Continuing to read G-man's ISO and objecting strongly to his points against me.
G-Man wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:42 pm
Now for the last living player ISO-
SLOONEI:
-
Here he questions nutella on why she thinks Jack's posts on DF are not a good look.
He proceeds to vote for Long Con because he only has one post and it happens to be bland. Twelve hours later, Sloonei drops
this with no explanation. When asked for an explanation, her replies with
this. I'll have to see where this its into the larger narrative of Day 1, but it's a striking shift in perception. If adverbs are the devil, then Sloonei is possessed. He then
votes for Epi for his vote on Jack. But Epi gives no justification for his vote on Jack and Slooeni doesn't prod him for one. The equation feels incomplete.
First of all, what is the "striking shift in perception" you speak of here? Is it that I came out with a town read of Jack after having previously voted for him? I voted for him extremely early on Day 1. It was a generic Day 1 prod. It wasn't based on a hard suspicion; my vote for Jack was a tactic to make him and others talk about things. I think it had some success. The "shift in perception" is just me developing a read on a player as the game begins to unfold: Mafia 101. Your dig about adverbs means nothing.
I'd also add that my votes for Long Con and Epi came from the same place as my vote for Jack earlier in the day. My early-phase votes seldom mean anything other than that I'd like to highlight certain topics of discussion. This is especially true on Day 1 of any game. It quickly became clear that Epi is playing a tight-lipped game. I am familiar enough with Epi to know that there's no use in grilling him when that is the case.
-Five hours later,
he votes for Tony (which is where his vote stays) with no explanation.
Jack asked Slooeni why he voted for Tony and gets no response.
Sloonei asks sabie what she thinks of me and Tony. It isn't until
hours later that he lays more details on Tony out. By then there's momentum building on Tony. He makes sure to mention that another player called Tony out on something and then goes into a wordy explanation. His Tony-Dom bit seems hollow to me as well.
Big time objection to this post is the suggestion that I voted Tony without explanation and the implication that I then ignored questions about it. If you look at the format and time stamps of my posts, you'll see that I was out of the thread for 3 hours after I voted for Tony, and that my posts around that time were short one-liners. This is because I was not home and only had my phone to post on. When I got home and had access to my laptop I provided
a detailed explanation of my vote for Tony in my very next post, as soon as I was able to. The way you frame this, it is as if I was avoiding talking about Tony. That is absolutely no the case. (You'll remember in the signup thread that I mentioned I'd be a bit scarce for the first few days of this game.)
-
Here, Sloonei takes a stance against lynching Jack or nutella, leaving Tony as the most viable option of the people with votes at the time. After a soft positive plug for Michelle, he says he doesn't have strong feelings about anyone else. He intends to leave his vote on Tony and hopes that Tony and others can elaborate and elucidate everyone else to provide a sense of direction in the final hours.
This is all accurately reported. Do you have an interpretation of my actions?
-I think it's also the work of an opportunistic baddie to
re-interpret the intent of a civvie that you spared from the lynch only to kill him at night to make yourself seem reasonable in hindsight. On my re-read I intend to determine if anyone thought Jack was pushing for a DF lynch. I just thought he was out of bounds for broadcasting to everyone that DF can't be trusted before DF even got into the game. That's also how I thought others viewed it.
I do not follow this point. Are you suggesting that I conspired to defend Jack just so I could turn around and kill him and be praised for having town-read him?
My interpretation of the case against Jack on Day 1 was that his prod of DF was being read as an attempt to establish justification to vote for him (DF) later on. I thought that was silly. I'd already expressed a town read on Jack for the same reason earlier in the day, which you pointed out above.
What is interesting about it? Is interesting good or bad? What is your interpretation of these actions, G-man?
These objections are why I asked what your intentions are. I noticed on first glance that this ISO was predominantly negatively slanted (check out those adverbs), but I don't object to that practice: I'll often try to read people negatively while ISOing them to see what I can find. But the interpretations you provide of my actions here are slanted in a way that seems to be stretching or ignoring the truth, and the points which you cannot argue against are given no qualitative analysis whatsoever. So that has me concerned.
Your take on sabie is probably the most compelling argument I've seen against her. Sabie was bad in two of the most recent games I played but in both of those games I found myself defending her throughout, so I'm a bit weary of her while also trying not to tunnel her. She's made a few posts in here that evoke memories of those games.
What, do you know she'll flip bad and you want to line up a townie to take the fall?
