Mafia: A World Reborn Game Thread - Game Over

[juliets]

"Currently" just means "at present", which is clearly the case if we're talking about the most recent nightkill, even if it was only a single one. Not to mention that it assumes a scumteam made some kind of mandate that they are going to exclusively kill low-posters in the future; I seriously doubt a scumteam would be that inflexible. That case looks like a forced "scumslip" that rarely actually catches someone, and from what I can tell, people have a habit of doing it to sig with poor results. Note that Long Con, who flipped scum day 2, was going after sig for that.

This is an interesting perspective Hamburger Boy. Have you seen this done to sig other than the one time you point out with Long Con?

[sig]

We played the sock puppet game (Roxys/Splints) but we were socked so I'm not sure if that counts. Besides that I think we've played one other but i can't recall which.
I forgot about the baddie range, mostly when I see a low poster killed that is my thought I know in past experiences as mafia this is what I do, people were questioning why Timmer and that seemed the most logical reason to me. Also I'm still getting down the map mechanics so I forgot about the range thing.

I'll be looking over a few people mostly the ones on zebra's list later.
I don't like Bulls comment about my post being weird for using the wording currently it seems like a nitpicky mafia thing to do in an attempt to start a lynch against me my vote could end up there today.

linki: splints I don't understand why if I'm saying he was killed for being a low poster which he had been so far, it is an attempt by me to lynch a low poster? Especially since I'm always closer the low posting spectrum then the high posters. Or are you saying someone else is trying to set up low posters.
@julietes we don't have a trend line at all, I'm going with the data I see, what I find much more interesting is the people asking "why timmer?" In fact maybe they just asked to help set up a bandwagon on someone who would comment on it. If so you can see players already doing this to both mine and LoRabs post.

[Bullzeye]

"Currently" just means "at present", which is clearly the case if we're talking about the most recent nightkill, even if it was only a single one. Not to mention that it assumes a scumteam made some kind of mandate that they are going to exclusively kill low-posters in the future; I seriously doubt a scumteam would be that inflexible. That case looks like a forced "scumslip" that rarely actually catches someone, and from what I can tell, people have a habit of doing it to sig with poor results. Note that Long Con, who flipped scum day 2, was going after sig for that.

Thank you, DictionaryBoy, for explaining what currently means :P It's still an odd way to phrase it. If there'd been a few kills in this game so far, it'd make more sense IMO. In my experience baddies often do make specific plans for how they're going to kill, by no means set in stone but as a "if we don't need to kill anyone in particular we may as well kill a low poster". Saying "the baddies are currently killing low posters so Timmer's death is unsurprising" doesn't make sense given that the baddies of this game weren't 'currently' doing anything until they killed Timmer. It was just something that caught my eye, but the fact that so many other people seem to agree with me makes me more confident. Especially when this is at least the second time I've noticed you defending Sig this game.

Linki - nice NO U there. I have other suspicions than you and wasn't necessarily going to vote for you today, but keep digging that hole.

[MacDougall]

First, Mac, I would like to say the following:
1) You do not know me nor do you know my game.
2) You are relying on a case of meta-play (that you don't reference anymore) to say I am bad when you have not an inkling of a clue of what my meta-play is.

On the front of your mix-up, I brought it up because it's pretty clear to me you don't actually think I'm bad. It's pretty clear to me you are looking for easy people to lynch. Why was I on the same list as Bea? Because you don't care who is actually on that list.

Dom vote for me. Surely you must think I am scummier than Banana.

Do you have a vote manip on your team?

I'm not sure what roles the other townies have Dom.

Surely you know what I'm implying here. Why so concerned I was voting to make sure I didn't die? Why was that weird to you that I voting to ensure my survival?

Your team doubled down on me. There was no way for you and Sorsha to pull out. Now you have to make it a full blown case against me. You were hoping I'd die so I coudln't speak out against you later.
Wrong-o.

What a travesty.

No, it was kind of a Policy Lynch, wasn't it? Lynching a civview who WAS participating, now THAT would have been a travesty, Mr. Hyperbole Words.

He made two posts, one of them an incredibly opportunistic vote.

And feel free to not validate me~ I am self validating

Now, if Dom was town. Do you think he would have been lynched? I do. I think if Dom was town, the scum would have hit his wagon hard. Of the three opportunities there he was clearly the more experienced player. Considering there were various votes made late day for very skewiff reasons they could have easily just thrown a vote on there and been done with it.

No, I would not have. Your theory is wrong because I was not lynched, and yet, I am town.
Again, you have no idea how I play, what my history is, etc., but you try and act like you know how I play. You don't. You have no clue how I react to suspicion. You have no idea how often I am lynched-- and when I am, under which circumstances. You know nothing, yet act like you do.
I was surprised I was almost lynched. You are surprised I wasn't? That's nice, but kind of irrelevant for you to say when:
1)Your suspicion of me is based on Epig's meta-case of which you have no ability to test yourself
and
2)It's Day 1. Things change rapidly. It was a four-way tie. I am not an inanimate object. I can speak. I think you were hoping I wouldn't.

I would agree that the case against you is BS, Dom, but that might because I'm less familiar with your meta than some of the people that are on it. Could you give us some more of your reads, perhaps? Such as who you most likely will be voting for?

I'll likely be voting in self preservation.
I think Sorsha's vote on me was suspect AF.

Yeah, but like, maybe other reads that you hadn't already mentioned? Oh dear.

Zebs, mate. Why did you leave your vote on Buglabush when Dom was pinging you at the end? Surely by the end of the poll Dom looked worse to you than the low content lurky silly poster?

Mischaracterization if I've ever seen it.
ONCE again you do not have any grasp on my gameplay, but seem to think you are quite qualified to say I was a "low content lurky silly" player.
Let me prove to you how wrong you are.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p189740
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 48#p189948
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 55#p190055
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 42#p190142
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p190240
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 75#p190275

These are my posts on Night 0/Day 1 I found relevant. I think that these have content. I think these show a Dom that has been wary of you from the start. I think that these posts show you are a liar.

Also, you have balls criticizing ME for being "silly" when your entire Day 0 existence was built around wanting Matt F dead for no reason.

I'm so sorry I missed the vote! Thursdays are utterly horrible for me.

I'm trying to catch up on all the wacky shenanigans so far, but this game's posts feel a lot more chaotic than usual. So far all I have is that I think Dom is reading civ, but the votes for Banana were kind of pingy. Also I do think it odd that Bubbles didn't say she's a civ, since it's her trademark at this point.

Pingy as fuck.

Do you suspect anyone who agrees with you on any issues?

Dom, SVS, Floyd, Bea ... no need to thank me.

You are so laughably inconsistent.

Bea isn't even playing this game

This actually intrigues me.


MacDougall-- what is this a list of?

It's a list of scum reads I have that I mixed up between the games because it was late and I'd been trying hard to follow two games, so fucking sue me.

Your post is an opportunistic attempt to discredit me.

No.
My post illuminates how hypocritical you are. My post shows how you have an excuse for everything you suspect other people for doing.

First you said I was "disinterested" because I posted less than you'd like (but you have nothing to compare it to...so....). When that didn't work you switched tactics to calling me "low content", "silly", and "lurky". That is not how I think ANYONE would describe my play.

Why is your excuse of "I'm busy" less valid than mine? I work three jobs, take 6 classes, am in a play, and try and have a social life in my senior year at college. Why is that any less valid than "I'm on a roadtrip"?
Now, I'm not trying to imply that you couldn't be given any slack. You could. But you don't want to hand out the SAME slack to me because it's not politically expedient for you to do so.

If I voted right now, I would vote for MacDoughall or Sorsahl

And why aren't you?

Because I don't like voting early? Are you my mom?

Let me get one thing clear. I voted for you because it was the best case made among candidates. It stayed because your nervous late game and counterwagons made me feel assured about my vote.

Secondly explain to the civilian intent of dismissing my posts with childish super defensive snark such as that last sentence. That's just unpleasant.

[MacDougall]

First, Mac, I would like to say the following:
1) You do not know me nor do you know my game.
2) You are relying on a case of meta-play (that you don't reference anymore) to say I am bad when you have not an inkling of a clue of what my meta-play is.

On the front of your mix-up, I brought it up because it's pretty clear to me you don't actually think I'm bad. It's pretty clear to me you are looking for easy people to lynch. Why was I on the same list as Bea? Because you don't care who is actually on that list.

Dom vote for me. Surely you must think I am scummier than Banana.

Do you have a vote manip on your team?

I'm not sure what roles the other townies have Dom.

Surely you know what I'm implying here. Why so concerned I was voting to make sure I didn't die? Why was that weird to you that I voting to ensure my survival?

Your team doubled down on me. There was no way for you and Sorsha to pull out. Now you have to make it a full blown case against me. You were hoping I'd die so I coudln't speak out against you later.
Wrong-o.

What a travesty.

No, it was kind of a Policy Lynch, wasn't it? Lynching a civview who WAS participating, now THAT would have been a travesty, Mr. Hyperbole Words.

He made two posts, one of them an incredibly opportunistic vote.

And feel free to not validate me~ I am self validating

Now, if Dom was town. Do you think he would have been lynched? I do. I think if Dom was town, the scum would have hit his wagon hard. Of the three opportunities there he was clearly the more experienced player. Considering there were various votes made late day for very skewiff reasons they could have easily just thrown a vote on there and been done with it.

No, I would not have. Your theory is wrong because I was not lynched, and yet, I am town.
Again, you have no idea how I play, what my history is, etc., but you try and act like you know how I play. You don't. You have no clue how I react to suspicion. You have no idea how often I am lynched-- and when I am, under which circumstances. You know nothing, yet act like you do.
I was surprised I was almost lynched. You are surprised I wasn't? That's nice, but kind of irrelevant for you to say when:
1)Your suspicion of me is based on Epig's meta-case of which you have no ability to test yourself
and
2)It's Day 1. Things change rapidly. It was a four-way tie. I am not an inanimate object. I can speak. I think you were hoping I wouldn't.

I would agree that the case against you is BS, Dom, but that might because I'm less familiar with your meta than some of the people that are on it. Could you give us some more of your reads, perhaps? Such as who you most likely will be voting for?

I'll likely be voting in self preservation.
I think Sorsha's vote on me was suspect AF.

Yeah, but like, maybe other reads that you hadn't already mentioned? Oh dear.

Zebs, mate. Why did you leave your vote on Buglabush when Dom was pinging you at the end? Surely by the end of the poll Dom looked worse to you than the low content lurky silly poster?

Mischaracterization if I've ever seen it.
ONCE again you do not have any grasp on my gameplay, but seem to think you are quite qualified to say I was a "low content lurky silly" player.
Let me prove to you how wrong you are.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p189740
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 48#p189948
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 55#p190055
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 42#p190142
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p190240
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 75#p190275

These are my posts on Night 0/Day 1 I found relevant. I think that these have content. I think these show a Dom that has been wary of you from the start. I think that these posts show you are a liar.

Also, you have balls criticizing ME for being "silly" when your entire Day 0 existence was built around wanting Matt F dead for no reason.

I'm so sorry I missed the vote! Thursdays are utterly horrible for me.

I'm trying to catch up on all the wacky shenanigans so far, but this game's posts feel a lot more chaotic than usual. So far all I have is that I think Dom is reading civ, but the votes for Banana were kind of pingy. Also I do think it odd that Bubbles didn't say she's a civ, since it's her trademark at this point.

Pingy as fuck.

Do you suspect anyone who agrees with you on any issues?

Dom, SVS, Floyd, Bea ... no need to thank me.

You are so laughably inconsistent.

Bea isn't even playing this game

This actually intrigues me.


MacDougall-- what is this a list of?

It's a list of scum reads I have that I mixed up between the games because it was late and I'd been trying hard to follow two games, so fucking sue me.

Your post is an opportunistic attempt to discredit me.

No.
My post illuminates how hypocritical you are. My post shows how you have an excuse for everything you suspect other people for doing.

First you said I was "disinterested" because I posted less than you'd like (but you have nothing to compare it to...so....). When that didn't work you switched tactics to calling me "low content", "silly", and "lurky". That is not how I think ANYONE would describe my play.

Why is your excuse of "I'm busy" less valid than mine? I work three jobs, take 6 classes, am in a play, and try and have a social life in my senior year at college. Why is that any less valid than "I'm on a roadtrip"?
Now, I'm not trying to imply that you couldn't be given any slack. You could. But you don't want to hand out the SAME slack to me because it's not politically expedient for you to do so.

If I voted right now, I would vote for MacDoughall or Sorsahl

And why aren't you?

Because I don't like voting early? Are you my mom?

Let me get one thing clear. I voted for you because it was the best case made among candidates. It stayed because your nervous late game and counterwagons made me feel assured about my vote.

Secondly explain to the civilian intent of dismissing my posts with childish super defensive snark such as that last sentence. That's just unpleasant.

Yawn. Dom you play like an asshole.

[HamburgerBoy]

"Currently" just means "at present", which is clearly the case if we're talking about the most recent nightkill, even if it was only a single one. Not to mention that it assumes a scumteam made some kind of mandate that they are going to exclusively kill low-posters in the future; I seriously doubt a scumteam would be that inflexible. That case looks like a forced "scumslip" that rarely actually catches someone, and from what I can tell, people have a habit of doing it to sig with poor results. Note that Long Con, who flipped scum day 2, was going after sig for that.

This is an interesting perspective Hamburger Boy. Have you seen this done to sig other than the one time you point out with Long Con?

Others jumped on it too that game, including people like Epi. Actually, technically it started as one of Matt F's theories he's apparently known for; Long Con was jumping onto it, so that might make me eyeball DFaraday and fingersplints more thoroughly, were I not already suspicious of Bullzeye.

I'd have to refresh on the Frisky Dingo game, my only other game with sig, and while I remember him getting some flack for his often neutral-tone posts, I don't think people tried forcing a scumslip there. He made it to the end, anyways.

[MacDougall]

Hey HB. Is Dom as much of a douchebag in btsc?

[S~V~S]

Rude.

[sig]

"Currently" just means "at present", which is clearly the case if we're talking about the most recent nightkill, even if it was only a single one. Not to mention that it assumes a scumteam made some kind of mandate that they are going to exclusively kill low-posters in the future; I seriously doubt a scumteam would be that inflexible. That case looks like a forced "scumslip" that rarely actually catches someone, and from what I can tell, people have a habit of doing it to sig with poor results. Note that Long Con, who flipped scum day 2, was going after sig for that.

Thank you, DictionaryBoy, for explaining what currently means :P It's still an odd way to phrase it. If there'd been a few kills in this game so far, it'd make more sense IMO. In my experience baddies often do make specific plans for how they're going to kill, by no means set in stone but as a "if we don't need to kill anyone in particular we may as well kill a low poster". Saying "the baddies are currently killing low posters so Timmer's death is unsurprising" doesn't make sense given that the baddies of this game weren't 'currently' doing anything until they killed Timmer. It was just something that caught my eye, but the fact that so many other people seem to agree with me makes me more confident. Especially when this is at least the second time I've noticed you defending Sig this game.

Linki - nice NO U there. I have other suspicions than you and wasn't necessarily going to vote for you today, but keep digging that hole.

Many people seem to agree with you, why does that give you confidence it is an easy thing for a baddie to leach onto so maybe they are just preparing for a wagon. Even ignoring that what other wording would you'd have used? They are killing low poster? Right know, it seems. Any way I would have phrased it could be seen as scummy since I addressed Timmer death instead of just saying RIP or "why would the mafia do that" I'm one of the few who provided a reason for why scum might have done that from there you could investigated with meta who potential might have called the shot on Timmer.

It isn't a no you in fact that linki of yours make it more likely your mafia. You're trying to dismiss my suspicion of you thus making it seem scummy for anyone to think your mafia. Part of the reason I think your mafia is your suspicion of me yes, but the way you phrased it and the method of your attack not to mention your above post.

[HamburgerBoy]

Thank you, DictionaryBoy, for explaining what currently means :P It's still an odd way to phrase it. If there'd been a few kills in this game so far, it'd make more sense IMO. In my experience baddies often do make specific plans for how they're going to kill, by no means set in stone but as a "if we don't need to kill anyone in particular we may as well kill a low poster". Saying "the baddies are currently killing low posters so Timmer's death is unsurprising" doesn't make sense given that the baddies of this game weren't 'currently' doing anything until they killed Timmer. It was just something that caught my eye, but the fact that so many other people seem to agree with me makes me more confident. Especially when this is at least the second time I've noticed you defending Sig this game.

Linki - nice NO U there. I have other suspicions than you and wasn't necessarily going to vote for you today, but keep digging that hole.

First, he didn't use the word "unsurprising" in that post. Second, he was referencing previous games (Frisky Dingo) where mafia target low-post players as precedent.

[LoRab]

Can we please keep personal insults out of the game? Thanks.

[LoRab]

RIP Banana and RIPIYWG Timmer. Sorry for missing the vote and general absence. Will try to be more around from here on out.

I like the points about sig, and am interested to hear his response. Lorab's post remarking about Timmer's low posting also bothers me.

Thinking about Timmer's death...and RIPIYWG Timmer of course...two things dawn on me. One is that the mafia team was going for a low poster. Two is that it would seem like good strategy for someone to separate themselves from killing a low poster by talking about how against lynching low posters they are. Just a thought.

Partially because the idea is similar to that of sig's (something discussed in btsc maybe) and this really just feels like trying to set up someone talking about lynching a low poster.

I made my point, as people were discussing Timmer as target, and wanted to share my thoughts and throw something out there. Also, I already suspect Mac, which I've said multiple times, and he's had comments about that, so....

Sig's point, I think, was different. Also, people often add commentary to an idea when an idea has been posted.

And I'm not trying to set anyone up at all. It could also be that the kill was done to set people up who have been talking about it. But the concept hadn't been mentioned, so I wanted to put it out there. I throw ideas out. You've played with me enough that I'd think you'd know that.

[sig]

Just dropping this underlined is one of the times Bulls puts words in my mouth.

Thank you, DictionaryBoy, for explaining what currently means :P It's still an odd way to phrase it. If there'd been a few kills in this game so far, it'd make more sense IMO. In my experience baddies often do make specific plans for how they're going to kill, by no means set in stone but as a "if we don't need to kill anyone in particular we may as well kill a low poster". Saying "the baddies are currently killing low posters so Timmer's death is unsurprising" doesn't make sense given that the baddies of this game weren't 'currently' doing anything until they killed Timmer. It was just something that caught my eye, but the fact that so many other people seem to agree with me makes me more confident. Especially when this is at least the second time I've noticed you defending Sig this game.

Linki - nice NO U there. I have other suspicions than you and wasn't necessarily going to vote for you today, but keep digging that hole.

While I actually said

First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

The phrasing of this post bothers me... There's been one mafia kill all game, so how can you say what they're 'currently' doing? One point isn't even a line, let alone a pattern. It makes it sound to me like you know what the mafia's current plan is.

I don't like this at all, he jumps at me for a wording choice and then twist and even changes what I say to fit his view.

[sig]

@a2thezebra what do you think about Bulls, do youhave any other reasons for voting for Elohcin?

[nutella]

Voting nutella, for an early placeholder. Matt, I think your case holds a lot of merit.

What are you seeing with nutella?

I think Matt F's case against her was well thought out and doesn't look all that great for her.

I'm sorry, what "case"? I think Matt's "case" was more condemning of Sorsha than of me, and his post here more or less confirms that:

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't just your vote for her. It was Sorsha's complete disregard to said vote that got me pinged on this whole thing. I find it curious that some players have looked at you for my case here, but nothing to say about Sorsha. And yes that is odd.

Why were you two, Golden and Dom, so quick to jump on me for something that wasn't even explicitly a case on me, and why did neither of you mention Sorsha at all? What in particular are you suspicious of me for? If it's about my vote for Sorsha, I have already responded to Matt explaining my end of things regarding the vote process. Neither of you acknowledged my response.

Well my wonderful husband took care of candy and decorations so I have a little time on my hands. Nutella, I am currently looking at Matt's case on you and your response plus your posting history.

Please see the underlined in the passage below. What were those odd inconsistencies that you saw in her posts?

@Matt- you might be reading some things into my timing. I couldn't stick around for the last 20 minutes of the vote, I had to get going and was feeling some time pressure. I saw the mention of Sorsha, and looked through her posts, and it really shouldn't surprise you that that took less than eight minutes, since she had so few. But even in those few minutes I saw some odd inconsistencies in her post history that were enough to merit a vote. I do remember there being a tie at the time but I didn't feel like I had any reason to vote for or against any of those people and decided to let it play out, see who would try to save whom. So then I voted for Sorsha right after posting that second post, and then *after* voting I saw the point on Bubbles, and I wanted to wait until I heard back from her and obviously wasn't going to switch my vote then and there, I just thought it was a point worth remarking on.

Hope that clears it up for you. It is quite odd that Sorsha never acknowledged my suspicion of her.

I mentioned this a bit in the post when I decided to vote for her. She had some odd comments regarding the Mac/Matt debate that I found hard to follow. She said a few times that she would only vote for Matt if nothing else came up, but she felt bad/apologetic toward him, and also said that she was more likely to vote for Mac. Then she said she thought it was clear that she wouldn't be voting for Matt. I found this all very confusing and inconsistent, and it looked to me like she was grasping for some little thing to come up so that she would have an excuse not to vote for Matt, and that's why she tagged easily onto the Dom vote.

Now on to her response:

In this^ post it sounds to me like she’s already decided to vote for me based on Dom having a suspicion of me, despite saying THIS about Dom just one post earlier:

No, I had not already decided to vote for you. I noticed that Dom was suspicious of you and remembered seeing your name mentioned a couple times so I was curious and looked through your post history, and found your posts to be suspicious for my own reason. That's no indication of having any particular trust in Dom -- I don't.

I’m pretty sure I never said I would vote for Mac and I did clear up earlier here that I was NOT going to be voting for Matt so I wasn’t looking for an excuse out of anything.

Ah, looking back I might have misread something, you said you *would* be more likely to vote Mac but I think it was in a hypothetical statement. Partially explains my confusion regarding your posts. But I still believe you were inconsistent regarding Matt -- you kept saying that you would possibly vote for him if nothing else came up, just that you would feel bad about it. You apologized to Matt but you never outright said that you would with 100% certainty not vote for him.

I always seem to think Epi is bad and I lately (last three games we have played together) I have been wrong. I did say that I agreed with his points on Dom and I did say that I was getting civ vibes from Mac and felt ok voting along with them so I don’t know how that is considered hedging.

Maybe "hedging" wasn't the right word but you didn't really justify your vote very well. You had been arguing a bit with Epi and then you suddenly say you "wouldn't mind a vote for Dom" and then you went ahead and put a tentative vote on Dom, later justifying it by saying you agreed with Epi's points. It just felt really weak to me.

Nutella is obviously reading my posts... I’m not sure if she’s just twisting it to fit her motive or if its just so weak that it doesn’t come together fully.

Nutella- In one of the posts above you said you’d vote for me or Bug. Why were you considering him? Did you even look over his posts before making the decision on which of the two of us to vote for, or just mine?

Bug had barely posted at all, I didn't even have to look at his posts because they were so few and unsubstantial. He struck me as a particular kind of low poster -- popped in, voted for Zebra without giving a reason, contributed absolutely no content -- that I find annoying and somewhat suspicious but would only vote for him if I had no other suspicions. I forget who said this but it seems likely that he doesn't have any btsc and is just a loner not putting effort into the game. That's basically why I decided not to vote for him -- it was an easy day 1 bandwagon on a low poster who is not actually particularly likely to be bad, and besides I found that I was more suspicious of you.


Linki: I am not liking sig's post at all.

[nutella]

sig's posts* plural, that is

[Bullzeye]

Just dropping this underlined is one of the times Bulls puts words in my mouth.

Thank you, DictionaryBoy, for explaining what currently means :P It's still an odd way to phrase it. If there'd been a few kills in this game so far, it'd make more sense IMO. In my experience baddies often do make specific plans for how they're going to kill, by no means set in stone but as a "if we don't need to kill anyone in particular we may as well kill a low poster". Saying "the baddies are currently killing low posters so Timmer's death is unsurprising" doesn't make sense given that the baddies of this game weren't 'currently' doing anything until they killed Timmer. It was just something that caught my eye, but the fact that so many other people seem to agree with me makes me more confident. Especially when this is at least the second time I've noticed you defending Sig this game.

Linki - nice NO U there. I have other suspicions than you and wasn't necessarily going to vote for you today, but keep digging that hole.

While I actually said

First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

The phrasing of this post bothers me... There's been one mafia kill all game, so how can you say what they're 'currently' doing? One point isn't even a line, let alone a pattern. It makes it sound to me like you know what the mafia's current plan is.

I don't like this at all, he jumps at me for a wording choice and then twist and even changes what I say to fit his view.

I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.

[HamburgerBoy]

I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.

It's relevant because you're trying to create the narrative that it was unsurprising because he knew about the timmer kill before the rest of us did. You're willfully ignoring the context of that post, where golden had described the kill as "very odd". Some people found it surprising, so he provided his explanation for why he didn't.

[LoRab]

Just dropping this underlined is one of the times Bulls puts words in my mouth.

Thank you, DictionaryBoy, for explaining what currently means :P It's still an odd way to phrase it. If there'd been a few kills in this game so far, it'd make more sense IMO. In my experience baddies often do make specific plans for how they're going to kill, by no means set in stone but as a "if we don't need to kill anyone in particular we may as well kill a low poster". Saying "the baddies are currently killing low posters so Timmer's death is unsurprising" doesn't make sense given that the baddies of this game weren't 'currently' doing anything until they killed Timmer. It was just something that caught my eye, but the fact that so many other people seem to agree with me makes me more confident. Especially when this is at least the second time I've noticed you defending Sig this game.

Linki - nice NO U there. I have other suspicions than you and wasn't necessarily going to vote for you today, but keep digging that hole.

While I actually said

First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

The phrasing of this post bothers me... There's been one mafia kill all game, so how can you say what they're 'currently' doing? One point isn't even a line, let alone a pattern. It makes it sound to me like you know what the mafia's current plan is.

I don't like this at all, he jumps at me for a wording choice and then twist and even changes what I say to fit his view.

A paraphrase is not the same as twisting words or putting words in one's mouth. Having also found your post pingy, I'm not sure what your point even is. What he says is what your point was--and that seems like you knew how the baddies are strategizing.

Also, why is Hamburger Boy defending you? And with almost the same words?

Anyone know if HB is the kind of player to defend a teammate?

[a2thezebra]

Welcome to my world, sig. Except oh wait...your post right here demonstrates that he actually did not put words in your mouth. Just because he didn't quote you word-for-word doesn't mean that he misrepresented what you said, and I think what you said is a scumslip and your most recent post is a desperate attempt to make it look otherwise, which re-affirms that suspicion.

sig

[Bullzeye]

I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.

It's relevant because you're trying to create the narrative that it was unsurprising because he knew about the timmer kill before the rest of us did. You're willfully ignoring the context of that post, where golden had described the kill as "very odd". Some people found it surprising, so he provided his explanation for why he didn't.

That isn't what I'm doing at all. What I'm saying is his explanation doesn't add up. His comments implied an observable pattern to the baddies' actions that does not exist in this game. You and he are majorly overreacting to the suspicion that the comment brought on, which gives me cause to suspect both of you even more.

[HamburgerBoy]

Also, why is Hamburger Boy defending you? And with almost the same words?

Anyone know if HB is the kind of player to defend a teammate?

I defended him the exact same way during Talking Heads, and even put him at the top of my rainbow for good measure on the feeling that scum almost never gets hit by weak "scumslip" accusations. There have been plenty of cases on RYM where I defend players because I feel they are being targeted for minor things (scumslips, low post count, etc), in multiple games. And it's not altruistic, I think that scumslip arguments are lazy and distract players from trying to find real scum.

[sig]

Not finding the death strange means it wasn't strange I wasn't shocked as some pretend to be. However, when he says unsurprised it takes a new dimension to it imo. Finding it not strange as I said means it isn't weird being unsurprised means I have foreknowledge of the event. The wording while slight has very different implications.

[HamburgerBoy]

I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.

It's relevant because you're trying to create the narrative that it was unsurprising because he knew about the timmer kill before the rest of us did. You're willfully ignoring the context of that post, where golden had described the kill as "very odd". Some people found it surprising, so he provided his explanation for why he didn't.

That isn't what I'm doing at all. What I'm saying is his explanation doesn't add up. His comments implied an observable pattern to the baddies' actions that does not exist in this game. You and he are majorly overreacting to the suspicion that the comment brought on, which gives me cause to suspect both of you even more.

That entire argument is based on his use of the word "currently". Do I have to be DictionaryBoy again? "Currently" does not inherently make a statement of what has happened previously. If you're going to make a semantic argument to lynch a player, make sure that you at least get it right.

[Bullzeye]

Also, why is Hamburger Boy defending you? And with almost the same words?

Anyone know if HB is the kind of player to defend a teammate?

I defended him the exact same way during Talking Heads, and even put him at the top of my rainbow for good measure on the feeling that scum almost never gets hit by weak "scumslip" accusations. There have been plenty of cases on RYM where I defend players because I feel they are being targeted for minor things (scumslips, low post count, etc), in multiple games. And it's not altruistic, I think that scumslip arguments are lazy and distract players from trying to find real scum.

It's not just the slip though, it's his reaction too. Not to mention your continued defense. If he does turn out to be a baddie, I'll be voting for you next.

Linki - So you think someone who claimed to have been surprised by Timmer's death was lying? Meaning they knew in advance he'd be killed? Who?

Also you literally say not finding it strange means you weren't shocked. Shocked and surprised mean the same thing unless you're talking about electricity.

[Bullzeye]

I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.

It's relevant because you're trying to create the narrative that it was unsurprising because he knew about the timmer kill before the rest of us did. You're willfully ignoring the context of that post, where golden had described the kill as "very odd". Some people found it surprising, so he provided his explanation for why he didn't.

That isn't what I'm doing at all. What I'm saying is his explanation doesn't add up. His comments implied an observable pattern to the baddies' actions that does not exist in this game. You and he are majorly overreacting to the suspicion that the comment brought on, which gives me cause to suspect both of you even more.

That entire argument is based on his use of the word "currently". Do I have to be DictionaryBoy again? "Currently" does not inherently make a statement of what has happened previously. If you're going to make a semantic argument to lynch a player, make sure that you at least get it right.

My argument for Sig being bad is now based on his reaction to the argument that he might have had prior knowledge of the baddies plans based on his use of the word "currently". While it is a fine word to have used, and does indeed simply mean at the present time, it still suggests that there is something in progress. Timmer is the only person to have been NKed so far. To say that the baddies are 'currently killing low posters' based on that information is as accurate as saying they're currently killing people whose names begin with T, or are planning to eliminate all the men.

[sig]

Just as I said in my last post this was the same way LC tried to get me lynched and many others in the past.Bulls is know using the threat that if I'm bad they will lynch HB next in an attempt to get HB to stop defending me. This is a very typical scum threat when someone opposes a lynch.

linki: Your know just being foolish, why would either of your things make sense. It is a logical thought especially for day 1, are you saying I would make such a scum slip, and in said slip reveal the mafia plan to only kill low posters? I'm quite insulted you think my scum play would be that bad.

[HamburgerBoy]

So what is it about his reaction that particularly pinged you? He didn't even reply until three people suddenly bandwagoned your case within a single hour. Your response to his reply was literally "nice NO U there" when he actually asked specific questions pertaining to the case on him.

[Bullzeye]

Just as I said in my last post this was the same way LC tried to get me lynched and many others in the past.Bulls is know using the threat that if I'm bad they will lynch HB next in an attempt to get HB to stop defending me. This is a very typical scum threat when someone opposes a lynch.

linki: Your know just being foolish, why would either of your things make sense. It is a logical thought especially for day 1, are you saying I would make such a scum slip, and in said slip reveal the mafia plan to only kill low posters? I'm quite insulted you think my scum play would be that bad.

HB is welcome to defend you all he likes. I'm just saying that he should know what to expect.

Neither of those things make sense, that is true. But your point makes as much sense as they do, there is the same amount of supporting evidence for each one. Which is why your comment is a strange one to have made for someone who doesn't have access to what the baddies are planning. The feigned offense is also a classic baddie move. I've got it perfected.

[LoRab]

Also, why is Hamburger Boy defending you? And with almost the same words?

Anyone know if HB is the kind of player to defend a teammate?

I defended him the exact same way during Talking Heads, and even put him at the top of my rainbow for good measure on the feeling that scum almost never gets hit by weak "scumslip" accusations. There have been plenty of cases on RYM where I defend players because I feel they are being targeted for minor things (scumslips, low post count, etc), in multiple games. And it's not altruistic, I think that scumslip arguments are lazy and distract players from trying to find real scum.

I'd rather have folks other than you tell me that you've done that. Some players defend teammates, others do not. And, come to think of it, you don't even answer the question here--you just say how you defended sig (and other players). My question was about defending a baddie teammate.

And I've seen many, many games where baddies were found based on a slip. Or (especially as host) where baddies slip and weren't called out and slided for a long time. I don't use the term scum in mafia games, so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie, instead. Slips have been happening for as long as I've played mafia--and I can think of many, many, more examples of when they have, indeed, been slips than when they have not.

Not finding the death strange means it wasn't strange I wasn't shocked as some pretend to be. However, when he says unsurprised it takes a new dimension to it imo. Finding it not strange as I said means it isn't weird being unsurprised means I have foreknowledge of the event. The wording while slight has very different implications.

They mean the same thing. You weren't shocked is literally the definition of you were unsurprised.

And, yes, the interpretation of your lack of shock is that it made you seem bad. I'm not sure that the reading was inaccurate. And that you still seem to insist that you didn't say what Bullz said you said...well, that's just not true.

[Bullzeye]

So what is it about his reaction that particularly pinged you? He didn't even reply until three people suddenly bandwagoned your case within a single hour. Your response to his reply was literally "nice NO U there" when he actually asked specific questions pertaining to the case on him.

Okay so first there's you responding to the suspicion for him: Comes off as potentially a defense from a teammate.

Then there's the fact that rather than simply address the suspicion he immediately went to "the person suspecting me is a baddie".

Referring to me as "attacking him".

Claiming I was twisting his words by using a synonym.

Going as far as to play the classic "you must think I'm stupid" card.

He has scrambled to take the case against him and twist it into his own argument for me being a baddie trying to set him up. You are his stalwart protector, guarding him at every turn. It just doesn't look good on either of you.

[sig]

I am seeing the difference . When people in the thread pretend to be so shocked by his death. This is more scummy then myself not being shocked by it and I still say there is a difference. it is very small wording but paraphrasing what I said in a way that appears to make what I said slightly more scummy is pingy.
"so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie" You seem to be acting slightly inmature here. baddie scum it is the same changing my words right after quoting me isn't. Especially when Bull's argument revolves around a SPECIFIC word, if Bulls argument is based on that which it is then yes it does matter when later in trying to get me lynched he says I said something I didn't say. That you fail to comprehend the importance when Bulls whole argument is based around my wording is strange.

[HamburgerBoy]

I'd rather have folks other than you tell me that you've done that. Some players defend teammates, others do not. And, come to think of it, you don't even answer the question here--you just say how you defended sig (and other players). My question was about defending a baddie teammate.

And I've seen many, many games where baddies were found based on a slip. Or (especially as host) where baddies slip and weren't called out and slided for a long time. I don't use the term scum in mafia games, so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie, instead. Slips have been happening for as long as I've played mafia--and I can think of many, many, more examples of when they have, indeed, been slips than when they have not.

Fair enough, although you should realize that I probably don't have much of a reputation here. I didn't do much my Frisky Dingo game, got NK'd night 1 in Talking Heads (my alignment hasn't been revealed there yet), and here I am now. Mac is old school and I've barely played any games with him on RYM; zebra, maybe a few, although none where I was scum.

This was my first scum game ever. Strawhenge died too early to defend, Turnip I attempted to bus to save myself and ended up getting both of us lynched, and rdw I had plenty of arguments with. This was my second scum game ever, and while the set-up is a bit complicated to describe exactly how things went down (I had multiple alignments and the game spanned four or five different threads), I bussed rdw and led his lynch that game. My other scummates I couldn't interact with because they were in an alternative dimension. Obviously I don't expect those names to all mean very much to you, but if anyone wants to dispute those things, feel free.

For what it's worth I actually did scumslip in that latter game; I got away with it, but it can happen. My scumslip was something much worse than using a slightly-odd word, though (basically I leaked information that I didn't know town lacked).

[Bullzeye]

I am seeing the difference . When people in the thread pretend to be so shocked by his death. This is more scummy then myself not being shocked by it and I still say there is a difference. it is very small wording but paraphrasing what I said in a way that appears to make what I said slightly more scummy is pingy.
"so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie" You seem to be acting slightly inmature here. baddie scum it is the same changing my words right after quoting me isn't. Especially when Bull's argument revolves around a SPECIFIC word, if Bulls argument is based on that which it is then yes it does matter when later in trying to get me lynched he says I said something I didn't say. That you fail to comprehend the importance when Bulls whole argument is based around my wording is strange.

Okay you said shocked instead of surprised, but unless you meant to say "I was not electrocuted as a result of Timmer's death" then it's quite fair to rephrase your shock as surprise. The difference between baddie and scum in a mafia sense really is the same as the difference between shocked and surprised.

shock
verb
past tense: shocked; past participle: shocked
1.
cause (someone) to feel surprised and upset.

I don't think it makes you appear any more or less scummy if I refer to you being surprised rather than shocked at something

[a2thezebra]

Stupid fucking English language is going to cost us the game lmao

[MacDougall]

It's not a personal insult when he is playing a bad guy in a a game. I am sure he is lovely.

[a2thezebra]

I am sure you are lovely too, Mac.

[Bullzeye]

Stupid fucking English language is going to cost us the game lmao

"Us"?





I'm just kidding :P

for now

[HamburgerBoy]

Okay so first there's you responding to the suspicion for him: Comes off as potentially a defense from a teammate.

Then there's the fact that rather than simply address the suspicion he immediately went to "the person suspecting me is a baddie".

Referring to me as "attacking him".

Claiming I was twisting his words by using a synonym.

Going as far as to play the classic "you must think I'm stupid" card.

He has scrambled to take the case against him and twist it into his own argument for me being a baddie trying to set him up. You are his stalwart protector, guarding him at every turn. It just doesn't look good on either of you.

My defense has nothing to do with his reaction, that's not an answer.

You are attacking him, just as I am attacking you now. That's how you build cases and lynches in the game.

The other points seem valid in this kind of an argument. You are taking a couple of words he used and trying to make them into grounds for suspicion. If he flips civvie, how do you think that will make your case look, if it is discovered he had no special insight?

[a2thezebra]

Stupid fucking English language is going to cost us the game lmao

"Us"?





I'm just kidding :P

for now

Yeah. Us. The civilians. The implication of my post is that baddies will take advantage of us, the civvies, getting caught up with exact word definitions while they sit back and puff Cali shit. Are you saying you're not one of us, Bullzeye?

I'm not kidding.

[sig]

Zebra usage of the word Us means obviously she is on the mafia team.
No civ would use such wording instead they would say townie or the civs.

Zebra on the other hand using the wording of our team obviously means she is mafia and made a word slip

[Bullzeye]

Okay so first there's you responding to the suspicion for him: Comes off as potentially a defense from a teammate.

Then there's the fact that rather than simply address the suspicion he immediately went to "the person suspecting me is a baddie".

Referring to me as "attacking him".

Claiming I was twisting his words by using a synonym.

Going as far as to play the classic "you must think I'm stupid" card.

He has scrambled to take the case against him and twist it into his own argument for me being a baddie trying to set him up. You are his stalwart protector, guarding him at every turn. It just doesn't look good on either of you.

My defense has nothing to do with his reaction, that's not an answer.

You are attacking him, just as I am attacking you now. That's how you build cases and lynches in the game.

The other points seem valid in this kind of an argument. You are taking a couple of words he used and trying to make them into grounds for suspicion. If he flips civvie, how do you think that will make your case look, if it is discovered he had no special insight?

If he is a civ, it will be a shame for him to be lynched. However, I alone will not be responsible for such a thing. I've not even voted yet. I'm probably going to vote Sig when I do, yes, but unless everyone else's vote doesn't count mine alone won't kill him. Plenty of people are wrong in their suspicions every game. I think the case against Sig is strong, and if he flips civ it will still have been a strong case. A wrong case, yes, but not one that was inherently bad.

I don't think he is a civ though. I think he is bad for his reaction and for the fact that you are so adamantly defending him despite having no obvious reason to do so. I don't think his points have any validity to them. He acts as if I'm doing some terrible malicious thing by replacing a word with one of its synonyms and claims I'm a nitpicking baddie all because I'd made one post saying his choice of words looked strange.

Linki - I'm one of the civs. I was making a joke because "us" could refer to any of the factions at play here.

[sig]

This isn't my thoughts but is basically the same as Bulls argument on me I just substituted the situation.

Notice In my third line I said Zebra said our team instead of us this is basically the same by definition but just different enough to make it seem slightly more sinister.

linki: Notices Bull's has already set up there defense for when I flip civ? Just the right amount of remorse while already pinning the blame on the other people who might vote for me and even though Bulls is the one pushing my wagon it won't be their fault. This is a strong case no matter how I flip so even when I flip civ it won't mattersince my case was strong, I wasn't the first to vote for him, and it will be to bad.

Three things scum so commonly say when trying to lynch a civ, also another point Bulls says he isn't the first to vote for me this is true, however he is the one pushing my lynch and is waiting until it gains enough steam to vote on it. This stops Bulls from looking as scummy. His whole posts reeks of scummyness he has just pre lynch given his reason for why he won't be a baddie when I flip civ. This doesn't seem strange that Bull's is already defending his vote on me as if I already flipped civ and he is in the hotseat for pushing a civ wagon>

[a2thezebra]

Zebra usage of the word Us means obviously she is on the mafia team.
No civ would use such wording instead they would say townie or the civs.

Zebra on the other hand using the wording of our team obviously means she is mafia and made a word slip

OUR team? If I slipped, you just revealed yourself as my teammate lmao.

[sig]

I'm pointing out that my post makes as much sense as Bulls first post about me. In fact I could say your response just furthered my belief that you're mafia since the tone/way you responded to my accusations.

Which isn't the case since these post are meant to prove a point.

[Bullzeye]

This isn't my thoughts but is basically the same as Bulls argument on me I just substituted the situation.

Notice In my third line I said Zebra said our team instead of us this is basically the same by definition but just different enough to make it seem slightly more sinister.

linki: Notices Bull's has already set up there defense for when I flip civ? Just the right amount of remorse while already pinning the blame on the other people who might vote for me and even though Bulls is the one pushing my wagon it won't be their fault. This is a strong case no matter how I flip so even when I flip civ it won't mattersince my case was strong, I wasn't the first to vote for him, and it will be to bad.

Three things scum so commonly say when trying to lynch a civ, also another point Bulls says he isn't the first to vote for me this is true, however he is the one pushing my lynch and is waiting until it gains enough steam to vote on it. This stops Bulls from looking as scummy. His whole posts reeks of scummyness he has just pre lynch given his reason for why he won't be a baddie when I flip civ. This doesn't seem strange that Bull's is already defending his vote on me as if I already flipped civ and he is in the hotseat for pushing a civ wagon>

I'm not defending my vote I was responding to a hypothetical situation. I'm not pushing this case. I'm defending it from your attempts to twist it and make me out to be bad. If other people see what I'm seeing they're welcome to follow me in a vote. I think you're bad. If I'm wrong I will admit to having been wrong and will accept whatever consequence people deem necessary but I won't pretend that being wrong makes me bad. I'm not waiting for anything to gain steam. I'll vote you now if you like.

*Votes Sig*

The reason I'd held off on voting, and the reason I almost always do, is because I like to wait til near the end of lynches to cast my vote. It comes from years of playing games where votes can't be changed, so my mindset is that before I commit to anything I'd like to have seen as much discussion as possible and taken advantage of the available time to weigh my options. Even though I know changeable votes are practically the norm now, I still can't shake the attitude. Old habits.

[a2thezebra]

This isn't my thoughts but is basically the same as Bulls argument on me I just substituted the situation.

The more you say sig, the more I like my vote where it is.

[a2thezebra]

Also, I am 100% positive sig never would have pointed out the "us" thing to try and make me look bad if Bullz hadn't already done so as a maybe-but-not-really-joke. It's debatable as to whether or not civvies say "us", it's not debatable that civvies never resort to opportunistic derails of other players based on nothing whatsoever, to distract from their own poor defenses of the case against themselves.

[sig]

Zebra I don't have much off an opinion on you right know I will ISO and have one tomorrow. I'm not sure about you, but today wouldn't be a good day to vote for you would it.

I still think Bulls is mafia, but I would like other peoples thoughts on matter both this and non related.
@Turnip head, Epi, and Matt what are your views on Zebra and Bulls?

I'd also like to point out I think Bulls has know placed a vote on me based around my previous post. I think I was completely right about his post and he is trying to make it seem like this isn't true by know placing a vote.

linki: Zebra I don't thing you understand me pointing out the Us thing at all. Iim NOT trying to get you lynched by saying that I am showing how absurd it is. My point is that it is so stupid and makes no sense since it takes a simply word and twists it to mean something it doesn't which is the same thing bulls did do my post. Then any response given will be bad since he is lynching me with no case but based off of a little word. There is no way to properly defend yourself when there is no case and everything I've said in my defense has been shot down by people who want me lynched. Since I'm either reacting wrongly, or my tone is based or my defense is weak.

So tell me how should I have responded? Should I have ignored Bulls then I would be accused of scum for ignoring his case.
I change my mind about the early post I think both Bulls and Zebra are scum.

[LoRab]

I am seeing the difference . When people in the thread pretend to be so shocked by his death. This is more scummy then myself not being shocked by it and I still say there is a difference. it is very small wording but paraphrasing what I said in a way that appears to make what I said slightly more scummy is pingy.
"so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie" You seem to be acting slightly inmature here. baddie scum it is the same changing my words right after quoting me isn't. Especially when Bull's argument revolves around a SPECIFIC word, if Bulls argument is based on that which it is then yes it does matter when later in trying to get me lynched he says I said something I didn't say. That you fail to comprehend the importance when Bulls whole argument is based around my wording is strange.

There is no difference. I found the same think suspish as Bullz did and your subsequent posts have made it seem worse. His point was not based on word use, it was the gist of what you said. And people may have been surprised at the kill without "pretending." I disagree that there is a difference--and those who posted suprise may also be bad. But you seem more bad.

And I was making a joke with the word twisting. I'm likely older than you, so please don't call me immature, because that's just insulting.. My joke was making the point that baddie means the same thing as some people mean when they say scum (I will never like that term in mafia, but it's just how I was mafia raised)...just like unsurprised and not shocked mean the same thing. And I don't even get how you'd see that as immature. Or maybe you're defining immature difrerenly than my understanding of it.

It's not a personal insult when he is playing a bad guy in a a game. I am sure he is lovely.

Your posts were more personal than that. "You play like an asshole," and, "[is he} this much of a douchebag in BTSC," are both personally insulting a player, not the player in that role. In the mafia world that I play in (and that I believe this forum is part of), personal insults aren't part of the game.

linkitis: I recall that Black Rock was once lynched based on an "us" thing--and she was bad. Pretty sure that was BR. Just saying.