Now this is something I completely disagree with.
Because I mentioned that in our original back and forth, I was onboard with the sentiment, but the presentation pinged me.
I gave you the benefit of doubt but you became really defensive about it.
And me saying that I am not going to clarify it because you don't get it is because I've already explained myself almost every post I made.
Like I've been clear about it time and time again but you just say you don't get it, well then what am I gonna say then?
I made a scenario that made full sense in my mind, and you acted just as I'd expect if the scenario I made was true. So of course I'm gonna think you're partners with Muu in that case.
My PoV comes entirely from how I interpreted the situation, I made a scenario that made sense in my head, and I acted accordingly.
Just because I agreed with your sentiments doesn't mean I agree with your solutions and conclutions.
I'm not backpeddaling, I simply didn't have enough on you to substansiate further.
You should provide a presentation that would have been perceived as being good as opposed to mine. Being onboard with the sentiment but not about the presentation is saying "I understand what you're saying and I completely agree. But I'm still going to scum read you for it cause of the way you said it". See how that sounds? It's because there's no way to actually qualify the read and argue with it or reach an understanding because, well, there's no understanding from the other party due to lack of any sort of presentation evidence. It reads as a throw away suspicion cast because you don't have anything else to bring on to the table against the player. Which is very keenly associated with shading.
You made a scenario that made full sense only to you and assumed that I would react this way, because, frankly who wouldn't? I just don't get the scenario in your head is something you honestly didn't make clear to me at all. Mafia is all about battling with interpretations and trying to reach a mutual understanding, but you seem to clearly ward of any sort of understanding here when I keep asking you to substantiate more to give me a sense of that weird scenario.
How is agreeing with the sentiment and not agreeing with the solutions and conclusions possible? If you agree with the fact that the argument of ending the muugen debate would have served better, and a vig shot is normally how it's done, then I would say that the solution and conclusion were also included in your agreeable sentiment.
If this argument is going in circles to you, then we can stop right now because I don't think there can be more understanding than this as of this moment.
Say what you will about that, I am merely stating what I think.
Even if they don't make for good arguments it doesn't change the way I view the situation as a whole. If I had more dirt on you I'd present it, at best it's a hard read that's not substansiated by a lot of evidence per se.
So I understand you're appealing to logic here, which would make sense, but I think you're beeing TOO logical.
Maybe my read on you isn't the most logical thing all things considered, but who cares.
You're only repeating yourself, and I've only reiterated what I've said in the past.
So yes, I admit that I'm reading you based off a scenario I find likely.
Don't come here telling me I can't do that
So we come to the conclusion that you don't have more evidence other than your own perspective of the situation. I mean I would have to be logical here Mango. It's the only way I know to catch scum since I'm swayed too easily by emotional appeals and logical fallacies are easier to catch.
Well, if you're going to keep doing it and even say that you're reading based off a scenario then I guess we just drop this here, then really, I can't continue further because you're not offering much.
Then this is mostly a subjective perspective at this point I believe. It's why we keep going in circles.
I really fail to see why it's not a good argument to make, I am totally aware that it might be a coincidence like no other, but I'm sure you realize how it looks for you right?
You can't seriously be telling me that something that's too good to be true can't be a good argument.
Of course too big of a coincidence is a phrasing I used a lot as a kid. My friend when I was young claimed that she could see the future and kept telling me about all the times she was right, I kept saying it's a coincidence. But that's besides the point. Using the argument that this can't be a coincidence cause, you know, timing can't be used as justification because it makes it almost impossible to actually refute the statement.
It's a statement of absolution that takes very little evidence into consideration and can be restated over and over to simply add shade. Too good to be true, is what we save for parties Mango.
