Where did I say this...In post 896, Servant Beast wrote: Shielder did give information on interest for master, they said they "weren't against" it.
I guess you can argue that after a check has been done, yes.In post 949, Servant Rider wrote:How's that? By eliminating you?
Lying is the term of discussion here.In post 955, Servant Alter Ego wrote:...because they were being intentionally vague and lying to try to win the master vote?
I’m with alter here - the discrepancy/inconsistency in thought process is more concerning than someone dicking aroundIn post 945, Servant Alter Ego wrote:The points you have against saber highlight specifically a mentality where they often contradicted themselves in trying to explain why they wanted their master vote and why their NP would be useful. It's based on posts they've made that don't add up. With regard to foreigner it seems to be mostly related to them trolling/not caring. Slots like that can flip scum, but they don't always. I've never felt most of the cases there to be fully formed beyond "plays weird, trolls too much". (Also, I straight up disagree with your assessment of 801 - I wouldn't expect scum to openly antagonize the clear right away)In post 944, Servant Archer wrote:Possibly. I think the my read on Foreigner feels stronger to me, just because almost every post that comes from them makes it stronger, where are Saber has their momentsIn post 943, Servant Alter Ego wrote:I thought your case on Saber was more convincing, personally.In post 941, Servant Archer wrote:I could be okay with a Saber elim.
My scum read on Foreigner is stronger, but in regards to saber, it could help us look at who was/wasn't supporting him Day 0 based on the flip.
I am not sure how many votes that is -- will double check count before voting
Huh, I can't find it. I guess I hallucinated it. Oh well. If you didn't bring up interest, then you didn't bring up interestIn post 952, Servant Shielder wrote:Where did I say this...In post 896, Servant Beast wrote: Shielder did give information on interest for master, they said they "weren't against" it.
I'm not really buying that Saber thought his power was the best mechanically.
VOTE: Saber
That's E-2
I don’t think this addresses the primary concerns that others and I had, which was why choose that particular moment to reveal? Shielder wasn’t getting that much attention, and they weren’t even at risk of being eliminated because of the nature of the phase. Wouldn’t you be trying to play your cards close so as not to reveal too much too early? You were even strongly advocating to reveal as little as possible in the beginning.In post 896, Servant Beast wrote:Addressing this, "why didn't beast play "their shielder knowledge some otherway. " approach.
Shielder did give information on interest for master, they said they "weren't against" it. Given their activity and Berserker's position and my own, I found it pretty unlikely that I could push through a shield er position, I also feel I waited enough, Just because Shielder was largely absent doesn't mean I was planning to just lurk until they showed up. I had opinions and I pushed my opinions. I could very well have been wrong on Saber, but I don't know that. I was also content just letting shielder be under the radar. For mechanical reasons and also because it allowed me to see who pushed the lurker slot. I had no way of knowing that Shielder could look town or not because they hadn't posed yet. I was keeping track of the finger pointing in their direction however. I think only two players did, Alter and one other player. Ultimately they didn't do anything with it, so I didn't know what to make of it either.
But sure I could have played it more optimally I guess by...getting them elected? somehow. In retrospect I'm not even sure that would be a good idea because I already know they're town and the grail wouldn't help sort them in retrospect. I already explained why I just outed them as town, I was crumbing and I didn't want to hurt alter's feelings anymore if they were being legit so I just explained it. It wasn't a very optimal move from a win condition perspective, but I'm not really made of stone either. And no I don't blame Alter for me revealing that, it was just a poorly thought out way to crumb.
Because that would have added another point to the pointless antagonism score card.In post 966, Servant Lancer wrote:Why out over just ceasing with the provoking comments?
Sure. Maybe.In post 970, Servant Lancer wrote:I’m really struggling to understand your pov on this