Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 9:22 pm
Meanwhile, stealing the pagetop with a contentless post.
Sorry real life stuff. I know I'm running out of prods.
Everyone should read this carefully - it is a tidy little summary for why ETL is solidly scummy.In post 798, Titus wrote:Her reason for scumreading TBG no longer was valid. She was voting Ircher without a scumread on him. She accused me of being scum, with her townread, solely bc I defended him. You also highlighted inconsistencies with her votes. They make zero sense throughout the game.
I know ETL exactly from this thread. I know she has a fairly high opinion of her own play level (236). I know she’s claimed over 70 games here on MS and her join date indicates seasoned player.In post 822, Aneninen wrote:Erm... you seem to know a lot about ETL. Yet you had no information that ETL's a woman.
When you posted this, did you think you had presented sufficient evidence for people to vote TBG, or were you just hoping for blind followers?In post 684, Titus wrote:You should totally vote TBG then. Let's give scum a shit sand which.
In post 679, Killthestory wrote:Could see Copper as scum, tries not to combat anyone, instead chooses to want to gain their support and is running for towncred really hard. Buddies up a lot with TBG a lot too
In post 680, Killthestory wrote:Brawl defends Copper as well, very notable, pushes BOTH Ircher and Shotty when their whole argument thing read like TvT, not SvS. Reads Titus as scum, wrong, reads Cy as scum, got newbtown vibes from them, otherwise reads are pretty ass. Could see as scum, too
There's your context. I do believe enough has been presented. KTS and I shared a scumread, so we voted together.In post 684, Titus wrote:You should totally vote TBG then. Let's give scum a shit sand which.
Whut?In post 830, MagnaofIllusion wrote:Is this just IIoA from you?
I know "being conflicted" is not a useful thing.In post 830, MagnaofIllusion wrote:Just some song and dance about “being conflicted”.
In other words, I don't think it would be useful to post about 7–8 reads like "He/She's scummy, because of [things] BUT [other things] make me think he/she's not scum".In post 826, Aneninen wrote:So, if anyone's interested in my read on a certain player, ask!
Where did Seth roleplay?In post 830, MagnaofIllusion wrote:Folllowed by a stupid HAHA post. Which I find interesting given questioned Seth about roleplaying when you went out of your way to do that as well instead of actually advancing the game.
In post 831, Persivul wrote:When you posted this, did you think you had presented sufficient evidence for people to vote TBG, or were you just hoping for blind followers?In post 684, Titus wrote:You should totally vote TBG then. Let's give scum a shit sand which.
Okay-looking answer.In post 832, Titus wrote:There's your context. I do believe enough has been presented. KTS and I shared a scumread, so we voted together.
Is it?In post 834, Aneninen wrote:Okay-looking answer.
No your statement is IIoA. You wrote “Shouldn’t you know her gender if you have so much information about ETL” which is meant to imply it is scummy not to. Yet it is clear that ETL doesn’t have a gender option listed and long time players have in the past specifically made it a mystery (Vi the most famous example off the top of my head). And you don’t draw any actual conclusion … you just leave it hanging there. Which is IIoA to a tee – lots of words that sum up to not a bit of game-releveant content.
People shouldn’t have to proactively ask about reads you do have when you have the time to make that Malkavian roleplay post. Which is why I find that whole sequence scummy. 7-8 players you are conflicted on means 13 to 12 players you do have reads on. Why didn’t you post those instead?In post 834, Aneninen wrote:I know "being conflicted" is not a useful thing.
That'swhy I posted this too:
It's bad that I had to look at Page 1 to actually see Desmond is a player in this game.
I quoted the evidence Kill gave. HA has given evidence. I have in my ISO. I have work so I cannot put it together immediately.In post 835, Persivul wrote:Is it?In post 834, Aneninen wrote:Okay-looking answer.
If she's saying that enough evidence had been given at that point for a person to reasonably vote TBG, then she doesn't have reason to scum read ETL for voting TBG. You don't need to regurgitate everyone's previously given reasons in order to vote.
OTOH, if there wasn't enough evidence given, but rather it's just a case of both Titus and Kill having the read without having given sufficient evidence, then:
- if they don't have evidence, what is the read based on?
- if they do have sufficient evidence, why aren't they sharing it?
- this is the second instance today of Titus looking for a buddy.
You don't need to repeat it, at least not for my sake. The point is: if all this evidence had come out at that point, why do you fault ETL for then voting TBG? You say it's because ETL's previous given reason of lack of content was no longer applicable. But, you're now saying that plenty of evidence is out there. It makes no sense to expect town to necessarily regurgitate the already given evidence in order to vote someone, especially someone they previously scum read and voted.In post 840, Titus wrote:I quoted the evidence Kill gave. HA has given evidence. I have in my ISO. I have work so I cannot put it together immediately.
Because it's a large, and you're comparing to minis. I find larges overwhelming. I believe this is only my second. The previous was The Dating Game. Check it and you'll see I wasn't very active until the numbers had reduced.In post 842, Lowell wrote:fos pers I've come full circle on him. He now looks quiet and opportunistic, compared to what I was seeing early. In fact, he reads like scum who through good fortune earned some townpoints early and has been trying to coast on it ever since. I've seen pers do more than this, and given that this is a pretty dynamic game with lots of lolcharacters, I'm suspicious why I haven't seen it here.