https://forum.mafiascum-staging.net/
The comment on the RVS vote was me disagreeing with your point on multiple level. I don’t think game choice is connected to play style, and defensiveness is not always scummy.In post 571, Alchemist21 wrote:I’m still waiting for you to answer this.In post 568, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m right here buddy.In post 558, Alchemist21 wrote:I don’t have much more to say right now. I’m trying to understand Gamma and that conversation will take some time.In post 555, Evenstar wrote:If I had a specific question in mind, I would have asked it. Penny for your thoughts, I suppose?In post 549, Alchemist21 wrote:If you want more from me then talking to me is the way to do it, not voting someone you just put in your Townreads.
In post 520, Alchemist21 wrote:Maybe you thought it would be awkward if you didn’t acknowledge our history.In post 513, Gamma Emerald wrote:And yet I don’t say anything until I react to that later post. Why do you think scum!me feels I have to acknowledge our history? It’s less important to me than my history with, say, MariaR or A50. Yes I did have a solid read record on you but unlike those two I don’t think we play together enough rn for me to care.In post 378, Alchemist21 wrote:The thing is Gamma hasn’t really commented on me since that game I fooled them as scum; before that they claimed to be an expert at reading me. That’s been a while ago, so for them to make such an odd comment towards me now, it seems like they feel they HAVE to comment on me for some reason.In post 371, TemporalLich wrote:oh alright...In post 370, Alchemist21 wrote:A) It’s still an odd comment for an RVS vote.
B) I thought Gamma had been here the whole time and didn’t realize they were catching up.
just means Gamma is NAI-weird and off-meta, not scummyIf that’s not what it was then what was that comment on my rvs vote about?
Why did you feel a need to disagree with it? Did you think any part of my post was serious?In post 576, Gamma Emerald wrote:The comment on the RVS vote was me disagreeing with your point on multiple level. I don’t think game choice is connected to play style, and defensiveness is not always scummy.In post 571, Alchemist21 wrote:I’m still waiting for you to answer this.In post 568, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m right here buddy.In post 558, Alchemist21 wrote:I don’t have much more to say right now. I’m trying to understand Gamma and that conversation will take some time.In post 555, Evenstar wrote:If I had a specific question in mind, I would have asked it. Penny for your thoughts, I suppose?In post 549, Alchemist21 wrote:If you want more from me then talking to me is the way to do it, not voting someone you just put in your Townreads.
In post 520, Alchemist21 wrote:Maybe you thought it would be awkward if you didn’t acknowledge our history.In post 513, Gamma Emerald wrote:And yet I don’t say anything until I react to that later post. Why do you think scum!me feels I have to acknowledge our history? It’s less important to me than my history with, say, MariaR or A50. Yes I did have a solid read record on you but unlike those two I don’t think we play together enough rn for me to care.In post 378, Alchemist21 wrote:The thing is Gamma hasn’t really commented on me since that game I fooled them as scum; before that they claimed to be an expert at reading me. That’s been a while ago, so for them to make such an odd comment towards me now, it seems like they feel they HAVE to comment on me for some reason.In post 371, TemporalLich wrote:oh alright...In post 370, Alchemist21 wrote:A) It’s still an odd comment for an RVS vote.
B) I thought Gamma had been here the whole time and didn’t realize they were catching up.
just means Gamma is NAI-weird and off-meta, not scummyIf that’s not what it was then what was that comment on my rvs vote about?
Is that all, it feels like you have more you want to talk about.
What do you think is your most non-consensus read atm?In post 569, Alchemist21 wrote: So far I’m only sure on Townreading Severa and Salamence. Severa’s main is someone I’ve played with a lot and I’m fairly confident this is their Town play. Regardless of whether Salamance’s claim is real or not, I don’t think scum would cave so easily to a fake guilty on them so I townread them for the response.
You’re the first one to reach out to me so you’re a bit Towny too.
Gamma’s the closes thing to a scumread I have right now but it’s not definite.
Talk to me about Sujimichi and Bitmap.
Probably Gamma. I know other people are looking at them, but not for the same reasons I am.In post 580, Evenstar wrote:What do you think is your most non-consensus read atm?In post 569, Alchemist21 wrote: So far I’m only sure on Townreading Severa and Salamence. Severa’s main is someone I’ve played with a lot and I’m fairly confident this is their Town play. Regardless of whether Salamance’s claim is real or not, I don’t think scum would cave so easily to a fake guilty on them so I townread them for the response.
You’re the first one to reach out to me so you’re a bit Towny too.
Gamma’s the closes thing to a scumread I have right now but it’s not definite.
254 came across as a double discredit to me. You discredit his belief that sheeping is scummy by telling him to explain and then strawmanning his argument by saying the votes that would follow would also be sheep and need to be voted by that logic, which is not true imo. You also discredit any wagon led by him on you by creating the implication that the wagon would be dishonest via an assumed hypocrisy.In post 573, Alchemist21 wrote:While we’re at it you can explain what scum motivation you thought was in 254In post 571, Alchemist21 wrote:I’m still waiting for you to answer this.In post 568, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m right here buddy.In post 558, Alchemist21 wrote:I don’t have much more to say right now. I’m trying to understand Gamma and that conversation will take some time.In post 555, Evenstar wrote:If I had a specific question in mind, I would have asked it. Penny for your thoughts, I suppose?In post 549, Alchemist21 wrote:If you want more from me then talking to me is the way to do it, not voting someone you just put in your Townreads.
In post 520, Alchemist21 wrote:Maybe you thought it would be awkward if you didn’t acknowledge our history.In post 513, Gamma Emerald wrote:And yet I don’t say anything until I react to that later post. Why do you think scum!me feels I have to acknowledge our history? It’s less important to me than my history with, say, MariaR or A50. Yes I did have a solid read record on you but unlike those two I don’t think we play together enough rn for me to care.In post 378, Alchemist21 wrote:The thing is Gamma hasn’t really commented on me since that game I fooled them as scum; before that they claimed to be an expert at reading me. That’s been a while ago, so for them to make such an odd comment towards me now, it seems like they feel they HAVE to comment on me for some reason.In post 371, TemporalLich wrote:oh alright...In post 370, Alchemist21 wrote:A) It’s still an odd comment for an RVS vote.
B) I thought Gamma had been here the whole time and didn’t realize they were catching up.
just means Gamma is NAI-weird and off-meta, not scummyIf that’s not what it was then what was that comment on my rvs vote about?
Are you saying your list was bsIn post 574, Evenstar wrote:null line is exactly halfway through the playersIn post 567, Gamma Emerald wrote: How the hell do you “need more information” on your top scumread? That plus voting someone above the null line is super suspect.
draw your own conclusions
that's certainly a conclusion you can drawIn post 587, Gamma Emerald wrote:Are you saying your list was bsIn post 574, Evenstar wrote:null line is exactly halfway through the playersIn post 567, Gamma Emerald wrote: How the hell do you “need more information” on your top scumread? That plus voting someone above the null line is super suspect.
draw your own conclusions
I think it’s fair to say you have been agreeing with others a lot. Yes, you’ve raised points yourself but it seems like you’re more than happy to sit behind someone and cheerlead them. I think the Boonism for that action is warlocking? It comes across as scummy because you’re trying to promote the idea without taking as much responsibility. I know scum do this because I did it myself subconsciously once when I was starting out.In post 575, Sujimichi wrote:I can't argue with your opinion.
And, yes, I have stated where I agree with others. This is true. Consistently is not an adverb that is accurate, however.
You are correct that it was a discredit, and that’s because we disagree on whether sheeping is scummy. This isn’t the first game I’ve been accused of being scum just because I followed consensus. It’s not an accurate tell, and I’m not even much of a sheep; I just agree with what I agree with, and agreeing with people doesn’t make someone scum.In post 585, Gamma Emerald wrote:254 came across as a double discredit to me. You discredit his belief that sheeping is scummy by telling him to explain and then strawmanning his argument by saying the votes that would follow would also be sheep and need to be voted by that logic, which is not true imo. You also discredit any wagon led by him on you by creating the implication that the wagon would be dishonest via an assumed hypocrisy.In post 573, Alchemist21 wrote:While we’re at it you can explain what scum motivation you thought was in 254In post 571, Alchemist21 wrote:I’m still waiting for you to answer this.In post 568, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m right here buddy.In post 558, Alchemist21 wrote:I don’t have much more to say right now. I’m trying to understand Gamma and that conversation will take some time.In post 555, Evenstar wrote:If I had a specific question in mind, I would have asked it. Penny for your thoughts, I suppose?In post 549, Alchemist21 wrote:If you want more from me then talking to me is the way to do it, not voting someone you just put in your Townreads.
In post 520, Alchemist21 wrote:Maybe you thought it would be awkward if you didn’t acknowledge our history.In post 513, Gamma Emerald wrote:And yet I don’t say anything until I react to that later post. Why do you think scum!me feels I have to acknowledge our history? It’s less important to me than my history with, say, MariaR or A50. Yes I did have a solid read record on you but unlike those two I don’t think we play together enough rn for me to care.In post 378, Alchemist21 wrote:The thing is Gamma hasn’t really commented on me since that game I fooled them as scum; before that they claimed to be an expert at reading me. That’s been a while ago, so for them to make such an odd comment towards me now, it seems like they feel they HAVE to comment on me for some reason.In post 371, TemporalLich wrote:oh alright...In post 370, Alchemist21 wrote:A) It’s still an odd comment for an RVS vote.
B) I thought Gamma had been here the whole time and didn’t realize they were catching up.
just means Gamma is NAI-weird and off-meta, not scummyIf that’s not what it was then what was that comment on my rvs vote about?
It could have been serious but my post wasn’t 100% serious eitherIn post 579, Alchemist21 wrote:Why did you feel a need to disagree with it? Did you think any part of my post was serious?In post 576, Gamma Emerald wrote:The comment on the RVS vote was me disagreeing with your point on multiple level. I don’t think game choice is connected to play style, and defensiveness is not always scummy.In post 571, Alchemist21 wrote:I’m still waiting for you to answer this.In post 568, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m right here buddy.In post 558, Alchemist21 wrote:I don’t have much more to say right now. I’m trying to understand Gamma and that conversation will take some time.In post 555, Evenstar wrote:If I had a specific question in mind, I would have asked it. Penny for your thoughts, I suppose?In post 549, Alchemist21 wrote:If you want more from me then talking to me is the way to do it, not voting someone you just put in your Townreads.
In post 520, Alchemist21 wrote:Maybe you thought it would be awkward if you didn’t acknowledge our history.In post 513, Gamma Emerald wrote:And yet I don’t say anything until I react to that later post. Why do you think scum!me feels I have to acknowledge our history? It’s less important to me than my history with, say, MariaR or A50. Yes I did have a solid read record on you but unlike those two I don’t think we play together enough rn for me to care.In post 378, Alchemist21 wrote:The thing is Gamma hasn’t really commented on me since that game I fooled them as scum; before that they claimed to be an expert at reading me. That’s been a while ago, so for them to make such an odd comment towards me now, it seems like they feel they HAVE to comment on me for some reason.In post 371, TemporalLich wrote:oh alright...In post 370, Alchemist21 wrote:A) It’s still an odd comment for an RVS vote.
B) I thought Gamma had been here the whole time and didn’t realize they were catching up.
just means Gamma is NAI-weird and off-meta, not scummyIf that’s not what it was then what was that comment on my rvs vote about?
Is that all, it feels like you have more you want to talk about.
That's almost my scumread list. Could you remove bitmap?
I’ll say it again - agreeing with consensus doesn’t make someone scum.In post 589, Gamma Emerald wrote:I think it’s fair to say you have been agreeing with others a lot. Yes, you’ve raised points yourself but it seems like you’re more than happy to sit behind someone and cheerlead them. I think the Boonism for that action is warlocking? It comes across as scummy because you’re trying to promote the idea without taking as much responsibility. I know scum do this because I did it myself subconsciously once when I was starting out.In post 575, Sujimichi wrote:I can't argue with your opinion.
And, yes, I have stated where I agree with others. This is true. Consistently is not an adverb that is accurate, however.
Eh this kinda makes sense but the fact there’s so much I find wrong in that small post is not a good signIn post 590, Alchemist21 wrote:You are correct that it was a discredit, and that’s because we disagree on whether sheeping is scummy. This isn’t the first game I’ve been accused of being scum just because I followed consensus. It’s not an accurate tell, and I’m not even much of a sheep; I just agree with what I agree with, and agreeing with people doesn’t make someone scum.In post 585, Gamma Emerald wrote:254 came across as a double discredit to me. You discredit his belief that sheeping is scummy by telling him to explain and then strawmanning his argument by saying the votes that would follow would also be sheep and need to be voted by that logic, which is not true imo. You also discredit any wagon led by him on you by creating the implication that the wagon would be dishonest via an assumed hypocrisy.In post 573, Alchemist21 wrote:While we’re at it you can explain what scum motivation you thought was in 254In post 571, Alchemist21 wrote:I’m still waiting for you to answer this.In post 568, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m right here buddy.In post 558, Alchemist21 wrote:I don’t have much more to say right now. I’m trying to understand Gamma and that conversation will take some time.In post 555, Evenstar wrote:If I had a specific question in mind, I would have asked it. Penny for your thoughts, I suppose?In post 549, Alchemist21 wrote:If you want more from me then talking to me is the way to do it, not voting someone you just put in your Townreads.
In post 520, Alchemist21 wrote:Maybe you thought it would be awkward if you didn’t acknowledge our history.In post 513, Gamma Emerald wrote:And yet I don’t say anything until I react to that later post. Why do you think scum!me feels I have to acknowledge our history? It’s less important to me than my history with, say, MariaR or A50. Yes I did have a solid read record on you but unlike those two I don’t think we play together enough rn for me to care.In post 378, Alchemist21 wrote:The thing is Gamma hasn’t really commented on me since that game I fooled them as scum; before that they claimed to be an expert at reading me. That’s been a while ago, so for them to make such an odd comment towards me now, it seems like they feel they HAVE to comment on me for some reason.In post 371, TemporalLich wrote:oh alright...In post 370, Alchemist21 wrote:A) It’s still an odd comment for an RVS vote.
B) I thought Gamma had been here the whole time and didn’t realize they were catching up.
just means Gamma is NAI-weird and off-meta, not scummyIf that’s not what it was then what was that comment on my rvs vote about?
I didn’t know how to take your post, and when that’s the only post about me and suddenly you’re saying I was Towny, it’s a little confusing.In post 591, Gamma Emerald wrote:It could have been serious but my post wasn’t 100% serious eitherIn post 579, Alchemist21 wrote:Why did you feel a need to disagree with it? Did you think any part of my post was serious?In post 576, Gamma Emerald wrote:The comment on the RVS vote was me disagreeing with your point on multiple level. I don’t think game choice is connected to play style, and defensiveness is not always scummy.In post 571, Alchemist21 wrote:I’m still waiting for you to answer this.In post 568, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m right here buddy.In post 558, Alchemist21 wrote:I don’t have much more to say right now. I’m trying to understand Gamma and that conversation will take some time.In post 555, Evenstar wrote:If I had a specific question in mind, I would have asked it. Penny for your thoughts, I suppose?In post 549, Alchemist21 wrote:If you want more from me then talking to me is the way to do it, not voting someone you just put in your Townreads.
In post 520, Alchemist21 wrote:Maybe you thought it would be awkward if you didn’t acknowledge our history.In post 513, Gamma Emerald wrote:And yet I don’t say anything until I react to that later post. Why do you think scum!me feels I have to acknowledge our history? It’s less important to me than my history with, say, MariaR or A50. Yes I did have a solid read record on you but unlike those two I don’t think we play together enough rn for me to care.In post 378, Alchemist21 wrote:The thing is Gamma hasn’t really commented on me since that game I fooled them as scum; before that they claimed to be an expert at reading me. That’s been a while ago, so for them to make such an odd comment towards me now, it seems like they feel they HAVE to comment on me for some reason.In post 371, TemporalLich wrote:oh alright...In post 370, Alchemist21 wrote:A) It’s still an odd comment for an RVS vote.
B) I thought Gamma had been here the whole time and didn’t realize they were catching up.
just means Gamma is NAI-weird and off-meta, not scummyIf that’s not what it was then what was that comment on my rvs vote about?
Is that all, it feels like you have more you want to talk about.
Like if I was really going to go after that do you think I just say “reeeeeach”?