Arkham Mafia [ENDGAME]

#401

zebra, I see you've asked me why I felt the need to emphasize; read my most recent posts and see if that helps. If not, then I'm afraid that I'm not adequately communicating how I felt in the heat of all of that discussion.

Golden, I think I see what you're saying now, thanks, but I'm still not sure I'm ready to make affirmative statements that either of you are not a particular alignment. DrWilgy fooled hard with his indy-perspective in Star Wars, so consider me a bit wary of making solid judgments based entirely on speculation. I'll admit that this is not a strong point for me though. Despite being mafia-aligned in Star Wars, I really did not understand that whole Russ/bcornett Jabba the Hutt thing, and I still don't, so I'm afraid that you're just catching onto something that I'm still not getting. That's alright though.

Well folks, I've been here way too long, so I'm leaving for real this time. Lots of stuff to do. Hopefully I can come across a bit more light-hearted again next time I come in here, because I want this to be fun, and not exhausting for me. I already feel exhausted. If that makes people suspect me, so be it, I guess, and I'll have to learn to live with that.

#402

Votes aren't changeable, LoRab.

I'm actually getting a little excited about the possibility of the Asylum. I know there's nothing to it, but I think Nero's Riddler theory was very interesting and now I want it to play out. We're probably gonna end up visiting all the locations anyway, so why not start at the beginning?

#403

sprityo wrote:
a2thezebra wrote: 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?

That's just it, I didn't intend to argue it specifically because most people had already voted for it. I only wanted to make clear that I felt uneasy (alarmed, if that's not too "explosive" of a word to use) about it, but Matt decided blowing it out of proportion was a good idea and after we argued for a bit others started to notice and be bothered by it as well.

#404

MovingPictures07 wrote:Golden, I think I see what you're saying now, thanks, but I'm still not sure I'm ready to make affirmative statements that either of you are not a particular alignment. DrWilgy fooled hard with his indy-perspective in Star Wars, so consider me a bit wary of making solid judgments based entirely on speculation. I'll admit that this is not a strong point for me though. Despite being mafia-aligned in Star Wars, I really did not understand that whole Russ/bcornett Jabba the Hutt thing, and I still don't, so I'm afraid that you're just catching onto something that I'm still not getting. That's alright though.

I'm not expecting affirmative statements, but saying 'it isn't alignment-indicative' is an affirmative statement of its own.

#405

bea wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Dom wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Golden wrote:
Dom wrote: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!

Those weren't dumb questions in the slightest, thank you for asking them. I'm satisfied with my dock vote because like I said to someone else earlier, I want Day 1 to be as normal of a day as possible with this setup, and I don't see the docks being a location that would cause any lynch-switches or other hijinks of the sort. The last four options seem like they could be equally helpful in avoiding that kind of mayhem, so I just chose the docks because I like docks. :P

#406

MovingPictures07 wrote: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.

I understand, and as long as it seems to me like you're genuine and willing to work with me in communicating, then I won't suspect you for not seeing where I'm coming from.

#407

Matt also called me strange, which I found odd coming from him about me. It's not infrequent for people to call me strange, which is I guess strange, since you might expect people to realise I'm strange and think of it as normal.

Anyway, I'm off track. My point is, that was a really vague poo-flingy statement that I had to ask him about twice for him to answer, and then what I got was:

Matt wrote:Golden - Nvm, found it.

Between you and Enrique, I was mostly siding with Enrique in your "argument", and I didn't understand why you were sussing him over it.

So, Matt found me 'strange' because he 'mostly' sided with Enrique? Why not just say he agrees with Enrique, then? And it doesn't exactly explain what I did that was so 'strange'. That does feel slightly like setting up a potential false suspicion for later, especially as he never followed it up with anything at all.

On the other hand, perhaps it is easy to get tied up in looking for false suspicions in a game where most everyone is trying to find baddies.

#408

a2thezebra wrote:
sprityo wrote:
a2thezebra wrote: 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?
That's just it, I didn't intend to argue it specifically because most people had already voted for it. I only wanted to make clear that I felt uneasy (alarmed, if that's not too "explosive" of a word to use) about it, but Matt decided blowing it out of proportion was a good idea and after we argued for a bit others started to notice and be bothered by it as well.

Actually I was bothered by it before Matts post, I wrote a post similar to my "null = nothing" post and caught Matts post in linki, so I did not post it. When I got home post work, I decided to ask you anyhow. And are you still saying there was something wrong with misunderstanding you by your "" on "expolsive"?

#409

MovingPictures07 wrote:zebra, I see you've asked me why I felt the need to emphasize; read my most recent posts and see if that helps. If not, then I'm afraid that I'm not adequately communicating how I felt in the heat of all of that discussion.

It does. You weren't very specific so correct me if I'm wrong:

I guess you felt that I was trying to blame you when I wasn't, and you realize that now?

If so, then no worries.

#410

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

bubbles!! long time no see!! I didn't realize you were signed up for this!

I hope all is well in your neck of the woods.

#411

Golden wrote:
On the other hand, perhaps it is easy to get tied up in looking for false suspicions in a game where most everyone is trying to find baddies.

"youre guilty until proven innocent"

#412

S~V~S wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
sprityo wrote:
a2thezebra wrote: 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?
That's just it, I didn't intend to argue it specifically because most people had already voted for it. I only wanted to make clear that I felt uneasy (alarmed, if that's not too "explosive" of a word to use) about it, but Matt decided blowing it out of proportion was a good idea and after we argued for a bit others started to notice and be bothered by it as well.
Actually I was bothered by it before Matts post, I wrote a post similar to my "null = nothing" post and caught Matts post in linki, so I did not post it. When I got home post work, I decided to ask you anyhow. And are you still saying there was something wrong with misunderstanding you by your "" on "expolsive"?

No, I thought I clarified to you (and you acknowledged) that I don't think there's anything wrong with misunderstanding me.

Me putting quotations on explosive is just me making fun of how exaggerated MP's misunderstanding comes across to me. That doesn't mean that I suspect it or have a problem with it, I just strongly disagree that the use of the word "alarmed" is "explosive." It doesn't need to be a big deal and I'm more than ready to move on and have been for some time now.

#413

Let's talk sig.

sig wrote:It wouldn't be a new record so no thank you, if you can lynch my day 0 then go ahead otherwise I'd prefer not to get lynched until mid game.

Here's a post about wanting to get lynched midgame that sig claims is a joke. I'm willing to take his word for that.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
sig wrote:It wouldn't be a new record so no thank you, if you can lynch my day 0 then go ahead otherwise I'd prefer not to get lynched until mid game.
Why mid game and not the end? Perhaps it because you are bad...

Bass asks sig why he would say something like this, and postulates that it's because sig is bad. I can't speak for sig, but if this were my own joke post in question I would clarify at this point for Bass's benefit.

These are all of sig's following posts until I engage him. The content isn't really important other than the fact that they're all about choosing a location. I like to categorize these posts as either "being helpful" or "appearing helpful". sig's ISO is only 12 posts so it should be easy enough to follow along, but I'm recording these for the sake of completeness.

Spoiler: show

One post agreeing with Golden about mechanics of hunting for baddies versus inmates:

Spoiler: show

Back to discussing poll locations:

Spoiler: show

Now back to the good stuff. Here's where I ask sig why he didn't respond to Bass's post:

Turnip Head wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:
sig wrote:It wouldn't be a new record so no thank you, if you can lynch my day 0 then go ahead otherwise I'd prefer not to get lynched until mid game.
Why mid game and not the end? Perhaps it because you are bad...
Sig, can you explain why you didn't respond to this post? It did seem like a weird thing for you to say, and to not respond to Bass about it feels like you're trying to sweep it under the rug.

And here's where he responds:

sig wrote:Independents will inventively get lycnhed and NK, two of them don't need to be killed at all. We have 6 (?) mafia we need dead, the mafia only needs 1 inmate each dead. IF we spend eight or more phases hunting inmates and not the mafia we will loose. If we somehow get almost all the mafia dead mid game, we can always stop pursuing them and focus on the independents.

Enrique's focus on the inmates is pingy to me and I see no reason to be saying we should focus on them and that Golden is pingy for not wanting to focus on them.

Bass is taking a jokey post and trying to make it serious. I was making a joke at my own expensive basically. Since last game I was lynched day 1 and I usually get lynched by mid game if not earlier. The fact Bass even called out an obvious joking post is suspicious since the mafia tend to be the only people who do this.

Something I didn't mention earlier but stands out to me is that- well first of all, this is sig's first post discussing his suspicions. He picks the two people who were hogging the thread's attention at the time and finds them both suspicious for completely opposite reasons. That seems convenient to me. He doesn't really engage either of them, just adding fuel to the fire.

More interesting to me is that sig responds to me about Bass's post and calls Bass suspicious for even thinking it ( "call[ing] out an obvious joking post is suspicious" and "the mafia tend to be the only people who do this" ). Sig didn't really answer my question of why he didn't say this earlier, so I asked him again

sig wrote:I didn't mention it since I saw no reason to, his point against me is either an attempt to set me up or is just foolish.

He said he saw no reason to mention a post he thought was suspicious, in a game where the entire point is to post about things we find suspicious.

This is me making that point:

Turnip Head wrote:That's where you lose me. How can you can think something is suspicious and also think it's not worth bringing up? It's not like you've been discussing more important matters instead; all your posts between Bass' post and this post have been discussing the Day 0 poll locations.

And sig's reply:

sig wrote:I need to pick my battles so to speak, me bringing up Bass's post would only draw attention to me and it isn't enough to build a case against him, I also think discussing the day 0 poll is very important.

Having said that I'll be going to Wayne Enterprises.

Sig has apparently "picked his battles" by agreeing with the suspicion on the two most prolific thread suspects, for completely opposite reasons I'll reiterate, and did not choose to bring forth his own suspicion re: Bass for fear it would draw attention to him.

I've only played a few games with sig, as well as observed a few, and I've never known civvie sig to NOT mention something he thought was suspicious, whether it led to a full fledged case or not, whether it brought attention to himself or not.

Again, why would he not have reason to talk about this suspicion in the thread? If his suspicion of Bass is genuine, it only makes me think sig has other ways of handling his Bass problem. If he's going to poison Bass, or blackmail Bass, or kill Bass, then it would make sense that he had no reason to talk about him. But I simply don't know civvie sig to be the kind of guy who doesn't discuss his own suspicions, even if it's based on something small or amounts to a NO U or goes against the popular opinion of the thread. And yet the sig I'm observing seems comfortable sitting back and letting the thread take its own direction, as long as that direction doesn't lead to him.

Now to read the million linkis between me writing this and posting it.

#414

Very boisterous for a Day Zero ey lads.

#415

I would like to hear DH's thoughts about everything that has happen today.

#416

Oh there he is.

#417

S~V~S I'm bothered that you asked if I was still saying there was something wrong with misunderstanding me earlier when I haven't said that the entire game. You seem genuine but it kind of irks me since I thought we were clear on this and just now is the first time I've been completely caught up the entire damn game because I've been trying to respond to everyone who has addressed me as best as I can for over three hours now. I'm not trying to take it out on you so please don't think that, I'm just saying that I've been trying to be as patient as possible for a while and come across as compliant as I can when really I've been pretty irritated for a while. I just don't want to feel like my effort and avoiding talking to people in the room for some time now has been all in vain if you still think that I was blaming anyone for misunderstanding me.

#418

As for Sig when I made that post about what you said I was just joking. I thought you knew that and that's why you never said anything about it. You bringing it up way later makes me wonder about you.

#419

Bass_the_Clever wrote:As for Sig when I made that post about what you said I was just joking. I thought you knew that and that's why you never said anything about it. You bringing it up way later makes me wonder about you.

Yeah exactly. If he had simply responded to you saying it was a joke I wouldn't even be looking at him. But he apparently thought it was suspicious but not worth bringing up until I asked. Makes me think he was talking about it behind the scenes rather than in the thread.

#420

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I would like to hear DH's thoughts about everything that has happen today.

i'll comment tomorrow.

#421

DharmaHelper wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:I would like to hear DH's thoughts about everything that has happen today.
i'll comment tomorrow.

It will be appreciated.

#422

a2thezebra wrote:S~V~S I'm bothered that you asked if I was still saying there was something wrong with misunderstanding me earlier when I haven't said that the entire game. You seem genuine but it kind of irks me since I thought we were clear on this and just now is the first time I've been completely caught up the entire damn game because I've been trying to respond to everyone who has addressed me as best as I can for over three hours now. I'm not trying to take it out on you so please don't think that, I'm just saying that I've been trying to be as patient as possible for a while and come across as compliant as I can when really I've been pretty irritated for a while. I just don't want to feel like my effort and avoiding talking to people in the room for some time now has been all in vain if you still think that I was blaming anyone for misunderstanding me.

OK, just wanted to clarify. Some people (I know I am one) don;t always get humor directed at them. And making fun of people for something you have moved past might, reasonable, appear as if you have not actually moved on and are trying to ridicule their points, a time honored gameplay strategy. So I was just clarifying that that was not the case.

That quote thing seemed a bit like you making fun of the people who suspected you, that was why I emphasized it. It was that more so than the misunderstanding. *I* have moved past it. But that "" made me think that perhaps you have not. "Alarming"is an adverb; be glad Epignosis is hosting, not playing.

And I get it. I get total irritation. And you are handling it much more gracefully than I did just recently in another game. And I am sorry about that. But mocking suspicions of you isn't a good look, even after the fact.

#423

But it isn't mocking the suspicion, it's mocking the opinion about how extreme that word can come off as.

#424

Not everyone views it that way; to me it reads like mocking the PERSON. I would have taken it as such had it been me. And although MP & I are wildle different, that is one way we are the same. Some people can man up & grow a sense of humor about themselves, and some cannot. So I tend to view mocking, or making fuin of peoples opinions, as aggression.

It's a fault I have.

Now I want to read what TH says about sig.

#425

I don't see a real case against me at all TH I see you taking things out of context, I have not brought stuff up before as a civ and civ sig always gets lynched for "speaking his mind", and when I did answer Bass's point you used it to build a case against me SO I was right in not answering and you prove my point of it being a set up.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:As for Sig when I made that post about what you said I was just joking. I thought you knew that and that's why you never said anything about it. You bringing it up way later makes me wonder about you.

I didn't bring it up TH did and that is why I mentioned it. If you were joking then fine, however you saying this right after TH case seems staged to me. Also your post in no way seemed like a joke and if it was why didn't you comment earlier on TH's thoughts that it was just a joke? I don't think it was a joke and you're saying it is to further an attempt to lynch me.

I also find it odd TH that your first post was what I saw as joking back

Turnip Head wrote:
sig wrote:It wouldn't be a new record so no thank you, if you can lynch my day 0 then go ahead otherwise I'd prefer not to get lynched until mid game.
Why do we fall, sig?

But now you are trying to get me lynched for me making a jokey post and not responding to what seemed like an attempt to set me up. This is a weak case based around a weak reason. You also claim to have watched/played with me and never seen me not address something. How do you now what I choose to address or not? I'd also think after just hosting me and me getting mislynched day 1 for making jokey posts you'd be less likely to form a case against me based around a jokey post.

#426

I'm not trying to get you lynched for making a jokey post. I was very clear about that.

#427

sig wrote:I don't see a real case against me at all TH I see you taking things out of context, I have not brought stuff up before as a civ and civ sig always gets lynched for "speaking his mind", and when I did answer Bass's point you used it to build a case against me SO I was right in not answering and you prove my point of it being a set up.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:As for Sig when I made that post about what you said I was just joking. I thought you knew that and that's why you never said anything about it. You bringing it up way later makes me wonder about you.
I didn't bring it up TH did and that is why I mentioned it. If you were joking then fine, however you saying this right after TH case seems staged to me. Also your post in no way seemed like a joke and if it was why didn't you comment earlier on TH's thoughts that it was just a joke? I don't think it was a joke and you're saying it is to further an attempt to lynch me.

I also find it odd TH that your first post was what I saw as joking back
Turnip Head wrote:
sig wrote:It wouldn't be a new record so no thank you, if you can lynch my day 0 then go ahead otherwise I'd prefer not to get lynched until mid game.
Why do we fall, sig?
But now you are trying to get me lynched for me making a jokey post and not responding to what seemed like an attempt to set me up. This is a weak case based around a weak reason. You also claim to have watched/played with me and never seen me not address something. How do you now what I choose to address or not? I'd also think after just hosting me and me getting mislynched day 1 for making jokey posts you'd be less likely to form a case against me based around a jokey post.

Did you not notice the "..." Lol. Sorry if it didn't come off as a joke. I'm sorry if I misread the the thread I thought you brought it up and then TH said something about.

#428

And yes I'm not talking as much at this point mainly since I don't want to be lynched/NK within the first three to four phases like I've been the last few games. You are also saying it is pingy that I mentioned Enrique. However this contradicts a later suspicion that you have of me that I'm not speaking my mind as much or talking even if it is a N U
YET when I do add in my two cents about Enrique and Bass your saying I'm throwing fuel on the fire which is it TH?
Also TH I wasn't going to deal with Bass in another way, I'm unable to do anything to him at night and even if I could I wouldn't I'm curies as to why you seem to be role hunting?

linki: TH your suspicion is based around me not responding to Bass post where he quoted me joking, so yes your initial suspicious comes from my joking post.

Okay Bass sorry if I sounded abrasive, yes TH brought it up first I wasn't going to mention it at all.

#429

S~V~S wrote:Not everyone views it that way; to me it reads like mocking the PERSON. I would have taken it as such had it been me. And although MP & I are wildle different, that is one way we are the same. Some people can man up & grow a sense of humor about themselves, and some cannot. So I tend to view mocking, or making fuin of peoples opinions, as aggression.

It's a fault I have.

I understand having a problem with mocking the person, but just before you said it was mocking the suspicion, and that that wasn't a good look. Which is it? I'm having a very hard time trying to understand where you stand. I'll think that you feel one way and then you'll say something that makes me think otherwise. I know it's not your fault but it's extremely frustrating. I'm not sure how much of this you're trying to imply is alignment-indicative, how much of it you're saying is something you take personal not game-related issue with, how much of it you're being sarcastic about, I just don't follow you at all here. Same with the post before this that you made. Like what were you saying by stating that "alarming" is an adverb? Was that meant to be relevant, were you just being funny, and in either case what did I say that you were responding to by saying that? Sorry if I'm being interrogative and rant-y, I'm just agitated that I still can't seem to properly communicate with you in this game just like the last. It's not what I want and I feel that it's my fault.

#430

Looks like I'm going to have a lot to comment on huh Bass?

#431

sprityo wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote: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 otd 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.

FWIW - here's how I sit on day 0. No lynch happening today.

Golden vs Enrique. - Pedantic. They are the opposite sides of the same coin. They sus each other for doing what the other did. I get each main point of the argument. I tuned out after it got pedantic. I think they are both likely civ till evidence says otherwise.

zeeb vs matt - This one is interesting as zeeb is zeeb and matt is matt. I can see matt's initial point, but I feel better about zeeb than matt after it's all said and done. It still should be pointed out though that we are no where NEAR a lynch yet. We SHOULD kinda maybe be talking about the Day 0 poll....

zeeb vs MP - I don't really see this one as a conflict tbh. I get where zeeb might think so at first, but MP seems ok thus far and if he were bad, I don't think he'd have worked so hard to try to clarify what zeeb was saying.

#432

DharmaHelper wrote:Looks like I'm going to have a lot to comment on huh Bass?

Yes. Why do we have to wait till tomorrow if you don't mind me asking. If it has to do with RL my bad for asking.

#433

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Looks like I'm going to have a lot to comment on huh Bass?
Yes. Why do we have to wait till tomorrow if you don't mind me asking. If it has to do with RL my bad for asking.

Because it's late and I intend to spend my last few conscious hours doing something else today. I also intend to comment as in depth as possible, and to do that I would need more time than I currently have.

#434

bea wrote:zeeb vs MP - I don't really see this one as a conflict tbh. I get where zeeb might think so at first, but MP seems ok thus far and if he were bad, I don't think he'd have worked so hard to try to clarify what zeeb was saying.

Let me say that right now I agree with this.

#435

sig wrote:linki: TH your suspicion is based around me not responding to Bass post where he quoted me joking, so yes your initial suspicious comes from my joking post.

That is not the basis of my case at all. You should read my case again. My initial question about your post was just that, a question. My suspicion comes from how you've behaved since then.

My point about you mentioning Enrique and Golden is not a contradiction. I am pointing out YOUR contradiction in suspecting both of them and commenting on the fact that your only suspects were the only two people being talked about by others, and you suspected them for opposite reasons. It didn't feel genuine to me.

#436

DharmaHelper wrote:Looks like I'm going to have a lot to comment on huh Bass?

Yeah this is challenging. But good.

So far I have been tone reading everything. The content is verbose and largely pointless thread pulling where there are no loose threads so I'm focusing on trying to see who is being disingenuous.

The one who I keep coming to is Turnip Head.

All the prolific posters are coming across fine to me. That's your Doms, Goldens, Zebras, MPs, SVS, Ernriques ... but not Turnip Head.

Lorab's couple of posts had the vibe I commonly find in day 0 baddies as well. Bass_the_clever has made me squint some. bea made my intuition glean a little.

I can totally vibe with DharmaHelper's play so far because after the GoC I am fence sitting the fuck out of this and I expect he wants to as well.

I've liked spirityo's feel too. Also nerolunar has seemed quite natty which is good. Matt looks natty.

Just want to reiterate that I barely read any of the actual content because I found much of what I was reading dramatic over exaggeration of irrelevant points.

So to reiterate here's some of these

For Turnip Head, Lorab, Bass and bea.

#437

Does the SVS vs Zebra thing stem from a difference in opinion or is it hurt feelings? I'm rather confused with their back and forth.

I do like Spirt's few posts. I like his views about the main arguments.

I find it weird Mac only has one posts, but hasn't posted anything else.

I've also got a good gut read of Bea.

Besides that I don't really have anything else, there have been a few big arguments, but the only one I fully understand is Golden/Enrique.

I have a slight ping on Enrique.
I'm unsure about TH, but leaning mafia and I'm getting an off vibe from Glorfindel's post I'd need to see more of his before forming an opinion though.

linki: I never voiced suspicion of Golden though? I believed Golden was correct and we shouldn't be focusing on the Inmates, unless I'm misunderstanding you?

linki 2: Never mind about my Mac.

#438

a2thezebra wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Not everyone views it that way; to me it reads like mocking the PERSON. I would have taken it as such had it been me. And although MP & I are wildle different, that is one way we are the same. Some people can man up & grow a sense of humor about themselves, and some cannot. So I tend to view mocking, or making fuin of peoples opinions, as aggression.

It's a fault I have.
I understand having a problem with mocking the person, but just before you said it was mocking the suspicion, and that that wasn't a good look. Which is it? I'm having a very hard time trying to understand where you stand. I'll think that you feel one way and then you'll say something that makes me think otherwise. I know it's not your fault but it's extremely frustrating. I'm not sure how much of this you're trying to imply is alignment-indicative, how much of it you're saying is something you take personal not game-related issue with, how much of it you're being sarcastic about, I just don't follow you at all here. Same with the post before this that you made. Like what were you saying by stating that "alarming" is an adverb? Was that meant to be relevant, were you just being funny, and in either case what did I say that you were responding to by saying that? Sorry if I'm being interrogative and rant-y, I'm just agitated that I still can't seem to properly communicate with you in this game just like the last. It's not what I want and I feel that it's my fault.

We could not communicate in the last becasue you were a baddie trying to kill me, making a mountain out of a molehill, lol.

And I am not saying it is alignment indicative. I am saying I wish you would stop mocking MP or anyone for suspecting you, or questioning you. You say something, or a number of things, that make total sense to me and I feel all warm and fuzzy, then you say something like "just sayin" or mock someones suspicions of you by putting words in quotes, anf the warm fuzzy just evaporates. Your content is not baddie to me; it's the sarco-trimmings that keep pulling me back in.

Again, it's a failing of mine.

And having read THs case, I respect TH tons, and take him very seriously. He brings up a lot of good points.

TH did you play Dune? I don't remember, iirc, sig was actually bad there.

Linki @ Mac, Bass has struck me,he seems to be dancing around TH. Am I wrong, Bass?

#439

Golden wrote:
Enrique wrote: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.

TBH - Golden AND Enrique - I feel like both of you are having at the earliest - a mid-game conversation on DAY FRACKING 0.

I get both sides. I really truely do. And maybe in the end that one cop is dead and that one indy can survive.

But svs had it right. Can we focus on not lynching civs because we disagree with how we should play the endgame on DAY FRACKING 0?

also -I just now got caught up to svs's

right back at ya moonbeam.

#440

Yeah I played Dune, sig was on my team although I didn't know it

I will say I don't see any connections between how sig played in Dune and how he's playing here. And that was another game where sig was lynched early. I do believe sig that he doesnt want to be lynched early, but I don't know if that makes him good or bad.

#441

Turnip Head wrote:Yeah I played Dune, sig was on my team although I didn't know it I will say I don't see any connections between how sig played in Dune and how he's playing here. And that was another game where sig was lynched early. I do believe sig that he doesnt want to be lynched early, but I don't know if that makes him good or bad.

I wouldn't say in scale of the game I was lynched early, I also wouldn't have been lynched if not for two players abilities (thank you TH :P ) so my lynch in that game had nothing to do with my skill as a mafia member, in fact I had most of the players who where voting for me convinced I wasn't bad and trying to save me by forming a counter wagon.

What do you mean about me being suspicious of Golden in a post when I never said I was?

#442

S~V~S wrote: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.

SO MUCH THIS!!!!!!!!!

#443

Turnip Head wrote:
sig wrote:linki: TH your suspicion is based around me not responding to Bass post where he quoted me joking, so yes your initial suspicious comes from my joking post.
That is not the basis of my case at all. You should read my case again. My initial question about your post was just that, a question. My suspicion comes from how you've behaved since then.

My point about you mentioning Enrique and Golden is not a contradiction. I am pointing out YOUR contradiction in suspecting both of them and commenting on the fact that your only suspects were the only two people being talked about by others, and you suspected them for opposite reasons. It didn't feel genuine to me.

Well now that I've narrowed my focus a bit I will start to take a bit more notice of the actual content and TH ... I'm not loving it.

The way your thoughts moved on this day 0 has me very intrigued. Early in the day you seemed to be providing carefully constructed opinions on issues unrelated to you such as the early blow up between Golden and Enrique and on prodding your plucking of a sig scum read seemed to come out of nowhere, sig was not pinging me at all and I recall Golden saying much the same.

Sig, as we all know bless him is very easy to push around with bullshit case building and often gets himself lynched replying, the fact that you appeared to pluck a case out of nowhere and chose sig of all people ... I hate it.

Your explanation that I've quoted here is very not natty.

#444

Sig I was referring to this:

sig wrote:Enrique's focus on the inmates is pingy to me and I see no reason to be saying we should focus on them and that Golden is pingy for not wanting to focus on them.

Though now I'm thinking I misunderstood what you meant to say here.

#445

MovingPictures07 wrote:How about a new discussion point: What do you all think of this post by MacDougall?

MacDougall wrote:Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.
I haven't said anything about it yet myself.

I personally read it as Mac being Mac. And poking TH just cuz. Kinda like his verson of "ya game!"

#446

Well I'm sorry that you don't like my opinions Mac.

#447

I was saying I also found it scummy that Enrique said Golden was a baddie for wanting to hunt mafia and not just the Inmates.

#448

Golden wrote:
S~V~S wrote: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.

Really? Cuz that's how civ bea and civ JC tend to play? Are we wrong?

And from a meta standpoint -you are welcome to tell me all the ways I've been manipulated in the past. Hell you need go no further than the last Champ game to see it. But honestly? Isn't having an open mind better for seeing if someone might be manipulating you? I look forward to your post game meta thoughts via pm about it.

#449

MacDougall wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Looks like I'm going to have a lot to comment on huh Bass?
Yeah this is challenging. But good.

So far I have been tone reading everything. The content is verbose and largely pointless thread pulling where there are no loose threads so I'm focusing on trying to see who is being disingenuous.

The one who I keep coming to is Turnip Head.

All the prolific posters are coming across fine to me. That's your Doms, Goldens, Zebras, MPs, SVS, Ernriques ... but not Turnip Head.

Lorab's couple of posts had the vibe I commonly find in day 0 baddies as well. Bass_the_clever has made me squint some. bea made my intuition glean a little.

I can totally vibe with DharmaHelper's play so far because after the GoC I am fence sitting the fuck out of this and I expect he wants to as well.

I've liked spirityo's feel too. Also nerolunar has seemed quite natty which is good. Matt looks natty.

Just want to reiterate that I barely read any of the actual content because I found much of what I was reading dramatic over exaggeration of irrelevant points.

So to reiterate here's some of these

For Turnip Head, Lorab, Bass and bea.

Why me?

#450

sig wrote:I was saying I also found it scummy that Enrique said Golden was a baddie for wanting to hunt mafia and not just the Inmates.

Upon my third read of it and you disputing the point, I got that.

Who killed no one?