I have mixed feelings on the buddying so did not list it but I think it indicates that if austin is scum than lunatic is town.
So Austin is definitely scum. Let's review the evidence.
scum tell 1
Tow behaves differently when on their head is on the chopping block than scum. One scum tactic when their head is on the line is not to defend their evidence but gaslight their accuser by questioning their logic. A more natural response to stupid logic is not really that aggressive or defensive. Here are gaslighting posts below;
post 227 " > I also voted you because WyIted also suspects you for other reasons, which in my view makes the case against you stronger.
We should triple the US government's spending. Not really gonna specify my reasons, but in my view it makes the legislator's cases stronger"
Now this is poor logic by Savant, but the logic is strawmanned, not necessarily an issue, but the issue is gas lighting them and attacking their logic, instead of proclaiming your innocence or scum hunting
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say there. If someone attacks me using transparently flawed logic (which even you admit), then I'm going to point out the silliness of their logic. It's not my job to prove my innocence to a nonexistent evidence-based accusation.
post 222 "Savant has literal zero basis for scumreading me and his recent posts prove it"
Who gives a shit. we all know that this is a bad way to defend yourself, but the issue is questioning the logic behind it. Most of us would say it is bad logic and move on or just say something like "fuck off I am innocent", and not elaborate. He isn't defending himself he is attacking.
So how is that any different than what I'm doing? I'm not trying to lynch Savant today (as anti-town as he's being), I'm engaging with his arguments and pointing out why they're wrong.
post 206 questioning logic again not sum hunting or defending himself.
"Right, so the wagon on me is:
-Savant (who's mad that I pointed out objectively scummy behavior)
-Wylted (for reasons unknown)
-Moozer (sheeping the above two)"
post 199 follows the same logic of attacking the logic of somebody who is on your wagon and gaslighting them.
Wylted, you don't know what gaslighting means. Gaslighting involves an inherently false element. Where is the false element in my above statements?
Scum read reason 2
Austin is lying and we should lynch all liars
post 132 about Savant
"I scumread him because it looked like he was pretty much coasting on his "first to claim" thing which means close to nothing in terms of towncred imo yet apparently he thought it makes him unlynchable this DP? yea not rly sure where that comes from. "
He scum reads savant, this is after placing his vote, so no reason to lie here.
post 137, he also doubles down that he had a scum read on savant
"lready said I scumread you because I felt you were coasting on your early claim in a way that didn't feel genuine. I asked you why because I wanted to see whether your reaction was coming from an informed ("oh no I've been caught but he doesn't know that") or uninformed ("I'm being pushed for no reason") perspective."
post 133, he claims to never scum read him and just be reaction testing. So he either lied about the mere reaction test or lied about scum reading him.
"Savant, why would you claim though? You only had two votes and mine was literally just a reaction test."
Again, it feels like you're confirmationally biasing yourself into attributing motivations to my posts that aren't there. In general, there are three types of votes: lynch votes (meant to kill), pressure votes (meant to force someone to claim or explain a read), or reaction votes (meant to see how someone responds to being sussed). My vote fell into the latter category, as quite a few DP1 votes do. Me being suspicious of Savant and wanting to see how he reacts to a single vote on him (a vast overreaction btw) doesn't meant I want to force a claim or lynch him.
Scum read 3
Austin is trying to look like he is scum hunting by merely just making random comments about theory. We all go off on theory here and there but this feels like austin is trying to mimick being active.
post 158 "I actually disagree a bit with this imo - I think posting reads as you catch up is one of the best ways to let other players read you. Scum have the burden of too much information, which can sometimes show in an unnatural read progression."
This isn't scum hunting and it is fluff he does it more.
post 111, another excuse to talk theory instead of scum hunt to simulate activity
"Somehow missed this earlier. Although I can understand why you did this, I advise you not to do it in the future. Claiming a SOP role will always lead to measurable harm for town because it narrows the POE for scum to fire in.
You have to weigh whether the benefit town gets from knowing the SOP is greater than this. I don't really think that's the case with this particular role, since if town is really so divided that we can't agree to a lynch after an entire day of discussion, then it's better to have a negative utility role eliminated for POE."
That's not alignment indicative. I've been legitimately scumhunting and engaging in discussion. These posts neither prove my towniness nor damage it - i.e. if you took these posts away I don't think my standing would change.
scum read 4
Scum have this tendency to make double statements that follow the pattern of this guy is scum but also he is town.
Post 149 "For the record, I think Savant is lean town for his role, but I feel he's vastly overreacting to a single vote on him and it makes me uncomfortable."
he leans town and scum. lets see how often this comes up. post 108, savant is also both town and suspicious allowing austin an out for a mislynch
"was sussing Savant earlier for this but idk rly. It seems a bit contrived but I also think town is more likely to just put their thoughts out there whether good or bad."
I mechanically townread Savant but I find his logic worryingly scummy. You even said so yourself. Again, not sure what's the "gotcha" here.
