Actually when you’re talking about meta and real people the most recent games are the best samples because people tend to evolve and change as time goes by. I’m trying to read somebody not conduct a scientific experiment lmfao.If he'd do it in a convincing way it'd actually be a reason to read him town, but his play around Mitch looks like fake hunting to me. Starting a wagon on Mitch after one post is inoffensive in itself.
Then here he acknowledges that he doesn't have enough grasp of Mitchs meta to reliably interpret his entrance one way or the other but keeps pretending he has a point regardless.
And now he's trying to find more reasons to uphold his suspicions by looking at meta from the past *2* games, which if you know anything about sample size is just a joke.
My vote was made because I didn’t like his entrance, I never tried to insinuate it was a smoking gun. I said I had a point because I DID have a point based on actual mafia scum hunting and not meta hunting because he looked scared to give a solid opinion which is what the majority of inexperienced scum players do. I don’t understand how this is so hard to grasp?! I then later went back and checked the last couple Of games he had as town and noticed he actually entered the thread much differently in those games as town than he did in this game which I (rightly) believe has strengthened my case. What’s fake about it?