It's not like I haven't said that I believe that cases are scummy this game, in reference to case-type arguments I myself was attempting to make. Sometimes I say it tongue-in-cheek, but there's plenty of truth in it - there are prevalent and accepted types of casemaking that are, in fact, scummy. If I wasn't clear enough before, I found yours to be of that category.
Regardless. You've succeeded in highlighting the fact that at the beginning of the game I found it hard to get or sort through reads on a number of players, or that I sometimes mentioned players without coming to a conclusive read, and a couple of related bits and pieces. You've certainly implied that somehow this is all scummy. You have shown no inclination to analyze whether it actually
is
scummy. I won't show you you're wrong about my expressed unsurety about my reads, or unsurety as to whether to trust my instinctive reads on the players in question. I can certainly clarify some of my statements, and I will, because regardless of alignment I just don't not do that. It's a sickness.
But in return, please, describe the presumed scum motivation or scum gain I would have been trying for by whatever you've objected to (or, unless you think I have no skill whatever at fabricating cases and stances with these and this number of players in such a game as this and that therefore I as scum would have no other option than the hedging and so forth that you identify here, etc.).
In post 2562, Flipping Awesome wrote:I think you are saying that Tim Howard is too bad to be scum but maybe he is? Your next sentence is a valid point. Yet, it is a point that has already been hashed out before. You offer no new opinions or insights.
I was sort of saying the equivalent. Scum sometimes choose bad tactics or strategies, or sometimes what seems like a poor tactic might be viable given information Town doesn't anticipate - it's frustrating when you see someone playing in a way that seems scummy or off in some way but doesn't seem like it would benefit their alignment if they were scum. I figured I'd express my thought process there, at least. And yes, sometimes I repeat or note things that have been hashed out before. Giving an understanding where I stand or my thought process on an issue, even if it mirrors someone else's position, can be valuable.
In post 2562, Flipping Awesome wrote:You hedge on Katsuki here again offering nothing substantial and not committing to any position on him. You talk about his wagon not engaging him. I don't understand what the relevance of it in relation to alignment.
If I thought the reasons for the Katsuki wagon had merit, I would have said so. If I thought it was completely baseless and contrived, I'd have said so. Saying I 'only partly got it' would indicate that I didn't think particularly much of the reasons. At the time I found Katsuki unreadable, and had no confidence distinguishing between deliberate unreadability or playstyle/how Katsuki expressed himself given the playerlist. I did not have a scumread on Katsuki. The wagon, at least, seemed more interesting - there was an aspect to it that was atypical and worth notice.
In post 2562, Flipping Awesome wrote:You again hedge your read on CDB. If you wanted to see what CDB had done so far, it isn't very difficult to check his ISO. Your comments about his Shadoweh push are again ambiguous. Is it a good thing that it is mild or persistent?
Who says I didn't check his ISO? My point was about what I remembered him doing, what impact he had on the game, &c. I
did
skim his ISO around that point, just to be certain I hadn't forgotten anything somehow, which is where I note what he actually did do - a push/pressure on Shadoweh (which didn't show very very strong conviction per se but was consistent and persistent) and a comment about the gamestate that in context put his level and type of contributions in new light. I showed my thought process, you see. In the end I'm willing to wait on CDB for future contributions, and read him as worthy of me withholding my mistrust for the time being.
So what? If I didn't phrase it such that you had a full understanding you weren't meant to have a full understanding.
In post 2562, Flipping Awesome wrote:This feels like an incredibly fluffly way to say "sorry for being inactive." Why all the fluff? (Note to self to check up on meta for this)
Why not? I did that while identifying a problem that I suspected was going to crop up: there were a number of people who had done little in the early game and were less engaged/mixed into the game and therefore harder to read (and perhaps harder to integrate). More than one person besides myself cited a gamestate that wasn't flowing well for them as the Day wore on, which I believe was related to that. And yes, why don't you get on that? I don't want to spoil too much, but bursts of verbosity are fairly typical from me, regardless of alignment.
In post 2562, Flipping Awesome wrote:This also seems really vague. I could go and check the votecount in Post 501 and I'd say you trust {Shadoweh, Zdenek, Untrod Tripod, Nobody Special, Katsuki} who were all on Tim Howard. And then you vote NS anyway for reasons that are unclear.
Key word there was 'average'. Also I believe I meant the height of the TH wagon, so throw in Cerulean there as well. I trusted Cerulean, Zdenek, and (though
As for the post you hate, you have my sympathy. Hatred can be bad for the digestion, I know. I found NS' initial posting scummy, of its own merits, but suspected, rightly, that most players, Day 1, would generally reject my reasons as things par for the course for NS, just baseline playstyle stuff (while I felt that there was a reasonably good chance that was not the case even so, and felt that wrong or right pursuing it might well yield useful contributions). I also felt like I wasn't well integrated in the game in general. I desired to rectify this by attempting a less common approach to an engagement with NS.