Mafia: A World Reborn Game Thread - Game Over

[MacDougall]

I am gonna change my vote to sigalicious.

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

Yeah, I already said that the bandwagoners look just as bad. I don't think you can call it a strong case if it turns out invalid though. If this was RYM where infodumping was considered legit and you said you cop'd him, that would be strong even if it turned out you were a naive cop or etc. If this was later in the game and sig had a long history of voting to save mafia, it would be strong even if it turned out he was just very unlucky. With this case, it's very single-minded, drawing on just two closely related targets (a poor word use, and defense of said word use). Note that even though I don't have much experience with sig, I'm at least trying to bring up meta which I think should be done in a case like this, especially early game where there isn't as much info to build a rock-solid case. I've also noted that you and virtually everyone else (except Juliets and LoRab) has blown off my point there.

[Matt]

sig, I always think Bullz is bad but I'm not really feeling this debate between you guys. I can see Bullz point but then he loses me when he starts accusing HB, sooo.

As for Zebra, did you ever get back to me on this post, Zebra? If so I apologize but I can't seem to find it...

nutella, explain to me what you mean by "pseudo-random" and then tell me why she shouldn't be my number one suspect. I have played with her before and granted, it's been a while, but I am familiar enough with her meta to understand how lightheartedly she plays, which is why I made clear that if her throwaway vote was on a throwaway candidate, or even herself, I could understand. But Banana, after two votes at that point? Hell no. That is inexcusable.

Per the underline, i find it interesting you say that because...

I believe that a self-vote is a mortal sin in any mafia game.

Explain?

[Bullzeye]

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.

I voted you because I hadn't voted for you yet. I'd have voted you before going to bed anyway. You just asked for it (in a figurative sense, before you accuse me of twisting your words again) and sped the process up by like an hour.

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.

I think she is right that ridiculing the case against you is not a civ move. The reason your defenses are being shot down is that your defenses don't address the suspicion properly. Rather than acknowledge that the overall meaning of your post can be interpreted as if you had accidentally revealed baddie plans, you twist it around and make it about the meanings of individual words as well as accusing your accusers of being bad based purely on them suspecting you.

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.

Ignoring me would've made me bring the case back up and ask you for comments directly. If you'd have continued to ignore me I'd have strongly considered voting for you. Immediately NO Uing me had the same effect. There are ways you could have approached this case - calmer, more reasonable ways. You didn't choose those ways.

Linki HB - Meta is only worth so much in cases based on something that was potentially an unintended slip. The whole point of the suspicion begins with the idea Sig said something he wasn't supposed to say, without thinking of the consequences. You can't really use intentional past actions to dispute that IMO.

Matt - I'm only accusing HB if Sig is also bad. Even you can't deny it's weird to be so strongly invested in the continued existence of someone whose alignment he shouldn't be able to know.

[HamburgerBoy]

Linki HB - Meta is only worth so much in cases based on something that was potentially an unintended slip. The whole point of the suspicion begins with the idea Sig said something he wasn't supposed to say, without thinking of the consequences. You can't really use intentional past actions to dispute that IMO.

But what happens if it's a player that often has minor slip ups with the English language, and is routinely lynched for unintended slips? I'm saying that this day 1 is shaping up just like Talking Heads' day 1. It's absolutely relevant to consider meta here.

[MacDougall]

I would rather lynch SVS or Dom but Sig works.

[HamburgerBoy]

And no, I'm more divested in seeing Mac lynched. I gave my case on him, others have tried arguing with him, and now he's straight-up being uncooperative. I don't see him as town and now see about 5 other people jumping on sig due to your case, and don't want to see a decent lynch fall to a lazy one.

Oh, and this day 2 I mean, you know what I meant.

[MacDougall]

And no, I'm more divested in seeing Mac lynched. I gave my case on him, others have tried arguing with him, and now he's straight-up being uncooperative. I don't see him as town and now see about 5 other people jumping on sig due to your case, and don't want to see a decent lynch fall to a lazy one.

Oh, and this day 2 I mean, you know what I meant.

I think voting for sig is being very cooperative.

HB I ain't scum. Feel free to try getting me lynched though. At this point I would welcome being in just one game.

[sig]

@LoRab your right it was rude of me to call you inmature and I'm sorry for saying it. However I still stand by what I say while baddie/scum mean the same the word difference that Bulls used is I believe to be done on purpose in an attempt to make me look less clean. I dislike what you said and I believe you purposely missed my point. Because I will stand by what I said there is a difference between my word and his..

Once again sorry for my rash words I apologize for it

linki:

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.

I voted you because I hadn't voted for you yet. I'd have voted you before going to bed anyway. You just asked for it (in a figurative sense, before you accuse me of twisting your words again) and sped the process up by like an hour.

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.

I think she is right that ridiculing the case against you is not a civ move. The reason your defenses are being shot down is that your defenses don't address the suspicion properly. Rather than acknowledge that the overall meaning of your post can be interpreted as if you had accidentally revealed baddie plans, you twist it around and make it about the meanings of individual words as well as accusing your accusers of being bad based purely on them suspecting you.
.

So I should have admitted that your case was right when it isn't? I'm notgoing to validate why you should lynch me I'm going to defend myself. What I'm interpenetrating from your post is no matter what I could have done you would have pursued my lynch. I've caught a few people in the past by doing this and I find the reason for your suspicion to be suspicious as well as your response. Your argument started based around individual wording, I've played mafia games with people who purposely change wording just enough or use small things to further their case. Look at my past game (TH) and you can see the reason I first mentioned LC was based around calling me the other guy, something thatwhen I said nobody took seriously but he ended up flipping mafia. It is the same with you changing my wording.

How should I address the suspicion on me? In my early posts I in fact did I said why I mentioned Timmer, gave the reasoning for mywording, and even answered the question people kept asking in the thread about Timmer. You ignored what I said and then said that was weak so you're wrong here I answered you just ignored it.

[MacDougall]

That's a lot of words. Sig. Main man. Friend and loved one. I ain't reading dat.

[MacDougall]

I am changing my vote to HamburgerBoy because he hates me.

[MacDougall]

Oh I can't vote him. How typical of scum.

[Bullzeye]

@LoRab your right it was rude of me to call you inmature and I'm sorry for saying it. However I still stand by what I say while baddie/scum mean the same the word difference that Bulls used is I believe to be done on purpose in an attempt to make me look less clean. I dislike what you said and I believe you purposely missed my point. Because I will stand by what I said there is a difference between my word and his..

See my previous post re: definition of shocked including the word surprise. The word difference I employed was not an attempt to do anything.

So I should have admitted that your case was right when it isn't? I'm notgoing to validate why you should lynch me I'm going to defend myself. What I'm interpenetrating from your post is no matter what I could have done you would have pursued my lynch. I've caught a few people in the past by doing this and I find the reason for your suspicion to be suspicious as well as your response. Your argument started based around individual wording, I've played mafia games with people who purposely change wording just enough or use small things to further their case. Look at my past game (TH) and you can see the reason I first mentioned LC was based around calling me the other guy, something thatwhen I said nobody took seriously but he ended up flipping mafia. It is the same with you changing my wording.

How should I address the suspicion on me? In my early posts I in fact did I said why I mentioned Timmer, gave the reasoning for mywording, and even answered the question people kept asking in the thread about Timmer. You ignored what I said and then said that was weak so you're wrong here I answered you just ignored it.

I would never expect someone to 'admit my case was right' regardless of whether or not it was. That would be silly. My point is you didn't acknowledge the actual reason for the case against you and instead chose to go for the strawman. You are just flinging out accusations to those who disagree with you and picking at minor things like synonym use (adverb theory on drugs?) for no clear reason.

[MacDougall]

Voting Epi. Pretty sure he is scum.

[HamburgerBoy]

I am changing my vote to HamburgerBoy because he hates me.

I luv u bb

Your attempt to connect SVS and Dom looks dishonest though. At least try to respond to my questions to you earlier.

[Matt]

Voting Epi. Pretty sure he is scum.

Lol

I think at this point you're just having fun.

[MacDougall]

I am changing my vote to HamburgerBoy because he hates me.

I luv u bb

Your attempt to connect SVS and Dom looks dishonest though. At least try to respond to my questions to you earlier.

Which one?

[Marmot]

Voting Epi. Pretty sure he is scum.

That dude killed timmer.

[HamburgerBoy]

This part:

How the fuck after this is Banana the lynch leader. Holy shit that is such an obvious counterwagon. Town plz.

A counterwagon of what? You think SVS just gave herself up as a non-civvie team mate of Dom? Sounds like town still did well then.

What a strange strange post. How would I make the conclusion that a guy I thought was a good shot at being scum getting spared and a civ lynched in his place is good for the town? I don't give a flying fuck about breadcrumbs. The guy was there to be lynched and through reasons unbeknownst to me a guy who barely had a case made against him got lynched in his place. It's not certain that SVS did what you are saying that she did, but considering I already had a bit of an eye on her, it's not a good look.

Bolded is the only part relevant to the point I was trying to make. What do you mean when you say "obvious counterwagon"? What is the motive you see behind said counterwagon? What would make it an obvious counterwagon when one building on BUGLA would seem to be just as obvious (if not more so, considering the antipathy shown by you and others)?

I'm going to bed now so I'll just make my point now. In this reply to me you seem to misinterpret me heavily; I wasn't saying that you made the conclusion the lynch was good for town. I did; if you were right that it was such an obvious counterwagon, it means we got two scum for the price of a day 1 newbie mislynch. Of course, I don't think you're right that scum would stick their necks out like that, would be really silly and something they'd have to fight for the rest of the game. The worst part of this reply is in bold. You are literally saying that you are not certain she formed a counterwagon, even though that is the bulk of your suspicion on her, and say it plain as day in the same post:

Re: para four. Not defensive, just annoyed that such an obvious mislynch was being put together to protect Dom.

[MacDougall]

Where is the question?

[HamburgerBoy]

I'll rephrase it simply: why would you say you are unsure about SVS' motives in voting to save Dom, and then in the same post say that the two are obviously scumbuddies?

[MacDougall]

Because I haven't read their role cards so to say I am certain would be ridiculous.

[HamburgerBoy]

But still sure enough to call the votes on BANANA an "obvious counterwagon" and all of that.

[MacDougall]

So your issue with me boils down to the fact that in one post I had the tact to point out that my opinion is fallible but in the rest I posted my reads confidently. This is a scum tell huh? Cool case. You can unvote me now if you want.

I thought your issue was that my linking of SVS and Dom was dishonest.

I find your arguments against me, like Dom's, a waste of my time.

[MacDougall]

Voting Epi. Pretty sure he is scum.

That dude killed timmer.

That was bait. U r cum.

[HamburgerBoy]

No, it's that when I openly mocked the idea of a scummate defending their ally so blatantly during a day 1 lynch, you tried to act like you weren't saying that. Then elsewhere you keep repeating that the two are scum partners together. So you could say I do find the linking to not be likely to find scum, but that I also don't think you really believe your case and are just throwing stuff out there.

[MacDougall]

When did I say I wasn't saying that?

DFaraday is definitely scum. Him voting Sig makes that whole wagon look bad.

[MacDougall]

HamburgerBoy. Why are you making stuff up?

[Epignosis]

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

It won't while I'm around.

[HamburgerBoy]

Me: You think SVS just gave herself up as a non-civvie team mate of Dom?
You: It's not certain that SVS did what you are saying that she did, but considering I already had a bit of an eye on her, it's not a good look.

Also, DFaraday seems like the low-hanging fruit choice of the sig wagon. He was quick to vote and vamoose, but he was also less active day 1 as well. Seeing Floyd flip on Talking Heads means I have to be careful about trusting lurkers, but it looked really casual/lazy to me rather than an obvious scumtell. I think Juliets is the one I suspect most right now, asking just a bit about my case in defense of sig and then disappearing again, more like she was testing the waters and then left to watch things.

[Marmot]

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

Who's "us"?

[Bullzeye]

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

Who's "us"?

I already made that joke.

[Marmot]

Voting Epi. Pretty sure he is scum.

That dude killed timmer.

That was bait. U r cum.

You baited me to repeat myself. You're the most excellent cumhunter.

Linki: well I'm a lame duck.

[Epignosis]

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.

And I'll start right here with this one. Why do you substitute the word "now" for "know?"

[MacDougall]

Me: You think SVS just gave herself up as a non-civvie team mate of Dom?
You: It's not certain that SVS did what you are saying that she did, but considering I already had a bit of an eye on her, it's not a good look.

Also, DFaraday seems like the low-hanging fruit choice of the sig wagon. He was quick to vote and vamoose, but he was also less active day 1 as well. Seeing Floyd flip on Talking Heads means I have to be careful about trusting lurkers, but it looked really casual/lazy to me rather than an obvious scumtell. I think Juliets is the one I suspect most right now, asking just a bit about my case in defense of sig and then disappearing again, more like she was testing the waters and then left to watch things.

Being not certain isn't the same as not thinking that it was the case. I already had scum reads on both of them before that happened so if I am right then yes it did happen

Still fail to see how this is a scum tell. What do I have to gain from anything I have done as a bad?

[HamburgerBoy]

Hey Epi, do you have anything to say to my accusation here? I know you acknowledged it, but you didn't really disagree with me or accuse me of misrepresenting you or anything like I was expecting you to.

[Epignosis]

To answer the question from sig, I have no opinion of zebra, and I get the impression Bullzeye is good. He called you out and is following through with it.

[Epignosis]

Hey Epi, do you have anything to say to my accusation here? I know you acknowledged it, but you didn't really disagree with me or accuse me of misrepresenting you or anything like I was expecting you to.

I don't understand what you're saying in that post.

[juliets]

@Hamburger Boy - I disappeared because it was Halloween and I went to hand out candy. I am considering all sides of all the cases out there. I don't know what you mean about "left to watch things". I'm of course considering everything everyone is posting.

[HamburgerBoy]

Being not certain isn't the same as not thinking that it was the case. I already had scum reads on both of them before that happened so if I am right then yes it did happen

Still fail to see how this is a scum tell. What do I have to gain from anything I have done as a bad?

The general thing to gain would be mudflinging and confusion, and death of someone not aligned to you. With all the third-party roles there's no requirement that you are on a scum team, but I know a quiet, under-the-radar Mac would never fly with your presence on this board already, so it's not like you have a choice. Go all-in and Mac Attack without hesitation.

[Epignosis]

In this post, S~V~S never stated why my (Day 1) view of Dom was "bullshit."

Her description stands in stark contrast to juliets, who called it "a pretty good case for day 1."

The disparity here makes me want to know what the expectations are for a good Day 1 case from S~V~S: What cases Day 1 were stronger than mine, and what made them stronger? Were there worse cases Day 1 than mine, and what made them weaker?

I'm not going to quit harping on this just because it goes unanswered. Had S~V~S said, "I don't agree with Epi," and said why, that would have been one thing. Can a case be wrong without it being bullshit? I think so. But to label it "bullshit," as she did, implies that I am being dishonest. A bullshitter is someone who is making something up. For her to accuse me of making something up Day 1 is tantamount to accusing me of being Mafia, someone who has a need to make things up Day 1.

My suspicion of S~V~S, in summary, emanates from these points:

1. Calling a relatively decent case on Day 1 "bullshit,"
2. Thus implying that I'm being dishonest or misleading
3. Voting a civilian new person (not merely a low poster) out of the game Day 1, and
4. Doing so for one of the weakest and vaguest reasons imaginable.
5. Her over-the-top serious reaction to a post I made in jest.

Top choice for my vote right now. Voting S~V~S.

[HamburgerBoy]

Hey Epi, do you have anything to say to my accusation here? I know you acknowledged it, but you didn't really disagree with me or accuse me of misrepresenting you or anything like I was expecting you to.

I don't understand what you're saying in that post.

I'm saying you twisted three posts using almost the exact same language in one day, which pinged me. Then I gave the nutella thing as an example, which I'll rephrase:

Nutella said she was curious about the "Epi/Dom thing".
You asked if that made you the second biggest suspect, second to Bullz who she already said was #1.
She implied it didn't, that it was based on a reaction to your style, and that she couldn't glean alignment-related info from it.
You then did the thing I took issue with, "If I don't do something that clues you in on my alignment, that implies I could do something that would clue you in on my alignment."

My issue is that all she said was that she can't read your alignment based on meta. That was a simple statement and capable of standing on its own merits. That you could do something later as a clue is irrelevant to her (lack of) read then.

Do you disagree with my interpretation of that discussion?

[HamburgerBoy]

@Hamburger Boy - I disappeared because it was Halloween and I went to hand out candy. I am considering all sides of all the cases out there. I don't know what you mean about "left to watch things". I'm of course considering everything everyone is posting.

Fair enough. When I say "left to watch things" I meant more relative to LoRab, who also took interest but got pretty involved in the argument with sig.

[LoRab]

I will likely vote Sig or Mac. Not sure which, yet. I find them both suspicious.

and I've taken a painkiller, so I should probably quit posting for the night.

[juliets]

@Hamburger Boy - I disappeared because it was Halloween and I went to hand out candy. I am considering all sides of all the cases out there. I don't know what you mean about "left to watch things". I'm of course considering everything everyone is posting.

Fair enough. When I say "left to watch things" I meant more relative to LoRab, who also took interest but got pretty involved in the argument with sig.

Oh now I understand. I think you're just seeing a difference between mine and Lorab's style.

This is unrelated but related to sig: did someone (maybe you) allude to the fact that english is not sig's first language? I thought that was implied some where but I can't find it.

[HamburgerBoy]

Oh now I understand. I think you're just seeing a difference between mine and Lorab's style.

This is unrelated but related to sig: did someone (maybe you) allude to the fact that english is not sig's first language? I thought that was implied some where but I can't find it.

I made a joke about him bungling the English language or similar, since this is at least the second case he's caught flak for wording issues, but I don't know if it's actually his second language. I think he just tends to say awkward things on occasion.

[juliets]

ok. Thanks!

[sig]

English is my first language but in regards to particular wording that gets picked at, well that always happen when people try to mislynch. Yes I purposely said mislynch since when I'm lynched as scum it is usually for bigger more obvious reasons, only as a civ/3P does little things like this lead to my lynch. It tends to happen more to me as a civ as I don't reread my posts as closely when I'm not scum.

linki: yeah HB is right, ya could never tell in RL I'm much more eloquent Which is why I'm going to be a politician or talk show host basically the same right?

[Epignosis]

Hey Epi, do you have anything to say to my accusation here? I know you acknowledged it, but you didn't really disagree with me or accuse me of misrepresenting you or anything like I was expecting you to.

I don't understand what you're saying in that post.

I'm saying you twisted three posts using almost the exact same language in one day, which pinged me. Then I gave the nutella thing as an example, which I'll rephrase:

Nutella said she was curious about the "Epi/Dom thing".
You asked if that made you the second biggest suspect, second to Bullz who she already said was #1.
She implied it didn't, that it was based on a reaction to your style, and that she couldn't glean alignment-related info from it.
You then did the thing I took issue with, "If I don't do something that clues you in on my alignment, that implies I could do something that would clue you in on my alignment."

My issue is that all she said was that she can't read your alignment based on meta. That was a simple statement and capable of standing on its own merits. That you could do something later as a clue is irrelevant to her (lack of) read then.

Do you disagree with my interpretation of that discussion?

I disagree with more than your interpretation; I disagree with your conclusion also.

The first quote was for sig.

I don't trust Epi enough to follow him on the Dom lynch. Could others who have played with Dom tell me if he is playing scummy right know?

That's an odd thing to say.

Why would you trust me enough Day 1 to follow me on a lynch? That implies that there are people you do trust right now.

How did I twist sig's post here?

++++

The second post was to S~V~S, after which I had to show that I offered my reasons for suspecting Dom:

Stop talking Mr Zebra no one likes you

Wow.

@Mac, becasue i know Dom is a valuable player if Epi is wrong. And I have seen him be wrong often enough. I want to hear more from Dom before voting him for someone elses tell.

That implies there are players who aren't valuable if I am wrong about them.

Who are those players and why are they not valuable?

I was not making a sweeping statement about every player, just about Dom. I am not willing to lynch him over a tell you won't discuss. TBH, you are right though, in your semantic jab at my crappy wording. I don't know that I would be willing to vote for anyone based on your reasoning without further explanation. I asked for that, did I miss where you posted it?

How did I twist S~V~S's words there? The underlined indicates a concession and that we're on the same page in terms of the word "valuable."

++++

For my comment to nutella (I'll link here, I asked what I considered to be a reasonable question. She answered, but I wasn't satisfied by what she said. Again, I fail to see how I twisted anything.

[HamburgerBoy]

Sig not trusting you to follow Dom on the lynch does not imply there are others he would trust at the moment. He's just saying that he would rather look elsewhere for a vote, rather than jump on the bandwagon like Mac did (note: I'm not sure if Mac had actually jumped on the wagon by that point, just an example).

When I saw SVS's concession it immediately raised my eyebrows and put me in, "No, don't let that stand!" mode. Even if the wording was crappy, you frame it in the worst way, and ultimately "semantic jab" is just another way of saying word-twisting. When I read her post, I read it to mean "Dom is a good player, and I don't want to gamble because I don't trust Epi's scumdar". No statement on other players.