Alright, I'm back. Yesterday was a personal day and I only had time to post once at work, and once when I got home. Anyway.
In post 228, cowsloveSushirolls wrote: In post 198, Emberbloom wrote:None of Koba's posting has shown they have a thought process. It's just reads and shit-stirring.
i didn't feel that way when they asked
166, which was why i answered it so readily. forcing me into a situation like that means that they're obv looking at me at a certain angle
it all feels really stubborn, which was something i disregarded in the first koba/ember argument but it's a recurring response to their pressure
Sure. I get how you see stubborn. Aside from the once-a-post reminder that Koba thinks I'm scum, the other thing that bugs me though is that their scenario also involves Hockey. And while I found a few posts that did look alright individually from Hockey, there's still weird vibes I'm getting from the two of them. More on that later.
But sure, it could be Koba trying to figure things out. Could also be Koba setting up "look, here's my Hockey townread from this post here" for later.
And the fact that Koba's approaching the game by implying that scum always strictly give reads and need to stick to them (thus the strategy from "town" Koba to "lock them into thoughts") is... false. At least on Day 1. If you're (general you're) scum that's needing to set up end-of-game mislims and need to watch how you're perceived, sure this logic tracks, but... trying to pigeonhole people into reads Day 1 is useless. The fact that this is where their head's at is weird to me.
I don't know if this makes better sense, but best way I can word it: the fact that they're trying to scumhunt by holding people to actions, instead of holding people to intentions, is what's bugging the crap outta me. They wanted your read on those slots to hold you to them later (
208). Not to actually figure out your slot. Y'know?
i think it's more that their thought process isn't transparent
with that rephrased, i don't really see how this is alignment indicative. it gets even more NAI when koba's directly aware of it (
109)
Have you considered that the person who claims they have an S tier scumgame with regards to their reactions being perceived as genuine, may be lying or has a motive to push scummy actions as "Not Alignment Indicative"? Koba themselves say in
241 that scum tend to hang out as "null reads". So as scum, trying to claim everything or most things you've done so far is "null at best"/NAI would be a good strategy, so no one gets too solid a read on you, yeah?
What is the town motivation to insist your actions are NAI, outside of this entire thing playing to your meta instead of your wincon?
One step further to connect some dots - as scum, couldn't it make sense to use that strategy of "make sure no one gets a solid read on you" in tandem with "locking people into thoughts"?
where i start to get tinfoily is when i iso you, look for my name and see that overall i'm null or arm's reach from a vote but you've only mentioned positive things from me in order to poke at koba, and offhandedly you'll say things like "i could understand the votes he received"
can i ask you directly what has pinged you?
I don't recall giving the impression you were close to a vote from me. So I'm gonna have to go back and look, only because I don't remember.
I think the best explanation I have is that I had no idea how to parse your "strike system" posting from early D1, as far as if it was alignment indicative or if it was even a genuine reaction test vs scum just talking to talk. I had vibes of "scum that stays friendly and active" early on, before I got into things with Koba.
This is kinda why you were one of the ones that I noted having to go back and reread; mostly to check the earlier stuff that gave me weird vibes. When I brought you up in my Koba case (
198), I was reading posts from Koba directed at you and didn't necessarily take anything in from your slot concerning such; Koba could have been referring to any user, really, they just so happened to be referring to you.
You had good posts in
32 and
95. That's why I was like, I'll give you a pass for now - 95 showed your strike system had a plan, but I didn't know how to parse everything, so I noted you for rereading later.
When I answered STD about reads in 197, I said that
if I responded earlier
(around post 129), I would have said "I got odd pings from cows; I could understand the two votes he received." I looked over the posts between the two, and
142,
147,
163,
179,
188 - all show a consistent attempt at discussing and figuring out Hockey and toxic. All seems fine, genuine, and consistent.
So, I guess to give a comparison, maybe your early posting pinged me as active scum kinda how toxic's openers pinged you as lurker scum? Hence why I was like "meh, I get it" when you got two votes. I said you could be "big brain"-ing one of your posts because I already had a certain interaction on my mind (toxic and I both shared similar sentiments in 'posting with a plan' - so when the third person chimes in i.e. you, the gut reaction was basically "okay; calm down")... but maybe I was just being paranoid.
I'll still reread your earlygame but I don't expect to find any glaring issues so it won't be a suspenseful wait for an update there.
Back with more later.
