shadowfriend1 wrote:dodgy56 wrote:The point is there was no evidence of you scumhunting outside of HM on the basis that HM was scum either. It was like you werent worried about trying to find a second scum at all. You kept saying you were but your actions werent really backing that up.
Dodgy, you haven't read the thread, have you? Not really, right? Because I actually did make a case on Jordan that day, so you're just flat out wrong here.
Also, you did nothing on Day 1 or 2. Literally nothing. You are scum by your own standards.
dodgy56 wrote:
Personally, I don't expect anyone to town read me on more of a gut read like mhsmith did, and I don't want to argue in favor of that. But over the last few games I've had enough people gut read me as scum and drag me to the gallows, based on tone (correctly, on that note) that I don't think it's unreasonable or offensive that someone could town read me for once based on the same factors.
Can anyone attest to this being an accurate representation of SF1's scum play? specifically the bolded.
Did someone attest to this?
dodgy56 wrote:They're far more considered and in places leave room to wriggle out of that read than zoom's defences of smith which were very adamant. However if you read how confident he appears in his town read of smith, it doesnt match the level of evidence he is providing. I could see scum SF!1 trying to gain town cred for not being on town smith's lynch.
Leaving wiggle room for what?
Also, they just didn't. Literally no one else thinks I was being noncommital about townreading smith yesterday - I've been accused of townreading him excessively. I think the town can recognize that this is not a fair criticism of my play.
dodgy56 wrote:shadowfriend1 wrote:Zoomzip wrote:Ok. Condude confirms sub coming in at EOD. I commit my sub to pushing SJG if there's a night phase. Hopefully they see that and honor it.
Why are you leaving ZZ?

Because your case on sjg didn't get much traction?
that seems like a pretty personal sorta jab at zoom. tbh its just not cool even if you are scum.
A personal jab??? Was it not clear that I wanted to know ZZ's reasons for leaving because I was considering if it could be scum indicative and this would have helped my determine that? Also, I quite enjoy playing with Zoomzip, and was disappointed that he was leaving. He didn't take it as a personal jab, because it wasn't.
Also, what the hell does that have to do with my alignment?
dodgy56 wrote:Then we get into today stuff about hostility from Telleo. I get that the commentary from Telleo has been predominantly negative. but negative and hostile arent the same thing. Being negative and saying it doesnt make sense or that you havent explained something coherently is very different to being hostile and out to get you. I dont think Telleo or Crunkus have been unreasonable in their interrogation of you. I also get that sometimes their way of scumhunting can push buttons and come off as abrasive, but thats their style as either allignment.
I couldn't agree more. I guarantee you will NEVER find me saying it's scum indicative. Quite the opposite, actually.
dodgy56 wrote:The largest issue is that you arent really actually answering the questions they are asking you, or more specifically that you are answering some of the questions but are consistently avoiding others. this is kinda why i want input from others about your assessment of your scum play that i quoted earlier in this post.
Did you not see the monster post I made in which I answered every single question? It's pretty long, I don't see how you could have missed that.
dodgy56 wrote:also comments like the below just arent helpful- its anti-town at best
shadowfriend1 wrote:Telleo wrote:You owe me a few more answers than just this. I spent a lot of time answering your posts over the night. I'd prefer to not have all those questions brushed off under the umbrella of "Telleo wasn't very nice."
Telleo wrote:So I'll ask you one more time. SF, what did you do during D1 and particularly during D2 that you would characterize as scumhunting? Quotes or links would be appreciated.
Hey Telleo, I put three hours tonight just into answering your concerns and discussing my case on Jordan with Crunkus. I've been really focussing on my case on Jordan today, which is something I wanted to do yesterday but did not get around to doing, so that is my priority. I do not want to wait until later to push this case I feel strongly about, even though I'm quite busy with my university term.
What you could do to help me out is stop nagging me for a while so I actually have a chance to scumhunt. As for adding more onto the 800 response I just gave you outlining why I'm annoyed with you... no, that's not a reasonable request. That is my thought process, and there is nothing more to add.
Thanks.
Good Night.
I agree that was not an inherently productive discussion. But sometimes that's needed in order to come to an understanding, or to facilitate engagement. I fail to see how you can see this single post, in which I focused on explaining myself, as inherently scummy.
shadowfriend1 wrote:overall i have several issues with SF1 which are yet to be adequately addressed.
Shadowfriend1
Post on Jordan coming up
Have they been adequately addressed in the post above?[/quote]
Nope and nope.
The first one is somewhat true I guess. You made a post about Jordan. Then backed it up with post about hm-Jordan not making sense as a team.
The second isn't really accurate either. I wasn't active. That's true. But it's not the actual lack of scumhunting I found to be inherently scummy, it was the idea that you we're active and saying you were scumhunting but weren't actually doing it.
You dont think asking if someone is subbing out because their case was bad is personal?? Like its attacking their credibility and integrity regardless of their allignment.
You have in no way answered every question directed at you. That is a blatant lie. You have avoided a number of questions directed at you from telleo and crunkus.