I think you are.
Back several pages ago when you were pushing the "this play is not mechanically perfect or optimal thus you need to demonstrate that..." point very hard. That's what stuck with me.
this even resonated with tictac
for different reasons but lets ignore that
so I might be onto something.
I'll dig up quotes later (screen is too small)
yet you were the one dismissing most of my case due to "overdone rhetoric"
So it's settled then?
We're going to spend most of our time digging up material from old games.
Got it.
*handwavey dismissal is handwavey*
I thought it was heavily implied that my minor afterthought details are afterthought, but noted.
In post 788, skitter30 wrote:i don't think that these points are particularly relevant. the particularly reasons for *why* you did what you're doing i don't think matter really
oh boooooooy. you literally just asked for
In post 777, skitter30 wrote:i brought a parallel where you've done something similar as scum
don't sidestep it by saying you dont' want to talk about it
explain how it's different
and I'm obliging.
>skitter: *brings up vork's past meta*
>vork: "said past meta is inapplicable in this game"
>skitter: "explain how it's different"
>vork: *explains*
quite very succinctly and even with numbers
>skitter: "I don't think it really matters"
Please tell me how I'm misrepping you in this little TL;DR
In post 788, skitter30 wrote:my good man, if you do succeed in getting me lynched today i'm going to do everything in my ability to make sure you're next, just letting you know
itsk because I'll be conf!town'd with the other mason when you flip red
I literally gave you numbers to help you keep track
In post 790, skitter30 wrote:what exactly am i demanding 'screenshots of their scum PT' levels of evidence for even.
I've explained this WITHOUT flowery language already. We should be on the same page by now with this. Come on.
In post 774, Vorkuta wrote:*Disclaimer: the following below is my personal read, based on my experience, and impressions (based on a grand total of 2 completed games 'against' scum!skitter, 1 completed game with IC!skitter, and 1 game against town/skitter)" The following theory is a "work-in-progress" and is undergoing revisions and constantly evolving. It could be BS. Or it could be something. I'd like it to be something.
This has to be said because I foresee myself having to quote this in the near future.
I think one of the ways scum!skitter plays is by shutting down lines of questioning.
Town!skitter is much more openminded, willing to make the logical assumptions/leaps to see where a train of thought would lead for the sake of scumhunting- ie "talk to me more about XXX", and deals with disagreements pleasantly in the form of "I'm not sure that...." or "I don't think...."
Scum!skitter is more interested in redirecting the gameflow and SUBTLY shutting down uncomfortable lines of inquiry and one of the more effective ways I've seen her do it is by inflating the level of proof/evidence necessary for her to acknowledge a claim to a level that is much higher than what town!skitter would require to join along on the journey.
This distinction is what I mean when I say that skitter is shutting down my points/arguments by demanding that I do so much legwork to demonstrate the validity of my case, that it's almost akin to "taking screenshots of the scumPT to demonstrate that this is in fact what's going on".
Ok we're fine up until now. However- that's not all you did.
You provided a defense/explanation. Sure. Great. Might even be valid/relevant. Don't care anymore- point is moot, ship has sailed.
Then
in parallel. but semantics
you're all like "substantiate your assertions beyond a reasonable doubt".
Which is my beef with you.
Repeating myself- it's no longer about the specific/concrete responses to my line of inquiry.
It's evolved into the fact that your defense has been 30% {a), b), c) as you mentioned ^} and 70% "do more legwork"
a)- not "I don't play like this", but "prove that I play like this. because I don't"
b)- not "the association doesn't make sense" but "prove that this is optimal play coming from both of us. which it isn't"
c)- not "no motivation for me to do this" but "demonstrate that scum!skitter does this. which I don't"
You have amazing insight into my beliefs
/s
1- burden of proof is burdeny
2- i'm too embarassed because those were not my best moments
3- too many walls for even ME to parse through
4- I resent your "making up bs" wording. I like how you're
sinking down to my level
adopting my flowery language, but if you're going to take a page out of my book, I'll take a page out of yours.
Kindly demonstrate how any "bs" I have "made up" was "made up" and not "lying around waiting for vork to find it and present it"