No, not really. for example one post he says to Mango "look, he's hard defending you despite you not even needing it", and then when I told him that I wasn't actually defending him, he turns around and says "yeah that was the point". Like ??? The meta thing was misrepresentation, because he was arguing that, because the read on Mango had some degree of meta in it, it couldn't match anything to do with what Melkor did, when that was hardly the point at all (this has been explained a few times over as to why this is).
er, not really.
i told him he feels like he's being hard defended despite me not sussing him. that was me saying that's how he can fall into a pocket if you are scum. i never said you were defending him, i found the whole thing really a defense of yourself as youre smart enough to know the person i was suggesting could be scummy in the situation was yourself and not him.
you then said you weren't defending him, which ya i agreed with as i felt you were really defending yourself. i never meant to make it seem like you were defending him and that was the crux of the issue.
i wasn't really arguing, it was a question initially. one that seemed to go over mango's head but you seemingly understand as you get why i kept using the word meta and what it meant lol.
In addition he also presented the idea that I as town have said I don't like going for strong players day 1 before as an issue with me this game, but the thought process makes absolutely no sense. He would have to compile his shared experience with me, redact all the times I as town am not beholden to that sentiment, and then forget about them, all to argue it as something apparently intrinsic to my town meta. I don't see any way for him to think that and be genuine, which is why I've asked and mostly been ignored. And when he has deigned to respond it has been to dismiss what I'm saying as me being dense or oblivious when I think if my posts are actually read the point should be pretty plain.
this is logical deduction. you don't operate in a realm of non-optimal play. i've seen this from you as both alignments. ive seen you suggest previously that there's harm in lynching stronger players in day 1 and the context, if my memory serves me right, was due to the players in that game.
similarly in a 26 player game where we will likely have a lot of inactives and people not providing enough content that can clear themselves id say you wouldn't consider people that are providing that level of content as a good direction because they will eventually self-resolve or give you enough information to solve whereas someone like cubey(no offense cubes) might not.
there is no real counter argument to this because it's both logical and optimal and again you play within this realm of optimal, logical play. the way you think isn't foreign to me, it doesn't go over my head like it goes over others, and to be quite blunt id say you and i have similar level of logical deduction and what makes sense. the difference tends to come down to me throwing that stuff in the wind because i feel like others are so far removed from it that it just doesn't apply to them(as in in an ideal game or world id play more similar to you but due to external factors i find it actually worse for me to do as people have such shit logic themselves).
again this is what ive noticed with you when youre scum(you go for optimal plays, ones that i recognize as optimal whereas ill go for a route i find more fun). we can also refer to lord melkor's one piece wano arc game where it was quite literally only you and i that both suggested how stupid going for 3 kills in a phase was and despite the results being favourable standing ground on it being a stupid course of action.