Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

[Long Con]

What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.

This part. It makes no sense to me. Why even bother to post it? This looks like a scum team on the surface but it is probably not what it actually is it is just what it looks like on the surface? What? Your followup is even more messed up than the original post?

Just posting my thoughts as they came to me. I don't know why it would fail to make sense to you, it reads pretty straightforward to me.

Maybe you aren't down with posting thoughts that aren't your final, complete thought? I don't know what to tell you, I was... chatting. I think I wanted to get that "too obvious" thought out of the way before getting to my actual current opinion.

* * * * *

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

You must be blind (and I don't mean the character).

You literally stopped arguing as soon as I pointed out that I think your argument is contrived. So how am I blind?

That was like two minutes ago, so you're ignoring everything before that for your own convenience. I perfectly kept challenging zebra's activity, whilst he perfectly kept calling bullsuit on everything I say. Anyway, I can't focus on replying to different people with the same intensity.

linki: You're the one throwing darts incessantly, I've said my share with zebra in the meantime, whilst you were doing it. Man, it's like you're rusing someone and then shout at the crowd, "hey look, he's paying so much attention to me instead of doing anything else, hue".

I am not bad. Eye me all you want.

Overuse of "whilst". How finely are you crafting your posts that you have to go Olde English twice?

* * * * *

So I'm caught up now. So much Ricochet-Macdougall stuff and Zebra got dragged into the mix.

[Long Con]

"Your interpretation of LoRab's theory wasn't right, but it was reasonable."

Pretty hollow contribution to this subject.

No. You, me and Mac all came out of LoRab's posts with different interpretations. The difference being, you have treated both Mac and my theories as simply 'wrong' and in Mac's case, dismissed clear points and reasonable questions just because you decided your interpretation was right.

The one thing Mac made very clear from the second he interpreted LoRab's post was that he himself did not have a role he had before, so how you could twist that into him claiming he had a role he had before, and say he was losing his green lustre because (why? Hasn't Mac only won the one game? So under that theory, wouldn't it HAVE to be Idaho?)

To me it feels like you are just throwing nonsense out there to see what sticks.

Is that a suspicion, or a belief that it's a Civ strategy? I agree, but I haven't decided yet which. What will his behaviour achieve?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I just want to say for the record that there are 600 posts on Night 0 and it's not my fault.

[RadicalFuzz]

If you're annoyed by seemingly pointless questions, Rico, then this is gonna be a hell of a game.

Matt, the answer is his silence.

[a2thezebra]

"Your interpretation of LoRab's theory wasn't right, but it was reasonable."

Pretty hollow contribution to this subject.

No. You, me and Mac all came out of LoRab's posts with different interpretations. The difference being, you have treated both Mac and my theories as simply 'wrong' and in Mac's case, dismissed clear points and reasonable questions just because you decided your interpretation was right.

The one thing Mac made very clear from the second he interpreted LoRab's post was that he himself did not have a role he had before, so how you could twist that into him claiming he had a role he had before, and say he was losing his green lustre because (why? Hasn't Mac only won the one game? So under that theory, wouldn't it HAVE to be Idaho?)

To me it feels like you are just throwing nonsense out there to see what sticks.

Is that a suspicion, or a belief that it's a Civ strategy? I agree, but I haven't decided yet which. What will his behaviour achieve?

I agree, and I think it's the former for reasons stated previously. They're not gauging reactions, because if they were then they wouldn't twist everyone's words as much as they have been. And what other town-motivated reason could there be for WIFOM other than to gauge reactions?

[Ricochet]

"Your interpretation of LoRab's theory wasn't right, but it was reasonable."

Pretty hollow contribution to this subject.

No. You, me and Mac all came out of LoRab's posts with different interpretations. The difference being, you have treated both Mac and my theories as simply 'wrong' and in Mac's case, dismissed clear points and reasonable questions just because you decided your interpretation was right.

The one thing Mac made very clear from the second he interpreted LoRab's post was that he himself did not have a role he had before, so how you could twist that into him claiming he had a role he had before, and say he was losing his green lustre because (why? Hasn't Mac only won the one game? So under that theory, wouldn't it HAVE to be Idaho?)

To me it feels like you are just throwing nonsense out there to see what sticks.

If an interpretation is a misinterpretation, then it's a wrong interpretation. I don't see how can a misinterpretation can be reasonable, just because the player was clear in his misinterpretation.

[a2thezebra]

I just want to say for the record that there are 600 posts on Night 0 and it's not my fault.

It's partly mine

[Ricochet]

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

You must be blind (and I don't mean the character).

You literally stopped arguing as soon as I pointed out that I think your argument is contrived. So how am I blind?

That was like two minutes ago, so you're ignoring everything before that for your own convenience. I perfectly kept challenging zebra's activity, whilst he perfectly kept calling bullsuit on everything I say. Anyway, I can't focus on replying to different people with the same intensity.

linki: You're the one throwing darts incessantly, I've said my share with zebra in the meantime, whilst you were doing it. Man, it's like you're rusing someone and then shout at the crowd, "hey look, he's paying so much attention to me instead of doing anything else, hue".

I am not bad. Eye me all you want.

Overuse of "whilst". How finely are you crafting your posts that you have to go Olde English twice?

* * * * *

So I'm caught up now. So much Ricochet-Macdougall stuff and Zebra got dragged into the mix.

How can one use be an overuse?

Also, very finely.

[a2thezebra]

"Your interpretation of LoRab's theory wasn't right, but it was reasonable."

Pretty hollow contribution to this subject.

No. You, me and Mac all came out of LoRab's posts with different interpretations. The difference being, you have treated both Mac and my theories as simply 'wrong' and in Mac's case, dismissed clear points and reasonable questions just because you decided your interpretation was right.

The one thing Mac made very clear from the second he interpreted LoRab's post was that he himself did not have a role he had before, so how you could twist that into him claiming he had a role he had before, and say he was losing his green lustre because (why? Hasn't Mac only won the one game? So under that theory, wouldn't it HAVE to be Idaho?)

To me it feels like you are just throwing nonsense out there to see what sticks.

If an interpretation is a misinterpretation, then it's a wrong interpretation. I don't see how can a misinterpretation can be reasonable, just because the player was clear in his misinterpretation.

Maybe if it was based in reason??? People can still have reasons for thinking incorrect things, you know. What even is this post?

[Ricochet]

Nevermind, I used whilst twice, I'm going blind.

[RadicalFuzz]

Zebra I disagree. Intentionally twisting words to gauge reactions isn't necessarily an anti-Town strategy. It stirs up trouble, sure, but most players would have different reactions to being misinterpreted based on various variables, including allegiance.

[Ricochet]

"Your interpretation of LoRab's theory wasn't right, but it was reasonable."

Pretty hollow contribution to this subject.

No. You, me and Mac all came out of LoRab's posts with different interpretations. The difference being, you have treated both Mac and my theories as simply 'wrong' and in Mac's case, dismissed clear points and reasonable questions just because you decided your interpretation was right.

The one thing Mac made very clear from the second he interpreted LoRab's post was that he himself did not have a role he had before, so how you could twist that into him claiming he had a role he had before, and say he was losing his green lustre because (why? Hasn't Mac only won the one game? So under that theory, wouldn't it HAVE to be Idaho?)

To me it feels like you are just throwing nonsense out there to see what sticks.

If an interpretation is a misinterpretation, then it's a wrong interpretation. I don't see how can a misinterpretation can be reasonable, just because the player was clear in his misinterpretation.

Maybe if it was based in reason??? People can still have reasons for thinking incorrect things, you know. What even is this post?

"It can be reasonable to misinterpret someone's thoughts."

Ok.

[Turnip Head]

As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

Ah, Cupcake Mafia! Good times. I think it was also our first ever sockpuppet game. Damon and Carlton ftw.

[RadicalFuzz]

You're looking at it from a black-and-white perspective. If I say what is 2 and 2 then that's an ambiguous question. It's either 4 or 22. Both have logical paths and could be considered reasonable in their own right.

[Long Con]

Nevermind, I used whilst twice, I'm going blind.

So you admit it!

"It can be reasonable to misinterpret someone's thoughts."

Ok.

You seem to be confused about "misinterpretation". Misinterpretation isn't intentional by default. One can innocently misinterpret someone else's thoughts, which results in a "misunderstanding". Alternatively, a baddie can choose to wilfully thrust a misinterpretation of someone's thoughts into the mix in order to make them look bad. That's "manipulation".

It can be reasonable to innocently misinterpret someone's thoughts, as long as it is recognized as a misunderstanding when things are clarified.

[Marmot]

Zeebs - Yeah I was joking. Kind of. But fair enough. Now I'm interested, though, what are your non PC views?

Rico - So no answer then?

I think we can all agree that Metalmarsh has to go. Ten points to anyone who can tell me why.

Because he's the real Day 1 policy lynch

Agreed (but that doesn't mean I'll be lynched).

Zeebs - Yeah I was joking. Kind of. But fair enough. Now I'm interested, though, what are your non PC views?

Rico - So no answer then?

I think we can all agree that Metalmarsh has to go. Ten points to anyone who can tell me why.

Because he's the real Day 1 policy lynch

Zoinks!

But nah, not it.

Ten point offer still out there.

Why is Metalmarsh the baddest bad in all of the land? He will most def receive my vote Day one.

Rico - So still no answer then?

I didn't do anything.

[a2thezebra]

Zebra I disagree. Intentionally twisting words to gauge reactions isn't necessarily an anti-Town strategy. It stirs up trouble, sure, but most players would have different reactions to being misinterpreted based on various variables, including allegiance.

Valid point, I'll take this into consideration. Twisting words can be beneficial, but what about trying to convince everyone else that you're right? What about suspecting people simply for not agreeing with you? Like I said to kick off my back-and-forth with Rico, there's gauging reactions and then there's trying to look as town as possible. You can gauge reactions without steering the thread in a direction that you - as town- theoretically have no reason to be confident with on Night 0.

"Your interpretation of LoRab's theory wasn't right, but it was reasonable."

Pretty hollow contribution to this subject.

No. You, me and Mac all came out of LoRab's posts with different interpretations. The difference being, you have treated both Mac and my theories as simply 'wrong' and in Mac's case, dismissed clear points and reasonable questions just because you decided your interpretation was right.

The one thing Mac made very clear from the second he interpreted LoRab's post was that he himself did not have a role he had before, so how you could twist that into him claiming he had a role he had before, and say he was losing his green lustre because (why? Hasn't Mac only won the one game? So under that theory, wouldn't it HAVE to be Idaho?)

To me it feels like you are just throwing nonsense out there to see what sticks.

If an interpretation is a misinterpretation, then it's a wrong interpretation. I don't see how can a misinterpretation can be reasonable, just because the player was clear in his misinterpretation.

Maybe if it was based in reason??? People can still have reasons for thinking incorrect things, you know. What even is this post?

"It can be reasonable to misinterpret someone's thoughts."

Ok.

Yeah. It can. Even when you're trying to twist words here in your favor, you still look like the one that's not making any sense. Do you not think anyone has ever been wrong in human history when they had a reason for it?

[Ricochet]

Nevermind, I used whilst twice, I'm going blind.

So you admit it!

"It can be reasonable to misinterpret someone's thoughts."

Ok.

You seem to be confused about "misinterpretation". Misinterpretation isn't intentional by default. One can innocently misinterpret someone else's thoughts, which results in a "misunderstanding". Alternatively, a baddie can choose to wilfully thrust a misinterpretation of someone's thoughts into the mix in order to make them look bad. That's "manipulation".

It can be reasonable to innocently misinterpret someone's thoughts, as long as it is recognized as a misunderstanding when things are clarified.

Heads.

Meh.

[DrWilgy]

Hey Fuzz, what do you think of me?

[DFaraday]

That was a tedious catchup. I think Rico is looking the most suspicious out of the Zebra/Rico/Mac kerfuffle, since he has repeatedly twisted words and gone after people. I think trying to make a case on someone based on what you know to be faulty reasoning is a baddie tactic, or at best a poor strategy for a civvie to gauge reaction.

Regarding LoRab's original comment, I know that the roles are not made up only of characters who won their respective games, since my role is from a game where the civs lost.

[Ricochet]

All I hear is "gauge reactions", but that's missing the point. I caught zebra and b24 red handed. I accept their attempts to defend, of course, but I'm not quest for reactions per se.

[Ricochet]

All I hear is "gauge reactions", but that's missing the point. I caught zebra and b24 red handed. I accept their attempts to defend, of course, but it's not a quest for reactions per se.

*

[a2thezebra]

All I hear is "gauge reactions", but that's missing the point. I caught zebra and b24 red handed. I accept their attempts to defend, of course, but I'm not quest for reactions per se.

Your claiming this makes you look even worse.

[Marmot]

All I hear is "gauge reactions", but that's missing the point. I caught zebra and b24 red handed. I accept their attempts to defend, of course, but I'm not quest for reactions per se.

Your claiming this makes you look even worse.

Do not accept defeat.

[Ricochet]

All I hear is "gauge reactions", but that's missing the point. I caught zebra and b24 red handed. I accept their attempts to defend, of course, but I'm not quest for reactions per se.

Your claiming this makes you look even worse.

How?

And was it much to quote the corrected post?

[Matt]

Vote MM

It's not what you do, MM, it's what you say!

[a2thezebra]

All I hear is "gauge reactions", but that's missing the point. I caught zebra and b24 red handed. I accept their attempts to defend, of course, but I'm not quest for reactions per se.

Your claiming this makes you look even worse.

How?

And was it much to quote the corrected post?

Because if your behavior isn't to gauge reactions then the odds of it being town-motivated are even less than they would be if it was to gauge reaction.

It was.

[a2thezebra]

*reactions

[a2thezebra]

Vote MM

It's not what you do, MM, it's what you say!

What has he said that's so bad?

[RadicalFuzz]

Twisting words can be beneficial, but what about trying to convince everyone else that you're right? What about suspecting people simply for not agreeing with you?

There is a time and a place for nearly all forms of manipulation, misinterpretation, and various other social skills. Twisting someone's words after their death can be very useful, usually as scum but on occassion as town. Suspecting people for not agreeing with you looks bad but suspecting people for not agreeing with this logical case you've made looks better.

Many of these things happen frequently, but aren't extreme cases so they go unnoticed.



What do I think of you, Wilgy? I want to lynch you. What do you think of me?

J3 can you answer my question from earlier? What is your quest?
(And I promise I'm not getting information just to manipulate a possible lynch-or-lose scenario a month down the line if that makes you feel any better)

[a2thezebra]

"logical case"

uhhhhh

[Marmot]

Vote MM

It's not what you do, MM, it's what you say!

Let us be lynched together!

[Ricochet]

All I hear is "gauge reactions", but that's missing the point. I caught zebra and b24 red handed. I accept their attempts to defend, of course, but I'm not quest for reactions per se.

Your claiming this makes you look even worse.

How?

And was it much to quote the corrected post?

Because if your behavior isn't to gauge reactions then the odds of it being town-motivated are even less than they would be if it was to gauge reaction.

It was.

Me catching baddies with incredible accuracy is not town-motivated?

You're a silly.

wtf

[Long Con]

Do you think you will get yourself lynched, Rico? You're clearly being silly, and it's cool and everything, but it might get you killed. What are the benefits of sticking with this strategy?

[a2thezebra]

WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM

N-O-O-N-E-I-S-B-U-Y-I-N-G-Y-O-U-R-S-H-T-I-C-K

[Ricochet]

Do you think you will get yourself lynched, Rico? You're clearly being silly, and it's cool and everything, but it might get you killed. What are the benefits of sticking with this strategy?

You said you'd kill me on N1, so...

[Ricochet]

Tell me why you're not bad, based on my case, zebra, and I might not vote for you, then. Gimme your best shot.

[Ricochet]

Do you think you will get yourself lynched, Rico? You're clearly being silly, and it's cool and everything, but it might get you killed. What are the benefits of sticking with this strategy?

When I don't know how to get my head wrapped around the first phases of a game, I'm plain serious Rico and no one bothers with me around.

When I actually know what I'm doing and am spot on calling out the baddies, I'm "clearly being silly".

[a2thezebra]

Tell me why you're not bad, based on my case, zebra, and I might not vote for you, then. Gimme your best shot.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 8&sr=posts

[Ricochet]

Tell me why you're not bad, based on my case, zebra, and I might not vote for you, then. Gimme your best shot.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 8&sr=posts

Suit yourself.

[Long Con]

Do you think you will get yourself lynched, Rico? You're clearly being silly, and it's cool and everything, but it might get you killed. What are the benefits of sticking with this strategy?

You said you'd kill me on N1, so...

I think that staying alive might just be an important factor in winning this game. If you come out of the gates with a fun vendetta against me, what else can I do? I need you to die, sir. You created this, not me.

[LoRab]

As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

You are free to speculate whatever you like, especially given the closed setup, but based on two previous years of Championship Games over here, not to mention my role which I'm aware of (oh, and Golden's)*, I feel inclined to say this Championship game is no different from the previous two in mashing up multiple roles from games played here throughout the year. Not sure what you mean by your second sentence.

Also, your first sentence is factually not true, but if you don't remember, I suppose that's what it is.

* in fact, shouldn't you also have a basic idea of this setup I'm talking about (role mashup), based on the role you received, whatever it is? Or are you implying your role is that of a cupcake?

I know what game my role is from, but I didn't go back to check to see if it was one of the players in this game, or if it was from the winning team. At any rate, the theory has now been shown to be false (which is why I asked the question--one cannot extrapolate much from a sample of one), so it's on to new speculatoin.

As I said in my first post in htis game, it's entirely possible that I played a previous champions game and don't remember. I don't remember a lot of games that I played. And most the ones I do remember all sort of blend together at this point. Which one did I play in?

LoRab and llama have not butted heads over who is the better writer and poster.

confirmed fishy

I don't to butt heads. The market has determined that I am the better writer, since I get paid for it.

I get paid for it, as well. So the market hasn't determined anything.

[Ricochet]

Do you think you will get yourself lynched, Rico? You're clearly being silly, and it's cool and everything, but it might get you killed. What are the benefits of sticking with this strategy?

You said you'd kill me on N1, so...

I think that staying alive might just be an important factor in winning this game. If you come out of the gates with a fun vendetta against me, what else can I do? I need you to die, sir. You created this, not me.

Spoken like a true baddie. What is your win condition?

In that case, I would have to honor our arrangement and kill you off myself before D1 ends.

[a2thezebra]

Rico, you've ignored or - at the most - deflected my suspicions towards you, and you've also ignored my responses to your....um....""""""""""case"""""""""". You're not entitled to any new content from me, you need to earn it by responding to what I've already given you. Properly. Until then I'll just give you my ISO every time you ask for what I've already given and you've failed to acknowledge.

[Ricochet]

As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

You are free to speculate whatever you like, especially given the closed setup, but based on two previous years of Championship Games over here, not to mention my role which I'm aware of (oh, and Golden's)*, I feel inclined to say this Championship game is no different from the previous two in mashing up multiple roles from games played here throughout the year. Not sure what you mean by your second sentence.

Also, your first sentence is factually not true, but if you don't remember, I suppose that's what it is.

* in fact, shouldn't you also have a basic idea of this setup I'm talking about (role mashup), based on the role you received, whatever it is? Or are you implying your role is that of a cupcake?

I know what game my role is from, but I didn't go back to check to see if it was one of the players in this game, or if it was from the winning team. At any rate, the theory has now been shown to be false (which is why I asked the question--one cannot extrapolate much from a sample of one), so it's on to new speculatoin.

What's wrong with the theory that roles are imported from different previous games, regardless of being roles with which players won or not said previous games?

As I said in my first post in htis game, it's entirely possible that I played a previous champions game and don't remember. I don't remember a lot of games that I played. And most the ones I do remember all sort of blend together at this point. Which one did I play in?

I forgot.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

What is your quest?

To seek the unholy mafia.

Without trying very hard.

[Ricochet]

Rico, you've ignored or - at the most - deflected my suspicions towards you, and you've also ignored my responses to your....um....""""""""""case"""""""""". You're not entitled to any new content from me, you need to earn it by responding to what I've already given you. Properly. Until then I'll just give you my ISO every time you ask for what I've already given and you've failed to acknowledge.

If your responses to my case were suspecting me for it, then you've simple NO U'd me. That doesn't quite work in your favor.

I remember responding to your replies, but in case our conversation got hazy, it's exactly why you should make a final N0 pitch. Or else I'll just move along, as planned, and bring you down.

[Golden]

I am not a role I previously played before. I assumed that was obvious.

It was.

[a2thezebra]

I've suspected you for the case because there is no case. When I'm mason with someone and someone suspects them in an opportunistic way I pounce. Because I know they're civ, and so the odds that the case against them is baddie-motivated (which is already likely by how disingenuous the case seems) increases. That's how I got Diiny in the recent RYM game. And I know I'm civ. So when I see some nonsense like what you claim to be a case, yeah, I'm going to call it out. Call it a NO U all you want, call it OMGUS even. I do not care. I went in-depth with why I think you're acting the way you are and I considered (and even still am considering) the other possible interpretations as to why you would behave like this as a civilian, even though you haven't shown me the same courtesy. So move along and bring me down then. Show me your worst.

[Golden]

I don't recall you being this immediately adversarial in Dune

My recollection might be skewed by the fact she was adversarial towards me, but I feel as though zebra was fairly immediately adversarial in Dune. You might recall I was calling her out on day one for something like her second post appearing to be a massive overreaction.