That was an essay on how to grasp for straws.
This is
not an argument. Your conclusion is not supported by your premise.
When you claim that you don't need to spend all the time defending yourself, I would like to remind you that these very same remarks have been pointed out by several members who are theoretically town (for the same of the argument).
Just because they are Town, does not mean they cannot be wrong. Just because they are Town, does not mean they are incapable of playing scummily (hence my false positive explanation).
And all you've done so far is desperately parroting to push away,
Substantiate this claim, because I have not parroted anything. To be clear, parroting is the act of repeating something someone else has said, and repackaging it as your own point.
instead of addressing them properly.If you're a townie, it would be more worthwhile to address what you claim to be ill-formed arguments, before interrogating other players, as they might very possibly be the leading reason for Town's demise.
This is a
No True Scotsman fallacy. It declares a member of the Town will onl react in a certain way, and then asserts that because I have not acted in that way, I must not be a member of the Town. However, it does not establish the premise as fact, so the conclusion drawn is errenous. While there is indeed value in addressing poorly-conceived arguments, it is unreasonable to expect me to address each and every single one. Even just mostly limiting it to people engaging directly with me, you can see the volume of my posts, and people complaining about the length of them.
How do you claim that you simply hadn't paid attention to my post in question when you've referenced it in your own post about your alignment-read on me...?! You've also been all over thread, I can't hold not value to that kind of response.
I did
not make this claim. I said I didn't see fit to respond to it. In fact, I very clearly showed that I had paid attention to it, with my characterisation of your post. You
can disagree with said characterisation, but you cannot claim that I paid no attention to it, and you
certainly can't claim that I claimed to pay no attention to it.
Why exactly would you not address anything that's within the context of AL (And no, they aren't? I've explained this in the last post).
I have already addressed why in my previous post to you:
I didn't address anything at you because I felt no need to do so. You were speaking about me, within the context of AL. Failing any actual accusations, there isn't a lot I can say to them, and there is no value in a one-sided discussion. I don't feel the need to address each and every thing someone says against me. That would require me to spend most of my time defending, and moreover is somewhat overdefensive.
Secondly, just because you say it wasn't within the context of AL< does not make it true. It was addressed to AL, in response to something regarding AL.
Jokes on you, I know well that you have no valid response which is why you're beating around the bush, and even took the initiative to squeeze in that paragraph reciting something about why you didn't address anything I brought up, like you saw my follow-up coming. Indeed, you didn't quite address anything... Except maybe Michelle's vote.
Because I didn't understand it. This was the indication for you to clarify what you meant. You have not done so. You can't accuse me of trying to pre-empt what you're syaing here, while simultaniously claiming to be trying to pre-empt me.
I'll take you on your arguments with Michelle, here's a track-back on how your interaction with Michelle started:
So you've basically implied that you'd be delighted to see her delivering a list of reads on the players. Nothing wrong with that.
I mean, no, not really. I didn't actually imply anything. I directly stated what I wanted from that, and that was the Luk read. Because Michelle claimed to be able to solve that slot by the end of Day 1. Clearly, that's a very early time to be able to solve the alignment of a player, and thus, I was very interested to see the method upon how it was done.
She clearly would've rather delayed her reads, but you've hastily asked for it, and pressured her slightly into opening up, claiming that there's a reasonable amount of time to pull fairly simply tells on the game. Not the most professional, but no problem.... Until she posts her read on Luk based on dozens of pages and previous experience with him... to which you start nitpicking at her intake on the game, and shade her for making a low tier meta read
Christ, can you pay attention please? I did not demand she read Luk there and then. She also gave her criteria for how she would be reading Luk, and said it was a town lean. Based on her criteria, my impression was that she should have been reading him as scum, hence why I questioned it. She then later admitted that it was a low-level read. Given that this was supposed to solve his slot by the end of Day 1, I did not see why she needed to wait until the end of Day 1 to draw a conclusion she is clearly already capable of drawing, and nor did I see why she was so certain in her ability to solve that read by the end of day 1, based on what she was using to read Luk. This has all been explained very clearly over the course of the thread. Please try to keep up with it, as it's one thing to have to explain all this is very elaborate detail, and quite another to have t do so repeatedly.
It's important to note that at the time Michelle had her vote on you.
It's really not. Like I said, that vote was made during the RVS.
You didn't address it, no. You preferred to throw her into a loop of arguments and come out as an overly-skeptic, and an actively scum-hunting town.
I established my problems very clearly, and to a point we managed to address some core conflicts with playstyle, which should help us both get a better read on one another later. It was a worthwhile chain of interactions. You are assigning malicious intent to my actions, without establishing why that is the most reasonable intent to assume. Frankly, you shouldn't be assuming intent at all.
There are other examples where you had been looking for something to pin on your opponent and then attribute their behavior to their intentions, trying to force it into being scummy. This isn't an attitude of an experienced mafia player. Rather an experienced scum.
Except this is clearly untrue. Especially the bolded part - I have gone out of my way to establish whether something is scummy or due to culture clash. More so than anyone has done with me, may I add. If anything, it has been the exact opposite of trying to force something as scummy.