the fear is that someone else has the same gut read. which is literally what happened.In post 224, FireScreamer wrote:How so? What is to be feared of a vote based on intuition which is by its very nature non transferable?In post 223, Barleycorn wrote:it does create pressure.
this is very lazyIn post 226, FireScreamer wrote:Going from calling out LAMIST to being LAMIST seems like an odd progression as the first two things you do in a game. I read looking for reasoning on me as an attempt to garner my favour as really it doesn't do much else.
i think you're missing a lot in your lazinessIn post 227, Barleycorn wrote: explain how dog was lamist
dog scumread someone for asking for reasoning behind rvs votes?In post 233, FireScreamer wrote:I'm certainly pretty tired tonight i'll give you that. Asking for reasoning behind RVS votes is about looking like you are trying to find a solution. It is about appearances. Generally I don't mind that for reasons i've previously stated. However when you've already shown that you scumread it in other people then it becomes interesting.
bro I'm really confused with what you're saying. what questions am I ignoring?In post 210, Barleycorn wrote:you are giving me head pains.
in 188 i ask you where your scum lean of dog comes from.
in 189 you tell me it's (in part) because dog said we were out of rvs, but then said he didn't get rvs, which doesn't make sense according to you. the other parts of the scum lean are his interaction with shadow and his use of trigger words.
interjection - why is a new player using 'trigger words' scum indicative?
in 190 i ask an unclear question that's basically hinting that there was no inconsistency in dog's play. i revise this question in 197.
in 191 you come up with anewcase that bypasses my question. then in 194 you bypass my question again by incorrectly saying I was asking you to do meta analysis.
the two points i've made that you seem not to understand are -
1. that the case you make starting from 191 is absent in 189 and
2. that there is a distinct case in 189 that i asked you about, and that you subsequently abandoned
work with me to figure this out or i'm voting you.
this guy has to be town or we are all screwed.In post 211, Barleycorn wrote:for some clarity in what i'm doing, i think 189 + 191 is scum but i'm trying to see how possible it is that town!eddie made those posts.
I said it's early in the game right? Plus I treat changing reads seemingly out of nowhere more seriously than holes in logic.In post 138, FrankJaeger wrote:In post 125, aronagrundy wrote:I don't believe that logical flaws are necessarily scummy. Being inconsistent over a period of time is, repeatedly using bad logic is, but not just one instance. And he hasn't even responded yet.In post 123, FireScreamer wrote:Why is starting a wagon on someone at 0 votes opportunistic?In post 120, aronagrundy wrote:VOTE: eddie cane
His case on shadow seems opportunistic. And he basically just repeats what others have said.
If someone has pointed out the logical flaws in someone's posts and you agree with it, why shouldn't you vote them?
But at the same time this early in the game it's fine to go off of them imo. That's just my thought process.
W/r/t eddie, it's opportunistic in the sense that he's using your logic (@eddie, i'll quote in a sec) to give the appearance of acting town.This is kinda scummy.In post 106, aronagrundy wrote:What do you make of his 180 on dog?In post 102, mozamis wrote:oh, and fire's responses look town. he seems measured and questioning his attackers in a "i dont care, i'm innocent" kinda way.
time to stop voting fire.
I'm town. You're wrong!
