I read this post, and all the quotes attatched. But where is the elaboration? You claim my arguments are full of holes, yet haven't pointed to a single "hole". You say I'm attatching more depth to something than it deserves, but fail to establish both that it is undeserving of this depth, and also why seeking to scratch beneath the surface of said posts is a bad thing. You complain I pointed towards Imperfection, and insist that there should have been things there that demanded my attention more, but fail to establish exactly why that is. I engaged with Imperfection because that is how I am going to be able to read him. As you can see, in our back and forth, Imperfection tripped himself up - nowhere there did I lead him on in that regard. You point to three things that I should have paid more attention to. I don't really understand what you're getting at with 2 and 3, but 1 is fairly simple - why did I not see fit to address Michelle's vote on me? Because it's the RVS. There was no need or value for me to engage with that vote whatsoever. One of the flaws of RVS is that when it is clear that it is RVS, it loses its meaning and weighting.
In regards to my AL point, I think I made it pretty clearly. I wasn't entirely fond of how, when asked to provide a meta on me, he deflected to "he just changes it every game". While I am certainly capable of this, the majority of Al's experience with me should have come from OJ. On OJ, I was one of the coaches who ran the section. Which is to say, my playstyle there was designed to be as informative and offer as many learning points as possible. So while his statement was technically true, that should not have been his experience with me.
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.
I'm not sure I understand the last sentence. How, exactly, would I be exploiting my own experience? You yourself, in this very post, claimed you were unimpressed with what I had put forward, so if I am exploiting my experience here, I must be doing a pretty poor job of it. I feel like you've dismissed a lot of what I've said in this game because it's wordy and terminology-heavy, which isn't a fair way to approach this.
That was an essay on how to grasp for straws.
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). And all you've done so far is desperately parroting to push away, 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
By EoD, do you mean by end of day 1? Because if so, that's great news for us. I sure hope you'll be delivering.
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
Care to share what these tells are? Because if it's as obvious as a 1 day read, then I would expect it's a fairly simple one.
If you can't see the content, then I really can't help you. Read the thread, maybe?
Luke plays the same as both AIs as number of posts, lenght, words, votes.
It's all about his valse on the thread who says that he's pushing a narrative or he is uninformed. Tone of posts are way more serious and game related as villager.
My accuracy at Eod 1 in regarding him is around 75%.
I can say rn that his reads he gave me put him in the slight town lean just because he did them.
Huh, Town read? Given your listed criteria, I was actually thinking the opposite. But you know him better than I do. Seems like a rather low level meta read, though.
i wish to know if i answered at your questions or not and if not you should ask what you want to know.
It's important to note that at the time Michelle had her vote on you. 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.
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.