In post 978, onion wrote:derangement, i see you vote hopping and i don't like it. what's this noise with FOSing GC? didn't i see one of your reasons for suspecting him is because you suspect TTH?
Not in the slightest.
Bubs left before he could answer one of my suspicions, and SNS nearly broke my scumdar.
I suspect this slot, and I have for a while now.
Now, Crayons' entrance
was
quite impressive, and the way in which he pushed TTH today (my other scumread) made me pause to re-evaluate my position on the two of them.
I expected scum!Crayons would have avoided putting more heat on scum!TTH, and his vote went against that.
So I thought I might have been wrong on Crayons being scum, or on TTH being scum.
The bussing theory is not a reason for my scumread on either of them.
It's the reason why I can be at peace with still having scumreads on
both
at the same time.
As for why I've changed my preference from a TTH lynch to a GC one, I'm seeing a lot less awesome from the player on day three.
His use of self-meta (not bussing in the last five years) as a defence for why he's not scum is
exactly
the kind of argument scum will make, even as they merrily go against said meta.
I may not be very experienced, but I'd say there's an important distinction between behavioural self-meta, where a person knows how they usually react to things as some alignment, or what general impression their play gives the other players, and then there's action-based self-meta, where a person takes or doesn't take a certain kind of action, depending on alignment.
The former is a subtle thing, open to interpretation, and since a lot of it stems from the player's personality, it can be hard to avoid.
A person can be self-aware enough to know they're shy/talkative/sassy as
insert-alignment-here
, but even if they try to avoid that, it can take effort, and they might not be as successful as they hoped.
The latter, on the other hand, comes from an easily changed conscious decision.
If a person's aware they always/never do something as scum, then why
wouldn't
they go against their usual choice of action at times, if they stand to gain from it?
Put simply, if the player
always
respects their own self-imposed meta, then it's a
trust-tell, which is an actionable offence on this site.
Otherwise, it's a worthless argument, since that player can and will eventually go against it.
In post 978, onion wrote:
but i do have a problem with a GC lynch. that guy's awesome. Bubs was awesome and pro-town, sns was... not town pandering at least, and then GC comes in with amazing cases, data, things that make sense, really pro-town stuff that he really didn't need to do as scum. Sure, the i don't bus thing is irksome, but it ain't all that.
Then our opinions differ on what GC's alignment is.
Hopefully one of us will be able to convince the other, if GC fails to do it himself.
![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile")
In post 978, onion wrote:i'm hesitant to go into day 4 with lurkers still present. i really want to fix that. TTH is scummier than CBD only because we have more data on her than the bird. so even though it seems like a better lynch, it isn't really. we should replace one and lynch the other. i won't vote for GC or tripod at this moment.
I don't want lurkers around either.
I can understand TTH's meatworld issues, and hope she makes a swift and fruitful return to us later, but am frankly surprised that CDB has not replaced yet.
But I want scum around even less than lurkers, and what I see of GC isn't helping his case.
Is Prawn the only other person who's not smitten by his entrance?
Your friendly neighbourhood Derangement, or Dee for short.
May contain traces of nuts.
