So you’ve gone from an early/strong townread on me to somehow reading possible scum motivation behind me trying to understand something that doesn’t make sense and you even admitted to not being optimal
In post 976, Servant Lancer wrote:So you’ve gone from an early/strong townread on me to somehow reading possible scum motivation behind me trying to understand something that doesn’t make sense and you even admitted to not being optimal
ok
Yes, somehow my reads have developed over time and some players have risen into town reads, others have fallen.
Because that would have added another point to the pointless antagonism score card.
Stopping with the antagonism doesn’t sound to me like it would have added anything to the antagonism score card. Because that’s the whole point of stopping the antagonism.
In post 954, Servant Avenger wrote:I'm not sure how I feel on Sabers claim as scummy here.
What's the thought of it being scummy? The fact Saber said it was powerful late game or because of the power?
If you don't believe that Saber thought it was a powerful role then why do they claim it here? Either Saber thinks its powerful as either align or keeps quiet if scum who doesn't think it's a powerful role.
It's scummy that Saber pushed to get the master for being super powerful and a great choice mechanically but then it turns out they arent powerful at all. Maybe that's a very strong difference of opinion but it sounds more like they're trying to convince us that they're powerful rather than actually being powerful. It is true that it was an odd time to claim as scum though. I need more time to think on this but if I had that role I would absolutely not want to get the master unless I was extremely confident in my scumreading and town leading abilities UNVOTE:
In post 896, Servant Beast wrote:
Shielder did give information on interest for master, they said they "weren't against" it.
Where did I say this...
I'm not really buying that Saber thought his power was the best mechanically.
VOTE: Saber
That's E-2
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 interest
Not that this is very important to the points you're making, but shouldn't you be hyper aware of my stance on getting the master considering you knew I was town. Why would you think I expressed interest when I didn't.
In post 976, Servant Lancer wrote:So you’ve gone from an early/strong townread on me to somehow reading possible scum motivation behind me trying to understand something that doesn’t make sense and you even admitted to not being optimal
ok
Yes, somehow my reads have developed over time and some players have risen into town reads, others have fallen.
Or maybe you realized buddying me wasn’t working and it wasn’t getting you towncred with anyone else either
Because that would have added another point to the pointless antagonism score card.
Stopping with the antagonism doesn’t sound to me like it would have added anything to the antagonism score card. Because that’s the whole point of stopping the antagonism.
I was attempting to remove a point from the score card. This is a misinterpretation.
Because that would have added another point to the pointless antagonism score card.
Stopping with the antagonism doesn’t sound to me like it would have added anything to the antagonism score card. Because that’s the whole point of stopping the antagonism.
I was attempting to remove a point from the score card. This is a misinterpretation.
Explain how I’m misinterpreting what you said.
I asked, why would you choose to out instead of deciding not to antagonize alter anymore?
You said “that” (which is surely not referring to outing unless you’re saying you deliberately outed in order to antagonize alter further, so must refer to “not antagonizing alter”) would increase antagonism. ??
In post 958, Servant Lancer wrote:There is probably something significant about foreigner and saber both voting moon cancer and then both becoming the counterwagons to moon cancer but I don’t yet know what that means
Most likely that Moon Cancer is straight up scum.
I was hoping to find questions or things that would actually sort me. If I could claim my identity, people would see why my behaviors made sense. I feel that I am fighting with one hand tied behind my back since one of the FoSes on me was based on my identity.
I did accidently crumb my NP in a few places, but no one seems to doubt that. So providing that is just spam.
So shrug. I am going to brag a little instead. I self published a book. I don't believe I have mentioned this on MS so...
In post 976, Servant Lancer wrote:So you’ve gone from an early/strong townread on me to somehow reading possible scum motivation behind me trying to understand something that doesn’t make sense and you even admitted to not being optimal
ok
Yes, somehow my reads have developed over time and some players have risen into town reads, others have fallen.
Or maybe you realized buddying me wasn’t working and it wasn’t getting you towncred with anyone else either
Uh, if I were scum and I wanted to buddy somebody I don't think it'd be you this game.
Because that would have added another point to the pointless antagonism score card.
Stopping with the antagonism doesn’t sound to me like it would have added anything to the antagonism score card. Because that’s the whole point of stopping the antagonism.
I was attempting to remove a point from the score card. This is a misinterpretation.
Explain how I’m misinterpreting what you said.
I asked, why would you choose to out instead of deciding not to antagonize alter anymore?
You said “that” (which is surely not referring to outing unless you’re saying you deliberately outed in order to antagonize alter further, so must refer to “not antagonizing alter”) would increase antagonism. ??
Have I started antagonizing them more after that point?
I'm stating I wanted to remove some of the points of antagonism. I can both stop antagonizing someone and start treating existing wounds. They're not mutually exclusive.
The part of your thought process that I’m trying to understand is, given the option of simply not antagonizing alter which is always available and costs nothing and reveals no information and solves the situation just fine on its own, why would you instead choose to out Shielder, after repeatedly telling everyone not to give unnecessary information?
And none of your responses have given me an understanding of this choice
In post 958, Servant Lancer wrote:There is probably something significant about foreigner and saber both voting moon cancer and then both becoming the counterwagons to moon cancer but I don’t yet know what that means
Most likely that Moon Cancer is straight up scum.
I was hoping to find questions or things that would actually sort me. If I could claim my identity, people would see why my behaviors made sense. I feel that I am fighting with one hand tied behind my back since one of the FoSes on me was based on my identity.
I did accidently crumb my NP in a few places, but no one seems to doubt that. So providing that is just spam.
So shrug. I am going to brag a little instead. I self published a book. I don't believe I have mentioned this on MS so...
Because that would have added another point to the pointless antagonism score card.
Stopping with the antagonism doesn’t sound to me like it would have added anything to the antagonism score card. Because that’s the whole point of stopping the antagonism.
I was attempting to remove a point from the score card. This is a misinterpretation.
Explain how I’m misinterpreting what you said.
I asked, why would you choose to out instead of deciding not to antagonize alter anymore?
You said “that” (which is surely not referring to outing unless you’re saying you deliberately outed in order to antagonize alter further, so must refer to “not antagonizing alter”) would increase antagonism. ??
Have I started antagonizing them more after that point?
I'm stating I wanted to remove some of the points of antagonism. I can both stop antagonizing someone and start treating existing wounds. They're not mutually exclusive.
This is not what you said, so I’m unclear as to how I was misinterpreting your words.
In post 986, Servant Lancer wrote:The part of your thought process that I’m trying to understand is, given the option of simply not antagonizing alter which is always available and costs nothing and reveals no information and solves the situation just fine on its own, why would you instead choose to out Shielder, after repeatedly telling everyone not to give unnecessary information?
And none of your responses have given me an understanding of this choice
At best, you just don't comprehend it. Rather than choosing not to.
Yes and me trying to explain it and wondering if you really are trying to understand it or not. Have you really not been questioned by scum in a focused manner before? Surely you can understand my skepticism.
I don’t really care how you read me, I think it’s not very believable but that’s not really relevant. I’m more concerned with actually getting an answer from you that I can vibe with but you kind of seem intent on not giving me that and accusing me of misinterpreting you when I don’t know what other possible interpretation there was to what you said.
I'm saying that town contradict themselves all the time, that just because I say, hey guys don't give out information unnecessarily means I'm incapable of doing so.
I'm not made of stone and I'm not perfectly rational. As scum I tend to be more rational if anything.
Because that would have added another point to the pointless antagonism score card.
The only possible interpretation I see of this is you chose to out Shielder rather than stop provoking Alter because you thought not provoking alter would have added more antagonism. which, obviously, doesn’t make sense to me as a reason to make the choice you did. now you’re saying I’m misinterpreting that. I don’t know how else I’m supposed to read this sentence.
In post 994, Servant Beast wrote:I'm saying that town contradict themselves all the time, that just because I say, hey guys don't give out information unnecessarily means I'm incapable of doing so.
I'm not made of stone and I'm not perfectly rational. As scum I tend to be more rational if anything.
In post 993, Servant Lancer wrote:I don’t really care how you read me, I think it’s not very believable but that’s not really relevant. I’m more concerned with actually getting an answer from you that I can vibe with but you kind of seem intent on not giving me that and accusing me of misinterpreting you when I don’t know what other possible interpretation there was to what you said.
A better player would be able to read this post and figure out the player's alignment from it.
You're missing the idea that because I transgressed again and pissed Alter off that I wanted to remove that additional weight of pissed offness by revealing my full intent with the post.
In post 994, Servant Beast wrote:I'm saying that town contradict themselves all the time, that just because I say, hey guys don't give out information unnecessarily means I'm incapable of doing so.
I'm not made of stone and I'm not perfectly rational. As scum I tend to be more rational if anything.
A better player would be able to read this post and figure out the player's alignment from it.