i follow the logic of it but so much of it being predicated on the perception statement kinda devalues it to me. i didn't vote a mason claim because of how it would look.
mostly the same to me. i noted that he tone policed others in a way that was very uncommon for him in one of his scum games when i was looking over it last time.
In post 278, Datisi wrote:i think some points on why the claim is suspicious have already been brought up and i have already said i agree with them but i'm not insane enough to push a mason claim on day 1 so does it even really matter what i think.
Hiraki, do you think Datisi cares too much about town perception by not pushing a mason claim here?
I think I townlean the monkey now, shiki. Hiraki's tunnel seems a little contrived but the scum-motivation for such a forced tunnel on an unpopular target I struggle to see. His scrutiny on monkey asking for your opinion I dislike.
In post 365, Hiraki wrote:"Oh, I shouldn't say this because it could look bad"
No one said this.
In post 46, humaneatingmonkey wrote:idk guys earlier i was thinking of bringing it up but then i thought "but then their reaction would probably confirm it and i dont want to confirm it if it wasnt a joke"
so im not resonating
This is not a huge stretch.
In post 368, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Do you think meta is something you can lie about without being scumread for it? If shiki is town, she gives valuable information. If shiki is scum, she gives valuable information OR ELSE.
Are you going to double check her? Are you going to verify her information? Are you going to agree with her opinion every single time? One of these questions you've already answered which nullifies the other two.
So your thought process is that I should go through every player's history and figure out what they do as scum and what they do as town and then figure out if they're replicating that behavior in every game? You did it - I think you've found the foolproof way to play mafia. I should just give up in all of my games because of how good this is.
In post 365, Hiraki wrote:Your buddy shiki can verify that or if he denies it, I'll do it.
This is a good demonstration of why I trust shiki's meta even if it's just a townlean and I'm not sure about her alignment.
If she gives correct meta, it's correct meta.
If she lies about meta, then it's alignment indicative and we can scumread her for it.
How are you not seeing why this is good?
You have already stated that you
don't
know what my meta is. So how are you going to know if shiki is
lying?
Damn, 370 is such a good fucking post. I give you major props for it. You even noted one of the actual biggest flaws of my play. I think you would get a good read out of Anime UPick to see how I counteract that as somewhat shameful as it becomes. Might also be because of the crumbling of my reads halfway through.
In post 375, shiki wrote:mostly the same to me. i noted that he tone policed others in a way that was very uncommon for him in one of his scum games when i was looking over it last time.
In post 278, Datisi wrote:i think some points on why the claim is suspicious have already been brought up and i have already said i agree with them but i'm not insane enough to push a mason claim on day 1 so does it even really matter what i think.
Hiraki, do you think Datisi cares too much about town perception by not pushing a mason claim here?
In post 366, humaneatingmonkey wrote:
In post 365, Hiraki wrote:
"Oh, I shouldn't say this because it could look bad"
No one said this.
In post 46, humaneatingmonkey wrote:
idk guys earlier i was thinking of bringing it up but then i thought "but then their reaction would probably confirm it and i dont want to confirm it if it wasnt a joke"
so im not resonating
This is not a huge stretch.
That is a huge stetch.
If you're misreading — and I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're misreading — THEIR REACTION refers to HOCTAC and UMLAUT whose REACTIONS would probably CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE MASONS if I try TO BRING UP THEIR JOKE ABOUT BEING MASONS. This confirmation will LEAD TO THE MASONS BEING CONFIRMED, and that's not optimal at page 1 or page 2.
I capitalized for emphasis.
Maybe you think "their reaction" refers to "the town's reaction" — then I can understand you now.
In post 387, Hiraki wrote:Are you going to double check her? Are you going to verify her information? Are you going to agree with her opinion every single time? One of these questions you've already answered which nullifies the other two.
No, but you did just now right? I can confirm if her meta is correct if the person im asking meta for says it's correct. If not, then there's a problem.
In post 230, Umlaut wrote:I like that he says he's in the same place I am on reads in 160 because we've been in the same place like that in past games where we were both town.
We have done this before and been on the flip side though. Not sure what your point is here.
Okay, so I saw this and wasn't sure what Hiraki was talking about because I couldn't remember a game that went like he described. I've looked through my own games and the only one I can see where we even were on opposite sides is Open 679, and I don't recall you especially commenting on being in the same place I was in that game. Also I was scum and you were town, which is not really the possibility I was trying to discount there.
Also I just don't really see why the pushback on this. What's wrong with my finding something you did towny, if you did it and you're town?
“There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say, ‘There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say there are two kinds of people in this world,
So your thought process is that I should go through every player's history and figure out what they do as scum and what they do as town and then figure out if they're replicating that behavior in every game? You did it - I think you've found the foolproof way to play mafia. I should just give up in all of my games because of how good this is.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
ISNT THAT WHAT META IS
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
In post 1372, Hiraki wrote:Norwee, why is that you always feel the need to attack players that attack you? Additionally, why is it never for their questionable reasons but just to point out that they might be questionnable and oops, some of them may have actual faults with your play?
