Open 661: Pick Your Poison [Game Over]

[Gamma Emerald]

Why is SS scummy?

[-Grey-]

Why is SS scummy?

Are you seriously asking that question?

Tell me you're not seriously asking that question.

[Gamma Emerald]

I am serious, I don't see anything that's super scummy.

[-Grey-]

Snarky had been active lurking like a motherfucker, keeping their head down and posting just enough to avoid proud dodges,

until a solid wagon formed on a target they could support.

Now all of a sudden Snarky actually participates.

Also,

Pretty sure there's lots of TvT in there.

Claims a lot of TvT, but not giving any actual reads.

Cheesy reads like playstyle more than scummy, a lot of it is nai to me

I was hard scumreading Cheesy at this point because I felt he wasn't being genuine in his play. Snarky's read on the other hand looks like he has outside knowledge that Cheesy is town.

[Gamma Emerald]

Okay I can see that, but he plays active lurking in most games.

[-Grey-]

Okay I can see that, but he plays active lurking in most games.

Then why the activity all of a sudden?

[LicketyQuickety]

SS just sucks at this game.

[Gamma Emerald]

He has about 1 exchange each day he posts.

[LicketyQuickety]

He has about 1 exchange each day he posts.

And they are not even good posts!

PeregrineV also plays a lurky playstyle, but he is actually good at the game.

[-Grey-]

He has about 1 exchange each day he posts.

Except for the sixteenth, where he made four posts in one day.

[Gamma Emerald]

He has about 1 exchange each day he posts.

Except for the sixteenth, where he made four posts in one day.

On one topic.

[-Grey-]

He has about 1 exchange each day he posts.

Except for the sixteenth, where he made four posts in one day.

On one topic.

False. Two.

[ThinkBig]

He has about 1 exchange each day he posts.

Except for the sixteenth, where he made four posts in one day.

Checking his ISO, he also made 4 posts on the 11th.

[-Grey-]

He has about 1 exchange each day he posts.

Except for the sixteenth, where he made four posts in one day.

Checking his ISO, he also made 4 posts on the 11th.

Was the Realeo wagon established on the 11th? If so, my point remains. If not, I concede it.

[Gamma Emerald]

He has about 1 exchange each day he posts.

Except for the sixteenth, where he made four posts in one day.

On one topic.

False. Two.

His existence is what I see.

[-Grey-]

He has about 1 exchange each day he posts.

Except for the sixteenth, where he made four posts in one day.

On one topic.

False. Two.

His existence is what I see.

Keep reading.

[ThinkBig]

He has about 1 exchange each day he posts.

Except for the sixteenth, where he made four posts in one day.

Checking his ISO, he also made 4 posts on the 11th.

Was the Realeo wagon established on the 11th? If so, my point remains. If not, I concede it.

Not quite sure. Checking through the ISO, LQ didn't vote for Realo until the 13th.

[-Grey-]

Titus, Realeo is almost confirmed scum, please comment on that

The fuck snarky is in this game?

For a while now, yeah.

I find this fishy of Culted honestly.

Why?

He's questioning the suspicion LQ has of culted.

While that suspicion is based on the interaction around Snarky's existence, questioning that suspicion is in itself a separate topic.

[-Grey-]

Realeo wagon didn't exist on the 11th.

[-Grey-]

If I can get a sensible reads list from Snarky, I'll move on.

[LicketyQuickety]

If I can get a sensible reads list from Snarky, I'll move on.

WRONG!

pardoning a player for doing X action when it can be faked, is a really poor way to play.

[-Grey-]

If I can get a sensible reads list from Snarky, I'll move on.

WRONG!

pardoning a player for doing X action when it can be faked, is a really poor way to play.

Hanging onto poor logic when it has been shown to be incorrect is an even worse way to play.

[LicketyQuickety]

If I can get a sensible reads list from Snarky, I'll move on.

WRONG!

pardoning a player for doing X action when it can be faked, is a really poor way to play.

Hanging onto poor logic when it has been shown to be incorrect is an even worse way to play.

Not necessarily. It could mean the method of logic is not accepted and that is all.

[-Grey-]

If I can get a sensible reads list from Snarky, I'll move on.

WRONG!

pardoning a player for doing X action when it can be faked, is a really poor way to play.

Hanging onto poor logic when it has been shown to be incorrect is an even worse way to play.

Not necessarily. It could mean the method of logic is not accepted and that is all.

You're not making any sense.

I made an assertion that was proven wrong. I adjusted my read based on new evidence and asked for a reads list to hold the player to in order to move my vote.

Had I insisted that my read was correct despite being proven wrong, I'd have justifiably been accused of tunneling.

[LicketyQuickety]

If I can get a sensible reads list from Snarky, I'll move on.

WRONG!

pardoning a player for doing X action when it can be faked, is a really poor way to play.

Hanging onto poor logic when it has been shown to be incorrect is an even worse way to play.

Not necessarily. It could mean the method of logic is not accepted and that is all.

You're not making any sense.

I get that a lot.

I made an assertion that was proven wrong. I adjusted my read based on new evidence and asked for a reads list to hold the player to in order to move my vote.

You thinking SS is going to provide a reads list? LOL

Had I insisted that my read was correct despite being proven wrong, I'd have justifiably been accused of tunneling.

And here I thought we were talking in generalities. You can get lynched.