No. You descended further down the scumpile after I made an accusation and you completely ignored it. I wasn't going to bring up your "meta" post if you had just paid attention to me, but you decided to go ahead and ignore me.In post 474, Flubbernugget wrote:So I went from not *outrageously* scummy to the bottom of your scum list over one post you're just seeing now as opposed to the two times you iso'd me?
Because I decided in that context it was just, well, anti-town. However, by the time I called you out on it you already had FOSes by several people, and the fact you pretended nothing happened drew my attention to that post once again.In post 478, Flubbernugget wrote:But you decided to declare it anti town well after you had seen it because?
I'm not "arguing theory", I'm backing up my scumread.In post 482, Flubbernugget wrote:If you wanted to argue theory you shouldn't have done it when you decided you wanted to make a push
No, it boils down to the fact you totally ignore any read on you, which is super anti-town. There's a difference between actively scumhunting/building a case and avoiding distractions, and simply ignoring any accusation on you in hopes it would eventually go away.In post 483, Flubbernugget wrote:Your argument boils down to the fact that I don't cry when people scum read me and thats pretty laughable thing to push
I'm sorry but repeating "you're wrong" won't actually make me wrong. However you try to sugarcoat it, you *were* ingoring accusations on you, which *is* anti-town.Ignore reads on me = not crying when I'm scum read
What does that even mean? You had an RVS vote on massive, don't credit yourself.Not only am I scum hunting you right now, I started the massive wagon too
No I didn't? You've always been a scumread. I just added more weight to it. There was no backpedaling whatsoever involved.You fucked your reads up and you're not going to be able to backpedal to have it make sense no matter how hard you tried
I've never refused to acknowledge a scumread on me as town. I don't know much about the "town doesn't care about being scumread" meta, but I definitely don't see it as pro-town behaviour.In post 472, MiniDeathStar wrote:Not addressing an accusation just makes me think you know it's true. It also robs town of opportunity to get reads or catch scum (you never know which side the accusation is coming from until you investigate). You know your role. You're the best person to determine the alignment of the accuser or convince the rest of your alignment.
In post 552, Gamma Emerald wrote:Blame me all you want IDGAF
Can you guess what Gamma was that game? Scum.In post 562, Gamma Emerald wrote:And BTW, IDC about responding to farside rn.
look at how random my vote is everyoneIn post 135, Flubbernugget wrote:Massive, I would like your read on cloudkicker. I see your 94 as not reading them as town, yet your 95 votes for someone else for *reasons*
And my vote is staying on you.
TBF, your push is a softball that could have easily been defended by pointing out how scum is more likely to be concerned about appearances than town.In post 494, Flubbernugget wrote:look at how random my vote is everyoneIn post 135, Flubbernugget wrote:Massive, I would like your read on cloudkicker. I see your 94 as not reading them as town, yet your 95 votes for someone else for *reasons*
And my vote is staying on you.
LOOK AT IT