First off, some meta stuff about my point and reading system, because there seems to be some confusion. (eg. Jason: "His points system is a bit weird")
I've employed the system this in many games. Ages ago, I used to do it every game. Now I do it in two situations: a) Where I have replaced; or b) Where I have lost track of the game. A score of 0 is confirmed town, a score of 100 is confirmed scum. 50 is neutral (not "no opinion"). In theory, a score of 70 is my "I'd be happy to lynch you" threshold, but the average score of my top suspects has tended to degrade over time (which I think is because I have become increasingly skeptical of scumtells, even more so than I was before).
As for the way I structure my read, it's mainly a product of me not trusting gut at all. I find posts like "Scum: x, y, z. Town: a, b, c" to be absolutely useless except for establishing scumlinks (90% of the time, I will ignore them entirely). In short, I am far more interested in details than "big picture" stuff. Hence, I don't do the standard thing of reading and just posting a short list of my position on each person. Further, and a second rationale, is one of transparency, in the sense that because I am focussed on details, I need to show everybody else what details I have chosen to focus on (as you will see below, this is an issue that annoys me).
Jason wrote:
In his catch up read through, I would think he would have noticed my day 1 suspicion of Jack. As well as continued suspicion on Day 2 early on when I questioned him for his roleclaim.. and a possible retraction of the claim. I am not sure if his post was an actual retraction or not.. His declaring Charlie Obv town at start of day2 but did nothing on day 1 to say that.
My catch-up read focussed, as should be obvious, on posts that I found scummy, that I found interestnig, or that I wanted to mark for possible scum-link purposes.
It infuriates me to no end that somebody who skim-reads and posts a vague "Scum: x, y, z. Town: a, b, c" will usually go unchallenged, but for some reason, because I choose to make more detailed posts, there is some sort of expectation that I remember EVERYTHING that happens.
Your vote that I attacked simply said:
Jason wrote:
Jack, I will vote when I am good and ready to vote, not when you demand it... alright? good.
Also, if Jack is pushing me so much? why is his vote not on me?
don't buy it
vote:Jack
That made no sense to me. If you had other reasons for voting Jack, fine, but my default assumption is that each voting post will either be clearly linked to earlier suspicion or contain the basis for the suspicion within it. Yours had neither and I didn't have your background suspicion in my head. Having done what for me is a relatively fast read, I wasn't au fait with anything that I hadn't specifically committed to memory in my notes (ie attacked).
Jack wrote: Yeah I think those are very valid criticisms of vollkan's catchup posts, and signs of fakery. fos:vollkan
How so?
Jack wrote: You have me at the lowest, right? But Jasons vote looks like distancing?
You'll notice throughout my read I make notes of possible scumlinks. That was one (because of there being an argument between you two that made little sense to me from Jason's end and resulted in a vote that made little sense; it seemed confected).
The suspicion on Jason was for the vote itself, not for the distancing.
Jack wrote:
So why am I at 50?
Because individually I don't find you scummy. What is it that you find problematic about the idea that I can not suspect you as an individual but also be looking out for possible signs of scumlinks between you and others?
Farside wrote:
3) I don't know volkan's play style per say. I don't understand the final number and how porochaz is so low. I don't care about RL issues I have my own and I can still come on and scum hunt
The case against Prozac as I see it is basically that he is being 'inactive'. He's raised valid RL issues. As somebody who has become inactive/passive in many games over his time because of RL committments, I have a firm position that somebody in a situation like Prozac's is NOT scummy. Farside, the fact that you can post despite having issues of your own is relevant for your meta, but entirely irrelevant to the question of
whether Prozac is scum in this game
. I don't like the way he is playing and I wish he would post more, but that doesn't make it scummy.
Sando wrote:Vollkan wrote:Prozac had been abundantly clear that he was RL-busy. Yes, he should have caught up properly by that. But he clearly hadn't, at least to the point of being able to post. That sucks, it's anti-town, and it simply spreads the cancer that is lurking, etc etc - but it isn't scummy.
What? My post quite clearly states that HE had said the he had caught up.
Saying you are caught up, but have no opinion, is scummy.
His post said he had "caught up", but he also said he didn't have scumreads. In a situation where you know as a matter of FACT that he is busy, it is ridiculous to think that he should therefore have proper suspicions formed. It's very easy to read a game, without having all the benefits that come from being an active player, and not be able to find anybody scummy, particularly where, as was clearly the case with Prozac, you are otherwse busy
I was defending zang-scum for bad meta reasons at that point in the game too, the "this person isn't as scummy as they think he is because he's often scummy ------ mentally putting them in the town pile" is a bit of a mental trap that I can fall into.
