In post 304, James Brafin wrote:
Firstly, what the heck? Second page, first post by Flicker, and we are already discussing policy lynching? And her only other reason is that she doesn't like "confidence." I don't understand why town can't eb confident in their scum reads, esp. since she's confident in her town reads later on.
My issue was
your high degree of confidence so early in the game
, not confidence as a general concept. I also think there's two different kinds of confidence - relative confidence in your readlist (town vs. town-lean), and a more absolute confidence about the game and your reads overall. Like, I wouldn't bet on my reads, but I still feel okay to put them out there and act on them, especially since, in the grand scheme of things, this is just a game.
Oh look, confidence in a read, after saying she doesn't are for this confidence from me. Surprise. And then there is this thing about not getting followers. It looks like she's trying to lead a lynch and gain town cred.
My "Confident enough" =/= your "fairly confident."
I already explained the "followers" comment in
post #120.
This is freaking insane. Town should never shoot for a mislynch that gives them no information. That's just stupid; how are you going to catch scum if you lynch for no info, esp. that early? This is a blatant attempt to make a very scummy action (getting a mislynch) look less scummy.
I wasn't looking to turbo-lynch you - there would have been plenty of time to get information if my concern still stood. And I didn't really have a read on you that early, so I wasn't "shooting for a mislynch" (and I'm still not! If you flip town I'm gonna be disappointed!), I was using my vote as a tool to gain information and putting my honest opinion out in explanation.
I touched on my policy lynch stance a bit in
post #193, but I'll lay out my reasoning more fully here.
Is a policy-lynch generally a pro-town move? In the strictest sense, I guess not. But, as a player, regardless of alignment, I put "having fun" and "winning" at the same level. And at the time (where I noted later on that I had a headache and thus was feeling more irritable), I saw your posting style as being antithetical to "having fun." Most importantly, I don't think it's anti-town to want to have fun and hopefully make the game more fun (or at least easier to follow) for other people, too.
Also, if I was scum, I probably wouldn't have said anything about a policy lynch, because it seems like
a very contentious topic, and what kind of dumb scum would I be for bringing that kind of heat and scrutiny upon myself, especially if I didn't believe it?
Rereading your post, there's no way that's your intention. There's no mention of Nauci in that post, or adding pressure. This is bull.
The "just like Nauci said" was in reference to
post #96, and I was basically just pointing out that I agreed with her thoughts w/r/t voting. And just because I didn't explicitly mention all my reasons doesn't mean they didn't exist. I frankly thought it would be self-evident that I was moving to put pressure elsewhere (because all votes put pressure somewhere). And I was also saying I was finally ready to vote with Nauci - I guess I should have typed "comfortable" instead of "confident," to make the call-back clear (although confidence and comfort are sort of inter-related to me).
Also, are you a mind-reader? Because I think I know my intentions better than you.
A) Okay, so I lose my confidence, but I'm still scummy? What the literal frick? That makes NO sense to me.
B) It looks like you're both sucking up to DDS and looking for town cred in this interaction with him.
A) That was in response to your 4:1 scum-reads to town-reads, not anything about your confidence.
B) The little aside I quoted from DDS was the funniest thing I'd read all game, literally laugh-out-loud, so I threw in an emoji to mark it. I also gave an honest impression of his post in general. I don't need to "suck up" or get town cred from anyone, I'm hoping people correctly read me as town based on my pro-town contributions.
A) So you're telling me that that post, coming from town, is fine, but coming from scum, is not? That makes loads of sense; how is something indicative one way if one persons says it, but the other way if the other person says it?
B) This is subtle buddying. It reads like you are trying to remind your scumbuddy that you're their scumbuddy.
A) I'm saying that the line of logic, and the conclusions put forth (most importantly, that Nauci was town) were barely agreeable with, but that because I didn't think teacher was town, I didn't agree with them, and saw them more as an attempt to make up an explanation for their bad decision after the fact. My saying "... fine, if you're town," is me saying, "okay, I don't really believe you, though."
B) Why would I need to remind my buddy that we're buddies in
this
thread, if we had a private topic together? All I was doing was giving my honest opinion, no more or less.
What the heck is this supposed to mean?
Oxy asked me for my brief scum-read on you, I gave it. I don't know what's so confusing about it.
And now we start paying attention to appearances once pressure is on.
It's not about appearances, it's about how eventually we should make a decision to lynch, and the amount of hesitation and concern for you that teacher was expressing seemed a little silly and/or potentially suspicious.
I've seen plenty of wagons fall apart at L-1. Trying to force the day to be over helps no one.
Frankly, did part of me want the day to just be over at that point? Yes. But I wasn't trying to force anything, just moving you to L-1 and waiting to see if someone would call for intent, or quick hammer, or something else.
YES. HE does, he's telling you he wants you to move your vote btween one of those three. But you won't move your vote.
I mean, that's the implication, but he could also have wanted me to stay on you for a little longer to see your reaction, or maybe he doesn't really care and he's only pretending to because he's actually scum. Since his actual answer is that he doesn't want to "coach" me, I still don't know.
