↑ pistachi0n wrote: ↑ beeboy wrote:I haven't found any scum hunting from the Cakes slot that I actually like.
Discuss.
I was scumreading him for playing similarly in a different game, he flipped town. I'm not sold yet.
I don't actually think that beeboy's accusation of Cakes is particularly reasonable; the major accusation that beeboy had against him seemed to be that he was picking on shallow reasons as opposed to things that were actually scummy, and the two main points that he brought up in order to back that accusation up was Cakez disliking his waffling and Cakez calling Sword's replace out scummy. I thought Cakez backed up why it was a scummy replace out well (there are several players I play with where they hate playing scum and often collapse under pressure, if Swords is a scum player like this, I can see why Cakez would dislike the replace out + he wasn't the only person who called it a scum replace out), and I thought the scum motivation behind waffling that he offered, while it wasn't something that I agree with personally, made enough sense and was something that I could see someone genuinely believing.
The only part of Cakez's side that I find a bit hard to believe is him finding beeboy's waffling on Sakura scummy when beeboy was pushing FS with pretty dogged determination and conviction, and beeboy ended up changing his reads quickly enough where there is no way he could have been "changing them to fit the gamestate". So, the explanations for why he thought the things he was pushing were scummy meshed well enough, but the actual implementation of his reasoning didn't.
Pistach, my big problem with this commentary here is that it's shallow, doesn't really match up with the rest of your play; the only two times that you mentioned Cakez were to agree with the podoboq town read in
737 and to ask a fairly neutral question in
1070. What in Cakez's ISO do you think is shallow scum hunting or approaching things at a bad angle?
↑ SirCakez wrote:What solid discussion? You voted and unvoted within 8 posts.
And to expand on my last Cakez point, I also found this as a reason for disliking the vote switch to be more reasonable than the original waffling charge; it was a quick change, it didn't really seem to have any followable logic behind it; this followup makes me feel like the waffling charge originally seemed weak initially more due to poor wording than weird intent.
↑ pistachi0n wrote: ↑ beeboy wrote:Geez I suck at engaging scum reads.
Ok...I side-eye any sort of self-deprecating post in this game.
This is what I generally envision a potshot to be; it looks like you just drew out that beeboy's post was self-depreciate it and clocked him a few scum points even though he doesn't seem to be a significant scumread of yours and you were just agreeing with him about Cakez.
What scum motivation is there behind beeboy saying that he sucks at engaging scum reads? What do you think the intent behind that statement was?
↑ Mirhawk wrote:You literally ISO'ed me and picked at a bunch of random shit nobody had mentioned yet. Despite the effort into making the post it feels super lazy as well. I don't think you looked very closely at the posts I was responding to, which if you had a problem with my responses you should have.
This is a reference to pistachi0n's
1067, which is her case on Mirhawk. I don't really think that this is a poor interpretation of her case against him, fact checking work is below:
Pistachion's first point in
1067 is that Mirhawk saying that all dave does until his vote on Mirhawk is make sidelong glances at wagon's is a reach, which isn't something I agree with (and I don't think anyone who read dave's early posts would agree with either, even if they had a town read on him). Dave's early play is pretty passive, and I can see where Mirhawk can see dave trying to egg on major wagons (example:
88, which came on the heels of TWL's push on Axelrod not three posts before).
Her second point against Mirhawk is saying that him pushing dave is hypocritical because he's made comments on wagons too, which is pretty much completely wrong; Mirhawk's play, as he notes, is pretty much the opposite of dave's in that he has a lot of aggression in an unpopular target and is much more focused than dave (see:
82).
The other stuff in her attack is mostly agreeing with others or criticizing him for blanket dismissing suspicions, so I'd classify the significant thrust of the case (as in the one with the majority of pistachi0n's original thoughts) as those two points above.
Also wondering what Pistach's read on dramonic is at this point.
