Also, you're being insanely lazy, Ex. You can analyse people's reactions from the perspective of me being both alignments.
Just want to take a moment to say I actually agree with Ex here insomuch as I'm not seeing the fruits of your reaction gathering.
At best CL fell into the odd position of being around, not voting based on your lie about Gerrick, and proceeded to double down on the position that the fake claim doesn't mean much if you don't see it through to the end which isn't necessarily a bad hot take from him as a 3p.
The unpopularity of his perspective, it seems, netted him various votes which got him lynched; however, as Ex gripes about, there is still the issue of you sitting there faking a claim and claiming it gathered readable reactions.
Being that was D1 with no clear connections established from previous reads or flips, all you did was get most people to, rightly, vote in line with your lie. Then, expectedly, unvote when you revealed said lie. How exactly how that given ***readable*** reactions?
You've got some players like, say, Dolby and Gerrick who claimed to have seen the likelihood of the lie and either didn't buy too much into it with their reactions or not at all (mostly in Gerrick's case). Then you got a majority of people who, like me, voted and unvoted accordingly. Where's the big payoff aside from evaluating those you are most familiar with in, maybe, an accurate way?
The big standouts from that whole reaction, as far as I saw, were CL, Gerrick, and Dolby (them, and I personally got caught up in Anubhav with a few posts). CL for his focus on Neon despite being around at the time of the claim happening and how he viewed it. Gerrick for his response only after you admitted to it being a lie. And Dolby for notably, as I recall, saying something to the effect of thinking it was a fake claim (or knowing that Laur was capable of such). That's it. Lots of readable reactions there as opposed to most being generic vote/unvote, aye?