In post 556, texcat wrote:LLD, I don't think you've posted since my request for your other miller games, but I am repeating it in the hopes you'll see it.
Why are you looking for her other miller games if your plan is to policy lynch her anyways?
I
r
e
a
l
l
y
w
a
n
n
a
l
y
n
c
h
t
e
x
c
a
t
.
g
a
m
e
?
why do you want 2 lynch texascat
add me on snapchat and vine and twitter and instagram : ]
In post 202, Starbuck wrote:Wowza, Iec. I don't remember you going OMGUS on RVS votes before. This is kinda weird.
[...]
And now I'm stuck because I don't know what's scummier...
-Iec placing a vote after just not reading at all and saying that it was just a stupid RVS vote[...]But then when called out says he was intending to vote texcat but then iso'd him and changed his mind? That's some weird contradictory shenanigans
You have your chronology/causality mistaken. I intended to vote texcat after reading the thread. It had nothing to do with being "called out." That quote is present only because she addressed me directly (as a component of things to respond to after I had read).
I think that clarifying whether I have yet read the game is a wise thing to do. Friday and today I was at the hospital 14 hours apiece. Friday night/Saturday my boyfriend had a birthday party, a friend drove from an hour away to help me build a computer, and I watched DW with some friends. I was so tired during DW that I slept through the entire series finale.
In post 224, Iecerint wrote:Most of the other content in the game was players reporting meta on players they knew, which I do not generally find very useful, so I did not reflect on any of that.
This is a weird observation on the gamestate; I think there was more going on than just meta and I'm fairly confident that you could recognize that.
Nah, it was pretty bull. It was not a game I enjoyed reading. Part of it was that I was trying to very quickly read during little windows of time I made for myself, though, so maybe I would have been more intrigued if I had devoted more time.
One thing I will say is that I remember thinking ONEVOICE earlier when MattP immediately echoed my opinion about Syryana awhile ago.
I am surprised that he would consider me scum for disengagement when that phenomenon had just happened, unless he simply did not read my post, but that again makes me wonder why he would commit to a scum-tier read (i.e., maybe he would review if he had an opinion like that, ala what I did with texcat).
In post 244, Iecerint wrote:Syryana's posts on this page seem scummy to me. I should probably read some of his earlier posts more critically to determine whether I am being silly.
In post 245, MattP wrote:I bet I can stretch Starbuck's post to be town-minded in its entirely, just like Syryana stretched every aspect of it to be scummy.
Like, that was not a fair assessment of Starbuck's post at all.
This is what I'm talking about. They're back-to-back posts. I remember them because I checked social threads after finishing here, and he posted it during that time when I was still on the computer, so I read it in real-time.
Gosh I can't imagine what else might account for that.
ty for addressing only the weakest part of a statement and also the one least linked to scummy play.
Everything else is addressed above (cuz you just cross-supply other things), except for egging on Syryana without getting involved.
Re that, I knew I did not have time to read Syryana's walls again to make a decision, but his immediate posts had made an impact on me that I didn't like, so I voiced it. I think that voicing your immediate opinion is the easiest way to clarify your alignment to other people. This reflects how I noticed that MattP and I had the same take on Syryana's posts (though I just described that I didn't like it, but MattP instead listed reasons why he did not like it).
Overall I can understand that point being read as scummy though I guess. I certainly would normally take a different approach as town if time permitted (e.g., immediately following-up on my stated intention).