In post 1198, Dierfire wrote:@Saru
Based on the fact that you used this format at the beginning of your first two posts, I assumed that it would be one of the primary ways that you organize your thoughts. Since then it has not reappeared. I am suspicious of this because it makes it seem that your method of organizing your thoughts is not consistent and perhaps that these lists were fabricated.
I understand what you're trying to say here, but the assumption is wrong. I didn't use it as a way to organize my thoughts, but, more to show people why I felt the way I did about certain reads. I felt it would be a good way to see what people thought about my reads, but much to my chagrin, no one really commented on it. My lack of tiered lists after that is explained by this. Because after that, I saw my attention going to specific people rather than a general view of things. I'm pretty sure the point of a reads list is to be as general as possible to help you discern alignment by peoples' reactions to it. But, of course, some might use it to organize their thoughts, but that wasn't my specific purpose with those reads list early in the game. Seeing as I had felt that Persivul was scum from my reaction test, I pursued him. However, after my argument with him, I felt null. Therefore, I moved onto my next scum read, who was Kappy. And then so on and so forth. Basically, the reads list really served as a starting point for me to focus on certain people as the game moved along. Seeing as my reads hadn't changed too drastically by the time Wingback questioned me about activity, I saw no point in a reads list. However, as it stands, I'm going to put out a similar tiered reads list somewhere around Saturday because I feel the need to put out my thoughts about what has been happening recently with the Math wagon and so on, since I've been distracted. Also, because, my reads have started to shift pretty hard on certain people.
Obviously I do not agree that a lack of tiered lists in general is suspicious (else I'd be pursuing players who never posted even one). Your attempt to note that I haven't put out a list of tiered reads in response looks like "counterpunch" here and increases my suspicion.
Yes, you not putting out a list of tiered reads UNTIL I ask you to looks suspicious. Putting out a reads list doesn't seem to be the way you play naturally. It's not organic to you or your thought process. Therefore, the fact that you hastily put one out at the moment I ask you to seems contradictory to your own play-style and thought process. Why put one out NOW instead of just saying that you don't really see the need for a reads list? However, if you did see the need for a reads list, why didn't you put one out in D1? Most of D2 makes me feel that you've been scrambling to not only up your activity but also your pro-activeness. I'll explain why I don't think you were being all that pro-active as you claim to have been in D1 more in-depth in my read of you.
I disagree that I've only been agreeing or disagreeing with other thoughts. As examples of things that I've done proactively (by which I mean things that I do to help me read other players--also note that I make a distinction between activity, which is reflected in things like post counts, and proactivity, which is reflected in the content of those posts), I offer: my questions to Kappy in
355 and
394, trying to understand the read on Mizzytastic that Wingback gave (
494), looking into old games of karnos to see whether his phrasing in his own "counterpunch" was stylistic (
558), working to lock karnos into a claim (
642), prompting JohnnyFarrar for content to read him better (
712 and
720), probing for reasons why MathBlade didn't use associations with karnos to read JohnnyFarrar (
892), and discussing your read on qubixes (
1101).
You said that you read my ISO and didn't find anything proactive; did you read these and dismiss them?
Most of these things you point out, I've already looked through, and, yes, I dismiss most of them as being not pro-active, for several reasons. This will be explained in my read of you on Saturday, as right now, I don't think this reply to you is a good place to do that, seeing as most people wouldn't really care to read this thoroughly since it's addressed to you specifically. Plus, it would be just making this wall bigger than it already is. And it seems most people aren't fond of walls.
2. I'm not interested in arguing about definitions of "Town leader" but I do want to compare your stated definition to your actions. JohnnyFarrar asked who was "Town leader" and you gave him the name of a Null read (Persivul) without further elaboration. If you feel that "Town leader" can be of either alignment, why did you not mention a read on Persivul to JohnnyFarrar? Would it not have been important to say whether the "Town leader" was a Town player or a Mafia player if you're using a definition that makes both equally likely?
I'm not sure what you're asking here, to be honest. Yes, a town leader can be either alignment. My read on Persivul at the time was null. Why would I say whether the town leader was town or mafia? Doesn't null imply that they can be both equally likely? Johnny could easily have gone back and checked my read on Persivul himself. I have no reason to tell him that unless he specifically asked, which he didn't. The player I chose as town leader makes sense with the definition. Honestly not sure what you're on about here.
3. You're saying that your "brain read" on qubixes was wrong. I want to know what reasoning you had at the time, for which is not sufficient to tell me why you're reading him as Town now.
The reasoning for my brain read itself or of it being wrong? I'll address both I guess. My brain read was because I felt he was over-reacting and being too contradictory. My gut read was telling me that those contradictions were too numerous and obvious to be coming from scum. Also, that it seemed his over-reactions were more from anger/frustration towards me on a personal level rather than a scummy one. Therefore, I felt my brain read was wrong.
