he was a VT who was mislimmed D2. In that game I initially read him as town, and was then later absolutely convinced he must have been scum based on his reaction to coming under E-1 pressure. I mention this because I think that experiance may well have informed some of his behaviour in this game; particulary the self-voting and the sort of "I don't give a f*ck" kind of attitude we saw early on.

Self-voting, and whether or not it was a pro-town behaviour, came up in that previous game. D1 ended in a sort of 1v1 "me-or-him" style duel that ended up being Town v Town, and the D1 lim ended up self-hammering, whilst admonishing Grandpa for not doing the same. I can see a world in which a Grandpa of either alignment, just coming out of that game, might reflexively decide to splash a self-vote in there; either as a "look, I'm actually town this game" signal, or as an attempt to pick up some superficial towncred. As it happens, I disgree that the self-vote or lack thereof was alignment indicative anyhow, but it did come up last game and I can see why Grandpa might have decided to do it here.

In addition, once that other player flipped VT the thread wasn't locked for a good while, and Grandpa came under some significant pressure. His reaction (which I think can be fairly summarised as mad panic and spaffing random reads up the wall with weak justification, at clear odds to what he had been saying up to then) got him widley scumread and ultimately mislimmed, and I can imagine he was in no rush to repeat that experiance. I should point out that until this morning that game was ongoing as noted in 128, but that justification does appear to tally with what Grandpa himself said on the issue when you read between the lines.

Turning to that 128 more widely; I have to say that when I skimmed through the game the first time last night, I really thought I was reading someone elses post - I had to go back up to check the author. In fact, it stands out so far in juxaposition with posts like 93 and 113, which I consider to be stereotypically Grandpa, and then an almost immediate laspe back into it in 169 that I've flip-flopped back and forth this morning about whether I actually consider this scum-inidcative in that he must have had some sort of coaching from a scum partner who was panicing they were about to lose half the scum team by page 6. Rereading several times, I've decided that there is enough of the 'essense' of Grandpa in it, however, and the actual logic tallies with what I know about him to come to conclusion that in fact, that isn't likley the case, and I agree entirely with Clark's 138 on the matter. Bravo, Grandpa. Let's hope that continues.

In conclusion then, I come to essentially the same conclusion as I did initially in my previous game. On more than a few occasions, Grandpa can be a tricky read, but I think we are looking at a Town!Grandpa trying his best to learn the lessons of his previous games. In that regard, I consider 135 and 144 to be entirely genuine; and lead me to assign Grandpa a

townread

here.

T3

T3 was the other player with whom I've played previously. As before, they strike me as someone who keeps their cards close to the chest and doesn't offer a lot of content. I agree with the assesment that what content we do have seems almost entirely focused on Grandpa, and they do read decidedly pleased about having something with Grandpa to lock on to. Prior to 164, I would have to read T3 as coming off scummy. He should have enough experiance with Grandpa to know he's a tricky read, and finding something to press on as early as 41 seems a little oppotunistic but I can see why a Town!T3 might use it as an opening to pile on a bit of presure. He has, however, just finished up a game where Grandpa was mislimmed for his reaction to pressure and he should also know that Grandpa is a bit of a easy target for scum because of his playstyle; so I was starting to get scumvibes from T3.

In post 164, T3 wrote:So basically Grandpasaid "I know his alignment and he knows mine" The he was referring to me.. and I was voting him. I'm voting him, and he's nodding along saying, yes, you know my alignment.

This, though, changes everything for me. As has been alluded to by both players already, T3 and Grandpa have some history. A pertinent point in that history is that T3 has played a game as town with a scum!Grandpa where T3 thinks they caught Grandpa 'perspective slipping'. The logic makes sense, and does seem to be a perfect example of what I think T3 means when he says 'perspective slipping'. To paraphrase, T3 is saying he threw some shade, and a vote, at Grandpa; and Grandpa's response was "T3 knows my alignment"; indicating Grandpa was indeed scum. The flaw, as I see it, is that I don't read 93 as Grandpa saying "T3 knows my alignment this game" but rather "We both have similar playstyles in that we can be fairly easy mislim targets for scum, but we generally have a better feel for deducing each others true alignment over some randoms that haven't played with us before".

I also think that's what...

In post 110, GrandpaMo wrote:so i can tell when they are town and scum while others cannot making him a very liable scumpush for mafia

..is trying to say more explicitly, although it's still clumsy.

My conclusion is that, although he is wrong, T3 seems as pleased with himself as he does because

he is

rather pleased with himself. He does actually think, with some justification from a T3 prespective, that he's solved half this game after 5 pages, and is going to end up being the hero of the town. That screams town to me, and is enough for me to give him a

townread

here, too.

Pedit: It's taken me a fair bit of time to type this up, and I can see there is some activity on the thread from Nancy while previewing, so I'm going to post these two reads to the thread now and come back to the others once I've seen if any of the new posts give me anything additional to go on whilst rumminating on the others.

Actually I kind’ve like this. I’m going to lean wrong town for now but if he continues to misrep my posts, that will change.

In post 200, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I have an intense distrust for snipped posts, especially when I know my words have been either taken out of context or misinterpreted.

Then show us how. I'm waiting. You've said several times its very clear that's what I am doing, that it should be obvious I'm running some sort of angle when you see the full post (and by implicition, there is something in the bit I omitted that renders my point moot).

If it's a clear as that, go ahead and quote what in the bit I snipped has any relevance one way or another on the point I made. It should be easy for you.

You can't, because you know I it is irrelevant, and I cut it for that exact reason. The fact you can only resort to screaming "Here's the full post! He misrepresented me!" without indicating how, despite prompting, is telling.

I'm willing to concede the issue if you can in fact now point to the misrepresentation in the snipped part, but we are all reading the same posts here, and I think it's obvious you can't, because no misrepresentation is in evidence.

In post 203, Val89 wrote:

In post 200, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I have an intense distrust for snipped posts, especially when I know my words have been either taken out of context or misinterpreted.

Then show us how. I'm waiting. You've said several times its very clear that's what I am doing, that it should be obvious I'm running some sort of angle when you see the full post (and by implicition, there is something in the bit I omitted that renders my point moot).

If it's a clear as that, go ahead and quote what in the bit I snipped has any relevance one way or another on the point I made. It should be easy for you.

You can't, because you know I it is irrelevant, and I cut it for that exact reason. The fact you can only resort to screaming "Here's the full post! He misrepresented me!" without indicating how, despite prompting, is telling.

I'm willing to concede the issue if you can in fact now point to the misrepresentation in the snipped part, but we are all reading the same posts here, and I think it's obvious you can't, because no misrepresentation is in evidence.

I think it’s possible you actually believe this but you’re still wrong. I explained the alt post, yet you have not commented on it nor the other post of mine. I need you to parse my posts in full or else we’re just going to continue to go round in circles.

In post 193, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:

In post 192, Val89 wrote:

Nancy Drew 39

This ISO started to ping me early on. 31 post at time of writing, and not sure what a fairly signifcant portion of them do. We have a an RVS vote on my slot followed by 5 posts that seem to offer nothing but apparently try and seem 'helpful'. There are some other things I find odd, such as the series of posts 74-76. A naked vote, followed by a naked townread, followed by the barest justification for said vote which amounts to "I didn't like this post" without explaning why. I don't see why the vote and the justification couldn't have been one post, apart from that it does serve to bump up the post count, and I don't follow the progression. It's almost as if she is reading the thread as she goes, the vote has gone in, she's saw something she could justify a TR on Psyche if nesacary and thought it important to get that in the thread, and then found something to justify the vote, or remembered afterwards they probably want something to justify the vote there if they don't want to get scumread, even if it is isn't actually a justification on closer look.

Admittedly, this could be a matter of play/post style, and I don't really want to go ahead and call it AI until I've had a chance to check through some of her other games. Speaking of meta...

In post 139, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:It was under an alt account which I’d prefer not to out.

This rubs me up the wrong way, too. I get why you would want to play alt accounts. I get why, to have full value out of playing under an alt, it's best not to be open about them; but to try and bring knowledge from those alt games into this one without reciprocating seems off to me - like, you are simulatanously acknolewldging the power and usefulness of a meta read and apply it to this game whilst trying to deny the use of the same tool against yourself; and I don't see why you would do that if you were town, and are playing your usual town game here. I can see the justification for it if you are scum, and you are worried some meta might catch you out in this game.

In any case, since the rules of this game explicitly say "play to win this game, not some future one" I think it's fair game to point out I am 99% confident this is the game we are talking about, and equally confident about the identity of the account in that game to which Nancy refers. I am sorry if the digging I've done on this one devalues your investment in that account, but like I said, I consider it fair game in that I think how you've approached the issue might well be alignment indicative in this game, and I think since then you've basically outted it yourself with the reference to bugspray in 147.

I am also a little unhappy with this reference:

In post 146, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:We still have a confirmed slot that hasn’t yet posted.

(SNIP)

I think until we hear from WS, I don’t want to assume more than one yet.

I am aware the WS slot is the slot I've replaced into, and her RVS vote is on my slot, but there is most certainly TWO slots to which the above applies, but only one gets a mention. What about the brookewyrm slot? Is there a reason Nancy fails to draw attention to that one, despite it being natural to refer to having 2 AFK slots at the time?

While none of it is particulary compelling in isolation, I think I have enough here in the 3 combined to satifisfy myself a

scumlean

is the correct read for this slot at this point

I have to leave now for a bit, and I realise this is a little bit of an inoppotune time given I haven't finished with all my reads, but I've skipped to Nancy because I think this is where my vote is best placed for the moment; so

VOTE: Nancy Drew 39

I was literally asked by both Mo and Clark how I could gave possibly misilimmed Mo because Clark could find no games.

So this take sounds either dishonest or you have no been reading. You’re trying to make it sound like I made a big deal about this rather than to try to solve Mo.

I’m also going to read the *SNIPPED* post too to determine if you also misrepped that.

Yeah, that’s right, please do a metadive on me and if you still double down after that, I probably have a pretty good idea where my vote will go.

I already explained the alt thing and why that was a bad take.

In post 146, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:

In post 142, GrandpaMo wrote:

In post 140, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:UNVOTE:

I lean to likely at least one scum on Mo wagon. Don’t think it’s Lunar or probably not Clark anymore.

you also had said psyche was leaning town for you. idk if lunar was voting me.

but if they were, then t3 is just left. does that mean you imply t3 is the scum on my wagon?

i also agree as i said previously. i do think there is probable scum on my wagon. i just dont know who rn

I liked that he expressed concern at your wagon being at E-1 but then he didn’t unvote, so idk. We still have a confirmed slot that hasn’t yet posted.

Well, I liked Clark unvoting you and I thought that Lunar seemed to believe what he was saying. According to what you’ve been alleging, T3 is supposed to be good at reading you, so if you’re town, then that probably doesn’t look great for him.

I think until we hear from WS, I don’t want to assume more than one yet. Has T3 ever wrongly sr you before?

I still don’t understand why you sr this?

Right, I'll try and spell this out as slowly and clearly as I can.

Here is the point I made in my read.

In post 192, Val89 wrote:there is most certainly TWO slots to which the above applies, but only one gets a mention. What about the brookewyrm slot? Is there a reason Nancy fails to draw attention to that one, despite it being natural to refer to having 2 AFK slots at the time?

Here is the post of yours to which I refer in full:

In post 146, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I liked that he expressed concern at your wagon being at E-1 but then he didn’t unvote, so idk. We still have a confirmed slot that hasn’t yet posted.

Well, I liked Clark unvoting you and I thought that Lunar seemed to believe what he was saying. According to what you’ve been alleging, T3 is supposed to be good at reading you, so if you’re town, then that probably doesn’t look great for him.

I think until we hear from WS, I don’t want to assume more than one yet. Has T3 ever wrongly sr you before?

I've explained above, but here, in some more detail, is why I scumread it. At the time of the post, there were clearly 2 AFK slots, WS (now me) and brookewyrm. You are correct that there was one confirmed slot that hadn't posted, that's a true statment; but there were in fact TWO that hadn't posted. You then say "I think until we hear from WS, I don't want to assume more than one yet.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the only way to read your post is "I don't want to say how many or who the scum on Grandpa's wagon could be, because there is at least one confirmed slot we haven't heard from. Until we hear from Wayward son, I reserve the right to read them as scum". Frankly, its a valid stance to take - you don't want to be drawn into making a guess as to how many scum are on Grandpa's wagon when there are 2 slots you litterally have no way of reading because they haven't posted. If you post instead read "I think until we hear from WS , I don't want to assume more than one" I would have taken no issue with.

My point is that you say "We still have confirmed slot that hasn't yet posted" (important note: not "two confirmed slots") and later, you name one of the two slots to which that applies - ""I think until we hear from WS" (important note: not "WS or brookewyrm").

The rest of the post I didn't consider relevant to that point. For the avoidence of doubt, here is everything you said that I snipped from that quote:

In post 146, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I liked that he expressed concern at your wagon being at E-1 but then he didn’t unvote, so idk.
Well, I liked Clark unvoting you and I thought that Lunar seemed to believe what he was saying. According to what you’ve been alleging, T3 is supposed to be good at reading you, so if you’re town, then that probably doesn’t look great for him.
Has T3 ever wrongly sr you before?

Your defense, rolled up into an accusation against me, is that I deliberately misrepresented what you said by ommiting those statements above. At this point, you've repeated that charge several times. My challenge to you has been to identify which part of the omission is the misrepresentation. You've failed to do so, despite trying to imply that you have, and that to me - sorry to say - is scummy AF, and I make no apologies for pointing it out. I will continue to do so until you identify I've misrepresented you instead of simplying screaming that and hope that's sufficent. It isn't.

In post 205, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I already explained the alt thing and why that was a bad take.

Except that I disagree that you have. You've certainly spammed the thread with a whole bunch of nothing, but I don't see anything that approaches an explanation on the 'alt thing' or why it's a bad take. If I am wrong, and I've missed something, please identify where.

The only thing that seems to come anywhere close to address it is in the 193; where you say

In post 193, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I was literally asked by both Mo and Clark how I could gave possibly misilimmed Mo because Clark could find no games.

So this take sounds either dishonest or you have no been reading. You’re trying to make it sound like I made a big deal about this rather than to try to solve Mo.

That to me appears on the surface to be the only attempt you've made to address the issue, and frankly, it does nothing of the sort. Yeah, you were literally asked by Mo and Clark how you could have mislimmed Mo, but you answer was "it was a game I played on an alt account, and I'm not telling you which". It was THAT response with which I take issue; and I've not yet seen you engage with the reasons I found that response to be scummy. I laid them out here:

In post 192, Val89 wrote:I get why you would want to play alt accounts. I get why, to have full value out of playing under an alt, it's best not to be open about them; but to try and bring knowledge from those alt games into this one without reciprocating seems off to me - like, you are simulatanously acknolewldging the power and usefulness of a meta read and apply it to this game whilst trying to deny the use of the same tool against yourself; and I don't see why you would do that if you were town, and are playing your usual town game here. I can see the justification for it if you are scum, and you are worried some meta might catch you out in this game.

Do you want to take the oppotunity to address why you think that's a bad take now, or do you still think screaming "misrepresentation" will be sufficent to satisfy me if you do it enough times?

In post 207, Val89 wrote:Right, I'll try and spell this out as slowly and clearly as I can.

Here is the point I made in my read.

In post 192, Val89 wrote:there is most certainly TWO slots to which the above applies, but only one gets a mention. What about the brookewyrm slot? Is there a reason Nancy fails to draw attention to that one, despite it being natural to refer to having 2 AFK slots at the time?

Here is the post of yours to which I refer in full:

In post 146, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I liked that he expressed concern at your wagon being at E-1 but then he didn’t unvote, so idk. We still have a confirmed slot that hasn’t yet posted.

Well, I liked Clark unvoting you and I thought that Lunar seemed to believe what he was saying. According to what you’ve been alleging, T3 is supposed to be good at reading you, so if you’re town, then that probably doesn’t look great for him.

I think until we hear from WS, I don’t want to assume more than one yet. Has T3 ever wrongly sr you before?

I've explained above, but here, in some more detail, is why I scumread it. At the time of the post, there were clearly 2 AFK slots, WS (now me) and brookewyrm. You are correct that there was one confirmed slot that hadn't posted, that's a true statment; but there were in fact TWO that hadn't posted. You then say "I think until we hear from WS, I don't want to assume more than one

[scum on Grandpa's wagon]

yet.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the only way to read your post is "I don't want to say how many or who the scum on Grandpa's wagon could be, because there is at least one confirmed slot we haven't heard from. Until we hear from Wayward son, I reserve the right to read them as scum". Frankly, its a valid stance to take - you don't want to be drawn into making a guess as to how many scum are on Grandpa's wagon when there are 2 slots you litterally have no way of reading because they haven't posted. If you post instead read "I think until we hear from WS

or brookewyrm

, I don't want to assume more than one" I would have taken no issue with.

My point is that you say "We still have

a

confirmed slot that hasn't yet posted" (important note: not "two confirmed slots") and later, you name one of the two slots to which that applies - ""I think until we hear from WS" (important note: not "WS or brookewyrm").

The rest of the post I didn't consider relevant to that point. For the avoidence of doubt, here is everything you said that I snipped from that quote:

In post 146, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I liked that he expressed concern at your wagon being at E-1 but then he didn’t unvote, so idk.
Well, I liked Clark unvoting you and I thought that Lunar seemed to believe what he was saying. According to what you’ve been alleging, T3 is supposed to be good at reading you, so if you’re town, then that probably doesn’t look great for him.
Has T3 ever wrongly sr you before?

Your defense, rolled up into an accusation against me, is that I deliberately misrepresented what you said by ommiting those statements above. At this point, you've repeated that charge several times. My challenge to you has been to identify which part of the omission is the misrepresentation. You've failed to do so, despite trying to imply that you have, and that to me - sorry to say - is scummy AF, and I make no apologies for pointing it out. I will continue to do so until you identify

how

I've misrepresented you instead of simplying screaming that

I have

and hope that's sufficent. It isn't.

I meant that without all of the slots posting, we don’t have the whole picture. I have to say that this interpretation does seem a bit over reactive however. So, that’s pinging me a bit.

No I explained and quoted the alt thing twice now, why are you ignoring that?

In post 208, Val89 wrote:

In post 205, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I already explained the alt thing and why that was a bad take.

Except that I disagree that you have. You've certainly spammed the thread with a whole bunch of nothing, but I don't see anything that approaches an explanation on the 'alt thing' or why it's a bad take. If I am wrong, and I've missed something, please identify where.

The only thing that seems to come anywhere close to address it is in the 193; where you say

In post 193, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I was literally asked by both Mo and Clark how I could gave possibly misilimmed Mo because Clark could find no games.

So this take sounds either dishonest or you have no been reading. You’re trying to make it sound like I made a big deal about this rather than to try to solve Mo.

That to me appears on the surface to be the only attempt you've made to address the issue, and frankly, it does nothing of the sort. Yeah, you were literally asked by Mo and Clark how you could have mislimmed Mo, but you answer was "it was a game I played on an alt account, and I'm not telling you which". It was THAT response with which I take issue; and I've not yet seen you engage with the reasons I found that response to be scummy. I laid them out here:

In post 192, Val89 wrote:I get why you would want to play alt accounts. I get why, to have full value out of playing under an alt, it's best not to be open about them; but to try and bring knowledge from those alt games into this one without reciprocating seems off to me - like, you are simulatanously acknolewldging the power and usefulness of a meta read and apply it to this game whilst trying to deny the use of the same tool against yourself; and I don't see why you would do that if you were town, and are playing your usual town game here. I can see the justification for it if you are scum, and you are worried some meta might catch you out in this game.

Do you want to take the oppotunity to address why you think that's a bad take now, or do you still think screaming "misrepresentation" will be sufficent to satisfy me if you do it enough times?

My not wanting to out my alt is scummy to you why?

VOTE: Val89

I’m really getting irritated with your attitude. Do better.

In post 209, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:No I explained and quoted the alt thing twice now, why are you ignoring that?

No, you haven't. I don't know who you think you are fooling with this performance, but it certainly isn't me.

Let's have a post number, shall we? Just give me the number of just of the posts you explain the alt thing.

Believe me, there is exactly zero chance of me ignoring the fact you haven't addressed the issue - I'll continue pointing out until you finally do address it, or one of us is eliminated.

@Val89, I’m dislike the superior and contemptuous tone you’re taking with me. There is absolutely no need for that. I don’t even have a read on you but I feel like you’re trying to bully and intimidate me with your tone and phrasing and I’m not engaging with it.

ah wow these posts have a lot of words

In post 211, Val89 wrote:

In post 209, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:No I explained and quoted the alt thing twice now, why are you ignoring that?

No, you haven't. I don't know who you think you are fooling with this performance, but it certainly isn't me.

Let's have a post number, shall we? Just give me the number of just

one

of the posts you explain the alt thing.

Believe me, there is exactly zero chance of me ignoring the fact you haven't addressed the issue - I'll continue pointing out until you finally do address it, or one of us is eliminated.

I have and you can continue to deny that all you like. I don’t feel like you’re actually trying to sort me. But I’m just pissed off at the way you continue to bully me, so if you’re town doing that, it’s on you.

Fair enough. It likley that if I were scum, I might be tempted to run down the "you are bullying me, you big bully" route if I had no actual response to the points made, so I don't take it personally.

In post 213, Psyche wrote:ah wow these posts have a lot of words

I don’t like the way he’s talking to me but I’ll be damned if I just continue to allow him or anyone to continue to browbeat me like that.

In post 215, Val89 wrote:Fair enough. It likley that if I were scum, I might be tempted to run down the "you are bullying me, you big bully" route if I had no actual response to the points made, so I don't take it personally.

I will ignore you for the rest of the game if you don’t knock it off.

Start being respectful or this will be my last post to you.

In post 185, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:This is why pushing people to vote is counter-intuitive. If Clark had voted without your pushing him to do so, I could actually reasonably evaluate that vote but because he did it only because of your urging, I really can’t. :/

I want to address this real quick before I get to the disagreements Nancy and Val are having. I think it is important to have your vote somewhere as much as possible, and to have the reasoning be as solid as possible. Obviously that latter part can't happen early in the game, hence RVS. I believe our votes are important tools and not using them isn't in the best interest of the game. My reaction to 151 was more that it felt like an unsolicited pro-town message that dovetailed with 67 to make Psyche feel a little LAMIST for my tastes. So my vote on Psyche is not because I was pushed by anybody. I like having my vote in use, and Psyche is higher on my scumdar for reasons I've brought up. You are free to evaluate the vote.

In post 216, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I don’t like the way he’s talking to me but I’ll be damned if I just continue to allow him or anyone to continue to browbeat me like that.

You know, if you truly believed that's what I am doing, I think you are going about this completely wrong.

You could give a calm, measured response to the points I was making, and then if I did continue to 'browbeat' you, I would be showing my hand as as the scummy twat, who is not interesting in sorting your slot, that you purport to find me.

I am sorry if you find my tone to be less than to your liking, but you are the slot I found scummiest, even before these interactions, for the reasons I've given in post 193, and I take offense when scummy slots start attacking the players and not the plays.

I don't think my tone has been rude. Forceful, perhaps, bringing attention back round to the fact you haven't addressed my points for scum casing you in the first place. I apologise publically if I have said anything that could be misconstrued as rude or a personal attack, but saying you are now going to ignore a slot that is scum reading you does nothing to make me think I'm on the wrong track here.

No, I’m not ignoring you because you’re wrongly sr me, I’m ignoring you because I don’t trust myself not to respond in a toxic manner. The bad sr I can handle, the intimidation and the browbeating, I will not engage.

Regarding the alt thing. I was annoyed that Nancy used a past experience with Grandpa to defend/justify the gameplay style they were using that got them to E-1 fairly quickly but then decided to not disclose the game in question. I wanted to skim that game for similarities to this one to get a better read on if what Nancy was saying was true and informed this game and Grandpa's play-style better. Why bring it up if we can only take her word for it? It felt to me that Nancy was advocating for Grandpa during his push and that pinged me so I wanted to explore their past relationship/interactions. Ultimately I was too lazy to sleuth the game out, and I wasn't motivated to bother Nancy about it. Seemed like a dead end. I will check out the link provided by Val later.

In post 221, ClarkBar wrote:Regarding the alt thing. I was annoyed that Nancy used a past experience with Grandpa to defend/justify the gameplay style they were using that got them to E-1 fairly quickly but then decided to not disclose the game in question. I wanted to skim that game for similarities to this one to get a better read on if what Nancy was saying was true and informed this game and Grandpa's play-style better. Why bring it up if we can only take her word for it? It felt to me that Nancy was advocating for Grandpa during his push and that pinged me so I wanted to explore their past relationship/interactions. Ultimately I was too lazy to sleuth the game out, and I wasn't motivated to bother Nancy about it. Seemed like a dead end. I will check out the link provided by Val later.

I can understand that but I was telling the truth, I did in fact miselim him and it was under a different account. If it had happened under this account, that would obviously be preferable but it wasn’t and that is my only experience playing with him.

Nancy Drew 39 wrote:No, I’m not ignoring you because you’re wrongly sr me, I’m ignoring you because I don’t trust myself not to respond in a toxic manner. The bad sr I can handle, the intimidation and the browbeating, I will not engage.

OK, that is fair enough. I've other slots to focus my attention on sorting, for now.

I think I'll trust the others to read what has been written and decide if I've been either intimidating, or browbeating, or if this is in fact an attempt by you to attack the player making the scum case on you, and to vote accordingly.

I'll move on to looking at the others, but it case in isn't clear, I am willing to go on record that my scum lean on Nancy can now be upgraded to a reasonably strong scumread. I'm not adverse to revisiting that however, if anyone, particularly my own townreads, have reason to disagree with me on that.

If you look at the game there are 2 options for the alt. It's not scummy, it's site custom.