And I don't know what to say to the bolded portion...what can I improve on?
Practice speaking Directly, as well as indirectly.
You 'sometimes' have a very circular way of speaking, where you reference (or fail to exclude) multiple things at once, making it a serious job to tell what the heck you are referring to, and to tell what you are NOT talking about.
For example, I scrolled back to this thread to randomly grab your first larger post I spotted.
Most recent pertinent posts of mine precluding those above:
I translate that sentence to 'directly mean' "Ignore my recent tiny posts, this is what I've really said last"
Huh? So now I have to interpret what you mean... more work much more work, but I -think you really mean "I've been gone a few days, reminding everyone what I last talked about, which was important to me and should be to you too:"
ToonyMan@Tiruin (FoS for emphasis):
What do you think of Caz? Why are you switching your vote so much?
Now I had this thing saved for days, and I love how you link back to it WITHOUT CHECKING THE CONTEXT. Let me round that FoS to you, handsome.
Direct translation: "I have something I wrote before, it's days old now. Toonyman, you are talking about, and FoSing me over something days old without examining all the important connected factors. I FoS you right back"
Interpretation: "I wrote something days ago, but for some reason I'm not going to discuss now, I am going to tell everyone I wrote something unspecified days ago and not tell you what it is or post it as is. Total subject jump, now I'm talking about how annoyed I am at Toonyman for bringing up something days old, you took it out of context, you're wrong, you're suspiciously wrong, and I FoS you for it too."
Caz is a LIAR. Switching a vote so much equals...what. Once? Or he may be very muchly lazy, but said laziness extends to his first replies to me. Subtle undermining seems to be a better ploy than just laziness, where I see it.
Direct translation: "Caz is a
LIAR.. Switching a vote is [something untranslatable, thoughts are not expressed enough to understand]. Or he's lazy, I'll point that out. Except I really mean subtle undermining when I say lazy."
Indirect interpretation: "Appeal to emotion, Toonyman is being a jerk for supporting Caz who is being much worse than a jerk, he's a liar. Caz's attack on me for switching my vote is garbage, it doesn't mean anything. I'm unsure about it (or something) myself, but I'm changing the topic to another problem I have with Caz, that he's acting very lazy and has been in every answer to me about this. I think he's not actually being lazy, he's trying to subtly undermine something I won't specify here. That's what I really think is going on."
And I could go on with this, but that's a fair example - what you are ACTUALLY saying is painfully hard to translate, even directly, and I have to go 'very broad focus' to put it into context and pull out 'what you really appear most likely to mean'.
Compared to a random quote of yours pulled from that game's Scumchat:
"Anywhoo, Toaster. If lack of reason dictates lack of an idea, I believe you targeted Toony for being the middleman. If 'x' was scummiest, then we'll follow up the lynch on the morrow. The culprit of second-best follows the notion that if 'y' was next to scummiest, then it'll eliminate the gap between the scummiest--who has to defend on a ton of pressure (and I believe, goes on your adage of 'cracking town or scum' due to pressure), and aids in the general notion (against the traditional notion of 'I WILL KILL SCUMMIEST PERSON')"
Direct translation: "Toaster, since you have a problem with not having a reason to do it, here's my suggestion. Since One person's [unnamed] the scummiest, they're getting lynched tomorrow. The second most Scummiest is going to get away with it, at least from the lynch. The most Scummiest probably isn't getting away, and they'll show their Scummyness or Townness under the pressure, which helps Town and explains why you didn't kill the Scummiest."
Indirect interpretation: "Toaster, if you didn't plan why to explain what you did, this makes sense to me as to why you would have: You went against the main idea of 'kill the Scummiest person' because you felt that person would be lynched, and you went for the next most scummiest, because that widened the gap and made the Scummiest person stand out more and made sure that the next Scummiestdidnt get away."
Tiruin, this touches upon what I'm going 'meh' about with your use of language clarity between Scumchat and non-Scumchat. See how similar the indirect interpretation and direct translations are from Scum chat? I'm not having to -work- to understand you there. You appear to actually be saying what you mean far more closely than you do when you're speaking out of Scumchat, and outside you repeatedly seem to be adding in extra 'qualifiers', and removing a lot of 'definites' that would aid clarity greatly.
You're "Talking like a Tarot Deck" - you're speaking so ambiguously that you are almost forcing those interacting with you to try and guess at what you mean - like someone can 'get a reading from the Tarot cards' because that person 'makes a story up' from the vague symbols presented.