Mafiascum.net

In post 72, Val89 wrote: My reason for dressing up an RVS vote in the amount of verbiage I did was to make sure there was at least something substantial to discuss. I thought between that, and "hi im new; hah your name suks vote: random" the former would at least give us all something to bite at from page 2, maybe draw out something to work with. I believe it has. As soon as it has, the RVS stage is done, right? We have something serious to discuss.

In post 72, Val89 wrote: You said the same in #38, and I addressed it in #42. I'm not following. I made a claim or suggestion about the scum team. So did you. I said I like that approach, and would like to encourage more of it. You somehow thought that stance was hypocritical. Perhaps I am misunderstand the meaning of the word, but hypocritical to me is engaging in behaviour you criticize others for.
I'll give you benefit of the doubt, I personally think

"as you can see, I am a fan of getting right to the heart of it, and your page 2 solve is just sort of thing I like to see"

is pretty clear I wasn't leveling any sort of criticism and instead praising it, but I'll assume you took something in my tone as somehow sarcastic and I was in fact trying to direct some sort of veiled shade towards you.

In post 85, JamesTheNames wrote: First of all addressing the hypocritical thing, we both did the same/or similar things, admittedly in different ways, saying a pair we could guess as a scum pair. Both were obviously not the most serious of things. You claimed somebody was essentially a strong scum read and voted someone else, which if taken seriously would mean you'd find them both hard scum, a scum pair, I said a page 2 prediction. You can argue over semantics whether that is serious or not or you can just take my word on it.
"and your page 2 solve is just sort of thing I like to see" in post 36.
Considering town should be scum hunting, this clearly means you find something scummy about what I did, yet you did the same thing, ergo, hypocritical. Or at least this is how I interpreted it and still do.
Next.
You said you were praising it, that is disingenuous as far as I'm concerned.

In post 72, Val89 wrote:

In post 42, Val89 wrote: I should clarify, "your page 2 solve is just sort of thing I like to see" was a serious statement. I like the fact you came out with a solve straight off the bat - and I was attempting to encourage more of it.

I can't, however, think for the life of me why you would read that and STILL believe I am somehow being disingenuous.

In fact, only one scenario makes sense - you are scum, and so hypersensitive to any sort of shade whatsoever that you read it where it isn't there

- and in fact, continue to do so when pointed out explicitly that it isn't.
I think anyone reading my ISO can see I've taken a consistent approach here. I make a rando solve, you make one, I say 'good on you, lets have more of that, and maybe have some more discussion about it'. I'm failing to see the hypocrisy.

In post 85, JamesTheNames wrote:do you not also see how far-fetched that is? Someone could misinterpret something or disagree with a statement you make ergo, they are bad at the game flailing scum

In post 72, Val89 wrote: But in any case, lets compare and contrast your approach here with Town!James in the only completed game I have to look at, namely #2064. For context, you replaced into the game into a slot D1, and having read the thread you quickly postedthis list of reads, with justification for each.

Some of the stuff said here is very interesting -

In post 177, JamesTheNames wrote:my personal opinion is post length isn't indicative but can be a nod in a direction with enough context.

I happen to agree. I'll let others read how you opened your town game and compare it to this one, and see if that's context enough for them. It is for me.

In post 177, JamesTheNames wrote: he may not enjoy walls, but a "why" wouldn't hurt to have. Meh.

In post 177, JamesTheNames wrote: Explains himself, nice

In post 177, JamesTheNames wrote: Please post more

In post 177, JamesTheNames wrote: It appears he is actually bothered by certain people's post quality and relavance, annoyance at lack of content being created, I'm not very experienced but this just feels towny to me

I mean, its pretty clear that Town!James thinks that talking openly and honestly about your reads and votes, early and often, is pro-town behaviour and based almost all of his initial reads off some variation of that exact justification. You go ahead and, as town, make sure you include your own justification without prompting, from the open.

And then this game, we get this:

In post 39, JamesTheNames wrote:Oh well. I am satisfied with my vote.

In post 64, JamesTheNames wrote:I'm still happy with my vote.

Yeah, I've seen enough now to convince myself I'm not falling in to OMGUS trap.

VOTE: JamesTheNames

In post 85, JamesTheNames wrote:You also go into reading my one previous game, I was pressured there for a while,

you can see how I responded there

if you really want to.
Next.

You quote from my one previous game on the site where I replaced in, and this is important to say and clarify, after, the RVS stage ended. There is a large difference in how serious page 1 and 2 are compared to 7 and 8. Not to mention, I've played one game on this site,

sure I was town and town won which is nice, but that doesn't mean I'm going to play the same way game 2.

Meta under bias, going in thinking that somebody is scum and going with a comb to find what could be deemed as scummy, isn't great. I personally don't think meta is a genuine reason to vote somebody ever but as I've said this is my second game.