In post 673, Salsabil Faria wrote:Nah... I don't think he tried to pocket me. Can you mention the post number where do you think the attempt to pocket me happened?
I mean you can't be aware of a successful pocket attempt, nor do I think a pocket attempt would be done in one post
Well, I have to re-read his iso again then. But, why do you think he can be a scum?
In post 673, Salsabil Faria wrote:Nah... I don't think he tried to pocket me. Can you mention the post number where do you think the attempt to pocket me happened?
I mean you can't be aware of a successful pocket attempt, nor do I think a pocket attempt would be done in one post
Well, I have to re-read his iso again then. But, why do you think he can be a scum?
I've fallen for the scum tactic in #549 so many times, so I'm very wary of that
In post 673, Salsabil Faria wrote:Nah... I don't think he tried to pocket me. Can you mention the post number where do you think the attempt to pocket me happened?
I mean you can't be aware of a successful pocket attempt, nor do I think a pocket attempt would be done in one post
Well, I have to re-read his iso again then. But, why do you think he can be a scum?
I've fallen for the scum tactic in #549 so many times, so I'm very wary of that
's post 444, it actually makes sense, like you tried to protect/defend your scum partner (in this case
Enchant
) there
Post= 494 here I asked your reads which is a serious question and game-related question which you avoided. But you interacted with me in those posts which were not game-related, from which I feel you're somewhat lurking at this point or want to be the second mysterious player here, not a town thing for me.
VOTE: Fredrick A Campbell
About
Prism
, their posts are less but really meaningful and can be counted almost all. Getting a good town vibe at the moment.
Your comments about 365 assume that Enchant and Fredrick are scumpartners. Let's say that Fredrick is town, however, regardless of Enchant's alignment. Then he would just be asking you to read Enchant in a different way that is more logically sound, which is perfectly normal for town to do. I haven't read/thought enough about if it is likely that Enchant and Fredrick are partners.
You said in 228 that you didn't want to give Enchant the benefit of the doubt because you "don't want to get burned again." If I'm reading that as it appears, you don't want to think about Enchant with the proper assumptions because you don't want to be voted. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm reading through your ISO and feel like half of your posts are interactions with flow trap. What's your current read on flow trap?
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:14 am
by Enchant
VOTE: Enchant
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:17 am
by Enchant
Oh sorry, i dind't saw this is on E-1.
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:17 am
by Enchant
I was real mafia goon btw. Outplayed myself.
GG town.
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:22 am
by floo
Analyzing Enchant and Fredrick for a) a read on Fredrick and b) a read if they are partners.
In post 136, Spartan117 wrote:
Found this sus to even insinuate it is somewhat serious a vote this early on with such little discussion, unless ofc this is to obtain a reaction and read responses.
Right, as I explained I said it was "partially serious" to avoid seeming scummy / too random.
I probably ask something nonsense, but really want.
Why you think placing votes suspicious? Do you really care how suspicious are you?
Of course explaining votes is good, but doing that and claiming you did that just to don't seem suspicious for that is really something strange.
Town supposed to push suspicious people, you know.
I second that. Not your vote but your explanation is suspicious : "
In post 136, Spartan117 wrote:
Found this sus to even insinuate it is somewhat serious a vote this early on with such little discussion, unless ofc this is to obtain a reaction and read responses.
Right, as I explained I said it was "partially serious" to avoid seeming scummy / too random.
I probably ask something nonsense, but really want.
Why you think placing votes suspicious? Do you really care how suspicious are you?
Of course explaining votes is good, but doing that and claiming you did that just to don't seem suspicious for that is really something strange.
Town supposed to push suspicious people, you know.
I second that. Not your vote but your explanation is suspicious : "
to avoid seeming scummy"
I third that.
I am saying I directly disagree with this, particularly Salsabil's reasoning here. I think this is a natural thought for relative beginners. I am wondering why someone who has been around the block more often agrees with this.
At this level I don't see any scum openly admit to being insecure about their appearance with 0 prompting, because scum
fear being perceived as selfconcious
Why I agreed with that is because I think that is a possibility and the best lead I have had since then.
In post 644, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:I was actually voting floo to see what would happen, not because I truly believed they were very probably scum.
As for opinions, I don't formulate them unless it is a rather sure thing.
I assumed that 211 was the reason for your vote. I didn't feel like commenting too much more because I had explained my early motivation already. I can understand where this is coming from as town. You'd want to pressure a player who is self-admittedly conscious about his perception to see what the fear of being scumread would cause. This action by itself would be NAI to me, but in 604 you say that my post was a scum hint. So there is a pivot from possible scumtell -> just a reaction test. This is dishonest; the honest answer would be "possible scum, want to test for reactions as I believe this player will produce useful reactions, but I do not believe this player is scum anymore" rather than "just a reaction test." The idea to scumread me came from Enchant in the first place, but I don't see any leads in this about an Enchant-Fredrick partnership.
You’re E-1 right now, after your vote, unless I really miscounted. You did not just hammer yourself.
So Enchant, let’s talk about this. Unvote yourself please. Now...why the self vote? If you are maf, that’s practically game throwing. It’s nearly never good. If your town, and this is a joke I’m missing, please stop. I prefer my towns to be voted by a full contingent of players so we can look back on those voting patterns after the fact.
The only reason a self vote is reasonable from my admittedly new perspective is if you need conversation to stop ASAP. But you weren’t super at risk from my perspective; I thought some of this was pressure, and I don’t think day1 there’s some terrifying conversation that is worth sacrificing by half of your scum team for.
So uh, basically, I’m probably going to hammer you later today when I catch up, but for now, unvote pls?
