Like I can see this being a towny post regardless of who Professor is forcing a vote on.
If you think about it the wagons were TvT and Professor is actually invested in who goes out and not just “Do whatever.”
Keep in mind a lot of this is me using the Ladd from MU idea of “Does this individual give a shit during EOD?” annnnd you can tell Professor gives a shit, which is a good look.
One of these players has flipped villager, and I was right that the case against them was for things largely NAI. How is it not +EV for town?
Completely irrelevant, but I want to save a post by combining these two together.
@Gorta
I need you to explain your read on me for a number of reasons.
You need to see that you don’t have any real reason to scumread me, or at least not anything meaningful.
I need to see if your “read” on me is coming from a wolf mindset to push agenda or a wrong villager.
In the event that I flip, if you do not explain your read on me it is very likely that you will be chained tomorrow once people go back to see why I was actually scumread, and see that you had no real reason. I obviously do not want this happening if you are a villager, therefore you legitimately need to get your act together.
I don’t know who you are and I’m supposed to take your word for saying you know how to read specific players that have no correlation from my recollection.
Eli just dropped a vote on Frog and dipped randomly, there should be 1 wagon there.
Also just a side note that even if Cloned flipped town, the way the dude handled Pigeon’s doctor claim, Cloned kinda just deserved to die in that if he’s going to play so suboptimal for town.
Finally I remember seeing this and it reminded me to respond to it now because why not.
There’s goofy shit but I’m not looking at that at all, like the way you’re approaching situations is how I’m approaching them except you’re actually talking about them and you’re wording them better than I can, so that’s basically why I’m townreading you so strongly.
Also your EOD looked good even if things didn’t go well for town itself. You at least took the PR claim as a PR claim and not like half the playerlist here who kinda just shrugged it off.
Let me re-iterate after posting that large wall but-
Eli was at EOD, just stated that Pigeon being underwhelming is NAI for him a few times, then just splattered a vote on Frog before disappearing the rest of EOD while the wagons were on Cloned and Pigeon, AKA: A town vs a Town PR.
nice gaslighting, you should remember then that my gut reads are pretty decent. I’ll case you later, but remember my gut is pretty accurate. Often times I just make reads from feelings and my own gut and I am correct. I will case you though and I will be able to prove you are bad in one way or another.
This is what I am trying to say when I say that my actions don’t make sense as a wolf, because all I achieved from pushing cloned over pigeon was the blame for the mislynch (which I could have left with Frog had I not begged people to go to cloned).
It wasn’t just me though. Eli, someone else with experience with Pigeon, also pointed out that most of what Frog was pushing Pigeon for were NAI. People should have listened to me given the existence of this +1, and it’s also a small reason I have to townread Eli at the moment.
It makes sense that wolves wouldn’t care that much about the wagons. However, I don’t think Eli would particularly care as town either because he has invested very little into the game. Eli caring/not caring about the game is NAI.
This is not gaslighting, this is me explaining two things:
That you can’t expect your reads to be sheeped when you haven’t explained them
That my stances and behaviour do not make sense from a wolf perspective
And on that note, I would like you to explain the wolf motivation behind these actions:
I am aware. You make reads based on gut, and often try to find reasoning to support your conclusions in a mess of conf-bias and lack of genuine evaluation as a villager. Why do you have an expectation that after you actually read my posts you will end up “proving I am bad”. This is what I mean when I say you have reached a conclusion before evaluating the evidence.
This is the only thing semi-redeeming, because you are at least considering that I have a chance of being innocent. I’m not sure why you didn’t include this in the initial post - perhaps you were concerned about how I was going to point out that you seem agenda’d in the way that you visibly expect to conclude that I am a wolf before looking at the evidence.