Arkham Mafia [ENDGAME]

[Tangrowth]

The last thing this thread needs right now is a pissing match between two high posters. It was starting to develop between Enrique and Golden, and I legitimately saw nothing there, so I made that vocally aware. Now with zebra, Dom honestly asked me to name someone I thought looked most suspicious gut-wise out of Day 0, I answered him honestly, and what has ensued in the surrounding time is a zebra misunderstandingfest, but now that I've seen more from her on it I understand her viewpoint. Consequently, I was able to erase my very vague gut-based suspicion in mine and others' attempts to engage her in conversation about it. I understand that civilians feel alone because literally anyone could be deceiving them, but people need to be equally skeptical and yet actively trying to understand everyone else as much as possible, rather than laser-focusing on one player. Especially this early in the game.

[a2thezebra]

Zebra said: I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

What does this mean, exactly? I am being serious, I honestly do not understand this sentence

Linki @ Golden, but she DOESN'T think there are baddies on there.

That's not on you, it's worded very poorly since I'm rushing to respond to all of you as quickly as I can.

What I mean to say is that I have yet to see anyone who is concerned or suspects me for what I said about finding the Arkham Asylum option alarming explain to me why finding the option itself (as well as it being so popular) alarming automatically implies that I (for some reason) therefore have to find particular people who voted for it alarming as well. Golden is explaining it for me a lot better than I am myself, sorry.

[a2thezebra]

zebra, you get systematically mislynched game after game, yet you go out of your way to bring attention to yourself by making statements that have no bearing on any information about anyone, but the language you use in those statements otherwise would indicate something illuminating to the highest degree ("alarming").

How on earth is "alarming" indicative of "something illuminating to the highest degree?" That's reaching to say the least. I never go out of my way to bring attention to myself and you know that. I have opinions and viewpoints, I state them, and for whatever reason that gets me systematically mislynched game after game. I know you're not implying that the way I play the game is the problem, so what are you implying?

Alarming is a strong word, to me, especially in a game of deception, so I don't understand why you think that's reaching.

But you're doing it right now, you're blowing something completely out of proportion when you could have simply stated your dislike for one option receiving so many votes in a much less explosive manner.

Explosive? Really? This would be explosive:

ANYONE WHO'S VOTING FOR ARKHAM ASYLUM IS SCUM AND I PLAN ON LYNCHING THEM ONE BY ONE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. IT'S THE SHADIEST DAY ZERO OPTION I THINK I'VE EVER SEEN AND ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS A SCALLIWAG. ARGGGGGHHH RAWWWRRRRR BARK BARK BARK

Perhaps "alarming" is a strong word, but I fail to see how the use of a strong word regarding a lynch option automatically implies that I think that anyone in particular that voted for that option is a baddie because I find the option itself alarming. I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

[a2thezebra]

Zebra said: I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

What does this mean, exactly? I am being serious, I honestly do not understand this sentence

Linki @ Golden, but she DOESN'T think there are baddies on there.

No, thats not what she said. She said she didn't have specific baddie reads on individuals. If I'm wrong, then I take it back, zebra is suspicious, because your understanding of it would be suspicious. But I think you've understood her wrong.

You're understanding me correctly. I also agree that if S~V~S' understanding of me was correct, then I would be suspicious. :P

[Tangrowth]

Because he joked about finding me suspicious in case he's wrong? So he can easily lynch me if the pendulum swings that way?

That's part of it. I've been finding his tone disingenuous. Hard to say if its MP trying to invest less.

I'm more than happy to own up to my suspicions and thoughts and take responsibility for my votes, so if you're concerned about that, your concern is misplaced. I was willing to throw a civilian read of Dom out there, however slight, and I'm still standing by it now. If I turn out to be wrong, then that's mafia, so be it, and I was willing to joke about my propensity to read Dom incorrectly due to thinking with absolute confidence he was bad when spectating GoC 2015 only to be proven incorrect again.

I am consciously trying to invest less. Finding it a bit difficult to at the moment, but I'm trying, because I always overinvest myself, especially in these large games for some reason. I really can't afford the emotional energy to do that even remotely right now.

If I'm a slight civ read, why set me up for an easy vote later like that?

I'm not setting anything up. If anything, it should be absolutely transparent what my thoughts of you have been. If I decide to find you suspicious later, then you and others should rightfully grill me for why I've changed my mind.

Why would you think I would (1) set you up and (2) could even get away with a future vote like that?

I should be willing and able to reassess anyone at any moment, including you, and I don't want to feel locked into my opinion of you; I don't need a joke in order for me to feel that way. It was clearly a joke, and the object of nothing nefarious. I was trying to start out playing this game light-hearted, but it seems my tone is shifting, and I'm getting too far sucked in.

[sprityo]

@MovingPictures07 It doesn't help that with so much back and forth between posters. It shifts focus to them and with such quantities mostly people do not want to read giant walls and will rather cling to bits and just vote with the crowd or whoever sounded "kinda bad"

[Tangrowth]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

[Tangrowth]

@MovingPictures07 It doesn't help that with so much back and forth between posters. It shifts focus to them and with such quantities mostly people do not want to read giant walls and will rather cling to bits and just vote with the crowd or whoever sounded "kinda bad"

I'm absolutely with you there.

So let's talk. What are your thoughts?

[sprityo]

(In my honest opinion, spoiler in your quotes helps so much)

[Bass_the_Clever]

The last thing this thread needs right now is a pissing match between two high posters. It was starting to develop between Enrique and Golden, and I legitimately saw nothing there, so I made that vocally aware. Now with zebra, Dom honestly asked me to name someone I thought looked most suspicious gut-wise out of Day 0, I answered him honestly, and what has ensued in the surrounding time is a zebra misunderstandingfest, but now that I've seen more from her on it I understand her viewpoint. Consequently, I was able to erase my very vague gut-based suspicion in mine and others' attempts to engage her in conversation about it. I understand that civilians feel alone because literally anyone could be deceiving them, but people need to be equally skeptical and yet actively trying to understand everyone else as much as possible, rather than laser-focusing on one player. Especially this early in the game.

I understand what you are saying but I think it's really hard to focus on others when you feel like someone is bad. I mean how many times have you lynched civvies because you couldn't let a feeling go and weren't able to look somewhere else because of it.

[sprityo]

I need to hop onto an actual computer to keep up with the update rate, hold on

[Enrique]

*sigh* That's the deal, Golden. We really really don't agree about game mechanics and to me that's a big deal.

First I wanna point out re: me backing down from AA (I refuse to call them independents), this is just really messy. From the start, and I really haven't changed my mind here (if anything I'm more for lynching them first), I've wanted to keep this balanced and lynch who we think is bad. Not who we think is mafia, because it's not the same. I've explained why the inmates to me are bad, several times. They are. I actually don't think I had talked about this distinction before I 'd that one post of yours asking to focus on the Mafia. I still read it the same way as I did then. Oblivious to the town's actual win conditions.

I don't like you painting yourself as some sort of civvie savior who's gonna win the game with his method. Because I disagree with it completely. We need to fulfill our win conditions, which goes way beyond killing the mafia. Your civilian win, if real, isn't the same as nearly any other civilian win.

I AM self serving in the sense that I'm playing to win. I'm also playing for the rest of the town to win, and you've said it yourself, how can we know if our inmates are dead? We don't, but we can always do our best to eliminate them and give the Mafia hunt a purpose. Because, again, we don't win otherwise. I don't benefit from killing all the Mafia if the inmates are still intact by the end of the game.

You bring up your voting for Arkham, and I see it as an inconsistency, not a point in your favor. Yes, you've been there from the beginning, but I still don't really understand why. Aren't the inmates independent? I do see you as being anti indie hunt, simply because I don't understand how you can reconcile those views, and because you have said we should focus on the Mafia, repeatedly.

I don't get the self-serving argument or how you're narrowing down my possible roles already. This is how civvies win. Arkham Asylum is a baddie faction. You not seeing that doesn't make it untrue.

(Hopefully this has been cleared up already @Dom, but just in case, I don't think the number thing was a claim at all. Not a fake claim, not a real claim. Just a post that could be interpreted like that if you were really looking. So yes I see what you were saying, but it all comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of my post.)

OK, but

1) The post you eyed didn't ask people to 'focus' on mafia. It pointed out that we shouldn't solely focus on the inmates. That's a really different thing. It's why to me your sussing read as wanting us not to focus on the mafia at all, which you've subsequently denied but to me thats what it REALLY looks like you were doing at the start. I actually agree with you that the inmates are bad dudes, they just are patently not the mafia. And they aren't a 'baddie faction'. In fact I'd go so far as to say they aren't a faction at all. They all have different win cons. They are, mechanically speaking, absolutely independents. That doesn't make them town-friendly. It just makes them independents.

They are independent at a superficial level, where they're working on their own. But they're our enemies, Golden. They're bad. We don't win with them alive. Your post said pretty much the same thing you're saying now, but thay's the thing, calling them "independent" in the first place and saying we don't need them dead almost paints them as allies. They're not. They're super bad.

2) The concept isn't hard to reconcile, it's actually really easy, but I think you are choosing not to. I'll repeat it again.

a) the independents are people we should be mildly looking to lynch, as a second choice to mafia
b) the mafia are people we should be strongly looking to lynch, as our primary choice
c) we could guess where mafia are, eg locations like fish mooney's, to help us get info on them
d) on the other hand, we may only have one chance to get info at Arkham, immediately after the breakout. That info might be gone if we wait. So perhaps we should prioritise the urgent, less important thing over the important, non-urgent thing.

Once more, I don't agree. I don't really see it much as a matter of first choice vs second choice, but if pressed, I'd rather get rid of Arkham first. You can say we all need the Mafia dead, which is why they should be our primary choice, but we still don't win that game. How frustrated would you be if you turned in your A+ game, got every Mafia member lynched, but still lost because you never looked for that one other guy?

I guess that's a reasonable explanation for voting Arkham, but it sends the opposite message completely. We might only have one chance, yeah, but isn't Mafia the primary target? It doesn't sit well with me.

3) I think you are confusing disagreeing with me over game mechanics with my affiliation. You seem to think I'm bad because I disagree with you, but you haven't been able to explain any baddie motive for what I'm saying (beyond saying that I wouldn't possibly ever take the view I have if I'm a cop, which just goes to show you don't know me that well), whereas I have a very clear one with what you were doing with your first suspicion of me... pushing the towns attention solely towards the independents at the exclusion of the mafia, and putting the eye on me simply for pointing out the fact that the mafia are not the inmates. And again, don't confuse me using indy and mafia with town and anti-town. They are different things. Independents can be anti-town, but it doesn't make them mafia (serial killer, eg).

First off, that's not true about me refusing to give baddie motives. I've done that right from the start, but as usual, I'll just have to reiterate myself over and over until someone acknowledges it.

a) The same reason you see me as bad– it's sidelining a team in favor of another.
b) I've explained this before, a lot of Arkham benefits from an early game ending, whereas most civvies don't.
c) If you were Mafia, it could be seen as Supatowning it up. It creates a distance between you and the concept of Mafia. "Why would a mafioso push so strongly to prioritize the Mafia?" Better put, it's a WIFOM.

Remember. These are possible motivations, not the reasons I suspect you. The way you go about this is only adding to what I saw as a slip. Those first few posts seemed COMPLETELY oblivious to the idea that most Cops had to kill an inmate, you made more than one post about it before Bass and I had to point that out. There's no way to retroactively prove whether you were aware, but let me tell you, it did not come off like you were. Our mechanics disagreement might as well be an extension of that, just stubborn refusal to accept you got caught. (Or you could legitimately hold those views, and I will spend the rest of the game still disagreeing.)

4) Enrique, for me the most damning thing about you is how intently you have called me very bad from a very early point in time, when I do not think you could hold that view genuinely, and to me it does (genuinely) feel very reactive and a little caught. It felt like it particularly ramped up from you at this point:

]I think trying to focus the thread very squarely on independent hunting is exactly what the baddies would want to do.

Totally called this misrepresentation. I love how bad you are already. I'm reading your role card post added to your reluctance to go after independents as a huuge early slip. Even if you were one of the three other GCPD roles, surely you'd understand that the rest of the team can't win as easily.

Which is where it felt to me like you went into another gear.

That is exactly how I feel about your original response to this.

To be clear, I am not arguing against prioritizing scum-hunt over indie-hunt (I currently have no intention of voting AA). But we are going to have to do both. The bigger picture here is that with no indies dead, only three civvies win. They matter a lot. I also really want to get an answer from the host re: when the game ends, because that would suck ass if we killed the two mafia families before anybody else and no one won as a result lol.

linki:

I think trying to focus the thread very squarely on independent hunting is exactly what the baddies would want to do.

Totally called this misrepresentation. I love how bad you are already. I'm reading your role card post added to your reluctance to go after independents as a huuge early slip. Even if you were one of the three other GCPD roles, surely you'd understand that the rest of the team can't win as easily.

What possible baddie motivation is there to be reluctant to go after independents? Please - make a rational case out of that for me.

The rest of the team CAN win as easily, and I've explained this to you over and over. How many people will usually be alive at game end, about 6 on average? I think the chances of a civilian cop being alive at the end when the cops win, and his independent counterpart also being alive to be slim. Heck, if I did or have rolled a cop I would be saying exactly what I'm saying now. It would be my job to find the one person I need to kill, and lynching my way through ten independents to get there would just be selfish. Killing a baddie is in the interests of everyone. Killing an independent is in the interests of one person. It's really straightforward.

You are fighting and pushing to chase independents. Why?
You ignore my logical points. Why?
You think that as a baddie I'm going to come out swinging against going after independents? WHY? Like I just pointed out, the baddies couldn't be happier if everyone goes chasing independents.
You ignore the others who have taken my points and agree with me. Why?

Is it because I nailed you in Star Wars, and you feel threatened?

C'mon, rationalise where you think my headspace is at for any of that to be true, Enrique. Convince me that your stuff about me is in any way genuine. Because right now all I see is someone making bad arguments to try and pin a motive on me that makes no sense, and I don't know why that would be your response instead of just actually recognising I have a point. You seem completely locked into your idea, and unwilling to budge from it, and its like you are trying to push a logical point of your own to make it seem genuine but your logical point just makes no sense. Each one of those cops, if they eliminate the baddies, can win with NINE of the independents alive.

By the way, I still think I'll probably vote Arkham. The leads are hot now. But I'm telling you that I will be pushing in this game VERY hard to stay focussed on the BADDIES. The independents are no loss, but they are exactly who the baddies want us to lynch while they clean us up.

And yeah, because doubling down on flawed ideas and not listening to reason is often a baddie tell.

linki @ Matt - why am I being strange? I seem to always get called strange these days.

This is all over the place. By far the longest post in the conversation up to thay point, you're suddenly bringing up Star Wars? Trying to downplay my perspective entirely? The entire post, where is it coming from? Saying the whole team can win as easily doesn't make any sense when you're pretty much suggesting to leave it to luck and see who's left by the end.

You think I got caught? I was trying to explain to you why Arkham mattered and you wouldn't have it. Then you misrepresented me as quoted above to say I was squarely focusing on indie hunting, just like the mafia would want. I don't see that, I don't see why you would say that other than because your own ass was on fire.

linki:

@Golden: These hypothetical scenarios, that's not how mafia works. Should we lynch the Penguin if the Cop assigned to him is dead? Well, first of all, how do we know any of their roles beforehand??? If we have a Mafia nailed down and ready to go, then yeah lynch the confirmed baddie first. That's just not how the game works and it actually makes me confused about this whole argument. Second of all, you're missing that there are civvies who benefit from ANY Arkham death.

I have no issue with Zebra trying to work with the thread. We don't do enough of that. The number of unopposed / unexplained votes for a leading option can always be concerning. This isn't new, and yeah maybe it's the reason she gets lynched a lot, but maybe she's not the one making a mistake?

Zebra is gonna accuse me of trying to buddy up to her but I don't give a shit, I get lynched for that kinda stuff too and it's really silly. Maybe we should encourage players to figure the game out instead of killing everyone who's actually trying.

[a2thezebra]

Zebra said: I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

What does this mean, exactly? I am being serious, I honestly do not understand this sentence
.

Maybe it got lost in all the linki, but Zebra, what does this mean? I am far from stupid, but this sentence is too convoluted for me.

Sorry I'm trying to go through these concerns as fast as I can so I responded after you posted this.

[S~V~S]

Zebra said: I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

What does this mean, exactly? I am being serious, I honestly do not understand this sentence

Linki @ Golden, but she DOESN'T think there are baddies on there.

That's not on you, it's worded very poorly since I'm rushing to respond to all of you as quickly as I can.

What I mean to say is that I have yet to see anyone who is concerned or suspects me for what I said about finding the Arkham Asylum option alarming explain to me why finding the option itself (as well as it being so popular) alarming automatically implies that I (for some reason) therefore have to find particular people who voted for it alarming as well. Golden is explaining it for me a lot better than I am myself, sorry.

Thank you.

Linki @ Zebra, MP seems to be on your side. What difference does it make how many posts it took?

[Bubbles]

hi all! *waves* i'm picking wayne's manor because i'm a goodie and it sounds like a civ option

[Tangrowth]

The last thing this thread needs right now is a pissing match between two high posters. It was starting to develop between Enrique and Golden, and I legitimately saw nothing there, so I made that vocally aware. Now with zebra, Dom honestly asked me to name someone I thought looked most suspicious gut-wise out of Day 0, I answered him honestly, and what has ensued in the surrounding time is a zebra misunderstandingfest, but now that I've seen more from her on it I understand her viewpoint. Consequently, I was able to erase my very vague gut-based suspicion in mine and others' attempts to engage her in conversation about it. I understand that civilians feel alone because literally anyone could be deceiving them, but people need to be equally skeptical and yet actively trying to understand everyone else as much as possible, rather than laser-focusing on one player. Especially this early in the game.

I understand what you are saying but I think it's really hard to focus on others when you feel like someone is bad. I mean how many times have you lynched civvies because you couldn't let a feeling go and weren't able to look somewhere else because of it.

You're entirely right, but it's why it has to be a very conscious effort to continually engage and reassess. I've seen too many games lost because civilians, myself very much included, couldn't let go of a suspect and failed to improperly be skeptical of the real culprits.

[Golden]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

[S~V~S]

(In my honest opinion, spoiler in your quotes helps so much)

Some people can't read them on their phones. And some people find it easier to read in context without them.

[a2thezebra]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

Anything can come across as anything. "It only took extended conversation" could just as easily (if not more easily) be taken as antagonistic as well. I appreciate that you seem to be trying to avoid me getting mislynched over misunderstandings but you seem to be putting the blame of such misunderstandings entirely on me with statements like "it only took extended conversation" whereas I don't think anyone has to be blamed, hence my response.

[S~V~S]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Wow.

[Tangrowth]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Well, I didn't understand it.

You know how you separate them? By sitting down and trying to have an honest conversation. Otherwise you're giving everyone a license to misunderstand you. It's a two-way street; if you're consistently misunderstood it's as much your fault as it is those who either misunderstand you genuinely or are deliberately twisting it against you.

[Dom]

The last thing this thread needs right now is a pissing match between two high posters. It was starting to develop between Enrique and Golden, and I legitimately saw nothing there, so I made that vocally aware. Now with zebra, Dom honestly asked me to name someone I thought looked most suspicious gut-wise out of Day 0, I answered him honestly, and what has ensued in the surrounding time is a zebra misunderstandingfest, but now that I've seen more from her on it I understand her viewpoint. Consequently, I was able to erase my very vague gut-based suspicion in mine and others' attempts to engage her in conversation about it. I understand that civilians feel alone because literally anyone could be deceiving them, but people need to be equally skeptical and yet actively trying to understand everyone else as much as possible, rather than laser-focusing on one player. Especially this early in the game.

any reason for the name drop?



also golden, do you think enrique is bad at the end of the day?

[a2thezebra]

Zebra said: I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

What does this mean, exactly? I am being serious, I honestly do not understand this sentence

Linki @ Golden, but she DOESN'T think there are baddies on there.

That's not on you, it's worded very poorly since I'm rushing to respond to all of you as quickly as I can.

What I mean to say is that I have yet to see anyone who is concerned or suspects me for what I said about finding the Arkham Asylum option alarming explain to me why finding the option itself (as well as it being so popular) alarming automatically implies that I (for some reason) therefore have to find particular people who voted for it alarming as well. Golden is explaining it for me a lot better than I am myself, sorry.

Thank you.

Linki @ Zebra, MP seems to be on your side. What difference does it make how many posts it took?

That wasn't my point with my response and I didn't mean for it to be taken that way.

[Tangrowth]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

Anything can come across as anything. "It only took extended conversation" could just as easily (if not more easily) be taken as antagonistic as well. I appreciate that you seem to be trying to avoid me getting mislynched over misunderstandings but you seem to be putting the blame of such misunderstandings entirely on me with statements like "it only took extended conversation" whereas I don't think anyone has to be blamed, hence my response.

That sentiment was not intended to blame anyone. People aren't the same. Sometimes we understand each other immediately, sometimes it takes extensive conversation. That doesn't make the person necessarily mafia because they don't understand what you're saying.

[Tangrowth]

The last thing this thread needs right now is a pissing match between two high posters. It was starting to develop between Enrique and Golden, and I legitimately saw nothing there, so I made that vocally aware. Now with zebra, Dom honestly asked me to name someone I thought looked most suspicious gut-wise out of Day 0, I answered him honestly, and what has ensued in the surrounding time is a zebra misunderstandingfest, but now that I've seen more from her on it I understand her viewpoint. Consequently, I was able to erase my very vague gut-based suspicion in mine and others' attempts to engage her in conversation about it. I understand that civilians feel alone because literally anyone could be deceiving them, but people need to be equally skeptical and yet actively trying to understand everyone else as much as possible, rather than laser-focusing on one player. Especially this early in the game.

any reason for the name drop?



also golden, do you think enrique is bad at the end of the day?

I was explaining the events exactly as they occurred.

Why are you questioning me over this?

[a2thezebra]

I have no issue with Zebra trying to work with the thread. We don't do enough of that. The number of unopposed / unexplained votes for a leading option can always be concerning. This isn't new, and yeah maybe it's the reason she gets lynched a lot, but maybe she's not the one making a mistake?

Zebra is gonna accuse me of trying to buddy up to her but I don't give a shit, I get lynched for that kinda stuff too and it's really silly. Maybe we should encourage players to figure the game out instead of killing everyone who's actually trying.

You seem genuine so I don't think you're buddying. I still think you have ulterior motives for some of the things you've said previously but like I said, they could be the good kind of ulterior motives. I'll be watching you (just like everyone) but I don't suspect you...yet. :P

[Dom]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Wow.

Can you elaborate?

[a2thezebra]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

I do think in the case of Nerolunar and perhaps S~V~S that they did in fact misunderstand me. With MP, I'm not sure. With Matt, I do think he's deliberately avoiding understanding for reasons I elaborated on previous.

[Tangrowth]

It's clear that I need to remain here continuing to explain myself because now I am being misunderstood by multiple people, but I cannot stay here any longer; I have work to do.

zebra, if you think I was misunderstanding you deliberately, that's your call to make, but if you think that my posts have been coming from a mafia mindset, then I'd like to hear why since I cannot fathom how anyone could be mafia reading me right now.

[a2thezebra]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Well, I didn't understand it.

You know how you separate them? By sitting down and trying to have an honest conversation. Otherwise you're giving everyone a license to misunderstand you. It's a two-way street; if you're consistently misunderstood it's as much your fault as it is those who either misunderstand you genuinely or are deliberately twisting it against you.

Again, rather than see it as my fault or anyone else's, I don't see why it has to be anyone's fault. As long as both parties are putting in an effort to communicate, I fail to see how blaming anyone in particular is warranted. What I'm doing is to try to get people who don't understand to understand, as well as to see if anyone is in fact deliberately misunderstanding to be opportunistic. So far I can only confidently say that Matt has done that, and the rest of you seem genuine to me.

[sprityo]

So let's talk. What are your thoughts?

Okay so basically this is all i can gather from spending 30 minutes reading form page 2 to page 8:

Enrique vs. golden

Zebra vs Matt

Zebra vs. MovingPictures07

some misc. people conjecturing here and there

*GIANT QUOTE WALLS*



basically another way of me saying this is. Rather than going on a long winded rampage against someone, over what? a small comment? Like it seems most of the debates have started over just the silly picking of the first location. like yes, it's probably important. but like are we really getting anywhere with going back and forth on "how many times you said the word Frozen Yogurt in that paragraph" (this is sarcasm. terrible sarcasm)

but i digress. What i would like to see is a straight and simple reason that people are suspicious of someone. As my teacher once said "I didnt ask you to explain, i asked you do it."





Rant over-ish. You honestly cannot form your own opinion over the people who have the giant post counts so far in the thread since you basically have to side with one or the other. And everyone else (like me) who hasnt really done much or are being too intimidated to post, has to be counted as null, and scratched off the list to vote for. In reality this is a Mafia dream. ESPECIALLY IF IT'S ALL TOWN ARGUING. Like sit back, let them blow up for a couple days. once it dies down, start building on their mistakes.

PRE-POST EDIT: also within the time it took me to type this, there are at least 10 new posts

[a2thezebra]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

Anything can come across as anything. "It only took extended conversation" could just as easily (if not more easily) be taken as antagonistic as well. I appreciate that you seem to be trying to avoid me getting mislynched over misunderstandings but you seem to be putting the blame of such misunderstandings entirely on me with statements like "it only took extended conversation" whereas I don't think anyone has to be blamed, hence my response.

That sentiment was not intended to blame anyone. People aren't the same. Sometimes we understand each other immediately, sometimes it takes extensive conversation. That doesn't make the person necessarily mafia because they don't understand what you're saying.

Did I say you were mafia because you didn't understand? If you're referring to yourself there, that seems rather nervous.

If you're referring to Matt though, then you're not seeing the reasons why I suspect him. It's not because he didn't understand me, it's because he chose not to understand me. I realize and acknowledge that it's often hard to distinguish the two, but in Matt's case I think I provided enough evidence in my recent post analyzing my back-and-forth with him to indicate that he was in fact deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

[S~V~S]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Wow.

Can you elaborate?

This coming from you, the master of one word posts? :P

It just seems so ... I can't really explain oit... Just Wow. It seems like a somewhat antagonistic/mean thing for Golden to say. The implication about not understanding something as quickly as Golden did is somehow suspicious or not a genuine feeling, or not to undeerstand it the same way that he did.

I totally misunderstoof Zebra (I think, I am not 100% sure I totally understand her point even now) yet she (and Golden) seem to be implying that it was such a simple thing that it is somehow odd to NOT have gotten it right away (just sayin'). My least favorite mafia (or rl tbh) thing is beingmade to feel stupid. And posts like this^^^^ seem to have that as their mainpoint.

So yeah, Wow.

[a2thezebra]

It's clear that I need to remain here continuing to explain myself because now I am being misunderstood by multiple people, but I cannot stay here any longer; I have work to do.

zebra, if you think I was misunderstanding you deliberately, that's your call to make, but if you think that my posts have been coming from a mafia mindset, then I'd like to hear why since I cannot fathom how anyone could be mafia reading me right now.

I don't think you have been misunderstanding me deliberately but I am also less confident that you misunderstood me genuinely than I am with S~V~S and especially Nerolunar. Basically I am null on you at the moment.

[a2thezebra]

sprityo I assure you to that I would not have spent so much time arguing what I have argued if I didn't feel that it was beneficial.

[sprityo]

sprityo I assure you to that I would not have spent so much time arguing what I have argued if I didn't feel that it was beneficial.

If you could sum it up into no more than 3 sentences, i could maybe understand you more on it

[LoRab]

Checking in. Got my role a bit ago, but didn't have the awakeness to post. Now having an insomnia fest, so that's cool. Need to read up. Just wanted to let everyone know I'm here.

And, as I said in the sign up thread, I'm in Israel for a couple of weeks as this game begins. I arrived yesterday. Travelling around a bit and then I have a convention next week. So my time is limited, and I'm 7 hours ahead of when I usually am. So, timing of posts will be different and posting will be limited. Also, trying to avoid using data on my phone, so limited to times I have wifi. If you want to follow my travels, friend me on facebook if we're not already friends (pm me if you don't know my irl name).

TLDR: Woot game!

[a2thezebra]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Wow.

Can you elaborate?

This coming from you, the master of one word posts? :P

It just seems so ... I can't really explain oit... Just Wow. It seems like a somewhat antagonistic/mean thing for Golden to say. The implication about not understanding something as quickly as Golden did is somehow suspicious or not a genuine feeling, or not to undeerstand it the same way that he did.

I totally misunderstoof Zebra (I think, I am not 100% sure I totally understand her point even now) yet she (and Golden) seem to be implying that it was such a simple thing that it is somehow odd to NOT have gotten it right away (just sayin'). My least favorite mafia (or rl tbh) thing is beingmade to feel stupid. And posts like this^^^^ seem to have that as their mainpoint.

So yeah, Wow.

I am not trying to make anyone feel stupid and I don't think Golden is either. I don't speak for Golden in this case, but I also don't think that it is odd not to have understood what I was saying immediately.

[a2thezebra]

sprityo I assure you to that I would not have spent so much time arguing what I have argued if I didn't feel that it was beneficial.

If you could sum it up into no more than 3 sentences, i could maybe understand you more on it

I would love to, but what thing do you want me to sum up?

Why I think Matt is suspicious? My feelings about the Arkham Asylum lynch option? What my issue with MP was?

[Golden]

@Enrique - you make me tear my hair out. Because you are so ridiculously out of step with how this went down and you keep insisting I rejected Arkham and independent hunting but thats just not even close to the truth of our exchange at all.

But the hypothetical scenarios are utterly important, in fact I'd say they are crucial. If we lynch the penguin, and then the day after the cop who loses if the penguin is alive is lynched, the penguin is quite possibly an entirely wasted lynch. A baddie will never be a wasted lynch. In alluded to the civilians who need ANY inmate dead, I assume you talk about Wayne Enterprises. Well I see them as town-aligned independents anyway since their main goal is about percentages and not about taking out any specific people. But they may have no particular interest in lynching any specific independent. Again, if cop number penguin is dead, this means that at end game literally no-one could have their win condition annulled by the penguin being alive. All town could still win if they meet their win condition. Wayne Manor could. Other inmates could. The mafia could. The only person who specifically needs the penguin dead is that ONE cop. If that cop is gone, literally no-one needs the penguin dead. Are you getting me yet? We could have wasted an entire day on an indy that NOONE needs dead.

Thats not to say its not a good thing to take out the penguin anyway, it could well be. But not as essential as something that HAS to be done or else you will not win.

[Golden]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Wow.

That's not to say I can't see how some people could misunderstand, but its easy for some people to be deliberately misunderstanding, when others have already expressed genuine misunderstanding, you know?

[Golden]

also golden, do you think enrique is bad at the end of the day?

50/50.

[Dom]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Wow.

Can you elaborate?

This coming from you, the master of one word posts? :P

It just seems so ... I can't really explain oit... Just Wow. It seems like a somewhat antagonistic/mean thing for Golden to say. The implication about not understanding something as quickly as Golden did is somehow suspicious or not a genuine feeling, or not to undeerstand it the same way that he did.

I totally misunderstoof Zebra (I think, I am not 100% sure I totally understand her point even now) yet she (and Golden) seem to be implying that it was such a simple thing that it is somehow odd to NOT have gotten it right away (just sayin'). My least favorite mafia (or rl tbh) thing is beingmade to feel stupid. And posts like this^^^^ seem to have that as their mainpoint.

So yeah, Wow.

So, just to make sure I understand:

You think Golden was trying to make you feel dumb to shut you up. This makes you suspect Golden?
Am I reading too far into this?

[S~V~S]

You are.

[S~V~S]

I never said I suspected him. I just thought it was rude.

[Golden]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Well, I didn't understand it.

You know how you separate them? By sitting down and trying to have an honest conversation. Otherwise you're giving everyone a license to misunderstand you. It's a two-way street; if you're consistently misunderstood it's as much your fault as it is those who either misunderstand you genuinely or are deliberately twisting it against you.

Again, rather than see it as my fault or anyone else's, I don't see why it has to be anyone's fault. As long as both parties are putting in an effort to communicate, I fail to see how blaming anyone in particular is warranted. What I'm doing is to try to get people who don't understand to understand, as well as to see if anyone is in fact deliberately misunderstanding to be opportunistic. So far I can only confidently say that Matt has done that, and the rest of you seem genuine to me.

This is so it... actually you've really put your finger on something. I feel like MP is trying to attribute blame to you and act like you're deliberately acting in a way that will create misunderstanding.

[Enrique]

I understand that perfectly, but it's still missing the point of the larger discussion. The game isn't just deciding whether to lynch the Penguin or not.

This isn't going anywhere.

[sprityo]

My feelings about the Arkham Asylum lynch option?

This one. Why are you against it and what was the issue with whomever, that you do not agree.

More so i want to know why it got so drawn out.

The matt thing was short, at least to my understanding. you each kept "twisting [your] words around"

and the thing with MP, well it looks more like a misunderstanding that should just be dropped for now. or alternatively to be picked back up later

(i'd be having a stress fit if i had to keep track of more than one thing and reply to it adequately)

[Golden]

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Wow.

Can you elaborate?

This coming from you, the master of one word posts? :P

It just seems so ... I can't really explain oit... Just Wow. It seems like a somewhat antagonistic/mean thing for Golden to say. The implication about not understanding something as quickly as Golden did is somehow suspicious or not a genuine feeling, or not to undeerstand it the same way that he did.

I totally misunderstoof Zebra (I think, I am not 100% sure I totally understand her point even now) yet she (and Golden) seem to be implying that it was such a simple thing that it is somehow odd to NOT have gotten it right away (just sayin'). My least favorite mafia (or rl tbh) thing is beingmade to feel stupid. And posts like this^^^^ seem to have that as their mainpoint.

So yeah, Wow.

Well, SVS, are you suggesting that people don't use 'deliberate misunderstanding' as a tactic to generate fake reads?

[S~V~S]

It's like we are not all having the same conversation somehow. This is probablynot helping you, Sprityo.

Linki, yes some do. But I had no idea what she was saying, maybe you got it in one post, but not getting it in one post does not make someone a baddie.