Please compare the following....

The thoughts here arn't radically different but my approach to minder is wrong and jan's is completely fine

 

What are your thoughts on the game so far? Scumreads, townreads?

I don't remember you being so accusatory and defensive last game. It's like someone pats you on the shoulder and you pull a gun on them with very colorful bullets.

 

lol

You can have a daypass just for that.

 

Fable, who do you think is scummiest so far?

 

1. *is American* aka "what are you talking about Willis?"
2. no, "what play are you talking about?" No that was not my thought process at all, this is like my 2nd witchhunt game I think or maybe it's the 3rd idk. I was priest in one game, and I can't remember if I played another one or not. It sounded to me like you might actually know something or be more aware of strategies, which I don't really know much about. I tend to ask Jan questions first as I feel like he will give me a genuine answer about stuff regardless of alignment.

So overall, I was curious as to why he was reading you scumming, but he said you were scumming based off your first post. So what I gathered was there must be something wrong with that play, which I'm unaware of.

So I was then further asking Jan, what would be a better strategy.

But in hindsight, he could have been joking..for all I know.

3. Well that sucks. I guess I'll just have to convince you otherwise.
4. Is it expected of me to have strong reasoning all the time?

5. And what if I'm a hardcore meta reader at times, are you just going to chalk that up as weak reason as it is not the way you play so it can't possibly be right? (just saying that's how you are coming on to me right now)

 

Without having actually done any ISOs?

You and Owner.

 

I hardly remember you at all to be honest. I think you died early one game we played together.

 

I don't have an issue with either of those?

I feel like making that point in a vacuum isn't super alignment indicative either way, since, it's not a revolutionary thought really.

Yes, there was some pushback against Miner giving that fonti metaread, but as both you and Jan pointed out, it's screamingly likely that regardless of Miner's alignment, he believes that read, as outright lying about something like that strikes me as a ??? move always.

Do you feel like you've been pushed on that specific point? Because unless I missed a section of a game in my catchup, I don't feel like anyone is accusing you of being a witch based on that post of yours.

 

Reasons? *is greedy*

 

I feel like I'm being pushed for my stance on miner which I've just shown isn't radically different from some other player's views on him.

 

Yeah that's fine. Can you give reasons for those reads?

 

For you?

I remember your reluctance to give reads earlier pinging me. Is there a reason you didn't want to?

 

Eh, in all honestly I try not to think about Fluff that much too early. It's just bad for my blood pressure; feel like I'd end up pressing him for stuff I know in my heart he'd not deliver on as either alignment and I'd just end up frustrated.

I'd vote on him, sure. He's in the PoE. There's that whole "he'd be trying harder as mafia" thing that we've been circling around the last couple games, but I find this meta-line to be fairly destructive to all parties involved.

The heart of your read is what, exactly?

 

Fable, I think my primary problem with your Miner stance is that, okay let's you say you townread Miner or think the case on him is weak, and you scumread me/Owner. Your ISO is disproportionately about the Miner read (and getting mad about people's reactions to it) versus trying to convince people to vote your scumreads instead.

 

I watched from Angel Chat, and I definitely don't remember the colors and the bullet points. You seemed much more cheerful and active in that game. Here you have a worse fluff / game post ratio than Kai.

I for one didn’t vote for you because of your views on Miner, but your defensive reaction to the pressure and uneven attitude towards Miner and Kalas.

 

The way I read people is maybe a bit more indirect, when I'm not counting on meta. I wanted more interactions to go off of than just than the two I had at the moment.

 

I felt your vote on me was very opportunistic and the reasoning seemed shallow.

 

Okay.

I'd say that this game is often about how you do what you do, not what you actually do, but you're experienced enough to know that, I think.

I could also say that you're using this kind of non-issue with your Miner read as a smokescreen, but I also willingly admit there are worlds where you're just kind of... frustrated in a playstyle-clash kind of way?

I actually don't have a problem with the top-level, holistic approach you have to Miner. "Hey this guy was super awkward early and has stated RL stuff he's busy with, maybe let's see what happens instead of just circle-jerking about how mafia he is" is basically where I'm at, personally.

I don't see much from you that I'd call organic, nuanced gamesolving... like, the kind of thing I read and it's like, "damn, could scum really fake that?"

Maybe start looking at other parts of the game?

Any read on me, for example?

 

owner - I'll run it through for you;

1. I make the mechanical first post explaining what I think the advantages are to Gravedigger/Oracle claiming are.
2. Jan states he's got a scum read on me from my initial post.
3. You make the assumption that Jans scum read is based around the strategy being suggested being a "suboptimal one".

1 and 2 are facts here, 3 is what I'm having difficult believing; because there's either two worlds a) I'm making a mechanical post stating what I think is optimal / a good way to proceed there or b) I'm intentionally making a mechanical post that'll hurt the town.

b) Is not something scum ever do because of the potential backlash behind it which means that the strategy itself could never be something you'd genuinely consider to be what's scum read. It's the thought process you have inside 3 that feels fake. That said this is a very weak point and you focusing on this instead of any of the other actual reads I've given is a huge concern.

And no, I don't expect all reads to be based on strong reasoning; I accept that some people often have 'gut' type reads but the fact there's pretty much no thought process of yours that I can follow here to see how you're getting your reads is something that points towards you being mafia. If you're a meta reader that's fine, just explain the meta differences that's leading towards your reads.