Arkham Mafia [ENDGAME]

[a2thezebra]

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

I can safely say that I don't think Golden meant for it to be rude.

[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.

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.

MP seems eager to spread blame to anyone he thinks he can. See the name drop he made of me when talking about his zebra suspicion. Seems to want to place his zebra suspicion's origin with me.

[sprityo]

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

[bea]

My reads were null because I don't lean good or bad on anyone but Matt, and in Matt's case I read him as bad for reasons unrelated to his vote. My reads of the people who voted for Arkham Asylum being null has nothing to do with me finding the Arkham Asylum option being so popular alarming. I don't know how many times in how many different ways I have to say this.

Ok zeebs - I I just wanna ask a couple questions. I'm sorry if you feel like you addressed them already. I've been spurt reading off and on from my phone since about 10 am my time (it's now almost 5) while on the road between working on my day off, the dentist and 2 trips to the grocery. I will admit that LOTS has gone down this day 0 that I've only about half processed - both with you and Matt and Enrique and Golden (which I don't even think I can comment on till I re-read these 7 pages cuz it starts hurting my brainz by about the 3rd post each of them made)

I'm not asking you questions because I suspect or don't suspect you. I'm asking for clarification cuz I'm addle minded.

JC pointed out earlier - that perhaps going to the Asylum was a good idea because it's the scene of the crime (IE - the breakout) - I can see the logic in that. What good does it do to investigate places where crimes haven't happened? (IE the Police Station.)

Is your worry that the choice is bad because the civ's won't gain info from it?
Or because it feels like it's obviously slanted to give a faction not civ (IE - team batman and team cops) an advangage?
Monopoly is the only map game I've played and I replaced late in the game and pretty much ignored the map mostly and only made it to the end of that because I found my color teammie and we accepted the rockcon olive branch. So this is all pretty new to me.
Or were you worried about it because it gained pretty large popularity with little discussion like this?

[S~V~S]

I feel like we are all having different conersations and not one person is listening to any other person.

Except Zebra actually.

linki @bea

[Golden]

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.

No, the game IS deciding whether to lynch the Penguin or not... along with all the other independents.

I'm saying... those decisions are contextual and can be made based on the circumstances. Lynching every single independent is not necessarily a must-do. Lynching some is a must do, but not necessarily all.

But ALL of the mafia must die.

[Tangrowth]

I can't help myself.

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.

Really? Because it doesn't seem to me you're doing that at all. In fact, you were blaming me and others for not understanding your point.

[Golden]

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.

No, but so many people not getting it does make me think that some might be bad, especially given that the meaning is able to be correctly understood.

[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.

No, the game IS deciding whether to lynch the Penguin or not... along with all the other independents.

I'm saying... those decisions are contextual and can be made based on the circumstances. Lynching every single independent is not necessarily a must-do. Lynching some is a must do, but not necessarily all.

But ALL of the mafia must die.

Except for the first line, everything in this post is true.

[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.

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.

I'm not trying to attribute blame to zebra; I'm trying to emphasize that it's not entirely my fault that I'm misunderstanding her.

[bea]

I still believe we should go to AA though. Im wondering if there is a mechanic that makes the Riddler place clues where he has been. He has been at Arkham, so it wouldn´t surprise me if there was one.

What is this based on?

That sir is a good question.

Also mostly posting this to say nub typh.

[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.

No, but so many people not getting it does make me think that some might be bad, especially given that the meaning is able to be correctly understood.

It never made you think that she was ambiguous and perhaps not everyne understands her as well as you do? You automatically jump to *suspicious*?

[Tangrowth]

MP seems eager to spread blame to anyone he thinks he can. See the name drop he made of me when talking about his zebra suspicion. Seems to want to place his zebra suspicion's origin with me.

This is infuriating. Stop avoiding my questions right now. You're avoiding every single question I ask you and it's irritating.

Explain to me right now how dropping your name in there is blaming you for anything, or implying that my suspicion's origin began with you. I take full responsibility for all of my suspicions, including those I've said of zebra.

[Tangrowth]

Dom, you're really getting under my skin right now, and I'd like to engage you directly in conversation, but every time I try to do so, it's like we're at a party and you lean over and whisper to someone else something about me, rather than talking to me when I ask you something.

[a2thezebra]

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)

I'm against it because I don't see how going to the place where everyone has escaped from, rather than any other place where we have a chance at finding out where they have escaped to, would be beneficial for the civs. I'm also against it because I find it shady how more popular it is than all of the other options. As to why it got so drawn out, your guess is as good as mine.

linki - Holy crap that's like twenty posts.

[bea]

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 like this convo going on. Early on, I think it's a fair thing to bookmark but not judge MP on completely yet. Ya know?

[Golden]

Also I agree with a lot of what sprityo said, although if none of us talk there won't be any way to figure it out later.

linki @enrique - finally. That is literally the first time in this entire thread that you have acknowledged we don't necessarily need to kill all of the inmates.

@bea - yay bea is here.

@SVS - you know as well as I do that you and I always talk at cross purposes and we misunderstand each other all the time. In some ways, nearly everything is ambiguous. So no, I don't 'automatically' jump to suspicious. But when I find something suspicious, I say that I do.

@bea again - thats about where I'm at with MP. I find him different from what I epxect from his civ self, but I can't really quantify it enough... or in my own language I can't see really pin any coherent baddie strategy for it.

[Dom]

MP seems eager to spread blame to anyone he thinks he can. See the name drop he made of me when talking about his zebra suspicion. Seems to want to place his zebra suspicion's origin with me.

This is infuriating. Stop avoiding my questions right now. You're avoiding every single question I ask you and it's irritating.

Explain to me right now how dropping your name in there is blaming you for anything, or implying that my suspicion's origin began with you. I take full responsibility for all of my suspicions, including those I've said of zebra.

Did I miss your direct address of me?


Because I have found a lack of response suspect. But if I missed something, I'd appreciate you correcting me.

[Tangrowth]

I apologize for the strong language, but yes, I have asked you direct questions and they've gone unaddressed. I'll pull them up right now.

[S~V~S]

This is the exact kind of thing that happened in GOC, everyone is getting wrapped up in theor own little theory and no one is listening to anyone at alll. Well, some are a bit, but for the most part, they aren't.

Hopefully we can all take a deep breath and start over again.

[Dom]

I apologize for the strong language, but yes, I have asked you direct questions and they've gone unaddressed. I'll pull them up right now.

I'm going to a grammy's party, but I'll look at them after. You see, I haven't noticed a response from you (though, I admit, I've been quickreading longer posts), which I found even more suspect.

[Enrique]

I still believe we should go to AA though. Im wondering if there is a mechanic that makes the Riddler place clues where he has been. He has been at Arkham, so it wouldn´t surprise me if there was one.

What is this based on?

That sir is a good question.

Also mostly posting this to say nub typh.

I actually really like this. It's probably 100% speculation, but that's a very Riddler thing and not a bad shot at what his secret could be.

It doesn't have to be based on anything. I think it's good, and actually makes me a little excited to see what we find in Arkham.

@linki: We're going in circles a lot. My view remains the same. Not needing every inmate dead doesn't mean they're not essential lynch targets. But we can leave that for later when we actually have a choice to make.

[Tangrowth]

Dom, here are the two posts where I tried to engage you in conversation, and, as far as I'm aware, didn't receive a direct response:

Spoiler: show

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.

Spoiler: show

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?

I really don't understand where you're coming from with the name drop argument, and I don't want either of us to suspect each other because we're merely miscommunicating somehow, so I wanted to engage you in this. Let me know if I can do anything else to assist your elaboration.

[Tangrowth]

I apologize for the strong language, but yes, I have asked you direct questions and they've gone unaddressed. I'll pull them up right now.

I'm going to a grammy's party, but I'll look at them after. You see, I haven't noticed a response from you (though, I admit, I've been quickreading longer posts), which I found even more suspect.

Much appreciated.

A response to what, the name drop thing, or something else? Because if the name drop thing, that's exactly what those posts are.

[Tangrowth]

This is the exact kind of thing that happened in GOC, everyone is getting wrapped up in theor own little theory and no one is listening to anyone at alll. Well, some are a bit, but for the most part, they aren't.

Hopefully we can all take a deep breath and start over again.

I'm absolutely with you there, and willing to abandon current conversations for the moment in exchange for more productive ones, because I don't feel like anything is currently being accomplished.

[Golden]

@linki: We're going in circles a lot. My view remains the same. Not needing every inmate dead doesn't mean they're not essential lynch targets. But we can leave that for later when we actually have a choice to make.

Actually I think we may finally be in the same place. I've never said they shouldn't be lynch targets. I've only ever been trying to point out to you that we don't necessarily need them dead, and that we should be keeping the mafia in focus.

[Tangrowth]

@bea again - thats about where I'm at with MP. I find him different from what I epxect from his civ self, but I can't really quantify it enough... or in my own language I can't see really pin any coherent baddie strategy for it.

What does this mean exactly? Different in what ways? What would you expect from my civ self normally? I know these aren't easy to express, but anything you can give me to address would be appreciated.

[bea]

The game hasn't even started and I can't even begin to consume the 5 pages that were made just today. Like damn.

It's like if I even tried to start poking at someone, it'd be lost in the sea of arguments and finger pointing.

I mean that and the 4 quotes deep quote boxes (which are giant on my phone mind you)

Welcome to TS my future hosting partner.

My advice to you to reconcider your lynch/night cycle time frames makes a lot more sense now doesn't it? They are a chatty group.

[S~V~S]

@linki: We're going in circles a lot. My view remains the same. Not needing every inmate dead doesn't mean they're not essential lynch targets. But we can leave that for later when we actually have a choice to make.

<3

Thanks for this.

I think it would really really help if we all spoke TO each other rather than AT each other. Hostin GOC made me want to work a bit at trying to reduce tunnelvision from MY game. But I think having an open mind helps civvies in general.

[Tangrowth]

How about a new discussion point: What do you all think of this post by MacDougall?

Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

I haven't said anything about it yet myself.

[Tangrowth]

@linki: We're going in circles a lot. My view remains the same. Not needing every inmate dead doesn't mean they're not essential lynch targets. But we can leave that for later when we actually have a choice to make.

<3

Thanks for this.

I think it would really really help if we all spoke TO each other rather than AT each other. Hostin GOC made me want to work a bit at trying to reduce tunnelvision from MY game. But I think having an open mind helps civvies in general.

This.

So, S~V~S, got any new topics you want to talk about?

[Tangrowth]

Dammit, now I have over 40 posts in this thread and it's not even Day 1. How could you all let this happen? :P

[sprityo]

I'm against it because I don't see how going to the place where everyone has escaped from, rather than any other place where we have a chance at finding out where they have escaped to, would be beneficial for the civs. I'm also against it because I find it shady how more popular it is than all of the other options. As to why it got so drawn out, your guess is as good as mine.

linki - Holy crap that's like twenty posts.

haha yeah

yeah i get your view, but i mean what's the point of arguing it when it seems like most people have already voted for it?

[Golden]

But I think having an open mind helps civvies in general.

I couldn't express any more wildly how much I agree with this sentiment.

[Tangrowth]

But I think having an open mind helps civvies in general.

I couldn't express any more wildly how much I agree with this sentiment.

I missed agreeing with you.

[Enrique]

@linki: We're going in circles a lot. My view remains the same. Not needing every inmate dead doesn't mean they're not essential lynch targets. But we can leave that for later when we actually have a choice to make.

Actually I think we may finally be in the same place. I've never said they shouldn't be lynch targets. I've only ever been trying to point out to you that we don't necessarily need them dead, and that we should be keeping the mafia in focus.

I may not agree with keeping mafia in primary focus, but at this point what difference does it make? Whatever opportunity presents itself to lynch mafia or Arkham let's just take it. This whole exchange was kinda hollow when you think about it in practical terms.

[sprityo]

EBWOP: you could say we may go somewhere else, but with only 10 people having not voted yet. i dont find it likely we could go anywhere else besides the PD

[a2thezebra]

My reads were null because I don't lean good or bad on anyone but Matt, and in Matt's case I read him as bad for reasons unrelated to his vote. My reads of the people who voted for Arkham Asylum being null has nothing to do with me finding the Arkham Asylum option being so popular alarming. I don't know how many times in how many different ways I have to say this.

Ok zeebs - I I just wanna ask a couple questions. I'm sorry if you feel like you addressed them already. I've been spurt reading off and on from my phone since about 10 am my time (it's now almost 5) while on the road between working on my day off, the dentist and 2 trips to the grocery. I will admit that LOTS has gone down this day 0 that I've only about half processed - both with you and Matt and Enrique and Golden (which I don't even think I can comment on till I re-read these 7 pages cuz it starts hurting my brainz by about the 3rd post each of them made)

I'm not asking you questions because I suspect or don't suspect you. I'm asking for clarification cuz I'm addle minded.

JC pointed out earlier - that perhaps going to the Asylum was a good idea because it's the scene of the crime (IE - the breakout) - I can see the logic in that. What good does it do to investigate places where crimes haven't happened? (IE the Police Station.)

Is your worry that the choice is bad because the civ's won't gain info from it?
Or because it feels like it's obviously slanted to give a faction not civ (IE - team batman and team cops) an advangage?
Monopoly is the only map game I've played and I replaced late in the game and pretty much ignored the map mostly and only made it to the end of that because I found my color teammie and we accepted the rockcon olive branch. So this is all pretty new to me.
Or were you worried about it because it gained pretty large popularity with little discussion like this?

My worry is that nothing good will come from it in general. I understand that it's the scene of the escape, but the crimes are all over the city, and even then I don't see how investigating the place that the inmates escaped from would be beneficial for town. I don't have any specific concern about it and because of that I think a lot of people have misinterpreted my unease about going there. I think it could be that the civs won't gain info, or it's slanted to give a faction an advantage, or both, or neither. I don't know. It just doesn't feel right to me given, as you said, that it gained pretty large popularity with little discussion like this. So I suppose the latter is the main reason I'm alarmed by it, but potentially for the other reasons as well.

[Golden]

@bea again - thats about where I'm at with MP. I find him different from what I epxect from his civ self, but I can't really quantify it enough... or in my own language I can't see really pin any coherent baddie strategy for it.

What does this mean exactly? Different in what ways? What would you expect from my civ self normally? I know these aren't easy to express, but anything you can give me to address would be appreciated.

Inclined to criticise behaviour that civ MP would demonstrate? Slightly hedgier than usual? I think I really don't like that you don't feel the Enrique/golden discussion is alignment-indicative, because I think it speaks quite significantly to some of the complexities of this set up, where everyone has their own goals and reading how they react to ideas about how we go about the game is fairly big to me. I think there is even more one can learn from how people react than usual, about their potential alignment, and I felt like enrique gave heaps away at least about what alignments he wasn't (I'm pretty sure he isn't an inmate for starters).

[Golden]

@linki: We're going in circles a lot. My view remains the same. Not needing every inmate dead doesn't mean they're not essential lynch targets. But we can leave that for later when we actually have a choice to make.

Actually I think we may finally be in the same place. I've never said they shouldn't be lynch targets. I've only ever been trying to point out to you that we don't necessarily need them dead, and that we should be keeping the mafia in focus.

I may not agree with keeping mafia in primary focus, but at this point what difference does it make? Whatever opportunity presents itself to lynch mafia or Arkham let's just take it. This whole exchange was kinda hollow when you think about it in practical terms.

I agree. I think it was of much more use in getting a handle on each other, rather than the actual question at hand. In practice, taking the best option is the right way to go.

And, with that resolved... I still do think Arkham is the best bet. In any event the other option, the PD, seems like a safe option with little chance of info, and since thats the other prevailing option I'll go with Arkham.

[a2thezebra]

I can't help myself.

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.

Really? Because it doesn't seem to me you're doing that at all. In fact, you were blaming me and others for not understanding your point.

I have a hard time believing that I'm coming across to you like that. I have outright said multiple times that I do not blame anyone for any misunderstandings that have happened thus far. I did express frustration that I wasn't understood after clarifying over and over again what I initially meant, but I only expressed suspicion of those that I felt were doing it deliberately, the only one I'm sure of which did that being Matt. But after this post you're starting to make me think that you were disingenuous as well, because I just can't fathom how you don't see that I'm trying to co-operate and help people communicate. Not just with me but with each other, hell.

[Tangrowth]

@bea again - thats about where I'm at with MP. I find him different from what I epxect from his civ self, but I can't really quantify it enough... or in my own language I can't see really pin any coherent baddie strategy for it.

What does this mean exactly? Different in what ways? What would you expect from my civ self normally? I know these aren't easy to express, but anything you can give me to address would be appreciated.

Inclined to criticise behaviour that civ MP would demonstrate? Slightly hedgier than usual? I think I really don't like that you don't feel the Enrique/golden discussion is alignment-indicative, because I think it speaks quite significantly to some of the complexities of this set up, where everyone has their own goals and reading how they react to ideas about how we go about the game is fairly big to me. I think there is even more one can learn from how people react than usual, about their potential alignment, and I felt like enrique gave heaps away at least about what alignments he wasn't (I'm pretty sure he isn't an inmate for starters).

I'm willing to admit that it's entirely possible that you're right and I've missed something, so explain to me as succinctly as you can why you think Enrique isn't an inmate, and I'll see if I follow what you're laying down. I think the discussion just became incredibly long and convoluted between the both of you, and in reading it to me I got nothing of any alignment consequence.

If I can't get it after you explain it succinctly in one post, then I guess you're just seeing something that I'm not.

[a2thezebra]

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.

I'm not trying to attribute blame to zebra; I'm trying to emphasize that it's not entirely my fault that I'm misunderstanding her.

But why do you feel that that needs to be emphasized? I have not said that it is your fault for misunderstanding me, nor has anyone else.

[bea]

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.

Like I said prior...bookmarked, not lynched. You two. It never takes either of you long does it?

Be light-hearted MP. It will do your soul well.

linki - thank you zeebs! I appreciate your response to my dumb questions. Are you still satisfied with your dock vote on both a it could help the civs gain info level and also on a eff it day 0 level? I'd be interested in knowing if your opinion changes to a different option as it goes along to what you would vote and why.

linki 2x - deep breaths MP....deep breaths...

linki 3x - oh god you all talk alot!

[LoRab]

about half way through reading, and want to book mark, and also say a few initial thoughts.

The asylum, on initial thought, seems like the obvious choice. My gut wants to go there. That said, I know these hosts--and them seeing like the obvious choices makes me think that they are likely not. So, while there are great reasons to go there, I don't think I likely will.

Are votes changeable?

I can't remember the other thing I was going to say. I will continue reading, but I'm going to attempt more sleep first.

[Tangrowth]

I can't help myself.

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.

Really? Because it doesn't seem to me you're doing that at all. In fact, you were blaming me and others for not understanding your point.

I have a hard time believing that I'm coming across to you like that. I have outright said multiple times that I do not blame anyone for any misunderstandings that have happened thus far. I did express frustration that I wasn't understood after clarifying over and over again what I initially meant, but I only expressed suspicion of those that I felt were doing it deliberately, the only one I'm sure of which did that being Matt. But after this post you're starting to make me think that you were disingenuous as well, because I just can't fathom how you don't see that I'm trying to co-operate and help people communicate. Not just with me but with each other, hell.

That's how you were coming across in my perspective, at the time, yeah, but I'll admit it could have been largely or entirely a problem with misreading you on my end. I don't know. But that's how I was taking it, and so I went out of my way to try to engage you.

I understand you better now, and we're on the same page, so I should elucidate that I no longer feel that way.

You have a tendency to explain yourself thoroughly and in strong language, which is great, but it's easy for folks who haven't yet processed everything to the degree that you have to fully understand what you're getting at sometimes. In this case, I happened to fall into that category.

[Golden]

@bea again - thats about where I'm at with MP. I find him different from what I epxect from his civ self, but I can't really quantify it enough... or in my own language I can't see really pin any coherent baddie strategy for it.

What does this mean exactly? Different in what ways? What would you expect from my civ self normally? I know these aren't easy to express, but anything you can give me to address would be appreciated.

Inclined to criticise behaviour that civ MP would demonstrate? Slightly hedgier than usual? I think I really don't like that you don't feel the Enrique/golden discussion is alignment-indicative, because I think it speaks quite significantly to some of the complexities of this set up, where everyone has their own goals and reading how they react to ideas about how we go about the game is fairly big to me. I think there is even more one can learn from how people react than usual, about their potential alignment, and I felt like enrique gave heaps away at least about what alignments he wasn't (I'm pretty sure he isn't an inmate for starters).

I'm willing to admit that it's entirely possible that you're right and I've missed something, so explain to me as succinctly as you can why you think Enrique isn't an inmate, and I'll see if I follow what you're laying down. I think the discussion just became incredibly long and convoluted between the both of you, and in reading it to me I got nothing of any alignment consequence.

If I can't get it after you explain it succinctly in one post, then I guess you're just seeing something that I'm not.

Succinctly - with what you know of both myself and Enrique, and the players we are, I think you information can be gleaned from the specific positions we take in terms of who the priority target should be - Enrique thinks inmates, I think mafia. While acknowledging that both of us think both are still important to some extent.

[bea]

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

That's a fair point.

Also just as hard to do from a phone as reading all the tags are don't you think? Maybe not. I'm an old lady so tech pretty much hates me all the time...

linki - lorab - it's old skool. Votes are NOT changeable.

[a2thezebra]

I still believe we should go to AA though. Im wondering if there is a mechanic that makes the Riddler place clues where he has been. He has been at Arkham, so it wouldn´t surprise me if there was one.

What is this based on?

That sir is a good question.

Also mostly posting this to say nub typh.

I actually really like this. It's probably 100% speculation, but that's a very Riddler thing and not a bad shot at what his secret could be.

It doesn't have to be based on anything. I think it's good, and actually makes me a little excited to see what we find in Arkham.

@linki: We're going in circles a lot. My view remains the same. Not needing every inmate dead doesn't mean they're not essential lynch targets. But we can leave that for later when we actually have a choice to make.

I should say that I like it too, moreso than any other reason I've read for going to Arkham, but I also feel that it could indicate a trap (not Nerolunar himself but the idea of The Riddler having a clue for us at AA). The Riddler is a villain after all.

[S~V~S]

How about a new discussion point: What do you all think of this post by MacDougall?

Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

I haven't said anything about it yet myself.

He voted, too.


Linki @ bea,wow fast catch up. Do you have any opinions on anything betweeen Typhs remark that you commented on, and the more recent discussion between Zebra & MP?