Arkham Mafia [ENDGAME]

#1101

In the middle of school so can't post much.

@Golden, Glorfindel is always polite, but his tone this game seems off to me, as Nero said he could be an independent or maybe mafia.

@Glorfindel You never answered my questions or continued our discussion? I don't like that at all. When you get the time please address them.

#1102

S~V~S wrote:You see me as an appeaser ? Is that how everyone see me? That kind of makes me sad. I always think of myself in a very different way than that. Seriously, I do.

That initial post to Glorfindel was fairly carefully made, though. I wanted Glorfindel to actually TALK tome, not to run away screaming. So I did word it very precisely. I found it intriguing, as I said, that that was all he took away from his reread of the thread. I found him mildly suspicious, but not majorly so. But it obviously wasn't all that carefully crafted since Glorfindel did not answer all of my questions, and two other people immediately swooped in and asked if I was suspicious of him, lol.

And everyone keeps talking as if I was talking about his politness & good grammar. I was talking about his word choice and what he did and did not say. So my post was careful, yes, but in a totally different way. A careful question and a careful answer in Mafia are not the same.

As for you, I don't think your word choice odd, and if I was to suspect you, it would not be for that. Plus Mac, like Epi, really, CAN be uncanny. So I won't blow someones opinion off for being a tone reader, since I am one as well. So I will keep his opinion in the back of my head, but I would not vote for you based on it. This is how I actually feel and I said so.

Linki, This host (at least one of them) does not like to modkill. And nice to see you

I think as a baddie you try to be more of an appeaser, yes, and I think the puppy dog eyes give my case some merit :P I know you've said that you play more carefully with a team relying on you, and you don't say as many things that will get you in hot water as you might when you're a civvie playing on your own terms.

It's still early in the game but that's how I'm seeing you at the moment.

S~V~S wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I thought it was out of character for him to get upset over people disagreeing with him or finding his POV suspicious.
You think this is what he did as a baddie in GOC? Becasue I don't

No, in the same post that I directed at you earlier, I agreed with you that this is not GoC Matt. It's also not World Reborn Matt or Dune Matt or Star Wars Matt. In those games where he's been civvie he took heat early and often and I don't remember him reacting to it like he has here. Something worth mentioning is that Matt never took any heat during GoC and was free to play as he pleased pretty much all game. He also had the support of a strong team to back him up if he got into any trouble. Matt hid from the thread for most of GoC and I think he's self-aware enough to know he can't repeat that trick.

#1103

Nerolunar wrote:Did go on yesterday and read from page 19-23 but didn´t have time to post.

I guess that means you didn't read Page 18 then? How convenient.

#1104

lol, for me that is page 12. But I am at 60 ppp.

And the smiley

is not puppy to me, it's more like an unhappiness escalation up from

even if it IS called puppy.

This is more of an appease smiley to me

But that's relative, I guess. I don't think of myself that way at all, tbh. I think I am more slick when bad than an ass kisser, but ok. In the LOST again game, I played straight up civ and I got NKed almost immediately, so I would prefer that not happen again. And I am observing a few people at this point, and having gotten into one confrontation already, prefer to avoid another one.

#1105

Nerolunar wrote:Hi everyone.
<snipped to get to the part i want to comment on>

Im finding Juliets and Bea really hard to read. They are both very floaty and not posting that much(maybe because of private reasons) but I will be keeping an eye on them for a while. Especially Juliets. I know I have also been somewhat floaty and not contributing that much, but I just didn´t feel like entering the arguments that some of you guys have had(Matt/Zebra, Golden/Enrique and so forth). Big walls of text about things that are kind of trivial are not appealing at all, sorry. Good discussions to have Im sure, but not something I would like to get involved in.

Hi Nerolunar, I'm not at all surprised you are finding me hard to read. I get that comment a lot so I've come to expect it with new people I play with. What's funny here is in the same paragraph you hit on why I haven't been posting all that much. I generally don't get involved in major brouhaha's between people and really can't conclude much until the disagreement is worked through for awhile. For example, I feel like the Enrique/Golden disagreement boiled down to a misunderstanding because they were both saying the same thing by the end, both mafia and independents are important to pursue. Anyway, it feels like we have had nothing but giant brouhahas other than a few comments about Matt, Scotty, and Turnip Head (maybe there were a few more). My posting will pick up as the game goes on but I can't promise you won't still feel I'm floaty (what exactly does that mean anyway, usually people say blendy?). If you have any questions for me let me know and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.

linki SVS

#1106

ebwop, not Lost Again, Of Montreal, got my games mixed up, sorry Enri.

#1107

S~V~S wrote:lol, for me that is page 12. But I am at 60 ppp.

And the smiley is not puppy to me, it's more like an unhappiness escalation up from even if it IS called puppy.

This is more of an appease smiley to me

But that's relative, I guess. I don't think of myself that way at all, tbh. I think I am more slick when bad than an ass kisser, but ok. In the LOST again game, I played straight up civ and I got NKed almost immediately, so I would prefer that not happen again. And I am observing a few people at this point, and having gotten into one confrontation already, prefer to avoid another one.

Fair enough

#1108

Turnip Head wrote:
Nerolunar wrote:Did go on yesterday and read from page 19-23 but didn´t have time to post.
I guess that means you didn't read Page 18 then? How convenient.

I believe I have read everything, though I do sometimes skip large walls of text that happens in large discussion. Fx some of Zebras earlier explanation posts.

@Juliets Thanks. By floaty I mean vague or distant/hard to read.

#1109

Btw Juliets Im in the same boat as you mostly - I too didn´t want to engage in all these mayor discussions. I guess that clears suspicion a bit.

#1110

Nero, click on Page 18 in Turnip Head's post and it will take you to something Turnip Head said about you. Do you have any comment on what he said?

#1111

I believe I might have worded my "shade" a bit too aggressive. Im not entirely opposed to lynching Turnip Head, but we still have lots of time left to decide.

I backed down because I realized my post looked way too determined compared to what I actually feel like. I am suspicious of TH more than some, but I will wait until some hours before EoD before deciding. A better lynch target might come up soon.

#1112

Sup. Gonna read the last like, two or 3 pages and check back in.

#1113

Turnip Head wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Typhoony wrote:Are you suspicious of Glorfindel SVS?
I am not sure, tbh. I was just intrigued by his reaction to having read the thread. There was alot of tunnel type stuff and some quite a bit of tension at some points going on, and he only noted one thing, and his opinion on that seemed a bit one dimensional.

His reply was very well crafted; and tbh, it felt kind of *crafted* to me, if you get my feeling~ designed to appease. I can't be anywhere near sure at this point; he is unfailingly polite and I don't know him well, so have no basis of comparison. SO my initial thought, intrigued, best fits my feelings at this time, I think.

Do you have an opinion?
That's funny, because that's kinda how I felt with a post you made just before this one I'll spoiler the post:

Spoiler: show
S~V~S wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:Well, 20 pages in and I'm not much the wiser. I don't know a lot of the players here (well, not well anyway) but from the time I have spent here, I'd draw one conclusion. I played with Zebra in Star Wars and I saw a really slick performance from a very confident operator who always seemed in control. In Pikmin, I saw Zebra as a very transparent Townie who was picked off early by the twin forces of evil and ignorance. This game, I'm getting Pikmin vibes from her again. She's playing demonstrably differently to how she did in Star Wars and while it's possible that she is simply using her extraordinary ability to pull the wool over my eyes, I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. I'm simply not getting bad vibes from her at this stage.

a2thezebra wrote:Like, I don't articulate myself very well very often. Fine. But I fucking try. I try to get people to understand and if anyone has a concern no matter how many or how much, I try to address them, even if I feel like it's something I've already addressed and explained as many times in as many different ways as I can conceive of. But when I feel like the same isn't being done for me, it kills my motivation to keep putting in this effort. Because where is it getting me?

I don't understand how someone can spend an hour and a half writing a post addressed to someone to explain their suspicion of them and not only have it not acknowledged but then that person has the nerve to demand that the person that put in that effort start answering their questions as if they haven't already done that, while constantly misrepresenting that person.
I know this is probably a stupid thing to say but you sound really frustrated here Zebra. I understand why and try not to worry - not everyone is oblivious to your efforts. Whilst it'd be a disaster if you were Mafia, I think you're a huge asset to us if you're not and I for one would like to give you the the chance to help us win this
So you read the whole thread? Awesome

Fresh eyes are a good thing. I see you have strong opinions on this one situation; do you have any thoughts on Enrique vs Golden? Golden played Star Wars. What about Mac & TH? Did it read like a slip to you? All of these things took over the thread for a time. You have commented fairly in depth on one; I would appreciate your thoughts on the others.

While I am still waffled on Zebra, I feel pretty much the opposite to you regarding Matt. Having just hosted him bad, I will say that him jumping out the gate and speaking his mind is very par for the course for civ Matt. He knows he may frustrate people, but he dowesn't just speak his piece, he OWNS his piece. He takes that piece andhe does the cha cha on it. Bad Matt was a bitmore cautious about going full out until endgame. Not seeing that here.

I was also fairly involved in that situation, at least at the beginning. Any opinion on me? My thoughts on Zebra were pretty much really similar to Matts. Since your one towen read, Zebra, and your one bad read, Matt, come from the same situation, I would be interested in hearing your opinion as well.

Taking a break was good, and the second half of Day Zero with my unchangeable vote already made seemed like a good time [/hissy]

I did not and do not find anything odd about THs word choices. I have seen people lambasted for "trying too hard" by saying "we", and also seen them attacked for saying "they", like, "Oh aren't you a civ, that you talk about 'them' in the third person?". And his reaction was more inline with what I would expect from him as a civ. He would have been smoother & shrugged it off more had he been bad, I think.

That said, I trust Macs tone reads, in the games I have played with him, I have seen him to have a good gut. So not particularly suspecting TH, but will keep more of an eye on him than I may have done. I am not one to discuss who I trust, but if I did have oneof those lists, while TH would not be the top name, hewould be very far from the bottom. Mac, too, really.

Now that you have done so, Glorfindel, I need to reread the thread some today to clear out my preconceived notions.
I know that carefully crafting posts and appeasing others are things that are in YOUR baddie wheelhouse SVS, as opposed to just winging it as a civ, so maybe it's genuine for you to call Glorfy out on that... but I think it's noteworthy that those same things could be said of your post. That said, you defended my honor in that post which you didn't have to do (and also appeased Mac's gut ) so if your intention was to appease me, you have mostly succeeded

I agree with you that baddie Matt lurked in the shadows most of the time he was bad in GoC, but I also agree with Glorfindel that there's something different abut his behavior here. Matt seemed genuinely frustrated and upset at both Zebra and the players not agreeing with him, and he let that seep into his tone more than I'm accustomed to seeing from him. I don't know what it means about his role, if anything at all, but it's a side of Matt I haven't seen before. He's usually so happy-go-lucky.

Other thoughts:

I dislike how strongly Scotty is campaigning for lynching a no-show. I mean I get the sentiment, it sucks to play with someone who isn't playing, but it doesn't help us solve the game at all and it's basically admitting that the last 1000 posts were worthless. I feel pretty good about most of the high profile players and would lynch a no-show if it went towards saving someone I feel good about, but I'd rather lynch someone who is acting suspicious than lynch someone who's not playing at all.

I could not disagree more with sig about Zebra; I don't see how her backtracking fits a mafia agenda at all. Why wouldn't she, as mafia, just stick to her guns on this issue? I don't understand her motives for suddenly changing her mind, but for all we know she fed you bullshit intel to see if you would follow up on it or something. I have no idea what her plan is, but tone-wise Zebra is one of my strongest civvie reads, and just because you don't understand her doesn't mean she's bad.

DrWilgy seems to be throwing us a bite sized nugget every once in a while but otherwise isn't very involved. Just something I noticed. bea didn't post a catch-up last night or otherwise tell us she'd be around later, so she feels a little lurky, and I can't put my finger on why but her responses to Mac earlier seemed a bit off for her.

Nerulunar hasn't posted today, so this is a reminder that I'm still suspicious of him.

I agree with TH RE: SVS in this post.

#1114

Keep reading.

#1115

Turnip Head wrote:I thought it was out of character for him to get upset over people disagreeing with him or finding his POV suspicious.

You do?
Really?

Scotty wrote:
DFaraday wrote:
MacDougall wrote:I feel like Scotty's argument for wanting to lynch (or more to the point expressing that sentiment) a no show is something I've seen scum do before at this point of the game. When a mafia aligned player is at sea early game without having been able to start a conflict with anybody (the usual driving force behind successful blending) lynch a lurker or policy lynch somebody is often the carrion cry. His interest in doing so was made to feel even less genuine when he said he specifically didn't want to do it to Equivocate for being new and left only lovedelic as an option, who is also new. His argument that he knows lovedelic is not new to Mafia by virtue of him having played with him on RYM is also sketchy on account of lovedelic only having played one complete game on RYM before, I'd consider that new and he's damn sure new to the syndicate. So Scotty knew he was new.

Dom then went on to point out that Scotty "needs concrete info" ... I actually love Dom's point. Scotty doesn't want to lynch MP because he needs concrete info, but earlier he wanted to lynch lovedelic who hasn't even posted.
I think you've raised some good points. As a typically low poster myself, I'm wary of anyone who uses "not talking" as a reason to vote someone. In my experience, a player who has teammates is more likely to contribute, so I don't see the logic here in going after low posters. Any ping at all is better than no ping (which is what you have when they literally haven't said anything).

I will be at work all day tomorrow, so I can't check in again before the poll closes. I'll go ahead and *vote Scotty*
Are you kidding me, DFaraday? I've explained my logic for no/low posters. You are often a low poster, and I don't hold that against you. I really don't. "Not talking" is not necessarily a reason in and of itself to suspect someone, but it can be suspicious nonetheless. It's the tone and quality of posts that I look at. Not posting much? That's fine, but at least have something substantive to say in so many words.

"a player who has teammates is more likely to contribute" Umm, ok, that is a strategy that can be used, I guess. But that isn't canon, no sir. I've seen plleeeeenty of low-posters that have turned out to be scum, wallflowering their way silently to endgame.

"Any ping at all is better than no ping (which is what you have when they literally haven't said anything)." Again, our philosophies differ here again. After 20 pages of bantering, you decide to come out of your cocoon and cast a vote on me because you think I am lumping anyone that doesn't post much as target practice? Really? I mean Jeez, I already said I'm voting for a no-poster, not a low poster. If I think that one of the low posters deserve my vote if and when lovedelic decides to play, I'll cross that bridge.

...but you think someone is suspicious.
And you'd rather vote for someone with no posts, and therefore no evidence?
That's not a difference in philosophy, that's a contradiction.

S~V~S wrote:
You see me as an appeaser ? Is that how everyone see me? That kind of makes me sad. I always think of myself in a very different way than that. Seriously, I do.

SVS, this is way more suspicious than anything TH pointed out. This kind of emotional heart-strings tugging does not sit well with me.

S~V~S wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I thought it was out of character for him to get upset over people disagreeing with him or finding his POV suspicious.
You think this is what he did as a baddie in GOC? Becasue I don't

I do agree with you here.

#1116

MacDougall wrote:I feel like Scotty's argument for wanting to lynch (or more to the point expressing that sentiment) a no show is something I've seen scum do before at this point of the game. When a mafia aligned player is at sea early game without having been able to start a conflict with anybody (the usual driving force behind successful blending) lynch a lurker or policy lynch somebody is often the carrion cry. His interest in doing so was made to feel even less genuine when he said he specifically didn't want to do it to Equivocate for being new and left only lovedelic as an option, who is also new. His argument that he knows lovedelic is not new to Mafia by virtue of him having played with him on RYM is also sketchy on account of lovedelic only having played one complete game on RYM before, I'd consider that new and he's damn sure new to the syndicate. So Scotty knew he was new.

Dom then went on to point out that Scotty "needs concrete info" ... I actually love Dom's point. Scotty doesn't want to lynch MP because he needs concrete info, but earlier he wanted to lynch lovedelic who hasn't even posted.

Makes sense to me.

#1117

Dom, it was not emo heart strings. I could have put that bit about being an appeaser in green, I suppose, it did not occur to me. And I really did not like being called an appeaser; it hurt my feelings. If people think of me that way, I want to eliminate that from my game.

The point of it was, I was ASKING questions, not answering them when he compared my post to Gloffindels, and that is not the same thing.

#1118

Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I thought it was out of character for him to get upset over people disagreeing with him or finding his POV suspicious.
You do?
Really?

Let me clarify. I think Matt always wants people to agree with him, but I found the level of hostility in this post specifically to be out of character. I'd never accuse Matt of being a chill mafia player, but he usually takes disagreements in stride or at least keeps a happy demeanor.

I'm talking about this ping more than it's worth to me though. Really I'm just waiting for an explanation from Matt as to why he got that upset.

#1119

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I thought it was out of character for him to get upset over people disagreeing with him or finding his POV suspicious.
You do?
Really?
Let me clarify. I think Matt always wants people to agree with him, but I found the level of hostility in this post specifically to be out of character. I'd never accuse Matt of being a chill mafia player, but he usually takes disagreements in stride or at least keeps a happy demeanor.

I'm talking about this ping more than it's worth to me though. Really I'm just waiting for an explanation from Matt as to why he got that upset.

Do I need to remind you of A World Reborn?

#1120

S~V~S wrote:Dom, it was not emo heart strings. I could have put that bit about being an appeaser in green, I suppose, it did not occur to me. And I really did not like being called an appeaser; it hurt my feelings. If people think of me that way, I want to eliminate that from my game.

The point of it was, I was ASKING questions, not answering them when he compared my post to Gloffindels, and that is not the same thing.

I'll keep that in mind. You've made my radar, though.

#1121

S~V~S wrote:Dom, it was not emo heart strings. I could have put that bit about being an appeaser in green, I suppose, it did not occur to me. And I really did not like being called an appeaser; it hurt my feelings. If people think of me that way, I want to eliminate that from my game.

You should know that I'd never intend to hurt your feelings or attack you personally.

But you called Glorfindel an appeaser - did you expect that to hurt his feelings?

#1122

I did not think about it until it was applied to me, tbh. I will not call anyone that again.

#1123

ebwop, until it was said, I did not know it was something I would be bothered by.

#1124

Scotty wrote:
MacDougall wrote:I feel like Scotty's argument for wanting to lynch (or more to the point expressing that sentiment) a no show is something I've seen scum do before at this point of the game. When a mafia aligned player is at sea early game without having been able to start a conflict with anybody (the usual driving force behind successful blending) lynch a lurker or policy lynch somebody is often the carrion cry. His interest in doing so was made to feel even less genuine when he said he specifically didn't want to do it to Equivocate for being new and left only lovedelic as an option, who is also new. His argument that he knows lovedelic is not new to Mafia by virtue of him having played with him on RYM is also sketchy on account of lovedelic only having played one complete game on RYM before, I'd consider that new and he's damn sure new to the syndicate. So Scotty knew he was new.

Dom then went on to point out that Scotty "needs concrete info" ... I actually love Dom's point. Scotty doesn't want to lynch MP because he needs concrete info, but earlier he wanted to lynch lovedelic who hasn't even posted.
This is something I do every game, regardless of my alignment. I do firmly believe in giving people who want to play the option to play and don't see why this is controversial to you. You seem like the aggressive type, from the games I've observed of you, so I'm not holding it against you, but I do think that your accusation that this is some sort of "carrion cry" is blown way out of proportion.

You don't agree with my principals. That's fine. I'm an odd bird, and I usually get shit on day 1 for being such. But I do not think I am contradicting myself here.
sig asked which of the low posters I found most suspicious, and I decided to get to that when I get to that, naming Equiv- who I don't know and is apparently new- as a policy no-lynch. He has a few posts and has made an effort. Fine.
There's only one no-poster and that is lovedelic. As an addendum to my previous comment, the fact that I have played with him before doesn't matter, but it helps my conscience. Let's say I haven't played with him before and he is new here. I'd still vote for him. I want to give new players a chance, but I have a hard time talking to a ghost.

As for my "needs concrete info" comment, my philosophy is that day 1 is a crapshoot. I am a more statistical voter- I tend to look at how people vote and the outcome of such. It's no secret that's just how I play my day 1. Just so you know.
If that is a basis for lynching me, then your mind is already made up.

The word you want is "principles". I'm sure Epi had a stroke reading that.

#1125

#1126

SVS, a quick skim of your posts left me at a loss as to who you suspect. Glorfindel? Is that it?

#1127

S~V~S wrote:I did not think about it until it was applied to me, tbh. I will not call anyone that again.

When I'm done catching up which should be a few minutes, I'll quote your post and actually say what about it pinged me.

#1128

S~V~S wrote:
Golden wrote:
S~V~S wrote:formy atrocious typing
Oh SVS, this is just...

Not sure if you think that typo is "carefully crafted" since you liked THs point, but it was just a typo. Honest.

Haha, no. Just beautiful irony.

#1129

People calling Nero out for being quiet moments before his essay makes me nervous.

#1130

Gah! I have read 5 pages worth of stuff. It was just bad timing for me with this game start. I had no internet all morning and now I have to head to work. Hopefully we're slow and I can finish my catch up.

#1131

Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I thought it was out of character for him to get upset over people disagreeing with him or finding his POV suspicious.
You do?
Really?
Let me clarify. I think Matt always wants people to agree with him, but I found the level of hostility in this post specifically to be out of character. I'd never accuse Matt of being a chill mafia player, but he usually takes disagreements in stride or at least keeps a happy demeanor.

I'm talking about this ping more than it's worth to me though. Really I'm just waiting for an explanation from Matt as to why he got that upset.
Do I need to remind you of A World Reborn?

I remember it. My perception is that his attitude and tone are different here. I don't remember him scolding you or me like the way he did to Zebra in the post I linked. Not saying I'm right, it's just how I feel

#1132

Finished reading, I've gone ahead and cut out Glorf's post from this quote because I don't feel it is important to express the thought I had.

S~V~S wrote: So you read the whole thread? Awesome

Fresh eyes are a good thing. I see you have strong opinions on this one situation; do you have any thoughts on Enrique vs Golden? Golden played Star Wars. What about Mac & TH? Did it read like a slip to you? All of these things took over the thread for a time. You have commented fairly in depth on one; I would appreciate your thoughts on the others.

While I am still waffled on Zebra, I feel pretty much the opposite to you regarding Matt. Having just hosted him bad, I will say that him jumping out the gate and speaking his mind is very par for the course for civ Matt. He knows he may frustrate people, but he dowesn't just speak his piece, he OWNS his piece. He takes that piece andhe does the cha cha on it. Bad Matt was a bitmore cautious about going full out until endgame. Not seeing that here.

I was also fairly involved in that situation, at least at the beginning. Any opinion on me? My thoughts on Zebra were pretty much really similar to Matts. Since your one towen read, Zebra, and your one bad read, Matt, come from the same situation, I would be interested in hearing your opinion as well.

Taking a break was good, and the second half of Day Zero with my unchangeable vote already made seemed like a good time [/hissy]

I did not and do not find anything odd about THs word choices. I have seen people lambasted for "trying too hard" by saying "we", and also seen them attacked for saying "they", like, "Oh aren't you a civ, that you talk about 'them' in the third person?". And his reaction was more inline with what I would expect from him as a civ. He would have been smoother & shrugged it off more had he been bad, I think.

That said, I trust Macs tone reads, in the games I have played with him, I have seen him to have a good gut. So not particularly suspecting TH, but will keep more of an eye on him than I may have done. I am not one to discuss who I trust, but if I did have oneof those lists, while TH would not be the top name, hewould be very far from the bottom. Mac, too, really.

Now that you have done so, Glorfindel, I need to reread the thread some today to clear out my preconceived notions.

OK so, "appeaser" isn't the word I would use necessarily, but I do agree with TH's initial point that this post is pingy. I don't know if he still hold that thought (given your back and forth with him) but I do, and here is why:

When I initially read this post, my first thought was "Oh, I get it, SVS is trying to look for an opening in Glorf's armor here. Trying to get him to lower his defenses and make a mistake, or contradict himself." Let me break down exactly what lead me to that thought.

So you read the whole thread? Awesome

The opening statement is overtly positive. It's also a strong opening move by establishing that Glorf is fully caught up and has no reason to have missed anything, or left anything out of his assessments.

Fresh eyes are a good thing. I see you have strong opinions on this one situation; do you have any thoughts on Enrique vs Golden? Golden played Star Wars. What about Mac & TH? Did it read like a slip to you? All of these things took over the thread for a time. You have commented fairly in depth on one; I would appreciate your thoughts on the others.

Now we're getting into the meat of it. Since you've already established that Glorf has "read the whole thread", you make it a point to say that each of the conflicts you mentioned took up a good portion of the thread at one point or another. And yet, you remind everyone, Glorf only commented on one discussion, albeit in depth. To me, your post so far reads like you suspect Glorf, and you're building up steam to present a case against him, but you don't want to outright say you are suspicious of him, for some reason.

I was also fairly involved in that situation, at least at the beginning. Any opinion on me? My thoughts on Zebra were pretty much really similar to Matts. Since your one towen read, Zebra, and your one bad read, Matt, come from the same situation, I would be interested in hearing your opinion as well.

More testing of the waters, seeing if Glorf's suspicions/reads are genuine.
---

And those are the most pingy parts of the post, IMO. What also pinged me was a majority of your responses following TH's appeaser comment. They felt unnecessarily verbose in some instances, and corny/cheesey in others.

#1133

The tone of your post was friendly, SVS, but I think the intent was not. Which pings me. I think that summarizes what my post above illustrates a little better. I felt, reading it, that you were laying a trap.

#1134

Yo peeps. Just so you know, yesterday morning I went outside for a smoke right when our neighbor was walking his dog past the apartment, and my roommate's pitbull escaped when I opened the door, and the dogs got into a scuffle. When trying to separate them, my right index finger got caught on the neighbor's dog's tooth and when pulling away, I received a gaping gash in my finger. Had to get 6 stitches, and right now it's hard as shit to type lol. To be clear, I'm not asking you to refrain from voting me because of this, just letting you know why I haven't been around for all of day one.

Anywho, I notice Zeebs didn't answer my questions under the guise of me not answering her. Just to be clear, Zeebs, if Batman voted in the day 0 poll, I'm sure he would've picked Arkham, *possibly* GCPD, but probably Arkham. I understand why you wouldn't want to answer that, though. Still curious if you find me more suss then any of the Arkham voters who outright avoided our argument altogether. I suppose I'll be waiting forever on that one. Btw, you have a ton of posts, so do me a favor and link me to the one you've claimed I've ignored and I'll respond asap.

I also feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone with Dom and SVS as defenders, haha, but I appreciate it.

Turnip, I do get heated every once in awhile in games, but it typically comes later. I understand players say stuff like "desperate" all the time (right now Dom comes to mind from GoC lol), but Zebra REPEATEDLY, over and over, called my accusations of her desperate and pathetic, and that upset me. Saying it once or twice to get a point across, fine, but she won't stop. Heck, I think after I asked her to stop doing it, she did it again in BOLD. Actually I'm sure she did, let me find post...

a2thezebra wrote:Matt, I'm going to say this one time. Until you not only acknowledge the existence of but also respond to my analysis of our initial back-and-forth that took me an hour and a half to compose, until you stop misrepresenting me every time you respond to what I say, until you stop asking questions with options that are inaccurate and appear as if they're desperately trying to justify your disingenuous, desperate suspicion of me, and until you realize that maybe, just maybe, you're on the losing side of the argument not because I've brainwashed the players but because you're not doing a very good job of making logical arguments and putting in an effort to see my side of what's been happening, I'm not going to give you the time of day.

Now that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore you for the rest of the game, I'm not low like that, but it does mean that I'm not going to continue to waste my time, effort, and energy with you when you refuse to do the same for me and refuse to convince me that you're more than a brick wall right now. That's all.

She literally went out of her way to bold that shit. Seriously.

Anyway, I'm off all day today. It may take me awhile to respond, but will do my best to answer anything anyone wants to ask me.

I'll also be holding my vote in the event I need to save myself (I think I counted about six or seven players who listed me as their top suspect), but in reality, I'd love to just go ahead and vote for Zeebs right now.

And fyi peeps, Zebra pulled this same shit "I won't answer anything" in Star Wars too, if I recall. Blah.

#1135

Hard to type, he says while writing a four paragraph post.

#1136

[quote="TurnipHead]
I dislike how strongly Scotty is campaigning for lynching a no-show. I mean I get the sentiment, it sucks to play with someone who isn't playing, but it doesn't help us solve the game at all and it's basically admitting that the last 1000 posts were worthless. I feel pretty good about most of the high profile players and would lynch a no-show if it went towards saving someone I feel good about, but I'd rather lynch someone who is acting suspicious than lynch someone who's not playing at all[/quote]
Im not discrediting all that has been posted thus far. But my modus operandi is matching people's suspicions, voting records, and lynch results. I am bad at finding a guilty party day 1, but will reference things from early on after we get more info.

Ultimately, I'll have to make a vote based on suspicion, but this is just how I do my day 1's.

Dom wrote:...but you think someone is suspicious.
And you'd rather vote for someone with no posts, and therefore no evidence?
That's not a difference in philosophy, that's a contradiction.

Yes, because that is a safer bet in short term AND long term to help civs.
If I don't have concrete info, and I can't no-lynch, what's the next step? No-poster. I still fail to see the contradictions but apparently many of you do. So be it.

#1137

Well that was a fugly post. I hate doing this on my phone. Sorry y'all.

#1138

DharmaHelper wrote:Hard to type, he says while writing a four paragraph post.

Yeah, it's difficult. It also took me like 15 min to type that when it usually would've taken me about three.

#1139

Matt wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Hard to type, he says while writing a four paragraph post.
Yeah, it's difficult. It also took me like 15 min to type that when it usually would've taken me about three.

#1140

lol matt. batman the player or like, actual batman?

#1141

[quote="Matt"]To be clear, I'm not asking you to refrain from voting me because of this, just letting you know why I haven't been around for all of day one.[/qoute]

Thanks for the hug DH, but just so everyone knows, I have never backed away from a "fight" or argument in mafia by using BS rl stuff. Again, to be clear, vote me all you want if you suspect me. I just wanted to let ya all know why I was absent all day yesterday.

Linki - The other day I asked what option Zeebs thinks Batman would've voted for, and she refused to answer. But I'm talking about the "real" Batman as opposed to whoever has that role. Do you disagree?

#1142

Sorry to hear about the finger, Matt... ouch

#1143

Golden wrote:Sorry to hear about the finger, Matt... ouch

Yeah it's pretty lame haha.

Anyway, you were one of the folks I counted as listing me as their top suspect...do you have any questions for me?

Again, not looking for sympathy, go full throttle. I can respond, it just may take me a bit.

#1144

DharmaHelper wrote:OK so, "appeaser" isn't the word I would use necessarily, but I do agree with TH's initial point that this post is pingy. I don't know if he still hold that thought (given your back and forth with him) but I do, and here is why:

I'm still pinged by that post, on the fence about everything that came after.

Thanks for addressing my concerns Matt.

Scotty wrote:If I don't have concrete info, and I can't no-lynch, what's the next step? No-poster. I still fail to see the contradictions but apparently many of you do. So be it.

I don't see it as a contradiction, just a waste of time. What does "concrete info" look like to you?

#1145

Scotty wrote:[quote="TurnipHead]
I dislike how strongly Scotty is campaigning for lynching a no-show. I mean I get the sentiment, it sucks to play with someone who isn't playing, but it doesn't help us solve the game at all and it's basically admitting that the last 1000 posts were worthless. I feel pretty good about most of the high profile players and would lynch a no-show if it went towards saving someone I feel good about, but I'd rather lynch someone who is acting suspicious than lynch someone who's not playing at all

Im not discrediting all that has been posted thus far. But my modus operandi is matching people's suspicions, voting records, and lynch results. I am bad at finding a guilty party day 1, but will reference things from early on after we get more info.

Ultimately, I'll have to make a vote based on suspicion, but this is just how I do my day 1's.

Dom wrote:...but you think someone is suspicious.
And you'd rather vote for someone with no posts, and therefore no evidence?
That's not a difference in philosophy, that's a contradiction.

Yes, because that is a safer bet in short term AND long term to help civs.
If I don't have concrete info, and I can't no-lynch, what's the next step? No-poster. I still fail to see the contradictions but apparently many of you do. So be it.[/quote]
TH beat me to my question.
What constitutes "concrete info"? Votes?

#1146

DharmaHelper wrote:
Scotty wrote:
MacDougall wrote:I feel like Scotty's argument for wanting to lynch (or more to the point expressing that sentiment) a no show is something I've seen scum do before at this point of the game. When a mafia aligned player is at sea early game without having been able to start a conflict with anybody (the usual driving force behind successful blending) lynch a lurker or policy lynch somebody is often the carrion cry. His interest in doing so was made to feel even less genuine when he said he specifically didn't want to do it to Equivocate for being new and left only lovedelic as an option, who is also new. His argument that he knows lovedelic is not new to Mafia by virtue of him having played with him on RYM is also sketchy on account of lovedelic only having played one complete game on RYM before, I'd consider that new and he's damn sure new to the syndicate. So Scotty knew he was new.

Dom then went on to point out that Scotty "needs concrete info" ... I actually love Dom's point. Scotty doesn't want to lynch MP because he needs concrete info, but earlier he wanted to lynch lovedelic who hasn't even posted.
This is something I do every game, regardless of my alignment. I do firmly believe in giving people who want to play the option to play and don't see why this is controversial to you. You seem like the aggressive type, from the games I've observed of you, so I'm not holding it against you, but I do think that your accusation that this is some sort of "carrion cry" is blown way out of proportion.

You don't agree with my principals. That's fine. I'm an odd bird, and I usually get shit on day 1 for being such. But I do not think I am contradicting myself here.
sig asked which of the low posters I found most suspicious, and I decided to get to that when I get to that, naming Equiv- who I don't know and is apparently new- as a policy no-lynch. He has a few posts and has made an effort. Fine.
There's only one no-poster and that is lovedelic. As an addendum to my previous comment, the fact that I have played with him before doesn't matter, but it helps my conscience. Let's say I haven't played with him before and he is new here. I'd still vote for him. I want to give new players a chance, but I have a hard time talking to a ghost.

As for my "needs concrete info" comment, my philosophy is that day 1 is a crapshoot. I am a more statistical voter- I tend to look at how people vote and the outcome of such. It's no secret that's just how I play my day 1. Just so you know.
If that is a basis for lynching me, then your mind is already made up.
The word you want is "principles". I'm sure Epi had a stroke reading that.

DharmaHelper wrote:Fish Mooney's - Probably a good place to go looking for crooks on the lamb.

Lamb.

#1147

Baaaaaaaaaaaa

#1148

Dom wrote:
Scotty wrote:[quote="TurnipHead]
I dislike how strongly Scotty is campaigning for lynching a no-show. I mean I get the sentiment, it sucks to play with someone who isn't playing, but it doesn't help us solve the game at all and it's basically admitting that the last 1000 posts were worthless. I feel pretty good about most of the high profile players and would lynch a no-show if it went towards saving someone I feel good about, but I'd rather lynch someone who is acting suspicious than lynch someone who's not playing at all
Im not discrediting all that has been posted thus far. But my modus operandi is matching people's suspicions, voting records, and lynch results. I am bad at finding a guilty party day 1, but will reference things from early on after we get more info.

Ultimately, I'll have to make a vote based on suspicion, but this is just how I do my day 1's.

Dom wrote:...but you think someone is suspicious.
And you'd rather vote for someone with no posts, and therefore no evidence?
That's not a difference in philosophy, that's a contradiction.
Yes, because that is a safer bet in short term AND long term to help civs.
If I don't have concrete info, and I can't no-lynch, what's the next step? No-poster. I still fail to see the contradictions but apparently many of you do. So be it.

TH beat me to my question.
What constitutes "concrete info"? Votes?[/quote]
I'm still confused on why someone you have no info at all on beats out someone you do have something on but it's not "concrete". I second Dom's question (no, I'm not buddying him) about what constitutes concrete info but whatever it is I know you don't have it on lovedel. And I'm also concerned that he's new like Equivocate. Maybe I'm somehow just missing the point.

#1149

Scotty wrote:Well that was a fugly post. I hate doing this on my phone. Sorry y'all.

Phone posting game on point.

No but what he said in the post before it about "why do people think it's a contradiction to lunch a no poster?" Through my personal experience, if you miss upwards of 4 or so 24 hour days. Like you obviously aren't checking. I just find it highly doubtful for the player to come back and play. OR if you're busy and you know it, you at least come and say something (like bea, mp, and Matt have)

You could argue to let them be mod killed but a little birdie said earlier that epi is not one to modkill so???? I mean decide either a low post lynch or a half-prepared half in for it random lynch of someone who might liven up the tread and keep it from
Becomin stale (like in the end of Of Montreal)

#1150

>Tfw you lunch a no poster

****lynch****

Who killed no one?