In post 1996, farside22 wrote:I'm just going to say before I head to bed.
No one ever agrees why I town read people. I have a feeling anything I say about cephrir will be put under the category of he could do that as scum counter point.
To save myself that agrevation and time and engergy. I'm simply going to say my cephrir town read is gut based.
I'll expand on why the case on cephrir reads more under meta and expectations as I've read it, tomorrow.
I'd like to see it in your own words so I can solidify my read on you. If you convince me he's town, it's a bonus. But I doubt you would do it by refuting my case.
The reason for that is that while my case is based on objective facts, the interpretations and conclusions I drew from them are abstract and meta-informed (and not just any meta but specific past strategies in specific games).
The only correct response to a case like mine is to go through point by point and argue that each one isn't alignment indicative. This is what Ceph did. But I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think it was alignment-indicative. Ceph's response was moderately useful to me because there were things beyond the responses like tone, and whether he was being manipulative/discrediting or sincere that I was looking for.
You (or Nacho or anyone else) going through it and telling me that "Point X isn't alignment indicative" won't help in the slightest and won't convince me that Ceph is town beyond thinking that you didn't understand the point I was trying to make. It is also remarkably easy to refute arguments in mafia and rarely alignment indicative.
If you want to convince me Ceph is town, give me new and interesting perspectives that I hadn't considered before. That's why I asked Nacho not to bother refuting the case and provide his own reasons and I'm asking the same from you. You think I'm town (apparently) and you think Ceph is town. Show me why.
