JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 5:51 am
Alison wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 5:35 am
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 5:34 am
Alison wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:00 am
Sloonei has no original reads and I dislike that. I don't think he's ever expressed an issue with me or engaged with me meaningfully and now I'm his top scum read. Feels opportunistic.
Sloonei's ISO
Open this and CTRL+F "Alison".
This assertion is just not true. I want to eliminate Alison.
I did. I'm not seeing it. Quote the post where he meaningfully engages with me.
317 -- has a lot to say about you, some of it positive
549 -- directly addresses you
706 -- continues to consider the matter of Alison out loud
769 and
782 -- directly addresses you twice, both with questions for you to engage with
795 -- general query about you
815 -- voices uncertain concern
826 -- makes his concern more specific, quoting numerous Alison posts
827 and
832 -- directly engages two other people about you
840 -- votes for you among two others and makes suspicion clear
You said he didn't engage with you "meaningfully". That looks like hot bullshit to me.
You said he didn't ever express an issue with you. That is objectively false.
Alison wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 5:36 am
Also if you want to get me eliminated, you're going to have to do better than vaguely asserting that my posts are "fake" or full of "bravado" and then saying that you don't believe my case on Thunal for no reason despite not being able to actually rebut any of my arguments.
There you go. This post also serves little purpose beyond discrediting me in a way that does not fairly reflect my treatment of you.
That is not meaningful engagement. My claim was not "Sloonei has not spoken the word Alison out loud in this game". Yes, I was wrong and misremembered that Sloonei hadn't expressed suspicions of me before today. But I think the main thrust of my point - which was that Sloonei has only spoken about me in brief, unmeaningful spurts - remains.
#317 is a reasonable set of takes about me - I give it to you. It's a positive set of takes, though, so his suspicion must come from somewhere else. But where?
#549 is a straightforward, NAI factual response to something I said, pointing out something I may have missed in my reading. #706 is not meaningful engagement - it's a low-commitment "yeah I sort of liked it" post.
#769 and #782 are direct questions to me, yes - but... where is the result? Does his read progress on me because of the way I answered those questions? As far as I can tell, not at all. And this is the issue I've had. It's not that he's never brought me up - Sloonei's a good enough player to not just slank his way through the game or completely ignore me. My issue is that the progression is not there. He leaps from a relatively unconcerned viewpoint about me D1
#795, #827 and #832 don't count, it's a question about other people's reads on me. It's more of a way to engage with other people (about their read on me) than to engage with me.
#815 is, and I quote, "I have grown suddenly wary of Alison in the last few minutes. It might just be indigestion." I don't know what you consider meaningful engagement, but an unsupported gut read at EOD posted after I said I am going to bed doesn't count. Frankly, I think this post supports my accusation of opportunism.
#840 is basically a longwinded way of saying "Alison is in my POE". I don't consider that to be meaningful engagement, it's just a restatement of his position. What I'm interested in is how he got to that position.
-
I realize that you may feel tempted to get drawn into a back and forth with me about what does/doesn't count as "meaningful engagement". I think that is unproductive. What I aim to do here is to show you my point of view, and to show you what I meant when I said there was no meaningful engagement. These are the posts you yourself quoted - the posts directly addressed to me tend to be relatively neutral, and many of the posts addressed to others about me are inquiring about their read, not his.
The point here is this: ask yourself if the way Sloonei has treated me has been like someone trying to sort a player whose alignment they don't know. Or even a player who's leading the charge against someone they're very sure is scum. Because I don't think that progression points there; the posts I quoted look more like neutral probing -> doubts and discrediting at a convenient time, progressing straight to "Alison is my top suspect" D2. He came out with those doubts on me at a time where other people were suspecting me, and he said I was his top suspect at a time where he was the other person in contention for the exe today.
I don't think Sloonei has made a serious attempt to sort me. He's been trying to push narratives about me, but I don't think he's trying to sort me. That, coupled with the stance he's taken on me D2, feels opportunistic and scummy. That's what I don't like about him.
There's nothing that says a fake can't surpass the real thing.