In post 5954, Casso the King of Seals wrote: In post 5952, goodmorning wrote:I also felt weird about it, but do you really think Scum-F16 would be so blatant? I mean, none of us are stupid.
As far as I'm aware I'm the only one who decided to call him on it and point out that it was bad. So, maybe I'm the stupid one, but clearly he was getting away with it just fine up to that point, so at that stage how risky/obvious was it?
Scumtells are always obvious after they are called out, just like breadcrumbs. My breadcrumbs are all quite obvious...once I point out it was a crumb. But I've never had any scum team catch my crumbs before. I submit the same effect is in play here. Yes, what he did was obviously bad. But I think it took me saying something for people to note it.
Which is why I totally didn't say anything about it in my response to him.
OH WAIT
Please don't project insult onto me. When I try to insult people I'm usually pretty blatant about it, so your aggravated response kind of left me awkward in wanting to reply to it, but unsure how to reply to it sensibly without being hostile right back. I wasn't trying to be hostile, I am now wanting to be hostile because you were.
So shove that, I suppose.
Well I apologise for taking it that way then.
In post 5952, goodmorning wrote:A. Muffin wasn't particularly fencesitting.
B. Buzzword scumhunting rather than any real contribution.
C. Fails to demonstrate that fencesitting from Muffin would be cause for concern.
D. If it weren't Titus, the lack of a vote here would also be a bit pingy.
E. This post comes before the next post.
A. Depends on your definition. I wouldn't call what he was saying fencesitting, but he was abdicating responsibility to solve a conundrum. If Titus had called it 'failure to engage to find the truth' would you have found the call as objectionable? I don't feel you're trying to understand the expressed issue, and instead just are stopping at a definition hangup and acting like that's far enough.
I am saying that Titus pushed off on this post specifically over any other from the recent past. Rather than attempt to engage in any sort of discussion, she says "you are fencesitting and that is bad". There's no analysis or even a pretension of giving a shit about the issue. There's no questioning, there's no addressing of what she thinks he's fencesitting on exactly.
She picked this post of all posts, and yet had nothing even remotely interesting to add to the discussion.
As to your point, Muffin didn't abdicate responsibility so much as admit a present sense of uncertainty, based on the lack of evidence on your slot either way.
He didn't say he was stopping trying to read you. He said he couldn't make a coherent case at this time.
I have no problems with that, as I currently feel much the same about you.
I also have no problems with the fact that Titus hasn't called me on it, but only Muffin. I assume she hasn't read the bits of the game in which I was posting.
B. Which, sadly, comes from town all the time. i know, I mislynch them for it on a regular basis. The question is - was that the goal of what Titus was doing or not?
I certainly think so.
C. You failed to ask him to demonstrate it and yet called him scummy for it without trying to seek his logic. I agree that shutting down at a quick conclusion is bad, but I think you're doing the same thing here as Titus is there. It's bad play, assuredly. It's only possibly scummy play though.
Again, this was her big opening post, and it's useless masquerading as content.
D. Well...it is Titus, so this is meaningless then?
I don't know. Most people, if they come in with more than "hi I am reading," I would expect to lay down a vote there. I have a feeling Titus wouldn't, based on prior games as a more reserved voter.
But I don't know.
E. You don't seem to connect them again. Did I miss something that was going to be here?
I'm trying to say it's a timing issue, and also makes the contentlessness of this post worse.
In post 5952, goodmorning wrote:A. If you're reading closely enough to know where the wagons are, you're reading closely enough to see people's stated reasoning for them.
B. The last time I saw a post like this (vague shame you lynched a pr boo), I made it. It was my first Scum game. Does it have to come from Scum? No. Does it look like it? Oh yes.
C. With such concern about SSK's targets, why not just ISO him and see if he had claimed them? The people in this game are competent enough to have forced the issue if he hadn't, so the info was obviously going to be there. His ISO is only 77 posts so it's not like it would take long, and in any case Ctrl+f "protect" shows it within four results.
D. I also enjoy the "I would love for a tracker or watcher to out themselves! BUT SUBTLY"
i. I mean, any outing in this playerlist, especially with heavy analytics like ffery alive, would be about as subtle as a cat in a kitchen.
A. I don't think that's what Titus was saying there. The way I read it the point was to express that it was scum driven, and probably scum driven on the back end.
That's fair.
B. So it looks scummy to you on a surface level...I feel that's all you're saying here...?
Yes, I'm saying the tone of it and the "boo you lynched a pr" sentiments look bad to me.
C. I agree with this, I think we have identified that Titus is lazy. Do you see that as a scumtell or a playstyle tell?
Who has identified that Titus is lazy, and when?
I don't think of Titus as a lazy player at all. Me? Definitely. Titus? I've not seen it.
D. I also felt weird about it, but do you really think Scum-
F16
Titus would be so blatant? I mean, none of us are stupid...
But actually I agree with you on this one, it does look like an attempt to slow down and perhaps delay the Mafia wagon and I do find that scummy and I'd even missed the Tracker fish till you pointed it out....I'll admit these last couple also include my issues with Falcon, which you disagree with across the board it seems? I'm curious why you love the Titus case but disagree with my Falcon case? At heart, aren't they the same case?
A big one is body of work. Cephrir has been much scummier than F16, imo.
The other, of course, is the Cabd-stenuating circumstances and the fact that there is already knowledge of at least 2 Masons' existence.
Well, as with most scum cases that are longer than 1-2 sentences I think you have a lot of meaningless fluff in there trying to make it look more considered and developed than it is. I feel like the core issues are best summed up as;[/quote]
I think we probably are going to end up agreeing to disagree on this.
Can you address the point I noted about how similar your Titus issues are to my Falcon issues?
Yeah, basically what I said above are my 2 biggest issues with the issue comparison.
P-EDIT:
SORRY, I FORGOT WORDS ARE TRADEMARKED AFTER ONE PERSON USES THEM
I GUESS YOU CAN'T USE "TRADEMARK" NOW
