So I've absolutely tried to see your perspective. I've given you explanations on things I differ with you on - some of that is due to greater familiarity, and some of that is due to having a different thought process. I have you as town, which should tell you that I am at least trying to reconcile your PoV.
This seems to be a hang up, so I'm going to explain what I mean with "abductive reasoning". There are 3 bases of reasoning - deduction, abduction and induction. Technically there are more, but those are the most relevant ones for Mafia. I typically associate town play with deductive and inductive reasoning. That is, letting the evidence guide your conclusions, and constructing theories based off of observation s that naturally follow. Abductive reasoning is a little different to this - it assumes the mostly likely outcome from a given observation. Likely, here, is relative. So the example here was "Ratchet is trolling". Because you had seen me as Town and not troll, your conclusion was "Ratchet is doing something he hasn't done as Town, therefore he is scum". So, in defence to that statement, I pointed out that just because you haven't seen me do it as town, does not mean I have never done it as town.
Generally, I associate force-fitting conclusions to scum. Naturally, scum have to employ fallacies on some level, so when I saw this argument, my initial position was to question it. But, when I gave it further consideration, I decided that the reasoning you employ, and the reasoning I employ, may not be the same kinds. So, my point of introducing abductive reasoning was to offer an explanation as to why I could see you constructing your point of view as town. I do not believe this is me dismissing anything. Nor do I think this is me refusing to consider your point of view. I hope this explains that interaction adequately.
Now, for Prof. I tend to have a pretty good bead on Prof. I would say that, by and large, his process is similar to mine, which is why I read him pretty well. I also know that he has lost to me enough times in end of game situations that, by default, he requires me to do more that pretty much every other player to reach the threshold where he is comfortable town reading me. That is to say, in his positions, I have come to expect a degree of paranoia. On Day 1, I felt like this paranoia was missing to an extent that felt noteworthy. So when I asked him about it, he told me he was paranoid, but offered an explanation for why he was curbing it. I thought that was fair enough, so I left it at that. Now come into Day 2, I see him constructing a "paranoia tinfoil" wherein I am scum with Poyser and playing to look good from his flip.
In isolation, you may think that reasonable. The problem is, to me, it felt like Prof was performing a box ticking exercise. If we assume for a moment that he is scum, he knows what I expect from him when I'm looking to read him on a base level. And he also knows that he was not quite hitting that Day 2. That is to say, he has incentive to perhaps force in a paranoia read, because he already knows that he was caught lacking on that early and, while he got away with it then, it's something he will now be conscious of. So, when I saw this, I decided to challenge it. The purpose of challenging it is to scratch beneath the surface. If Town, there would be some strand underlying that Prof has thought of to justify coming to that idea. He would be able to present this, and if I found something objectionable, but otherwise reasonable to believe, I'd point out the issue and probably leave it at that. But here, I found none of that. I found mostly smoke and mirrors, and throughout it, I couldn't get the sense that he really believed in the thought process. So the next step is to apple pressure. I'm kind of still in that step, though I maintain that he is probably not scum with Poyser. I don't believe any of this makes me unpleasant. I hope that my position is now adequately explained.
In regards to Flower, while I can absolutely see her as town, I have issue with where she pushes things that I feel are not accurate. And I also have issue with her mode of defence being to insult and then act like I've been awful to her for questioning the merits of her arguments. I don't really understand how anything I've said to her could be upsetting enough to justify the sort of reaction she's had, which gives me a kernel of suspicion that she's leaning in to an emotional defence wherein she makes me not want to press the issue because it's designed to make me feel like I'm being a bad person towards her. I've tried to discuss the logic of her arguments and outline why I disagree, and I've also told her where I feel like her play is objectionable on a "how it feels to play with" level. She has, thusfar, made no attempt to broach ground here, so I cannot work with anything from her slot. I've got a sort of read on her but that is, unfortunately, the extent of it.
In regards to Watson, my defence of her slot has been to outline why I don't see her play as scum motivated. Because I don't really think she's scum. I would, if I had to pick, say town. Now, I'd like to see more from her slot, but I know how rough she feels from last game and I want to be conscientious of her. I also don't believe reading her from activity is all that accurate. So that's why I have that position. I again, do not understand what part of that is unpleasant from me.
And that's basically all of the main positions and discussions I've had of the day. If you think anything I've said is out of bounds, I'd welcome a discussion, because I really don't believe I have been. My intent has always been to map out my thought process so it can be understood, but I don't want to come across as patronising or condescending, which is why I have only volunteered extrapolation like in this post where I feel it's due.
