In post 549, Hieirama wrote:Unable to answer? Did you read what I've said?
You should be able to put it together that I have a Town-Lean on Garmr. It's kind of obvious. But if you really need it spelled out for you in a post, there you go.
I have read everything you've said.
The responsibility is on you to substantiate your reads and update them as new information is obtained in the game. This actually reminds me of something you said earlier:
In post 371, Hieirama wrote:I read the game and everything, but usually I have no strong opinions or suspicions on anything. ((Maybe I'll share some opinions later anyway? Just for the record.)) It's much easier to reply if addressed.
This is exactly where scum want to reside. Scum want to sit on the fence, not giving any strong opinions, so when the wind blows just right, they can opportunistically jump on the town-consensus and not look suspicious. By giving actual opinions and suspicions, you put your own thoughts at risk and scrutiny. Scum don't like to be scrutinized. Town don't give a shit because they have nothing to hide.
Read, assumption, what's the difference again?
Assumptions are, by definition, something you take for granted without backing proof or evidence. Reads (I think of them synonymous with arguments) require evidence to build and sustain. Throughout the game, reads develop based on new evidence that is presented. By demonstrating your reads are updating to events of the game, you show that you are thinking about the game and trying to solve who is scum. Scum will try to spin narratives and try to make the evidence fit their reads, rather than the other way around. After all, they're trying to mislynch the town, so they are required to lie to achieve their wincon.
So this is why I keep asking you for specific information. I want to see if your thought process is consistent with your play, and whether you're just trying to look townie or actually trying to figure out the game. I have not been satisfied with your responses to my queries. I asked you earlier (
169) for your thoughts including your top scum read.
Your answer?
In
180 you referred me to your super-early readlist which came like 100 posts earlier. This told me that you were not updating your reads (I asked for a top scumread) based on the events of the game.
Similarly, I asked you in
467 to specifically provide a
current
read on Garmr. I was like you D1, where I wanted to believe his BP claim at its face, and I didn't want the wagon to go through in case we lynched a PR D1. However, over time I noticed things from him that began to look scummy, including his change-of-mind at the end of D1 up to and including his hammer, that were making me reconsider my read. I wanted to know if you were taking those actions into consideration.
Your answer?
In
520 you referred me to a set of posts you made 300 posts earlier and then implied that you hadn't really considered anything since then.
It was a way for me to explain why his quickhammer wasn't scummy to me (because it apparently was to others) since you did ask about his last few actions.
But you didn't explain why his quickhammer wasn't scummy. You responded "That quickhammer though" immediately after it happened, which indicated you thought it was strange. And you later told me "the message that went along with it made sense." Which message? Was the message alignment-indicative (anyone in this game, scum or town, can produce posts that "make sense")? Does it excuse Garmr, who had stated "I am in [no] rush to end the day" (
412), and then quickhammered without warning 16 hours later?
You asked me my opinions on Garmr and I said I assumed he was Town. That's not question dodging.
You didn't say "I assume he is Town." You linked me a set of old posts and then said "my main opinion there still stands." You never substantiated your opinion in the first place (aside from your
239 "I can't find any other post I don't like other than #
117" -- which isn't even one of Garmr's posts!). You have not indicated your opinion is developing. To me, this is absolutely question dodging.
I will need to re-look at my D1 town-lean read of Gamr. 
