In post 259, Manuel87 wrote: In post 256, eagerSnake wrote: In post 254, Manuel87 wrote:While i think he has a valid point that its not really an analysis but rather a summary of what said player posted that game,
I post my analysis of the player before the summary of their posts. This is obvious if you are reading the post. Some people do it different, where they link the post number and then put their thoughts on that post next to the number. I could do that, but that's not the way I did it that time.
Yes but why bother to summarise what he posted when you dont tell us your thoughts on those posts but only your over all read on him?
Also your post summary on Victor has only on short comment on you liking him not pushing his scumread on Rhazh.
But in all 3 i see no real read from you. I could assume that you think Gerry is Null and Rhazh is slight scumlean but you never said that.
Why do you like that he isnt pushing his read on Rhazh?
Here's a peak into the spinning gearwheels of my brain:
I start off wanting to kill everyone. Everyone is scum.
As people do things I feel are townish, I move them down the list of people I want to kill. People who don't do townish things stay at the top.
Then I do my best to get the people at the top of the list killed.
If I say "I don't think this is a good lynch today" then I feel like they've done something townish at some point, or at least more so than others, and they aren't at the top of my list.
If I say "I would lynch them today" then they are still near/at the top of my list.
Oh sure. But you sure were quick to make your vote on me serious when I said I townread Gamma based on his response, right? Convenient.