Obviously you don’t because you literally argued directly against it, it’s just where we beg to differ.In post 1088, Scoliosis wrote:I don't agree with this by the way and your vote switch makes me raise my eyebrows a little bit.In post 1056, innocentvillager wrote:I thjnk refusal/cryptic/drawn out claiming is on average quite towny in my empirical experience. Scol’s theory is like possible but it’s more of a hindsight/confbias narrative kind of read imoIn post 1039, Freedom wrote:I see.In post 1035, Scoliosis wrote:His refusal to claim is +scum.In post 1024, Freedom wrote:Not yet.In post 1023, Val89 wrote:Are you townreading gera now, Freedom?
I feel like their refusal to claim feels a bit odd.
Though, I would consider them nullish.
UNVOTE:Geraintm's scum strategy can be broken down into three layers of defense:
On the first layer he disappears whenever possible, hoping that others will forget he is present in the game. (His absence of meaningful thought and refusal to get involved with the content between 332 and 572, not to mention most of the discussion which he lurked actively through between his posts 18 and 330.)
On the second layer he pretends to be meek and humble, hoping that others will feel sorry for him and vote someone else. (330, 763, 767 -which is refuted by pookythebear in 836 and 838-, 854 which is unbelievable, 857, etc.)
On his third and final layer he creates intrigue and confusion about his role, hoping others will become uncomfortable with the ambiguity behind his refusal to claim and move on to someone else. (894)
I had thought that his refusal to claim was just a playstyle oddity.
Though, it does seem like maybe it isn't as I thought.
VOTE: gera again.
What exactly raises eyebrows other than the fact that I’m just voting for you now?