Porkens 28 wrote:I actually don't hate Beast's theory, but his denial that it is an attempt at guess-a-modding is a red flag in some ways.
Hey, buddy!
Eh, maybe. I really think he's just pushing a genuine theory though. Also, I don't get the same bad feelings you got from NS.
Porkens 28 wrote:Why do you think this is a scummy assumption to make?
I don't like that he's talking about scum communication. It implies that he has too much knowledge about whether the scum have day talk (or a lackthereof) to me. I wouldn't have even considered the idea of using nodes to talk/not talk between scum.
---
beast 33 wrote:I don't believe the node is a red herring so trying to lynch based off of it is what we are supposed to be doing.
Uh, no. I strongly disagree with this statement.
I think we should lynch based on who is the scummiest, not based on node positions.
---
SC 40 wrote:your insistence on "Hey, scum has to be in these nodes" instead of actually being productive is doing nothing to get us off the ground.
You really think he's hindering the game though, SC? I think he is being productive. He's publicly floating a theory about how the game works and causing discussion. I do not think he's on the right track necessarily, but I certainly don't think he's doing "nothing to get us off the ground".
---
idk 62 wrote:Sns's play looked good up until he said to go back to RVS. Why would we go back to RVS when we already have discussion going on? I've played a few games with sns offsite (with a different username, though, tee hee), so I'm kinda using meta here, as he normally tends to have multiple scumreads and switches between them often. With a couple people he could find suspicious already here, him wanting RVS seems really out of character.
I agree with this.
---
Snarky 65 wrote:So, RedCoyote and tman2nd, why is Aegor a townread of yours?
I think y'all are going to far with this. Our first lynch shouldn't be between Aegor and beast based on this conversation. beast brought up an interesting theory, but I do not think it is how we should go forward today. Aegor successfully articulated why this theory isn't a solid one. They both seemed earnest in their convictions.
---
NS 70 wrote:Scum have a vested interest in misleading the town; if you have information that you know makes this theory of yours wrong, it would be in your interest to push it on the town so they go in the wrong direction.
I like this comment even though I don't agree with NS here. Strange days, NS. I don't think I've ever read you as town in a game before!
---
SC 80 wrote:Classic "back off, I'm town" scum attitude that does us nothing..
I'll admit this is a pretty good point.
---
Snarky 83 wrote:while everything Aegor had done was being on a anti-setup spec campaign against everyone
I don't agree with this, and I don't think Aegor would agree with this characterization either. I don't wish to speak for Aegor, but I would be hardpressed to believe that he absolutely doesn't believe in setup speculation. And I don't know where you get "against everyone" from. That's over-the-top.
Snarky 83 wrote:All others have shown some restraint over the beast setup spec discussion, which is sign of a town mindset.
This implies that I haven't shown restraint over the beast setup speculation discussion. How do you figure that? I've been quite clear in my opinion of what beast has proposed. I do not think it's a reasonable theory to run with. I also do not think he's scummy for proposing it, however.
Are you implying that I shouldn't have mentioned it at all? I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.
---
sns 26 wrote:^this. Not trying to piggyback but I agree.
sns 84 wrote:As for scum, I dont agree with everyone he said but some of them. RedCoyote
So, in spite of the fact that you "agree" with me, you think I'm a valid candidate for scum?
You seem very agreeable with most players, as a matter of fact.
---
SC, why did you not address Snarky's
83?