i think the claim is real
i agree that it is more town-oriented than scum-oriented.
i feel uncomfortable calling you town because of the role tho because i think there is scum utility
on play i’m tending town tho
i just feel wary townreading you because of the role
So you’re fighting against town reading me despite townreading me, while also agreeing that I might be scum.
Got it.
yes, i’m basically being pedantic and saying i don’t think you’re clear on role
Saying I’m not clear solely on role is one thing, actively throwing shade is another. I contend you are engaging in the latter.
ok, and i think i’m doing the former
I’m obviously biased here, but I do actually think I should be pretty townread right now. Stopping a lynch yesterday only really makes sense in a world where scumNanook is partners with scumNeymar, and if that’s the case, scumNanook had every chance to switch to Erika instead of Neymar and run them up instead. Combined with my role, unless you think that either Nanook is dumb and bad at playing scum or that the scum team is exactly Nanook/Neymar/Erika, you probably should be townreading me.
The announcer was definitely throwing shade. You seconded the announcer. Thus, you are throwing shade as well.
^^^^^
i’m explaining why i think it has scum utility and why i don’t want to clear you on role
i literally just said i’m townreading you
again, i do on play, because yeah in that context it doesn’t really make sense for scum!you to use it.
in a general sense (ie without the context of the end of day yesterday), i do think the role isn’t inherently town
Right, but, like, first of all…taking the use of my role in the context of the day…the scum utility for it doesn’t make sense.
Second of all, there’s a(n admittedly somewhat pedantic) difference between saying “they’re not hard cleared” (which is accurate and good to point out!) and saying things like “I’m not comfortable calling you town” and “I just feel wary townreading you because of the role.”
The second, while I understand what you’re saying, is the kind of phrasing that’s good to use if you want to pivot towards a scumread later on, so you can point back and say “see, I’ve been wary of him all along!”
Is it somewhat pedantic? Yeah, probably. But I don’t think that makes it invalid.
So the role isn’t inherently town in your opinion, which we disagree on but that’s OK. My use of the role doesn’t make sense as scum, which we agree on. Great. So why the heck is townreading for the role I have and using it the way I have a bad thing to do??
no, it’s the kinda of phrasing i use when expressing my opinion
because i don’t think the fact that you inherently have the role is town-indicative
i think the way you used the role is
i don’t think i objected to anyone townreading you for using that role that way?
It just doesn’t make sense to me to fight against a townread of me like this if you agree that townreading me for how I used the role is good. Like, it’s really freaking hair splitty.
/shrug
i tend to be pretty pedantic and precise
i don’t think you should be townread for inherently having the role, but i townread you for how you used it
those aren’t the same thing
They’re not technically the same thing, no, but arguing against one is pretty close to arguing against both in practice.
i rather disagree
i think that townreading someone on role is fallacious (especially at this stage of the game!)
(unless they’re like literally a mason or ic or whatever)
play > role
Ok, but arguing that someone shouldn’t be townread on role is, like, reallllllly close to arguing that they shouldn’t be townread for what they’ve done with that role. I think you agree that my use of it was townie, so it just seems…misguided, to argue against a literal strawman that nobody had actually tried to argue this way.
i disagree on principle
(and i drew the distinction between the two like six times)
idk if i’m arguing against a strawman; i think you misunderstood what i was trying to say and it later became an argument
i think that unless the setup is like open (ie it’s known what roles belong to each faction) it’s dangerous to assume that a player with a given role is more likely to belong to one faction or the other based on the utility of the role, especially on like day2 without knowing the full setup (ie in general a given role tends to be town but in that particular setup it has scum utility)
i think that when you’re holistically trying to determine a player’s alignment it’s fine to take role into account but that’s it’s dangerous to assume alignment based on role
i think you dislike that i’m drawing this distinction, but i think it’s important in non-open setups to draw tto do so because i have played games where scum have counter-intuitive roles that at surface-value seem townie (ie i’ve played in a setup that could have a scum cop theoretically)
i also think that this discussion has also gone into like mafia theory and i’m not sure it’s directly relevant to anything at this point, but whatever
this might be an ms mentality thing