Page 28 of 66
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:05 am
by drmyshottyizsik
The way he says I/m lynching comes off like he has a say in who dies and he is directly killing people.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:08 am
by mhsmith0
In post 675, drmyshottyizsik wrote:The way he says I/m lynching comes off like he has a say in who dies and he is directly killing people.
I'm not sure I follow. In that case he was the hammer so he actually was the one killing IV.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:12 am
by drmyshottyizsik
In post 676, mhsmith0 wrote: In post 675, drmyshottyizsik wrote:The way he says I/m lynching comes off like he has a say in who dies and he is directly killing people.
I'm not sure I follow. In that case he was the hammer so he actually was the one killing IV.
Yes, just the tone of the whole thing makes him sounds like he did it from a place a power not a place of questioning town. He's not saying I was worried about it but I did what I felt was best. He is say, well I never said he was 100% scum, you know we all may be town guys.
That is a WIFOM machine and a scum mind set.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:17 am
by BTD6_maker
How is my reaction scummy? I'm honestly tired of repeating myself over and over again.
Mhsmith, I did think an IV/Ranger team was likely, and I found both of them scummy by themselves. The Tree claim was just a weak comment but I would not have hammered a claimed Firefighter. Also, in my experience, scum have never claimed a PR. You are assuming that small comments I make are the whole reason for the hammer, which is false. I don't see why you think pointing out the flaws in your reasoning is scummy.
Also, I never said I wanted to lynch a Tree or that a Tree lynch is good. Once again, you are using irrelevant comments as my whole case, which is misrepresenting me. That comment was not hedging.
I will also post a "case" on IV showing why I scumread him at the time.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:21 am
by AlpacaAlpaca
I have a dream that someday BTD will answer my question
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:33 am
by BTD6_maker
In post 140, innocentvillager wrote: In post 139, innocentvillager wrote:
You cannot have a 100% scumread on someone. That is physically not possible, even if they are scum. I don't even know how to deal with you anymore.
Like you have literally lost all credibility the moment you say that. I'm not even just saying this because I know I'm town, if you said that about anyone in this game it shows that your head's too far up your ass in confbias land to make sense of anything.
You try to say that Ranger cannot have such strong scum reads at this point. I agree with you but what I saw was you trying to do the same thing to Ranger. I thought this could be scum bussing and it could be you forcing a mislynch, but either way it seemed scum motivated and was part of my scumread.
In post 142, innocentvillager wrote:If you're 100% scum, would you agree to get lynched tomorrow when you're wrong about me?
Of course you would. After all, there is no chance involved in 100% scum, right?
Please lynch Ranger immediately on D2 if I happen to get lynched kthxbai
Again, either bussing or lining up a mislynch. I know RC did this with Huntress in my Newbie 1700 game and I picked up on it, so again I was inclined to scumread you.
In post 155, innocentvillager wrote:I also didn't like the fast wagon on Ranger, all of the reason which were basically the same thing.
I thought about it some more, and I really just cannot see ANY scum motivation for making a 100% scumread on me, trying to switch the wagon over to me from M&M, and agreeing to get lynched after I flip. I can only conclude that Ranger is egotistical town.
I would bet that one scum is in Alpaca, shotty, and KAAG (the three who are doing nothing), and that one scum was on the bandwagon of Ranger. More analysis on this when I have time.
I thought there was something between you two. How would Ranger go from top scum to top Town? I thought you are likely bussing (and backing down when the pressure is too intense) or not wanting to take responsibility for a mislynch.
In short, a lot of my scumread (not all, but a large amount) was due to your interactions with Ranger. It could have been a Ranger/IV team but it would have equally well made sense with Ranger Town and you scum.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:37 am
by mhsmith0
In post 678, BTD6_maker wrote:Mhsmith, I did think an IV/Ranger team was likely, and I found both of them scummy by themselves. The Tree claim was just a weak comment but I would not have hammered a claimed Firefighter. Also, in my experience, scum have never claimed a PR. You are assuming that small comments I make are the whole reason for the hammer, which is false. I don't see why you think pointing out the flaws in your reasoning is scummy.
1) I have assumed that your stated reasons were in fact your reasons for the hammer. According to your own words, your reasons for reading IV as an arsonist were:
- IV/Ranger team
- VT claim is scum-indicative
If you had other reasons for thinking IV was an arsonist, then it was incumbent upon you to present those reasons (ideally in a way that lets the board vet and discuss these reasons). When you say
You are assuming that small comments I make are the whole reason for the hammer, which is false.
I have no idea what you're even getting at. I am clearly NOT assuming that your "well if it's a tree no big loss" was your "whole reason for the hammer", if that's what you're trying to imply. If you mean something else, you need to actually state it.
2) Pointing out actual flaws in my reasoning isn't scummy. Pointing out imaginary flaws in my reasoning, however, is. It seems like you're defending against an argument I wasn't making, specifically with
The comment was just an add-on. Also, I was mentioning that if he is a Tree, Town doesn't lose much. That was not in any way my entire justification.
since i did not in any way state or imply that it WAS your entire justification. I stated it was hedging, and your hedging was alignment-indicative. I ALSO stated that your actual stated reasons for wolf-reading IV were weak or bogus.
3)
Also, in my experience, scum have never claimed a PR
If this is true, then you need more experience. IMO wolves will claim VT when:
- they think that claiming VT will seem honest enough to delay the lynch (this can be useful when there are dueling wagons, or they think the case/momentum against them isn't actually very strong)
- the PR's are already outed, or they know that a PR claim wouldn't be believed (i.e. they hadn't played in a way that resembles a PR claim they could make)
etc.
OTOH, they'll claim PR when:
- they know they're going to get lynched barring something drastic
- they think they can draw out the actual PR so if nothing else the NK can be productive
etc.
IN GENERAL, a VT claim is town-indicative. Sometimes the case against that slot is strong enough to push through anyway, and sometimes it's simply important to protect the PR against exposure, so you don't want to force too many claims. But the idea that a VT claim was itself wolf-indicative was silly at best and much more likely to simply be dishonest. And lynching people for dishonest reasons is itself wolf-indicative.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:43 am
by mhsmith0
In post 680, BTD6_maker wrote:Again, either bussing or lining up a mislynch.
I know RC did this with Huntress in my Newbie 1700 game and I picked up on it
, so again I was inclined to scumread you.
Citations please. I just skimmed
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
and I don't see the analogue for "if I get lynched today, lynch this slot tomorrow" as either bussing or lining up a mislynch by RC.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:49 am
by BTD6_maker
Post 166.
It wasn't the exact same thing, but it was similar. RC/Huntress in that game was similar to IV/Ranger in this game.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:00 am
by mhsmith0
Post 166 from that game:
In post 166, RadiantCowbells wrote: In post 161, BTD6_maker wrote:
Why are you so reluctant anyway? Surely explaining reads and giving information is pro-Town.
It's clear that this discussion on whether or not Thatguy is cop doesn't seem like it's going anywhere. The last page was pretty much solely about my cop read. Focusing on that to the point of almost ignoring all else definitely can't benefit Town.
Otherwise, I have two moderate scum reads: RC and Huntress.
Question: do you think that I speedvoted my partner off the bat?
Do you think that if I was intending to bus Huntress as you seem to be implying that we wouldn't have come into the day with a plan to get her lynched efficiently with me leading?
If that's not the case, you should vote Huntress who might actually be scum.
And hell, if you think we're bussing? help me bus.
In that game:
RC was actively attacking Huntress in that game, and was basically arguing "whether you think I'm bussing or just town attacking Huntress, either way you should vote Huntress"
In this game:
IV was attacking Ranger's specific assertion of a "100% scumread", specifically with the idea that if Ranger was THAT sure of IV being mafia, then surely she'd be willing to get the rope herself if she was wrong.
How in the world do you think those two posts/situations are comparable? This makes me think that you're just flat-out making stuff up now.
Also...
You try to say that Ranger cannot have such strong scum reads at this point. I agree with you but what I saw was you trying to do the same thing to Ranger. I thought this could be scum bussing and it could be you forcing a mislynch, but either way it seemed scum motivated and was part of my scumread.
This is a non-sensical read of IV's post. He didn't say it was wrong for Ranger to have a strong scum read, he said it was wrong for Ranger to have a "100%" read. Twisting that into it being wrong to have a strong scum read at all is ridiculous. I have a seriously difficult time believing that you actually believed that from reading IV's post.
Also...
I thought there was something between you two. How would Ranger go from top scum to top Town? I thought you are likely bussing (and backing down when the pressure is too intense) or not wanting to take responsibility for a mislynch.
IV never actually said Ranger was "top town". What he ACTUALLY said was
Back to Ranger, I am starting to think that maybe she is just egotistical town
But even if he had said what you thought he said (and again, it was super obvious that he didn't), he presented a thought process and reasoning that was CLEARLY plausible for thinking that Ranger, if mafia, wouldn't have wanted to so blatantly and prominently drive a mislynch.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:02 am
by mhsmith0
Small town points to Alpaca for the snarkiness here. He can go back to my null zone.
{drmy, kappy}
{M&M}
{Alpaca}
{touka}
{BTD, Ranger}
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:06 am
by mhsmith0
edit on 684: IV actually did say "I can only conclude that Ranger is egotistical town." (on the post after I looked at) Doesn't make her IV's top town read (necessarily), but even if it did, the rest of the point still applies. That's a credible and plausible read of the situation.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:40 am
by BTD6_maker
In post 684, mhsmith0 wrote:Post 166 from that game:
In post 166, RadiantCowbells wrote: In post 161, BTD6_maker wrote:
Why are you so reluctant anyway? Surely explaining reads and giving information is pro-Town.
It's clear that this discussion on whether or not Thatguy is cop doesn't seem like it's going anywhere. The last page was pretty much solely about my cop read. Focusing on that to the point of almost ignoring all else definitely can't benefit Town.
Otherwise, I have two moderate scum reads: RC and Huntress.
Question: do you think that I speedvoted my partner off the bat?
Do you think that if I was intending to bus Huntress as you seem to be implying that we wouldn't have come into the day with a plan to get her lynched efficiently with me leading?
If that's not the case, you should vote Huntress who might actually be scum.
And hell, if you think we're bussing? help me bus.
In that game:
RC was actively attacking Huntress in that game, and was basically arguing "whether you think I'm bussing or just town attacking Huntress, either way you should vote Huntress"
In this game:
IV was attacking Ranger's specific assertion of a "100% scumread", specifically with the idea that if Ranger was THAT sure of IV being mafia, then surely she'd be willing to get the rope herself if she was wrong.
How in the world do you think those two posts/situations are comparable? This makes me think that you're just flat-out making stuff up now.
They are not the same. I said I found them similar. In both cases the two most likely possibilities in my opinion were bussing and pushing the mislynch wagon. This is what I saw.
Also...
You try to say that Ranger cannot have such strong scum reads at this point. I agree with you but what I saw was you trying to do the same thing to Ranger. I thought this could be scum bussing and it could be you forcing a mislynch, but either way it seemed scum motivated and was part of my scumread.
This is a non-sensical read of IV's post. He didn't say it was wrong for Ranger to have a strong scum read, he said it was wrong for Ranger to have a "100%" read. Twisting that into it being wrong to have a strong scum read at all is ridiculous. I have a seriously difficult time believing that you actually believed that from reading IV's post.
By "strong" I meant this strong (approaching 100%). I didn't mean ordinary strong reads.
Also...
I thought there was something between you two. How would Ranger go from top scum to top Town? I thought you are likely bussing (and backing down when the pressure is too intense) or not wanting to take responsibility for a mislynch.
IV never actually said Ranger was "top town". What he ACTUALLY said was
Back to Ranger, I am starting to think that maybe she is just egotistical town
mhsmith0 wrote:edit on 684: IV actually did say "I can only conclude that Ranger is egotistical town." (on the post after I looked at) Doesn't make her IV's top town read (necessarily), but even if it did, the rest of the point still applies. That's a credible and plausible read of the situation.
But even if he had said what you thought he said (and again, it was super obvious that he didn't), he presented a thought process and reasoning that was CLEARLY plausible for thinking that Ranger, if mafia, wouldn't have wanted to so blatantly and prominently drive a mislynch.
"and I really just cannot see ANY scum motivation"
This is what I meant by Ranger becoming top Town. A scum can easily prominently drive a mislynch by your logic and will be townread for it. It is somewhat plausible as a Town tell but going from top scum to strong Town is a bit extreme. It's not nearly a 99% Towntell or anything like that.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:27 pm
by mhsmith0
In post 687, BTD6_maker wrote:...
In that game:
RC was actively attacking Huntress in that game, and was basically arguing "whether you think I'm bussing or just town attacking Huntress, either way you should vote Huntress"
In this game:
IV was attacking Ranger's specific assertion of a "100% scumread", specifically with the idea that if Ranger was THAT sure of IV being mafia, then surely she'd be willing to get the rope herself if she was wrong.
How in the world do you think those two posts/situations are comparable? This makes me think that you're just flat-out making stuff up now.
They are not the same. I said I found them similar. In both cases the two most likely possibilities in my opinion were bussing and pushing the mislynch wagon. This is what I saw.
How are they even similar? A is pushing on B, you think A is mafia, therefore it's bussing or pushing a mislynch wagon? Like, that's the entire similarity, right? Because if that's it, that's an incredibly over-simplistic view of it. The basic nature of the push was extremely different in both cases (see above). This is simply terrible reasoning, and I really struggle to see how you could actually think this.
If there is more to the comparison than "A is pushing on B, you think A is mafia", then you need to actually spell it out, because right now it just looks like you made the whole thing up.
Also...
You try to say that Ranger cannot have such strong scum reads at this point. I agree with you but what I saw was you trying to do the same thing to Ranger. I thought this could be scum bussing and it could be you forcing a mislynch, but either way it seemed scum motivated and was part of my scumread.
This is a non-sensical read of IV's post. He didn't say it was wrong for Ranger to have a strong scum read, he said it was wrong for Ranger to have a "100%" read. Twisting that into it being wrong to have a strong scum read at all is ridiculous. I have a seriously difficult time believing that you actually believed that from reading IV's post.
By "strong" I meant this strong (approaching 100%). I didn't mean ordinary strong reads.
Citations needed. I do not see where IV EVER said or implied that Ranger was "approaching 100%" or the like. Top read and LOCK WOLF are nowhere near the same thing. IV even explicitly calls out (what he saw as) the ridiculousness of a near 100% read in
138 (and subsequent posts).
How in the world can you reasonably interpret that as IV himself being near 100% on Ranger? When he so very clearly is strongly against the idea of "100%" reads?
The closest would MAYBE be in
142, where IV basically demands a Ranger lynch if IV gets lynched D1. But that can't possibly be "setting up mislynches" since if IV was himself flipped mafia, then clearly it wouldn't work.
This logic doesn't hold together.
Also...
I thought there was something between you two. How would Ranger go from top scum to top Town? I thought you are likely bussing (and backing down when the pressure is too intense) or not wanting to take responsibility for a mislynch.
IV never actually said Ranger was "top town". What he ACTUALLY said was
Back to Ranger, I am starting to think that maybe she is just egotistical town
mhsmith0 wrote:edit on 684: IV actually did say "I can only conclude that Ranger is egotistical town." (on the post after I looked at) Doesn't make her IV's top town read (necessarily), but even if it did, the rest of the point still applies. That's a credible and plausible read of the situation.
But even if he had said what you thought he said (and again, it was super obvious that he didn't), he presented a thought process and reasoning that was CLEARLY plausible for thinking that Ranger, if mafia, wouldn't have wanted to so blatantly and prominently drive a mislynch.
"and I really just cannot see ANY scum motivation"
This is what I meant by Ranger becoming top Town. A scum can easily prominently drive a mislynch by your logic and will be townread for it. It is somewhat plausible as a Town tell but going from top scum to strong Town is a bit extreme. It's not nearly a 99% Towntell or anything like that.
So your argument here is that IV's action was basically null then? "It could be town-indicative but then again maybe not"? And the IV/Ranger interaction was the ONLY non-ridiculous reason you came up with for the hammer, right? So your hammer reasons were:
- IV/Ranger interactions (which by what you just stated was at most slightly wolf-indicative for IV)
- transparently false and ridiculous theory about the tree claim being meaningfully wolf-indicative
Do I have you correct here? These were your reasons? Nothing else? Because you are seriously running out of chances to convince me that your hammer was anything other than bogus.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 4:33 pm
by mhsmith0
@Ranger: I need to know what your current read of BTD is and why, including why you (IIRC) thought that his EOD antics were meaningfully town-indicative.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:32 pm
by BTD6_maker
In post 688, mhsmith0 wrote: In post 687, BTD6_maker wrote:...
In that game:
RC was actively attacking Huntress in that game, and was basically arguing "whether you think I'm bussing or just town attacking Huntress, either way you should vote Huntress"
In this game:
IV was attacking Ranger's specific assertion of a "100% scumread", specifically with the idea that if Ranger was THAT sure of IV being mafia, then surely she'd be willing to get the rope herself if she was wrong.
How in the world do you think those two posts/situations are comparable? This makes me think that you're just flat-out making stuff up now.
They are not the same. I said I found them similar. In both cases the two most likely possibilities in my opinion were bussing and pushing the mislynch wagon. This is what I saw.
How are they even similar? A is pushing on B, you think A is mafia, therefore it's bussing or pushing a mislynch wagon? Like, that's the entire similarity, right? Because if that's it, that's an incredibly over-simplistic view of it. The basic nature of the push was extremely different in both cases (see above). This is simply terrible reasoning, and I really struggle to see how you could actually think this.
If there is more to the comparison than "A is pushing on B, you think A is mafia", then you need to actually spell it out, because right now it just looks like you made the whole thing up.
There is more to the comparison. Both pushes seem to try to force a lynch in a way that is like "Why aren't you voting Ranger/Huntress?" It's not an exact comparison, I acknowledge that, but from the comparisons IV seemed scummy as it would seem that scum are more likely to try to force a lynch of someone else when people are oOn their wagon.
Also...
You try to say that Ranger cannot have such strong scum reads at this point. I agree with you but what I saw was you trying to do the same thing to Ranger. I thought this could be scum bussing and it could be you forcing a mislynch, but either way it seemed scum motivated and was part of my scumread.
This is a non-sensical read of IV's post. He didn't say it was wrong for Ranger to have a strong scum read, he said it was wrong for Ranger to have a "100%" read. Twisting that into it being wrong to have a strong scum read at all is ridiculous. I have a seriously difficult time believing that you actually believed that from reading IV's post.
By "strong" I meant this strong (approaching 100%). I didn't mean ordinary strong reads.
Citations needed. I do not see where IV EVER said or implied that Ranger was "approaching 100%" or the like. Top read and LOCK WOLF are nowhere near the same thing. IV even explicitly calls out (what he saw as) the ridiculousness of a near 100% read in
138 (and subsequent posts).
How in the world can you reasonably interpret that as IV himself being near 100% on Ranger? When he so very clearly is strongly against the idea of "100%" reads?
The closest would MAYBE be in
142, where IV basically demands a Ranger lynch if IV gets lynched D1. But that can't possibly be "setting up mislynches" since if IV was himself flipped mafia, then clearly it wouldn't work.
This logic doesn't hold together.
I was talking about Ranger's read. What I saw was IV saying "Ranger has literally lost all credibility" I took that to mean IV thought Ranger was an extremely strong scumread.
Also...
I thought there was something between you two. How would Ranger go from top scum to top Town? I thought you are likely bussing (and backing down when the pressure is too intense) or not wanting to take responsibility for a mislynch.
IV never actually said Ranger was "top town". What he ACTUALLY said was
Back to Ranger, I am starting to think that maybe she is just egotistical town
mhsmith0 wrote:edit on 684: IV actually did say "I can only conclude that Ranger is egotistical town." (on the post after I looked at) Doesn't make her IV's top town read (necessarily), but even if it did, the rest of the point still applies. That's a credible and plausible read of the situation.
But even if he had said what you thought he said (and again, it was super obvious that he didn't), he presented a thought process and reasoning that was CLEARLY plausible for thinking that Ranger, if mafia, wouldn't have wanted to so blatantly and prominently drive a mislynch.
"and I really just cannot see ANY scum motivation"
This is what I meant by Ranger becoming top Town. A scum can easily prominently drive a mislynch by your logic and will be townread for it. It is somewhat plausible as a Town tell but going from top scum to strong Town is a bit extreme. It's not nearly a 99% Towntell or anything like that.
So your argument here is that IV's action was basically null then? "It could be town-indicative but then again maybe not"? And the IV/Ranger interaction was the ONLY non-ridiculous reason you came up with for the hammer, right? So your hammer reasons were:
Not IV's action. His supposed Towntell Ranger did of driving a mislynch wagon. There is virtually no tell strong enough to make someone instantly go from top scum to top town, especially when scum could fake it.
- IV/Ranger interactions (which by what you just stated was at most slightly wolf-indicative for IV)
- transparently false and ridiculous theory about the tree claim being meaningfully wolf-indicative
NOT MY REASON
Do I have you correct here? These were your reasons? Nothing else? Because you are seriously running out of chances to convince me that your hammer was anything other than bogus.
My hammer reasons were genuine. You are misinterpreting what I said the majority of the time.
I can only presume that that's because you both scumread me and know IV is Town, therefore you are more inclined to look for any possible reason to dismiss my cases. You are probably either scum or confbiased.
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:04 pm
by innocentvillager
BTD are you saying you literally could not understand town!innocentvillager motivation for my flip read on Ranger from scum to town? Sorry if I'm misrepping here.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:13 am
by Ranger
mhsmith wrote:Beyond the EOD1 antics, do you think they've been game-solving in any meaningful way? I find it odd how devoid of menaingful content their ISO is, especially given their bandwagoning.
It's hard to say for me.
I should have the meta experience to read BTD6, yeah, in theory, but in practice it's proving a lot more difficult.
What I CAN say is that I hate the wagon on BTD6 though.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:59 am
by BTD6_maker
In post 691, innocentvillager wrote:BTD are you saying you literally could not understand town!innocentvillager motivation for my flip read on Ranger from scum to town? Sorry if I'm misrepping here.
I just said I found it scummy. I thought it maybe possible (but unlikely) if you were just Town, and if so you may be playing badly. That was at the time. Now, of course, my perspective is skewed by the fact that everyone knows you have flipped Town.
I think Mhsmith's confusion and bias possibly arises from the fact that he was never playing at a time when your alignment was uncertain.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:45 am
by mhsmith0
In post 692, Ranger wrote:mhsmith wrote:Beyond the EOD1 antics, do you think they've been game-solving in any meaningful way? I find it odd how devoid of menaingful content their ISO is, especially given their bandwagoning.
It's hard to say for me.
I should have the meta experience to read BTD6, yeah, in theory, but in practice it's proving a lot more difficult.
What I CAN say is that I hate the wagon on BTD6 though.
Ok so what about it do you hate? And what was the source of your town read of btd's eod1?
In post 693, BTD6_maker wrote: In post 691, innocentvillager wrote:BTD are you saying you literally could not understand town!innocentvillager motivation for my flip read on Ranger from scum to town? Sorry if I'm misrepping here.
I just said I found it scummy. I thought it maybe possible (but unlikely) if you were just Town, and if so you may be playing badly. That was at the time. Now, of course, my perspective is skewed by the fact that everyone knows you have flipped Town.
I think Mhsmith's confusion and bias possibly arises from the fact that he was never playing at a time when your alignment was uncertain.
That's a bit of a strange thing to say given that you're scum reading and voting me. "Confusion and bias" are traits of dumb/wrong town, not wolves.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:25 am
by BTD6_maker
What I am saying is assuming that you are Town. If you are scum, then your argument is obviously scum-motivated. However, if you are Town (and my scumread on you is fairly strong) you are confbiased.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:38 am
by mhsmith0
In post 695, BTD6_maker wrote:What I am saying is assuming that you are Town. If you are scum, then your argument is obviously scum-motivated. However, if you are Town (and my scumread on you is fairly strong) you are confbiased.
Well if I'm a wolf then I'm probably not conf!biased and am DEFINITELY not confused.
But in a world where we are both town, who are the wolves? And why? You've slapped down a bunch of unsupported reads all game, now it's time to see some backup. Or, if it's your town reads you feel better about, justify those instead.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:33 pm
by AlpacaAlpaca
On the topic of explaining who scum is...
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:55 pm
by mhsmith0
Yeah it sure would be nice if btd ever got around to explaining themselves and their reads...
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:45 pm
by innocentvillager
In post 693, BTD6_maker wrote: In post 691, innocentvillager wrote:BTD are you saying you literally could not understand town!innocentvillager motivation for my flip read on Ranger from scum to town? Sorry if I'm misrepping here.
I just said I found it scummy. I thought it maybe possible (but unlikely) if you were just Town, and if so you may be playing badly. That was at the time. Now, of course, my perspective is skewed by the fact that everyone knows you have flipped Town.
I think Mhsmith's confusion and bias possibly arises from the fact that he was never playing at a time when your alignment was uncertain.
Meh
I give it a 5/7