I never said I agreed with foodcoats that it was a "good scum play", only that it was inconsistent for foodcoats to claim it was after doing the same thing a few hours earlier.xorxes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:28 amBut you are agreeing with him that doing that could be a good scum play.bozotheclown wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:23 am
Here is another example of what I suspect was a fabricated case. I stated I was leaving and was going to miss EOD when I placed that vote, and made it clear that I preferred lynching Nephthys over all of the other wagons besides Chaqa. I had been arguing for lynching Chaqa all day, it was fairly clear it was not going to happen, so I went with my next choice among the available wagons.
Also, foodcoats was already voting for Nephthys, and when he changed his vote from Flavius to Nephthys, the vote count was Nephthys 3, Flavius 2, Chaqa 2, Jamie 2, damo 1, emc 1. After he voted for Nephthys, the vote count was Nephthys 4, Chaqa 2, Jamie 2, Flavius 1, damo 1, emc 1. This is almost exactly the same thing he was supposedly scum reading me for. So, either foodcoats does not really believe that "The scum play there is shoring up a promising mislynch at an appropriate time", or he made a mistake as scum and made a scum play.
You also know from your own experience that sometimes townies do that for towny reasons.
So this doesn't really scream to me that food is scum. It only says it is consistent with him being scum. But it is also consistent with him being town.
The way I read it, food has been consistently scumhunting from D1. Has he made some bad cases? Yes. Townies often do that, maybe even more often than scum.
Jamie, on the other hand, has been playing most of the game as if performing on a stage. He is not reading the thread very closely. His most pressing concerns today were whether rivera had said who he had saved (he didn't know because he has not been bothering to read, he was curious, probably because they had to guess who the doc would save and he wanted to see if they had guessed right) and wondering whether emc had been roleblocked. You can't get less invested in finding scum than that.
There are bad cases, incorrect cases, and cases that seem fabricated. Here is the case foodcoats made on Nephthys D1:
"Nephthys's iso by contrast is off. It sort of... caromes? Pointlessly? I'm not sure. It unsettles my gut. I don't like Neph's Chaqa vote; Chaqa's cop comment looks scummy, but Chaqa is conversational about this game no matter what. Second on the wagon looks a little too good. Picking up on what someone else had said and choosing to settle there without contributing much else to the game... it's a little too convenient."
This seems fabricated to me. Also, foodcoats only mentioned Nephthys once in passing before Nephthys picked up 3 votes.
The fact that foodcoats was going after Chaqa voters also looks questionable now.
- to indicate the tone. I even do this myself when I am leaning on sarcasm and am not sure how it will come off. It is actually a recommended communications strategy because of the ambiguity of the written word in digital communications.
