[AuraTwilight]

No you haven't. You're earlier explanation only addresses how there could be distortion in a story without a Reader, which neither addresses the idea that "having no Reader"="absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text", nor does it address why they were all saying that a Reader can add distortion to a story.

A Reader can add a distortion to their story with how they choose to pay attention to details, such as character voices or sound effects or even personal opinions that can cause an audience or the Reader's own mind to be misdirected.

The "No Reader = No Falsehoods" thing is complete bullshit if only on the grounds that Bern's Game totally has falsehoods.

She certainly seems to have meta-oriented goals, but that's not absolute proof that she has access to out-of-Game knowledge.

In EP6 she talks to Battler directly referencing EP5 and the Meta-World. "Wow, even here, you're a good intellectual match for me." "What are you talking about?"

In EP5 she shouts for Bernkastel's forgiveness before being stricken down into her seat like a puppet.

Just because she's a "tool" doesn't mean the fact that she's the Reader is irrelevant. Which tool you use to complete a job will affect the process, and possibly even the result, of the job.

Tools-Who-Are-Not-Persons do not have a subjective viewpoint with which to corrupt and distort the telling of a story.

The terminology. "Player", "Game Master", "Game Board" typically indicates a two-way process between the Player and Game Master with the Game Board as a medium. It's very often likened to chess, which is indisputably a two-way process. If the what happens on the Game Board is not a two-way process then RK07 is using deceptive terminology for apparently no reason.

False Argument, because there's already interactivity in the way of Battler or Erika or whoever controlling their Piece and being able to interact with the environment and characters. This does not lead us, in any way, to "The gameboard's imagery is directly misrepresented by the player's misconceptions."

The basic narrative in EP6 just screams a 2-way process. First there's the whole idea that the Game Master can, and sometimes needs to, change the narrative in the middle of the Game, which makes no sense in a 1-way process as there's nothing for the Game Master to react to. Second, Meta-Erika can't trap BATTER in a logic error unless either: BATTLER unilaterally determines the narrative, in which case he's just fucking around by himself and Meta-Erika is pointless, or Meta-Erika can influence the narrative and it's a 2-way process.

See above.

Battler's narrated thought projection throughout EPs 1-4. Piece-Battler would make assumptions as to what certain people were thinking, which would be narrated. If someone other than Meta-Battler wrote those assumptions into Piece-Battler's mind, shouldn't Meta-Battler find it presumptuous? Wouldn't they get it wrong sometimes and Meta-Battler would go "wait, I wouldn't think that". That never happened in EPs 1-4. It did happen in EP 5 when Meta-Battler found Piece-Battler to seem smarter than he should be, but that was in EP 5 when Meta-Battler wasn't playing.

Battler is really good at reading the thoughts, moods, and attitudes of everyone else because he knows them personally. It's not that the narration is following his thought processes so much as he's just getting really spot on. Alternatively, if these thought narrations are being given in accordance to what Battler thinks, it's worth noting that seeing the mental viewpoints of other characters technically constitutes a Fantasy Scene, and is completely out of the purview of Piece!Battler, making it a far cry of incompatibility and incomparability with Erika's misdirected perceptions of the Parlor scene.

If you're talking about the discussion about "Readers" in EP 8, I simply cannot see it meaning something else than "a Reader can distort a game", since that's what they say practically word for word, several times.

And you are choosing to interpret "distort" in a very specific, unsupported, and personally preferred way that isn't even metaphorically analogous to how readers work in every other medium of life and fiction, which is a direct contrast to how you argue the usage of terms such as Piece, Player, Gameboard, and the like.

Your argument is special pleading one way or another because you're using different forms of reasoning at different parts of the theory that are only superficially separate from each other, and your shuffling of semantics doesn't get around the fundamental problems and criticisms being raised against your theory.

If you accuse me of interpreting it only the way that I want to, then you better give me some kind of alternative possible interpretation that I am failing to see. Else you're just being an antagonistic jerk without reason to back it up.

Totes did that, see above.