[Standard] 11/10 Top Tier Vanilla+ Game Thread

[Krakalakachkn]

Oh, and ##Sili

[Kivam]

Des: no better way to clear a teammate than by explaining his behavior in a post that also scumreads, because it has the full explanatory effect whole allowing the "I wasn't defending" play you are currently making. I have you mostly town, so I'm not putting to much weight on it, but it's a fact worth noting in case later play changes that read or you or Yates flip scum

[hazelkrs1]

Warning: some DPR "tunnely" posts will be incoming

 

 

it could be that yates is banking on dm being new to seer cover, but i suspect not. if he's wolfpack it's more likely the seer cover is for keeping appearances rather than finding the seer. if the true seer is new to the concept of seer cover they might withhold their results, and if the true seer is vetted with experience then they will claim when it suits them.

 

and in an ideal world everyone seer claims at some point and covers for the real seer to make this gambit moot. the real seer will then take advantage of the seer cover if it's safe, the risk is warranted, and the benefits outweigh the loss of their role, should they flip.

 

claiming seer right now when there are only three other claims is risky.

 

 

 

point on yates is that even were he wolfpack the gambit to seer claim should not bare fruit, so there's not much point in making it other than the town cred. if you think grasping at town cred is scummy... then i think that's a little silly but all the power to you.

 

These two posts, made this morning, concern me. They bring to my mind a cohesive effort surrounding SEER COVER 2014, and while it it unlikely that the play is simple or correlates how I'm going to lay it out (D1 and all) I'll betcha that at least one of these players is glomming on to use it to their advantage.

 

Yates claims Seer - This move generates some dismay, but seems to have fallen flat as far as intent goes. More attentions is paid to the 3A comment.

 

Des moves in to back this claim up - He brings up the term "Seer Cover", explains how it works and declares portrays it as a town move and a null tell. He elaborates that it's huge in Germany  (implying that the cool kids play elsewhere) and pre-closes the deal with a Nothing To See Here attitude.

 

But, the move still doesn't get traction - players are still scratching their heads. 

 

Yates has to bring it up again and re-explain it (if everyone does it, we'll have a Seer list out in the open). 

 

At this point, I have to believe that a town player would let the issue drop. It's D1 - why bring more attention to yourself than necessary and muddy-up the water with confusion? The claim has been made, noted, seconded and we're moving on to the next attraction.

 

Naturally, Des decides he needs to begin walking back his support of Yates claim and ends up neutral as to whether he thinks it's a good idea or not.

 

Both Yates and Des make noises to the effect of "I'll explain it one more time, but then the subject is closed."

 

Again, it's all in the books for D1. I'm fine to note it and watch it while we see who else pops up on the radar.

 

Yates seems to drop it. Des seems to drop it.

 

Fast forward to this morning:

 

Sili jumps in to the Seer argument (two posts above) to further oil the water regarding Yates. He balances this by soft-attacking Nyn with "guilty conscience" vibes. 

 

That's alarm bells for me. 

 

 

Okay so I've already addressed the first enlargened a good bit but just to reiterate: I WASN'T BACKING THE CLAIM UP. In fact, as that post of mine showed, I was scumreading Yates even after the claim (claim was null for me), and DPR HIMSELF had actually said Yates looked "really really townie" for "clearing" Dice.

 

Second enlargened is actually what I wanted to focus on here however, because DPR fos's Sili for bringing up the Seer cover thing again, and yet...

 

Wow.  Thread really died.  If you guys aren't going to play, can you at least post some seer cover?  Am I the only one who cares about winning this game?

 

WOMBAT actually raised the seer cover thing before Sili did, yet DPR never mentions this.

 

HRMMMMMM.

 

 

And here we go with more Yates defending.

 

Dude - you attack Nyn based on an ambiguous comment she made but but lacks any evidence while simultaneously trying to defend a player and play that we have in the books as evidence.

 

That's just not cricket, old boy.

 

 

(this was in response to a post of Sili's talking about the seer cover thing)

 

Mainly quoted this because of the thing on Sili attacking Nyn, even tho he was ACTUALLY attacking Barm.

 

DPR makes a big fuss about "evidence" here, but imo he never properly explains himself. Sili repeatedly asks what evidence he is referring to, and eventually DPR says the evidence is Yates' claim itself and people's explanations of the "seer cover" thing.

 

Here's the thing tho.

 

DPR FIRST fos's Sili for bringing the seer cover thing up again, yet HERE he is apparently saying that Sili isn't focusing enough on hard evidence, which ends up being all the seer cover stuff?

 

 

Those are completely contradictory points against Sili. That he's focusing on the seer cover stuff too much and defending Yates, and then later that he isn't talking about that stuff enough?

 

???

 

@darthe. an intentional ping.

 

I'm practicing how to scum!tell in case i ever rand a jester.

 

Yeah I don't need to talk about how wolfy of a post this is in a vacuum. Sili seems to have a knack for saying outrageously scummy stuff like this as town tho.

 

/shrug

 

And yes, I'm sure that you'd all LOVE to have me interact in real time blah blah blah... it'll happen when it happens.

 

Obviously this kind of post can be easily written by town or scum, but my gut tells me this ambivalent tone actually came from a town!Stelio. Could be townlean confbias, but meh there it is.

[hazelkrs1]

Des: no better way to clear a teammate than by explaining his behavior in a post that also scumreads, because it has the full explanatory effect whole allowing the "I wasn't defending" play you are currently making. I have you mostly town, so I'm not putting to much weight on it, but it's a fact worth noting in case later play changes that read or you or Yates flip scum

 

Uh, okay, but I don't really think my whole point about the "seer cover" issue is semantics.

 

I was scumreading Yates at the time, and Dice asked what I thought about Yates "clearing" him. I explained that I took that claim at less than face value and considered it standard seer cover.

 

I later went into further detail about the move and said it was a nulltell since town could post seer cover as a protown thing to do, or scum could post seer cover to look protown.

 

I seriously don't see how this is me "mafiasplaining" Yates' behavior. I was scumreading him, and said the claim was null to me. I get that it's possible to yall that we could be scumbros, and that I was distancing from Yates' but then defended him later, but all I was really doing there was responding to Dice's question to me.

 

Please explain to me how that is "mafiasplaining"

[TheRagnarok]

Omg, how can you people talk so much about a seer cover?

[csarmi]

Salami - so what do you do when scum does townie stuff day 1 and you "lock clear" them? Because that's exactly what the gambit was about. You guys are all making the mistake of thinking scum need to act like scum to won, when the opposite is true.

And town needs to act like town to win. Encourage that and scum has a hard life. Especially effective when scum try to slank back.

[Krakalakachkn]

Omg, how can you people talk so much about a seer cover?

 

Some people have seer envy.

[Thane Vakarian]

seer cover... seer... s... s....b...be...beer..... yeah, beer, that's what we need

[csarmi]

Thane have you got the beer cover down?

[Kivam]

 

Des: no better way to clear a teammate than by explaining his behavior in a post that also scumreads, because it has the full explanatory effect whole allowing the "I wasn't defending" play you are currently making. I have you mostly town, so I'm not putting to much weight on it, but it's a fact worth noting in case later play changes that read or you or Yates flip scum

 

Uh, okay, but I don't really think my whole point about the "seer cover" issue is semantics.

 

I was scumreading Yates at the time, and Dice asked what I thought about Yates "clearing" him. I explained that I took that claim at less than face value and considered it standard seer cover.

 

I later went into further detail about the move and said it was a nulltell since town could post seer cover as a protown thing to do, or scum could post seer cover to look protown.

 

I seriously don't see how this is me "mafiasplaining" Yates' behavior. I was scumreading him, and said the claim was null to me. I get that it's possible to yall that we could be scumbros, and that I was distancing from Yates' but then defended him later, but all I was really doing there was responding to Dice's question to me.

 

Please explain to me how that is "mafiasplaining"

 

 

Mafiasplaining = explaining how a particular piece of conduct is not really scummy.  Which you did.  Which all of us do, when we see a case being pushed on what we think is a bad deduction - or to defend a teammate.  No more, no less, no big thing unless and until one of you two flip scum, in which case it warrants a much harder look at whoever is still alive.  (Again, not necessarily a lynch, but at least a full ISO case).  If that still doesn't clarify for you, I don't know what else would help.

 

And yes, facetious.  Hence the "yep" and bold a few posts (of mine) back

 

[Thane Vakarian]

i'll cover myself in beer when i get home, that's right. Sadly can't do the same for any of you within terms of delivery for overseas shipments

[Yates]

Scummy post from Yates here imo.  At this point he should have just let it go, but by continuing the argument it allows him to look like bulldog town trying to clear themselves.

What's the difference between being a "bulldog" and responding to a nonsense case someone is trying to build?

 

It's *MY* job to clear myself, is it not? I don't get you acting like *I* am scummy for "continuing an argument" when I'm merely addressing a point being leveled directly against me. And not only that, I'm OBVIOUSLY trying to get closure on something that had become a distraction - which is actually probably the most pro Town thing I've done all game. So you giving me SCUM points for that reads as nonsense.

 

Is this your first time in a game with me??

[Yates]

Des: no better way to clear a teammate than by explaining his behavior in a post that also scumreads, because it has the full explanatory effect whole allowing the "I wasn't defending" play you are currently making. I have you mostly town, so I'm not putting to much weight on it, but it's a fact worth noting in case later play changes that read or you or Yates flip scum

Wow. Wifom up the wazoo. Is everyone taking crazy pills right now?

 

Kivam - this post is complete nonsense. You are creating a false connection here. I'm pointing out that I'm chastising you so that if you flip scum I can be cleared as Town. How do you like that "logic?"

 

Insane.

[hazelkrs1]

 

 

A little, but I disagree with your use of 'attack'. it implies hostility or conviction. neither of which are the case.

 

 

 

What do you mean by evidence? Tone reading a fishy post should be completely valid, and I wasn't aware I was disregarding anything.

 

 

Interesting that you are the second player to make mention of my adjectives.

 

If I comment that you have "attacked" a post, I'm dying that you chose a post and a point to object to and brought it up in thread. You attacked it. There might be a "soft attack" or a "hard attack", but it's an attack nonetheless.

 

If I comment that you are "shaming" another player, it means that you've use insulting verbiage to belittle their play or leaned on them as if you were more experienced than they are.

 

Personally, I find mincing words scummish.

 

If I say "evidence", I'm referring to an action by a player, documented, that can used to reference continuity later. 

 

"Tone reading" and hunches in general are speculation. They can be useful as guides - I have a few right now - but they are not submittable  in court.

 

In my experience, players that favor hunches over evidence find themselves at the wrong end of the noose or knife.

 

Sili asks DPR a direct question, DPR evades the crap out of it and explains what "evidence" is in general

 

I mean, this COULD be town!DPR being confused by Sili's question and just trying to be helpful, but imo it is just more likely in light of everything else that this is scum!DPR evading the question and hoping to bury the matter in a bunch of nonconsequential nested quotes about what the definition of evidence is

 

 

 

So, Seer Cover isn't usual for DM (Manbat warned me of this), BUT Yates (specifically) has hardclaimed Seer early on/provided obvious cover before? Down the track I would be interested to know how often/in what setting... and if there are any differences in play.

Okay. I guess this needs to be said, too - here's a list of the players currently involved in this game that were in the game I just linked to:
Rags
Hally
AJ
Krak
Sili
Darth
Wombat
Yates

Tom - this game's Mod.
Manbat - that game's Mod.

Yes. That's 10 people. So 9 of the 20 people in this game should/would know about Seer cover. DM doesn't typically do N0's or have Seer. This game had an N0 and has a Seer. I'm assuming, based on an ongoing discussion about mafia maturing at this site, that Tommy is trying to [re?]introduce some basic game play and mafia roles, setups, and strategies to DM. I'm happy to oblige.

As to whether or not I would fake claim?

Skepticism is an healthy move when it comes to Yates' claims xD

Uh. Yeah. I would say fake claims are a pretty big part of the games of Des, Arsis, and myself. For us? They are null as we will fake claim as either alignment equally.

 

 

This entire post has me scratching my head.

 

Why are you post-padding?

 

I'm open to an explanation, but I think you have to acknowledge that it's a technique used by players who want to steer a topic in another direction and I'm currently asking Sili why he feels it necessary to defend you. 

 

What's up with this?

 

Really didn't like this one from DPR either- I COMPLETELY disagree with his premise here that Yates was "post-padding". Yates was responding to Cass who seemed unfamiliar with the whole issue, and properly gave the background on what he was doing. His explanation was ENTIRELY relevant to this game.

 

And for the record, THIS is me defending Yates now.

 

 

@Darthe: Pralaya subbed in for Arsis.

.....

 

 

This explains so much.

 

 

 

and probably screws me over

 

 

 

What page plz?

 

 

Just wanna say that Darthe missing that Pray subbed in is generally null for me, he could derp as town or scum here, but I WILL say that the text in spoiler does seem pretty self-conscious to me, so meh light ping for this post.

 

 

I think the people arguing against seer cover aren't looking at the circumstances of this game very carefully.  The main reason not to like seer cover is that it essentially gives the seer a shelf-life.  That being said, the setup of this game already puts the seer on a shelf life.  Town has two part-time vigs.  Mafia has two extra kills and a roleblocker.  Town does not have a doc but a jailkeeper (much less effective at protecting cops).  All of this means that not only is the seer more likely to die to nightkill, but once the seer hardclaims, he or she is unlikely to get another viewing off.

 

As for Yates hardclaiming to start the seer cover, that probably wasn't the best move on a site that isn't used to seer cover, but it's not something that makes him scum.  It's still a null-to-town move overall imo.

 

Personally, I didn't worry when Yates made the claim. 

 

I worry about all of the commentary after - the moves behind the moves.

 

Yates could have easily made the claim and let it be. If anyone asked, he could have explained it. Or, he could have explained it while he was doing it to try and get a thing started. I don't have a problem with any of that as it's up front and makes sense.

 

But, my radar pings when Des comes into to explain Yate's moves. Yet, a person could argue that Des takes it upon himself to explain everybody's moves. But, when Sili shows up and starts laying down the same rhetoric Des did (before Des had to back off and distance himself from it) I take notice.

 

And, when other players still bring it up, I take more notice. Dead horse and all that...

 

 

Enlargened: Pfft, no, you TOWNREAD him for it.

 

 

 

I didn't like how Des dealt with it at all.  He explained why it wasn't scummy but then said he doesn't think seer cover works very well.  Reads like trying to have his cake and eat it too.

 

 

I explained why it wasn't scummy? I said it was null for me- but when I FIRST responded to the whole seer cover matter, it was NOT under the context of "Yates' claim was scummy". When I responded to it, Dice was asking me my thoughts on Yates clearing him (sorry to keep rehashing this, I just have not enjoyed having my actions misunderstood/misrepresented here)

 

My comments about the effectiveness of seer cover in general was meta, it wasn't specific to this situation.

[Thane Vakarian]

i'll call it a night, police escorts en route, so i need full attention at work.

 

Play nice all, and cyas tomorrow.

[hazelkrs1]

 

 

Des: no better way to clear a teammate than by explaining his behavior in a post that also scumreads, because it has the full explanatory effect whole allowing the "I wasn't defending" play you are currently making. I have you mostly town, so I'm not putting to much weight on it, but it's a fact worth noting in case later play changes that read or you or Yates flip scum

 

Uh, okay, but I don't really think my whole point about the "seer cover" issue is semantics.

 

I was scumreading Yates at the time, and Dice asked what I thought about Yates "clearing" him. I explained that I took that claim at less than face value and considered it standard seer cover.

 

I later went into further detail about the move and said it was a nulltell since town could post seer cover as a protown thing to do, or scum could post seer cover to look protown.

 

I seriously don't see how this is me "mafiasplaining" Yates' behavior. I was scumreading him, and said the claim was null to me. I get that it's possible to yall that we could be scumbros, and that I was distancing from Yates' but then defended him later, but all I was really doing there was responding to Dice's question to me.

 

Please explain to me how that is "mafiasplaining"

 

 

Mafiasplaining = explaining how a particular piece of conduct is not really scummy.  Which you did.  Which all of us do, when we see a case being pushed on what we think is a bad deduction - or to defend a teammate.  No more, no less, no big thing unless and until one of you two flip scum, in which case it warrants a much harder look at whoever is still alive.  (Again, not necessarily a lynch, but at least a full ISO case).  If that still doesn't clarify for you, I don't know what else would help.

 

And yes, facetious.  Hence the "yep" and bold a few posts (of mine) back

 

 

 

... No I didn't. As I have pointed out numerous times, I was responding to Dice asking my thoughts on Yates "clearing" him. He wasn't saying what Yates did was scummy, he was acting like he genuinely thought Yates was the Seer and revealed a town viewing on Dice.

 

So again, if you go back and look at context, I WAS NOT saying that Yates' claim wasn't scummy. I was explaining that I didn't take the claim at face value like Dice seemed to be doing.

 

And incidentally, I ALSO wasn't "brow-beating" Dice over not playing well or something. As Dice doesn't play on other sites that I'm aware of, and seer cover (dear Lord am I sick of typing that phrase at this point) isn't common on DM, I was simply explaining a strategy he may have not been familiar with.

[TheRagnarok]

Kivam, would you consider my thoughts on Sili as mafiasplaining?

[Kivam]

i'll call it a night, police escorts en route, so i need full attention at work.

 

Play nice all, and cyas tomorrow.

 

Scum?

 

What do you do, Thane?

[Kivam]

Also for the record, for those just thinking I'm stuck in a tunnel on DPR:

 

Last game I played with him he was scum and I was town and I helped "catch" him on Day Freaking One. That game doubles as prob the most frustrating mafia game of my entire mafia career.

 

FYI, this reads as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of the type that makes me really, really want to play poker with guys who won a big pot by river-ing out an inside straight.  (And in New Orleans, I actually hit a straight flush on the river, which will never happen again).  Just because you did something that had a good result doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.  Mafia's a lot like poker that way; good plays can have bad results and bad plays good results on individual occasions, but over the long term bad play will lead to bad results and good play to good results.

[csarmi]

 

i'll call it a night, police escorts en route, so i need full attention at work.

 

Play nice all, and cyas tomorrow.

 

 

 

Scum?

 

What do you do, Thane?

Security stuff.

[Kivam]

Kivam, would you consider my thoughts on Sili as mafiasplaining?

 

No.  Meta as hell, and I don't agree with your read, but you aren't saying "here's how Sili's play is actually good for the town"; you're just saying you think he's screwing up as a townie.  That always concerns me (the only way to be certain bad play is townsided is to be scum and know the bad-playa isn't a teammate), but it's a different kind of concern.

[Kivam]

 

Des: no better way to clear a teammate than by explaining his behavior in a post that also scumreads, because it has the full explanatory effect whole allowing the "I wasn't defending" play you are currently making. I have you mostly town, so I'm not putting to much weight on it, but it's a fact worth noting in case later play changes that read or you or Yates flip scum

Wow. Wifom up the wazoo. Is everyone taking crazy pills right now?

 

Kivam - this post is complete nonsense. You are creating a false connection here. I'm pointing out that I'm chastising you so that if you flip scum I can be cleared as Town. How do you like that "logic?"

 

Insane.

 

 

Of course.  Scum who aren't setting up WIFOMs from Day 1 are asleep at the switch and asking to take their teammates down with them if they get caught.  You don't do that as scum?  I sure as hell do, which means I always keep my eyes open for it.  I also find it interesting that you are trying to imply that there is no possible connection between you and DesLami.

[TheRagnarok]

 

Kivam, would you consider my thoughts on Sili as mafiasplaining?

 

No.  Meta as hell, and I don't agree with your read, but you aren't saying "here's how Sili's play is actually good for the town"; you're just saying you think he's screwing up as a townie.  That always concerns me (the only way to be certain bad play is townsided is to be scum and know the bad-playa isn't a teammate), but it's a different kind of concern.

 

Ok, I just wanted to make sure I understood where you were coming from.

[hazelkrs1]

 

 

 

Darthe, what do you mean by 'over-coached'? I gave an accurate account of what Monstr has done for me here in response to Thane's general question about how he'd been treating me. I will admit I've been reading up on the wiki and other sites like there's no tomorrow since I joined in sign up (to the detriment of my final Exam on Monday, actually), but I'm like that. The way I'm acting makes perfect sense to me, in the context of me   I like a good challenge, have an addictive personality, hate confusion and like to win. DICE and maybe even THANE can probably even vouch for this ... (Guys?)

 

The way you're playing seems fine so far, just not what I would expect from a green player.  Not even one with a coach.  I've been a mentor several times now and rarely does it show much in the way of results.  Now, perhaps that can be explained by your neuroses as you've reminded us but until I get a better feel for you I'm going to remain wary that you have too much general info and knowledge about the game for your level of experience.  Make sense?

 

SERIOUSLY don't like the angle Darthe is pushing here- not only is "that new player looks too good, they're being coached!" such a dumb argument to use (some mafia newcomers are just better and faster learners than others, and have good instincts, and this tactic discourages good newer players from continuing to play), Darthe is actually pushing that Cass is "over-coached", as in she looks so good she's not just getting help from her mentor Manbat but also apparently scum as well.

 

This is just SUCH a scummy and fake angle to push here that this makes Darthe look just tremendously scummy. Opportunistic and fake scumhunting at it's worst people.

 

Please post an example of a player that has been confused over "Seer Cover". 

 

To me, all I see is unnecessary re-explanations of the term made in an effort to prove what a swell guy Yates is.

 

 

 

 

I forgot to ask what evidence I've been disregarding. You said that, and now I want to know what you mean?

 

 

The evidence is Yates claim. You have defined it several times, after it has been defined by others several times.

 

My point being that you ignored the previous payer's posts defining "Seer Cover" when you could have just let it stand and watched to see what came of it.

 

Instead, you used you explanation to support Yates and then talk about town-reading other posts.

 

I look at that as ignoring evidence (the obvious) to bring attention to speculation.

 

 

Bold: Dice, Thane, and Cass all at various points expressed confusion over the "seer cover" concept

 

Italics: Funny thing is if anything, YOU'RE making a bigger deal out of the "seer cover" issue than ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME

 

Underlined: DPR clearly forgets the context he originally raised this point in.

 

Not going to requote the post again, but he first was talking about Sili "attacking" Nyn (when he was actually attacking Barm), and said Sili was ignoring the evidence at hand, and instead focusing on some "non" evidence in Nyn's obscure comment (that was actually Barm's)

 

So Sili in that post WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SEER COVER AT ALL, yet DPR apparently thought he should have been focusing on the evidence at hand, that evidence being Yates' seer claim and subsequent definitions of "seer cover", but that really "using the evidence at hand" here means not commenting on all the seer cover stuff since other people have already.

 

All this when the original post in question, again, wasn't talking about seer cover.

 

So again, this is DPR entirely forgetting the context he originally brought up "evidence" in.

 

To me, this paints DPR in just SUCH an extremely negative light. Like, as in he's obvscum. Because town!DPR might be rusty, but I seriously don't think he would entirely misremember the entire context in which he was fos'ing someone, and then keep pushing something even tho what he's pushing makes zero sense.

 

However, I CAN see scum!DPR pushing this stuff because he's fake scumhunting.

 

 

For DPR:

 

so, we have two direct claims for Seer: Yates and Sili....

 

Anybody up for competing trains, or too early?

 

 

 

Either confused or scum.

 

See, that's my point - no one went scum-hunting first. 

 

Instead we get a list of self-professed mafia wonks who are more than happy to elaborate on the merits or lack thereof of Seer Cover. Oh, and Yates is a swell guy.

 

Now, if you go back an look at every non-active player's posts that imply confusion, you'll find that their points are mostly ignored.

 

So why all the celebration over Seer Cover? 

 

Look at me with a straight face and tell me at least one mafia isn't in on all this.

 

 

LOL - so DPR asks someone to show a single post of someone being confused about seer cover, Wombat does so, then DPR immediately switches tack to "But they weren't addressing that person's confusion!!!"

 

...

 

What else is defining and discussing seer cover, except for explaining the context of it for ANYONE who WAS confused about it?

 

 

 

Here, have some wine.

 

 

Hey, what's up?  You gonna post at all or just let Des drag you down into the oranges?

 

 

^legit wolfy post

[hazelkrs1]

 

Also for the record, for those just thinking I'm stuck in a tunnel on DPR:

 

Last game I played with him he was scum and I was town and I helped "catch" him on Day Freaking One. That game doubles as prob the most frustrating mafia game of my entire mafia career.

 

FYI, this reads as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of the type that makes me really, really want to play poker with guys who won a big pot by river-ing out an inside straight.  (And in New Orleans, I actually hit a straight flush on the river, which will never happen again).  Just because you did something that had a good result doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.  Mafia's a lot like poker that way; good plays can have bad results and bad plays good results on individual occasions, but over the long term bad play will lead to bad results and good play to good results.

 

 

I wasn't trying to say because I was right there, that I'm right in this game. Obviously that would be an immense logic fail on my part.

 

My point was that people shouldn't dismiss my suspicions as just me tunneling on DPR, because occasionally, I SOMETIMES actually get a read right, even when I get stuck in a tunnel.

 

In other words, whether I'm tunneling or not, people should still consider my reads, especially if they trust me or are reading me as town.