In post 88, clidd wrote: In post 83, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Also in what way did my post "signal to other traitor"? I have no idea where that read came from. Makes no sense to me.
It would depend if your partner managed to interpret the exclamation as a divergence of attention, precisely to attract votes and prevent them from having to enter the situation of the "mechanical hammer of death ''. So you intentionally attract votes to allow your allies to escape this condition (which was proven to be wrong later).
That's a stretch. Silly reasoning at it's finest.
You seem to be very convinced of me being scum already, as evidenced by the language you are using. Even though you brought up something i said more than 3 months ago as a quote to "discuss", you still are evidently leaning on my alignment as being one side over the other as can be gathered from excerpts of your previous posts. (Shown further below)
Your playstyle thus far has materialized itself drastically from what was shown earlier with your introduction and has now become solely the gathering of information on another slot and then using it as your basis for the town to get on your side and see me as a evident scum player to lynch. Instead of considering other sides of the issue, such as considering Hectic's play or any of the other players, you have quite clearly locked me out as a scummy player by page 4 and have since been trying to convince other players of my play being an issue. I'm wondering if during the time between these two spots of acting, you were reading the general vibe of the town as in favor of lynching me and therefore changed your read from an unsure and questioning tone in post
38 (considering multiple alternatives, open to discussion)
In post 38, clidd wrote:With that thought in mind, i understood the first post 4 as a message with three possible interpretations: 1- Random joke, 2- Instinctive statement, 3- Divergence of attention, where his partners receive a window to ''safe'' vote, drastically reducing the possibility of them falling under the ''mechanical death hammer'', which appears to be more likely, compared to other possibilities. This basically implies that are 2/3 potential scums in Dsjstr, Hectic and Espeonage, in theory. But would everyone outside the wagon share the same indecision ? Is it plausible ?
to becoming slightly more hostile by post
76. (Claiming it is very unlikely for me to not be scum. Belittling of target by emotive language. Suggesting what town!me: "would, or wouldn't do" and using it to draw a conclusion.)
In post 76, clidd wrote:The most viable option, if you aren't scum (unlikely, but possible), would be to interact with the other players, looking for more than one point of view. Something im looking to do now.
Also of interest is post
88
In post 88, clidd wrote:It would depend if your partner managed to interpret the exclamation as a divergence of attention, precisely to attract votes and prevent them from having to enter the situation of the "mechanical hammer of death ''. So you intentionally attract votes to allow your allies to escape this condition (which was proven to be wrong later).
^Usage of words such as "Your partner" (Implicates intrinsic scum partnership, no room for negotiation.) "Allow your allies to escape this condition" (Same conclusion drawn out from very little actual development of read progression)
In post 89, clidd wrote:If you are viewing a frame attempt, it will not pay for the effort invested.
^Hostile tone. Combative. Shutting down of argument.
Your general tone reads to me as someone who is trying very hard to be townread and seem like a beneficial player that wouldn't be considered for the lynch. This preoccupation indicates a scum mindset rather than a town one.
VOTE: Clidd
