theprof00 said:
every mention of inexperience, confusion, or even, lol "lying", are blatant moves to discredit. That's not a bad thing. Discrediting an opponent does not make you guilty.
Why do you feel so strongly that it does? You're not even under the hotspot and you gave me 3 exclamation points!
It's because I'm getting rather flustered with you.
I didn't do anything. I asked people why they were targeting you.
And to be honest, these were my suspicions of you:
1: nobody was suspicious of you
That's a pretty bad reason to suspect somebody. Perhaps no one suspected me because I didn't do anything suspicious and there was nothing to suspect?
LOL, that's not suspicious?!? Because you didn't do anything that someone would consider suspicious... Was that a conscious decision I wonder?
2: playing fairly 'above' the game, like you're not involved.
What, you mean like I'm detached? I don't get what you're saying.
Yeah. Jokes, casual observations, stuff like that. I know the point of the game is to have fun, but whatever, it's a small clue.
3: Urging that we were safe in recruiting heph and doctoring him. To you there was no possibility that mafia had a recruiter/roleblocker.
I actually didn't think we were entirely safe with that at all. That's why I had Nikells targeted as well, in case we were wrong. And yes, there's a possibility the mafia can have a roleblocker or a recruiter. But what are we supposed to do if there was a roleblocker? Not try at all? We can't bypass a roleblocker (unless we have a roleblocker who can roleblock a roleblocker) but we still have to try. What do you suppose we do if there is one?
Try to recruit him. Block heph and doctor him. By tomorrow if heph is recruited by our side, cool. If he isn't, lynch him. We block heph because if he's not what he says he is, he will try to kill another one of us. We can't be too sure about either Hat or heph at this point. They are both still suspects. There is no guarantee they are on our side.
4: Urging that mafia did not have their own type of secondary night-killer.
Look, if you were more experienced, you'd know how insane that theory is.
Yes, I understand that. I was more suspicious of how you addressed it at first (very similar to how you just wrote it) than later when you said "i've played every game and there's never been 2." To me, that quote was far more informative, and less defensive
5: Trying to convince me that Hat simply made a mistake. My sequence of events was a BETTER move. If I was in Hat's position at that time, it is what I would have done. And tonight we would have the SK, nobody would have known who it was, and Nikells would have been lynched (well not nikells cuz I didn't think he was guilty, I only believed that Hat had a very good reason to think he did.
Your theory was convoluted and was banking on the idea that hatmoza was lying. And Heph's role claim supports that hat wasn't lying, but made a mistake.
I expected Hat to be playing smarter than he was. I was playing based off of his confidence level. I know Heph's role-claim supports that Heph wasn't lying, but I divulged my theory before heph came out, because I lost confidence in Hat. It wasn't convoluted.
Had Hat actually made a mistake, he could have still shifted the targets. It doesn't matter if he had 3 targets or one, he didn't have to let everyone know who the actual targets were.
I'm not saying he made a mistake at all. Hatmoza has been playing very well, and very intelligently. It's just that coming into this game, and getting a vibe for his confidence level, I thought he was capable of being a lot sneakier.
Anyway, I agree that role/alignment are linked.. but I got off track. I was trying to get you to think that I knew your name but I didn't want to come right out and say it because I would be caught lying. Instead I tried to tiptoe around the subtlety.
Yeah, you did get off track. To me, it looked like you were going off on very different tangents that made no sense.
I still need to learn how to imply things without saying them. Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's hard.
|
