08-26-2018, 12:52 AM | #11 | |||||||||||||||
Unacceptable
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 208
|
Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
First of all, I prefer Prec. Having said that, internal inconsistency in your first paragraph isn't a great sign. So you're sure on me, then Quote:
It's true that, generally speaking, a wolf and a serial killer will approach their anti-town agenda in different ways. All wolf actions are colored by the fact that in the grand scheme of things, they ideally want to protect each other. A serial killer is unburdened by accounting for teammates, but also faces the reality that their death is an instant loss. Hence, while a serial killer is incentivized to catch scum, their need to do so is less pressing than the town's, since their own survival is their first concern. In a serial killer role, even more than a wolf role, I absolutely wouldn't have pushed so hard for your lynch, because it would make me doubly a target. If I'm right, I put a target on my back as an effective (and therefore dangerous) player. If I'm wrong, I compromise my own credibility while heightening my visibility, making me a more likely lynch target. If you had recall my most recent game (Fire Emblem), you might have noticed I only became especially vocal and aggressive when I was under fire. Until then, it behooved me to blend in as best as possible. That is not the case here, because survival alone is useless. We need to catch wolves (or a serial killer, assuming its existence), and in you, I believe I've caught one. *********************************** *********************************** Quote:
********************************** ********************************** Quote:
Any D1 reads are of course limited by the relative lack of information at the time, but I want you to consider this. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's also a strongly hypocritical position on Blind's part, considering he wolfread DBP on D2 for a wolf-misread, which turned out obviously to be incorrect. So not only is someone misreading someone not a perfect predictor (obviously), but he himself misread someone--by appealing to that same flawed logic! But while his criticism of my reads list is weak (and superficial too--appealing only to the results rather than the content), what's more telling is his need to reemphasize his own position on the list. Quote:
*********************************** *********************************** Quote:
*********************************** *********************************** Quote:
More to the point, however, you failed to actually pull apart the actual list, despite my own dissatisfaction with it, because that would require a level of engagement you're not prepared to actually defend. I'd say that this post of yours is towny, that it represents a visible and aggressive (if not genuine) effort, but we all get by now this you're making a meta play here, and the lack of real analysis is telling. *********************************** *********************************** Quote:
Or maybe it's a meta-defense of yourself, given your repeated assertions that you're obviously town, that everyone knows it, and that you're not scared because people aren't voting you. Which I have to say feels a bit forced. *********************************** *********************************** Quote:
As to my actual availability, my brother was visiting last weekend, and I don't get to see him in person very often. I had to clean up before he arrived, and after he drove home again, I ended up getting busy with other things. There's a reason I'm not interested in playing turbos here--a lot of the time, it simply wouldn't be feasible schedule-wise. *********************************** *********************************** Quote:
This idea that changing your opinion is somehow bad is the most corrosive, anti-town perspective anywhere, and yet everyone seems to jump on it. Somehow, reevaluating is seen as a sign of weakness, of inconsistency, of convenient action. And that's bullshit. Reevaluation is a sign of engagement and interacting with the game. People should be reevaluating, reengaging, and--yes--second-guessing constantly. Do you think I'm absolutely 100% convinced of your guilt--now, or even in the previous two days? Of course not. And anyone that claims certainly of anything absent mechanical proof is lying about it. In your case, your fundamentally dishonest approach to the game, and your aggression absent actual thought, makes me believe you aren't concerned with uncovering the truth--which speaks to an anti-town perspective. But even if you are town, you're not actually trying to solve things, and you're certainly not thinking about them. And in the case of this whole post, is there any question you made it because of my attacks on you? |
|||||||||||||||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests) | |
|
|