Could it be, mayhaps, because you were actually fucking scum in them? You were scum this game. You were scum in Steven Universe 2. You were scum in StrangerCoug's game. Those are the last three games I can recall playing with you. And you were scum in all of them. So me having a scumread on you there was...actually fucking correct?
You can't forget your own alignment in the games where I called you scum. If you've actually fucking been scum in the games where I called you scum. Then I'm going to not feel bad for calling you scum? If a pattern emerges where I mistakenly call you scum when you're town. Then what happens is I first forfeit my right to say I can definitely read you (I've already done so for your half Drixx thanks to our very first encounter which is a lifelong stain that never will go away), and if it persists, then I go into the territory of players like RadiantCowbells, Alisae, and Firebringer, where I will flat-out admit, "I can't read these players but I am obligated to try, so I am sharing what read I have even though I know the read is probably shit".
That can also happen if vice-versa is true, where I call you as scum, town. I first forfeit my right to say I can definitely read you, then if it persists, I then place you in the category of players like RadiantCowbells, Alisae, and Firebringer where I self-admittedly can't read them, won't pretend I can, and yet am obligated to attempt a read in spite of knowing it won't be a good one.
...But.
...In order for that to happen.
...First we gotta play games together.
I'm always down for that!
The problem it creates is that you really don't explain your scum reads generally.
I can't. On a fundamental level, I've tried. Every angle, it's basically impossible for me to do so. My first language isn't English, which is the language I'd need to convey my scumreads in. My first language is concepts as I call it, in that I will get a read on the conceptual level. And then that's my read. But how do you explain in what's essentially a foreign language what you have so naturally in your own?
You DO; however, despite just now openly admitting being right essentially about as often as random chance this game, play as if those reads are ironclad truth.
And I always acknowledge it postgame for better or for worse. Heck I often don't even wait until postgame, I will do so midgame too.
It is a byproduct of the above. If I can't explain my reads. What CAN I do? I can push them, and push them hard. Let's say you had an inability to explain your reads. What approach to the game would YOU take? What approach would a you, who gets reads but can't explain them, take towards those reads?
My answer is pushing them, and pushing them hard. Is it a perfect answer, no, but it's the best answer I've got because I can't think of any other option. "Just learn to explain your reads" isn't one. Telling me that is like telling me the secret to polevault is to learn how to be propelled forward/upward by the bend of the stick, in that sure it might be something technically accurate but it's useless for actually teaching.
I have a weakness in my process, a fundamental process which is probably never going away because I honestly think it's impossible FOR it to go away (some brains are just hardwired in ways which cannot have certain rewiring done). What I've got is what I've got, and it's the best I've developed. If I think of something better fuck yeah I'll do that thing instead of what I'm currently doing, but pushing hard my reads which I can't explain is the best I've got in the now.
You cannot be reasoned with and any evidence contrary gets hand waved away.
People say this and yet they don't bother to pay attention to what I actually do. I
can
be reasoned with and do so all the time. I'm just low-key about it. I show with my actions rather than my words. I back down from pushes all the time. I shift pushes all the time. That's me being reasonable, that's me reasoning with you because that's my answer. Not to engage in a lengthy explanation-battle because I don't do explanations. I am not going to tell you I am being reasonable. I am going to show you I am being reasonable. So relying on a verbal recognition as proof won't happen because it's nonverbally communicated.
Similarly so for evidence. When I don't acknowledge it it's because I don't have a way to acknowledge it. Because I don't do words well. It's part of my autism. (Which is pretty common knowledge.) I don't communicate well. So when people directly challenge me to communicate something well...I deflect. Because they are asking the impossible of me.
That makes it exceptionally difficult to work with you (when we're both town) and to properly read you (when we're town and you are not).
Well the former requires you to actually be town.
And, when we are, we do so well enough. As far as I can recall, we worked well together in the original Steven Universe game. You were right in some areas I wasn't (and actually managed to convince me as such), I was right in some areas you weren't (and you eventually came around to my point of view albeit for your own reasons unrelated to mine).
The latter, not my fault I'm a competent scumplayer? I mean.
When in doubt, read the flowchart, 'cause I really am not unreadable. I'm predictable, even. You just have to have a basic understanding of my process and I've thought you would have, you having seen me as town countless times. (Though come to think of it I don't think you've ever seen me as scum? I sure have no memory of it.)
