Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (End Game)

[S~V~S]

Weli I do

@ Hosties~

Do the mild consequences apply only to the people that voted for them? Or do the people who chose to avoid your wrath get a break from consequences?

[S~V~S]

*I do, not I am

[Long Con]

*I do, not I am

** "I am", not "I do". Increase your blush!

And the consequences are for those who shall be the receivers of those consequences!

[LoRab]

I do believe that anyone that does not fear consequences has not had a whole lot of experience with Rock Con as hosts...

[Ricochet]

If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.

So, to interpret your response in your own style, what I'm understanding is,

"I don't like the way you play and I don't get you, so I'm not talking to you any more or taking anything you say as a legitimate post."

or, maybe

"I'm just going to assess all of your posting in ways that completely delegitimize anything that you say."

Also, interesting that you tried to get what I was saying, but didn't respond to any of it.

If that's the way you feel like interpreting it or no u'ing me, feel free. I can only smile at the proof that I point out you blow off suspicions with stuff like thinking players just don't get or like how you play, your rebuttal is "no no I'm totally defending properly" and yet you now just slam a (however tongue-in-cheek) "I don't like the way you play" interpretation of everything I've written in the last reply. Gripping debunking.

Also convenient twist of words there (just like SVS did), thinking I said I'm done talking to you at all, when what I said was that I'll have nothing more to reply on the topics you brought up, if you keep pushing it in the same style I've pointed out, which doesn't add up to anything.

I've responded to everything you said, because that's what my posts were precisely, responses to what you bring up or state. Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense? If your replies and views are so out of sphere, why must I keep "responding to any of it" in a way I find increasingly futile?

[Draconus]

@MP I'm going through your ISO for me right now you really do care!
Alright: Some of my short explanations I assumed were clear enough but I'll go through this and try to clarify. still gonna be brief because I'm painting my new house
BWT: He is still on my mind for Day 1. You hosted Bioshock so I assumed you of all people would understand that metta. BWTs behavior, the more I thought about it, felt identical to his behavior then. We called him out for it then and lynched a baddie Day 1.
My agreement with SD on the LMSers was more out frustration than anything else. I thought it was quite clear that this was/was going to become very quickly a good vs evil game. I did not site any names because you would have known who was saying thus is LMS if you had been reading. But there is a lot to sift through. I ended up voting for bwt, instead because I felt I had an actual suspicion then. As for not mentioning him since then, I'm glad you bring this up because he has still been on my mind. Does anyone else find it odd that he walked away from a majority vote (after the day had ended, granted) unscathed and not receiving much attention since then? Because I wouldn't mind tossing my vote his way again.

Of course I helped you out. Like I said, I'm seeing normal frustrated MP, and you haven't given me any reason not to trust you yet.

I have to apologize to Golden. My reasons for voting for him were petty and out of frustration. I knew your bullsuit comment was serious, MP, and you were right. I just wanted to give you a bullsuit response because it's who I am

Getting yelled at for not painting! Be back to respond to the rest!

[S~V~S]

*I do, not I am

** "I am", not "I do". Increase your blush!

And the consequences are for those who shall be the receivers of those consequences!

Yeah, I know

As soon as I posted it I was like,

And vague reply is vague, which was about what I expected

[Dom]

If you think my play makes me mafia or even neutral and you all just want to get rid of me, then whatever, I can't stop you from placing your votes however you like. But I can try my best.

WOAH WOAH WOAH
AGAIN WITH THE NO U

Dom, I just wanted to say that this was not a NO U. I'm not sure how you read it. But I was saying if you all want to vote me off that's fine, since I can't technically stop you, but I can try my best to convince you I shouldn't die (i.e., I'm not mafia).

Why aren't you addressing my actual thoughts? You keep apologizing for being emotional, but have yet to really address the meat of my criticism.

And what were you implying by "just want to give rid of me" if not that I am just going after you for little to no reason?

But now you want out so I guess I'm an asshole for suspecting you.

[S~V~S]

If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.

So, to interpret your response in your own style, what I'm understanding is,

"I don't like the way you play and I don't get you, so I'm not talking to you any more or taking anything you say as a legitimate post."

or, maybe

"I'm just going to assess all of your posting in ways that completely delegitimize anything that you say."

Also, interesting that you tried to get what I was saying, but didn't respond to any of it.

If that's the way you feel like interpreting it or no u'ing me, feel free. I can only smile at the proof that I point out you blow off suspicions with stuff like thinking players just don't get or like how you play, your rebuttal is "no no I'm totally defending properly" and yet you now just slam a (however tongue-in-cheek) "I don't like the way you play" interpretation of everything I've written in the last reply. Gripping debunking.

Also convenient twist of words there (just like SVS did), thinking I said I'm done talking to you at all, when what I said was that I'll have nothing more to reply on the topics you brought up, if you keep pushing it in the same style I've pointed out, which doesn't add up to anything.

I've responded to everything you said, because that's what my posts were precisely, responses to what you bring up or state. Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense? If your replies and views are so out of sphere, why must I keep "responding to any of it" in a way I find increasingly futile?

I wasn't twisting your words, i was giving my interpretation of them. Obviously, that is what we do, we read what each other writes and put our own interpretations on it. If we all read everything the same way, this would be a boring game indeed.

I found it to be an uncivil reply, which indeed was the point on my bringing it up in the context in which I did. If you did not mean it in a dismissive way, my apologies.

[timmer]

On a day trip to Wash. State, will rejoin the fun by tonight!

[LoRab]

If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.

So, to interpret your response in your own style, what I'm understanding is,

"I don't like the way you play and I don't get you, so I'm not talking to you any more or taking anything you say as a legitimate post."

or, maybe

"I'm just going to assess all of your posting in ways that completely delegitimize anything that you say."

Also, interesting that you tried to get what I was saying, but didn't respond to any of it.

If that's the way you feel like interpreting it or no u'ing me, feel free. I can only smile at the proof that I point out you blow off suspicions with stuff like thinking players just don't get or like how you play, your rebuttal is "no no I'm totally defending properly" and yet you now just slam a (however tongue-in-cheek) "I don't like the way you play" interpretation of everything I've written in the last reply. Gripping debunking.

Also convenient twist of words there (just like SVS did), thinking I said I'm done talking to you at all, when what I said was that I'll have nothing more to reply on the topics you brought up, if you keep pushing it in the same style I've pointed out, which doesn't add up to anything.

I've responded to everything you said, because that's what my posts were precisely, responses to what you bring up or state. Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense? If your replies and views are so out of sphere, why must I keep "responding to any of it" in a way I find increasingly futile?

I am not switcherooing you. I am reading your posts, thinking about them in context, and offering my thoughts on them, as one does in mafia.

And, really, my posts are not about my play, but about your posts.

If you're going to be dismissive and vaguely insulting every time you address me, and remind me in each post about how my posts do not make sense in your mind, then it really doesn't inspire me to clarify anything.

And I did not twist your words--you said that you might not respond if my post wasn't worthy of your thought process. Which I paraphrased. And if you are thinking that I implied anything more than you implied in the posts I paraphrased, well then, you are the one that is twisting.

And I will attempt to explain, yet again, what I was saying. Twice, you have posted non-accurate information in the thread in a way that seemed to sound like fact. The first time, it made the situation seem more dire than reality. The second time, you seemed to imply that all of the day/night end shenanigans were the result of one player--perhaps that was not your intent, but that was the way it read to me--and I believe that you purposefully posted in that way, so as to make things seem the way you want them to seem, and not the way reality is.

Just because you do not understand what I am saying does not mean that it is not thought out and accurate.

[Ricochet]

If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.

So, to interpret your response in your own style, what I'm understanding is,

"I don't like the way you play and I don't get you, so I'm not talking to you any more or taking anything you say as a legitimate post."

or, maybe

"I'm just going to assess all of your posting in ways that completely delegitimize anything that you say."

Also, interesting that you tried to get what I was saying, but didn't respond to any of it.

If that's the way you feel like interpreting it or no u'ing me, feel free. I can only smile at the proof that I point out you blow off suspicions with stuff like thinking players just don't get or like how you play, your rebuttal is "no no I'm totally defending properly" and yet you now just slam a (however tongue-in-cheek) "I don't like the way you play" interpretation of everything I've written in the last reply. Gripping debunking.

Also convenient twist of words there (just like SVS did), thinking I said I'm done talking to you at all, when what I said was that I'll have nothing more to reply on the topics you brought up, if you keep pushing it in the same style I've pointed out, which doesn't add up to anything.

I've responded to everything you said, because that's what my posts were precisely, responses to what you bring up or state. Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense? If your replies and views are so out of sphere, why must I keep "responding to any of it" in a way I find increasingly futile?

I wasn't twisting your words, i was giving my interpretation of them. Obviously, that is what we do, we read what each other writes and put our own interpretations on it. If we all read everything the same way, this would be a boring game indeed.

I found it to be an uncivil reply, which indeed was the point on my bringing it up in the context in which I did. If you did not mean it in a dismissive way, my apologies.

I can accept that, but it's still a niche for excusing actual misinterpreting and words-twisting. And taking "I consider it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters" (I've highlighted the keywords, in case they really needed highlighting) and interpreting it as "people telling other people that they refuse to talk to them anymore" is still pretty bendy, at least in my view. Also don't know where you get the idea that I would desire for "everything to be read in the same way", because it is never something I pursue in debating, at all. I don't want to bring people down to my views, but I do want to feel there is a compatibility and coherence to what we're debating about, regardless if it's on the same page or different. See paragraph above.

Was I dismissive of pursuing the debate in that manner that I regarded as incompatible? I made no secret of that.
Am I increasingly frustrated that I try to discuss things from a factual viewpoint and get blocked with empirical ("I know how it is because of the past games") or literal viewpoints, which the person doesn't even have the courtesy to make it clear from the beginning? No doubt.

Will I ever tell someone I'm done talking with them completely and without a reason? No - or to be fair if I'll ever make such a slip, I will accept any correction, rigth on the spot. Is it rather uncivil to put a halt on talks in the way I did? I can take the blame, but see the paragraph above as to why I did it.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Okay, a quick review of recent behavior by Dom that I view with suspicion:

Spoiler: show

JJJ, yes, MP reacts this way pretty much anytime anyone suspects him. Even historically speaking, I would say that's true.

Dom acknowledges that emotional outbursts are not uncommon for MP when he is faced with accusations. "Pretty much anytime".

Spoiler: show

MP, once again you conveniently freak out about someone not playing the way you like people to play only when it threatens you, then expand it to make it seem like you suspect people who do it.
And then wonder why people think that's suspicious.

Dom reveals his own understanding further of MP's tendencies when under pressure. He has shown recognition of MP's outburst as something typical of him, and even inserted himself into MP's head with the highlighted sentence. He knows what's happening here. So the logical read from Dom should be, I think, null at worst -- this is the norm for MP and doesn't necessarily indicate ill motives. So why does Dom allow this to develop into actual suspicion of MP in the ensuing discussion?

Spoiler: show

Don't sidestep this issue by making it about how you are "bad at walking away". That is an issue, but not the issue that is relevant to this game.
The real issue here is that you just attacked MM only for suspecting you. Yet, you give TinyBubbles and Dharmahelper and DFaraday free passes on this. Why the attention on MM?

Volatile language being employed by Dom in the first sentence provides the appearance of a tough interrogation -- but I sense manipulation. The point Dom makes here is technically valid -- MP's criticism of MM could have applied to other players earlier but never did because MP wasn't accused by them.

That's the point.

MP hates being accused, as Dom himself has already granted. He knows that. Thus, shouldn't the obvious explanation for MP's inconsistency be that exact thing? DH has played a very neutral game on his own agenda but did not go after MP. MM has played a very neutral game on his own agenda and did go after MP. The variable here is whether the players in question attacked MP -- the very thing that MP hates and Dom agrees sets him off "pretty much anytime".

Why is it suspicious now?

Spoiler: show

No no no no no.
You called him out and told him to play the game right. Because, according to you, there's a right way to play this game.
So when he played the game incorrectly for the past three day/night cycles, why did you sit quietly by?

When he was heated, MP used regrettable language (which he has apologized for) in his treatment of MM. He asserted MM "playing the game right". This was contained within the very same series of emotional posts by MP which Dom has seemed to capitalize on. I interpret this as Dom riding the wave of MP's behavioral difficulty into a very easy perspective of suspicion -- suspicion that doesn't make sense in accordance with Dom's own admission that MP always does this.

Spoiler: show

This is exactly the conundrum of high versus low contributors though: I've hardly had anything to call MM out on for most of the game, because he's refused to actually commit to any suspicions or opinions for most of the game. Meanwhile, those who actually go out of their way to form opinions are easier to legitimize suspicions of, because they're putting themselves out there by analyzing and forming opinions of content.

This addresses nothing I said and only admits guilt.

Dom spat this post at MP in a way that I think was just blatantly unfair. MP had been posting a stream of thoughts, and his quoted post in this spoiler came about one minute after Dom's accusation -- that's linki-caliber.

Dom should know that. Instead of considering the likelihood that MP was still getting to his point in a separate post, he condemned MP with strong manipulative language. "only admits guilt"

Naw.

Spoiler: show

Why aren't you addressing my actual thoughts? You keep apologizing for being emotional, but have yet to really address the meat of my criticism.

And what were you implying by "just want to give rid of me" if not that I am just going after you for little to no reason?

But now you want out so I guess I'm an asshole for suspecting you.

The highlighted portion is a complete misrepresentation of anything MP has said in this exchange and I view it with suspicion.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

MP hates being accused more than everyone ever. This isn't news.

Yah I know but this reaction is waaaaayyyyyy over the top imo,

Do you think it's over-the-top in a way that evidences his stress external to the game, or in a way that evidences his baddie alignment in the game?

Because I think it's definitely the former.

[Ricochet]

I am not switcherooing you. I am reading your posts, thinking about them in context, and offering my thoughts on them, as one does in mafia.

Generalizing. I only mean your previous post, in reply to my post previous to it (which you quoted, albeit snipping it). Your no u is literally in there

So, to interpret your response in your own style

You're doing only that and addressing nothing else, really, about my previous post (except maybe that I may seek to delegitimize, which you imply in your paraphrases).

And, really, my posts are not about my play, but about your posts.

Great Scot, generalizing again. Also I don't know what this means. I didn't say your posts are about your play. I said your defenses are often (or often include) deflections about how your play is viewed.

If you're going to be dismissive and vaguely insulting every time you address me, and remind me in each post about how my posts do not make sense in your mind, then it really doesn't inspire me to clarify anything.

I have made one statement about how I found that something you said doesn't make sense. If you don't clarify what you meant by it and I have to ask again for you to clarify it, then yes, I also have to remind the fact that it did not make sense to me. Saying "My posts" is plural, generalizing and untrue of what I did. Keeping being evasive, though.

And I did not twist your words--you said that you might not respond if my post wasn't worthy of your thought process. Which I paraphrased. And if you are thinking that I implied anything more than you implied in the posts I paraphrased, well then, you are the one that is twisting.

See my earlier reply to SVS, pretty much same answer as there. You can't take "I may not reply further if I don't see the point in replying on this matter" and make it "I'm not talking to you any more". And you're further misconstruing by implying my motivation was "unworthiness in thought process" when it was "futility in debating this way". So you keep twisting things in the same sentence you deny twisting things.

----

And I will attempt to explain, yet again, what I was saying. Twice, you have posted non-accurate information in the thread in a way that seemed to sound like fact.

By "twice", I will assume it has to do with 1) the comment on how teams are currently distributed, in numbers. 2) the comment on judge locking down For 1), you are correct, I was inaccurate by one regarding a baddie team's componence. You found it to mean something significant, I dismissed it as me being bad at math (and, I'll add, properly scanning the Host posts). Was I full of sarc in that dismissal? Yeah, probably, because that's how I reacted on the spot to my being bad at counting being regarded as significant evidence.

Not to mention that I mentioned later about how I actually blew it just as much by counting the civ teams as 4, before the Hosts confirmed the new recruitings. If my mistake about Azura's team would mean I want to make things seem "more dire than in reality", my mistakes about the civ teams should technically mean I want to make things seem "more optimistic than in reality", no? Entirely silly thought process, of course, but since you're keen on this angle, then my mistakes should neutralize themselves and point out to what I've been saying the whole time: that I'm simply bloody bad at counting and can sometime get stats inaccurate, with no bearing to any intent of mislead.

As for 2), I'll have to ask you to tell me where the "non-accurate information" is. And I don't mean what you find inaccurate about it, through your own interpretation, but literally what was the inaccurate information I provided.

Was it "Time is growing important"? That was accurate, we were within the window of a lockdown being effective.
Was it "we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place"? Same as above, accurate based on timing.
Was it "he's been vigilent before"? Accurate, he has been active and quick in moves all the game so far, since he ended D1 roughly with a full day left to go and he was sharp to end N3 immediately.
Was it "so far he's not quick to draw the curtains"? Accurate, we were within the lockdown ideal interval and he hadn't acted on it yet.

So where's the "non-accurate information" here?

The first time, it made the situation seem more dire than reality.

Providing stats can be infered as making a statement to influence people's perception of the situation only if you choose to infer it that way. It does not mean that I did anything except providing stats for the current count of the teams. The post would have served a statistical purpose even if my figures would have been accurate.

The second time, you seemed to imply that all of the day/night end shenanigans were the result of one player--perhaps that was not your intent, but that was the way it read to me--and I believe that you purposefully posted in that way, so as to make things seem the way you want them to seem, and not the way reality is.

Well I made no such implication, indeed, so you are growing the nefarious purpose that I'd be intentionally doing such an implication (to distort reality) from reading it the wrong way. It's not coming from me.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Jay, what do you make of Boomslang's attempts to hunt today more heavily compared with previously?

I wanted to be inspired, but he seemed to focus primarily on people who either aren't posting much right now or never were posting much. It's still very easy content to throw into the thread when the feeling of need for content is there.

And tell me, why is bringing attention to people who are slipping past attention a bad thing? You want to play logic? The "very easy content" descriptor is classic "No true Scottsman." I contribute, making points that need to be made, and you're saying effectively that it's "not true content." You're tunneling something fierce, and it grinds my gears.

Anyway, voting position 4. I'd prefer to run the cycle and deal with the negative powers we know than deal with unknown consequences.

I said it was an easy thing -- which has been a thematic point in my accusations of you. It's something I associate with baddie behavior. Also, it doesn't make sense to assert I've committed a logical based upon a premise that is inherently subjective: "making points that need to be made" -- that's kind of the problem.

You might be right that I'm tunneling you unreasonably. I'll consider it moving into the new day phase. You're alive, and my reads are never set in stone. But don't expect me to reverse my stance without what I perceive to be a good reason. I haven't seen it yet in multiple reviews.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Also, it doesn't make sense to assert I've committed a logical fallacy based upon a premise that is inherently subjective: "making points that need to be made" -- that's kind of the problem.

EBWOP

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I am ignoring his case bc now it is sounding more like what he was saying about Bass. He asked for content then disapproves of the content given. yah not following JJJ on another Neutral lynch.

1.) How do you know Boomslang is neutral?

2.) Nowhere in my original case against Boomslang did I "ask for more content". Did you actually read it?

3.) I was wrong about Bass. On Day 2 of a recruitment game in which there were very few baddies, I was off on a baddie read. Exactly how precise do my reads have to be for you to even give me a chance? I'm not Superman.

[S~V~S]

Would you like a Custom Rank? I was thinking "Torquemada", perhaps?

[Sorsha]

Night as well get position 4 over with. I'm curious to see what the mild consequences are but I don't want to regret it

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Night as well get position 4 over with. I'm curious to see what the mild consequences are but I don't want to regret it

Hey Sorsha, some of these Syndicateers suggest you might have some awesome baddie-hunting talents. I'm excited to see it. You've been given a new life, maybe you can use it for the cause of Good? Maybe kick some baddies to the curb?

[Ricochet]

Oh, almost forgot to vote and was ready to go to sleep. I don't think we got an answer if consequences will be permanent for the second rotation, but from LC's actual reply, it sounds like by voting a mild consequence position would be much like voting for someone to be targeted with those consequences, to which, at least for now, position 4, while undesirable on its own, still sounds slightly better; in a twisted way, though: it's slightly better only because you're voting for everyone to stand equal in front of the potential targeting and perils the position poses. So let's wrap the rotation and see next time what arises, regarding these consequences.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

You too Bubbles. Let me see your FIRE. We all just tried to kill you after all. Show us what we'd have been missing.

Everyone always hates me when I get all cheerleader

[Ricochet]

Wow, MM's really not letting go of position 5, whenever it's up on the poll. This time he's the only one currently going that path.

[LoRab]

I am not switcherooing you. I am reading your posts, thinking about them in context, and offering my thoughts on them, as one does in mafia.

Generalizing. I only mean your previous post, in reply to my post previous to it (which you quoted, albeit snipping it). Your no u is literally in there

So, to interpret your response in your own style

You're doing only that and addressing nothing else, really, about my previous post (except maybe that I may seek to delegitimize, which you imply in your paraphrases).

And, really, my posts are not about my play, but about your posts.

Great Scot, generalizing again. Also I don't know what this means. I didn't say your posts are about your play. I said your defenses are often (or often include) deflections about how your play is viewed.

If you're going to be dismissive and vaguely insulting every time you address me, and remind me in each post about how my posts do not make sense in your mind, then it really doesn't inspire me to clarify anything.

I have made one statement about how I found that something you said doesn't make sense. If you don't clarify what you meant by it and I have to ask again for you to clarify it, then yes, I also have to remind the fact that it did not make sense to me. Saying "My posts" is plural, generalizing and untrue of what I did. Keeping being evasive, though.

And I did not twist your words--you said that you might not respond if my post wasn't worthy of your thought process. Which I paraphrased. And if you are thinking that I implied anything more than you implied in the posts I paraphrased, well then, you are the one that is twisting.

See my earlier reply to SVS, pretty much same answer as there. You can't take "I may not reply further if I don't see the point in replying on this matter" and make it "I'm not talking to you any more". And you're further misconstruing by implying my motivation was "unworthiness in thought process" when it was "futility in debating this way". So you keep twisting things in the same sentence you deny twisting things.

----

And I will attempt to explain, yet again, what I was saying. Twice, you have posted non-accurate information in the thread in a way that seemed to sound like fact.

By "twice", I will assume it has to do with 1) the comment on how teams are currently distributed, in numbers. 2) the comment on judge locking down For 1), you are correct, I was inaccurate by one regarding a baddie team's componence. You found it to mean something significant, I dismissed it as me being bad at math (and, I'll add, properly scanning the Host posts). Was I full of sarc in that dismissal? Yeah, probably, because that's how I reacted on the spot to my being bad at counting being regarded as significant evidence.

Not to mention that I mentioned later about how I actually blew it just as much by counting the civ teams as 4, before the Hosts confirmed the new recruitings. If my mistake about Azura's team would mean I want to make things seem "more dire than in reality", my mistakes about the civ teams should technically mean I want to make things seem "more optimistic than in reality", no? Entirely silly thought process, of course, but since you're keen on this angle, then my mistakes should neutralize themselves and point out to what I've been saying the whole time: that I'm simply bloody bad at counting and can sometime get stats inaccurate, with no bearing to any intent of mislead.

As for 2), I'll have to ask you to tell me where the "non-accurate information" is. And I don't mean what you find inaccurate about it, through your own interpretation, but literally what was the inaccurate information I provided.

Was it "Time is growing important"? That was accurate, we were within the window of a lockdown being effective.
Was it "we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place"? Same as above, accurate based on timing.
Was it "he's been vigilent before"? Accurate, he has been active and quick in moves all the game so far, since he ended D1 roughly with a full day left to go and he was sharp to end N3 immediately.
Was it "so far he's not quick to draw the curtains"? Accurate, we were within the lockdown ideal interval and he hadn't acted on it yet.

So where's the "non-accurate information" here?

The first time, it made the situation seem more dire than reality.

Providing stats can be infered as making a statement to influence people's perception of the situation only if you choose to infer it that way. It does not mean that I did anything except providing stats for the current count of the teams. The post would have served a statistical purpose even if my figures would have been accurate.

The second time, you seemed to imply that all of the day/night end shenanigans were the result of one player--perhaps that was not your intent, but that was the way it read to me--and I believe that you purposefully posted in that way, so as to make things seem the way you want them to seem, and not the way reality is.

Well I made no such implication, indeed, so you are growing the nefarious purpose that I'd be intentionally doing such an implication (to distort reality) from reading it the wrong way. It's not coming from me.

Re:

No U: Please, quote the post where you are saying I did that. Or maybe we understand the term differently? Because I'm not seeing where I did that.

Not addressing your previous post: What have I not addressed?

My play: Not generalizing. But my own defenses, when they literally describe how I always play, are basically just describing how I always play. As I am still relatively new to this site (or at least to many of its players), it is generally relevant to the accusations against me. It is not, to me, the same as saying that someone's points have no validity and are out of no where. It is reframing motivation for actions. To me, there is a difference. YMMV

One statement about my posts: ?

if you keep pushing it in the same style I've pointed out, which doesn't add up to anything.

I've responded to everything you said, because that's what my posts were precisely, responses to what you bring up or state. Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense? If your replies and views are so out of sphere, why must I keep "responding to any of it" in a way I find increasingly futile?

Ah, the good old feeling of talking to the moon when trying to discuss anything with you is returning.

...***post truncated for length to relevant lines***...

If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.

Oh, also, "entirely silly thought process" in this post is also in this category.

That is definitely more than 1. Also, the general tone of your responses is dismissive of me in general.

And yes, everything you post in mafia is significant evidence. That's kind of the point of the game. That I read things and hypothesize is how I theorize--sometimes my theories are spot on, sometimes they are not.

In this particular case, I threw the comment out there. That your response has been dismissive, insulting, and overblown, I think says a lot about where you stand in this game. And it's not on the side of the civies.

[Draconus]

Voting position 4 before I forget. Now going back to look at the rest of MP'S post.

[Draconus]

I almost feel compelled to move my vote to Boomslang after conducting my ISO on Devin, since it's clear to me that Devin wants Boomslang alive, but I need to read Jay's interaction first. Going to do that right now. Sorry, I'll comment on any other posts made while I was ISOing Devin after the lynch.

Okay, the rest of your ISO on me is regarding my lack of original content contributed to this game. You know why that is so I'm not apologizing for it anymore. However, I'm glad it's not causing you to go easy on me
So let me put it this way, if I'm a baddie mcbadderson why would I have voted for Golden and then Sorsha consecutively? Those appear to be the 2 riskiest moves I could have made so far this game. Pulling out the metta, I can tell you that strategically Girder me would have been more careful about where my votes go. WIFOMY yes, but that's my opinion.
As for wanting Boomslang alive, that's a very strong way to put it. Rather, I just feel like I can trust him right now, the same way I feel I can trust you right now. I have positive vibes from you both sounding sincere to me. That's it.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Devin, why do you suppose your Golden and Sorsha votes would have been risky as a baddie?

[Tranq]

p4

[Dom]

Okay, a quick review of recent behavior by Dom that I view with suspicion:

Spoiler: show

JJJ, yes, MP reacts this way pretty much anytime anyone suspects him. Even historically speaking, I would say that's true.

Dom acknowledges that emotional outbursts are not uncommon for MP when he is faced with accusations. "Pretty much anytime".

Spoiler: show

MP, once again you conveniently freak out about someone not playing the way you like people to play only when it threatens you, then expand it to make it seem like you suspect people who do it.
And then wonder why people think that's suspicious.

Dom reveals his own understanding further of MP's tendencies when under pressure. He has shown recognition of MP's outburst as something typical of him, and even inserted himself into MP's head with the highlighted sentence. He knows what's happening here. So the logical read from Dom should be, I think, null at worst -- this is the norm for MP and doesn't necessarily indicate ill motives. So why does Dom allow this to develop into actual suspicion of MP in the ensuing discussion?

Because MP's hypocrisy and opportunism towards MM is different than his emotional outburst? How are those things equivalent?

Spoiler: show

Don't sidestep this issue by making it about how you are "bad at walking away". That is an issue, but not the issue that is relevant to this game.
The real issue here is that you just attacked MM only for suspecting you. Yet, you give TinyBubbles and Dharmahelper and DFaraday free passes on this. Why the attention on MM?

Volatile language being employed by Dom in the first sentence provides the appearance of a tough interrogation -- but I sense manipulation. The point Dom makes here is technically valid -- MP's criticism of MM could have applied to other players earlier but never did because MP wasn't accused by them.

That's the point.

MP hates being accused, as Dom himself has already granted. He knows that. Thus, shouldn't the obvious explanation for MP's inconsistency be that exact thing? DH has played a very neutral game on his own agenda but did not go after MP. MM has played a very neutral game on his own agenda and did go after MP. The variable here is whether the players in question attacked MP -- the very thing that MP hates and Dom agrees sets him off "pretty much anytime".

Why is it suspicious now?

Because his hypocrisy is different than an emotional outburst. It was his content. He only calls out MM. He does not react to anyone else at all for the same content. THEN he turns around and very slyly accuses me (which you neglected to include in this post) when I put pressure on him. That tells me MP might be bad.

Spoiler: show

No no no no no.
You called him out and told him to play the game right. Because, according to you, there's a right way to play this game.
So when he played the game incorrectly for the past three day/night cycles, why did you sit quietly by?

When he was heated, MP used regrettable language (which he has apologized for) in his treatment of MM. He asserted MM "playing the game right". This was contained within the very same series of emotional posts by MP which Dom has seemed to capitalize on. I interpret this as Dom riding the wave of MP's behavioral difficulty into a very easy perspective of suspicion -- suspicion that doesn't make sense in accordance with Dom's own admission that MP always does this.

I hate to say this... but it's not regrettable language when it's employed just about every game he plays. I am always afraid of suspecting MP because I think I might trigger a meltdown-- however, that doesn't mean his behavior isn't suspicious? WTF?!?!

Spoiler: show

This is exactly the conundrum of high versus low contributors though: I've hardly had anything to call MM out on for most of the game, because he's refused to actually commit to any suspicions or opinions for most of the game. Meanwhile, those who actually go out of their way to form opinions are easier to legitimize suspicions of, because they're putting themselves out there by analyzing and forming opinions of content.

This addresses nothing I said and only admits guilt.

Dom spat this post at MP in a way that I think was just blatantly unfair. MP had been posting a stream of thoughts, and his quoted post in this spoiler came about one minute after Dom's accusation -- that's linki-caliber.

Dom should know that. Instead of considering the likelihood that MP was still getting to his point in a separate post, he condemned MP with strong manipulative language. "only admits guilt"

FIRST of all, if you want to attack me for using "manipulative language", please look in the mirror. In this very post you have said I "spat" at MP and used "volatile" language against MP. So, by your own metric, you're pretty manipulative. Additionally, the post does not matter if he read my most recent post. He continually sidestepped the issue I was bringing up. He didn't address the content I was going after-- he just apologized for his outburst.

Naw.

Spoiler: show

Why aren't you addressing my actual thoughts? You keep apologizing for being emotional, but have yet to really address the meat of my criticism.

And what were you implying by "just want to give rid of me" if not that I am just going after you for little to no reason?

But now you want out so I guess I'm an asshole for suspecting you.

The highlighted portion is a complete misrepresentation of anything MP has said in this exchange and I view it with suspicion.

I'm not saying MP is saying I'm an asshole. I'm saying that's what the thread will think. Those are two different things that you made no effort to discern.

MP hates being accused more than everyone ever. This isn't news.

Yah I know but this reaction is waaaaayyyyyy over the top imo,

Do you think it's over-the-top in a way that evidences his stress external to the game, or in a way that evidences his baddie alignment in the game?

Because I think it's definitely the former.

Please don't act like you have an intimate history with MP and know him very well.
Unless you do...

I'm voting 4. I don't want consequences.

[thellama73]

JJJ, I read your case on Dom, and I have to side with Dom here. He was not being inconsistent in criticizing MP's hypocrisy while acknowledging his propensity for outbursts. Those are not the same thing.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Because MP's hypocrisy and opportunism towards MM is different than his emotional outburst? How are those things equivalent?

I answered this question in the proceeding commentary. You suggest MP was hypocritical/opportunistic by going after MM and not DH. I suggested that the obvious variable was that MM accused MP and DH did not -- this is important because you and I agree that MP tends to respond emotionally when accused. The source of the hypocrisy is the exact thing you say is typical of MP.

Because his hypocrisy is different than an emotional outburst. It was his content. He only calls out MM. He does not react to anyone else at all for the same content. THEN he turns around and very slyly accuses me (which you neglected to include in this post) when I put pressure on him. That tells me MP might be bad.

He accused you in response to you accusing him. The trend is alive.

I hate to say this... but it's not regrettable language when it's employed just about every game he plays. I am always afraid of suspecting MP because I think I might trigger a meltdown-- however, that doesn't mean his behavior isn't suspicious? WTF?!?!

Behavior that is employed by a player in "just about every game he plays" should by default be read as null -- not as suspicious. I don't understand why it should be perceived as worrisome in this game especially.

FIRST of all, if you want to attack me for using "manipulative language", please look in the mirror. In this very post you have said I "spat" at MP and used "volatile" language against MP. So, by your own metric, you're pretty manipulative. Additionally, the post does not matter if he read my most recent post. He continually sidestepped the issue I was bringing up. He didn't address the content I was going after-- he just apologized for his outburst.

I don't think it's reasonable to call the word "volatile" volatile -- otherwise we can reciprocate every adjective players use to describe us until the end of Mafia time.

"Spat" might have been excessive. It's how I read your post frankly, but I'll leave everyone else to make that judgment. As for the content that MP did not address -- what exactly did you want him to address which he did not? I am of the perspective that he addressed the important problem -- hypocrisy -- in the very apologies that you are dismissing. He grants that he doesn't deal with accusations well, and we already know the MM accusing him was the likely source of his emotional outburst. That can be believed or not believed at face value, but it's still an answer.

I'm not saying MP is saying I'm an asshole. I'm saying that's what the thread will think. Those are two different things that you made no effort to discern.

If you want me to be able to discern that underlying meaning from the post I highlighted, then you want me to have a mind-reading superpower.

Please don't act like you have an intimate history with MP and know him very well.
Unless you do...

Please don't make assumptions about anything in my history as a Mafia player in the only game we've ever played together.

I've played more Mafia with MP than anyone else on The Syndicate by a decent margin. He's the reason I'm here in the first place.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

JJJ, I read your case on Dom, and I have to side with Dom here. He was not being inconsistent in criticizing MP's hypocrisy while acknowledging his propensity for outbursts. Those are not the same thing.

Would you agree that the causes of MP's hypocrisy and his emotional outburst were the same thing?

MM accused MP. DH did not accuse MP.

MP hates accusations.

[Spacedaisy]

I voted position 4

[Dom]

JJJ, I read your case on Dom, and I have to side with Dom here. He was not being inconsistent in criticizing MP's hypocrisy while acknowledging his propensity for outbursts. Those are not the same thing.

Would you agree that the causes of MP's hypocrisy and his emotional outburst were the same thing?

MM accused MP. DH did not accuse MP.

MP hates accusations.

You're right. No reason to ever suspect MP, then.


Again, it's not the emotional volume I am suspicious of. I am suspicious of how he pulled a huge no u-- that is entirely different from screaming about someone suspecting you and it not being fair etc.

But please, continue to conflate the issues.

[thellama73]

JJJ, I read your case on Dom, and I have to side with Dom here. He was not being inconsistent in criticizing MP's hypocrisy while acknowledging his propensity for outbursts. Those are not the same thing.

Would you agree that the causes of MP's hypocrisy and his emotional outburst were the same thing?

MM accused MP. DH did not accuse MP.

MP hates accusations.

I don't know the causes of MP's hypocrisy, because I don't know his alignment.

[Dom]

I have played Mafia with MP for years. You, JJJ, were extremely condescending in your wording of my history with MP. So I was condescending back. You now know how your words were-- manipulative. That post literally used the most vitriolic language when it came to descriptions of my actions, but benign tones when it came to MP's. It does not have the level-headedness I've come to expect from you.

I have come to expect tantrums from MP over the years; however, this is not a free pass for him.

[Principal Skinner]

votes JJJ

[thellama73]

I have been playing mafia with MP since before you guys were born.

[Dom]

I have been playing mafia with MP since before you guys were born.

Not the point I was trying to make, but fair enough.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I have played Mafia with MP for years. You, JJJ, were extremely condescending in your wording of my history with MP. So I was condescending back. You now know how your words were-- manipulative. That post literally used the most vitriolic language when it came to descriptions of my actions, but benign tones when it came to MP's. It does not have the level-headedness I've come to expect from you.

I have come to expect tantrums from MP over the years; however, this is not a free pass for him.

Why do you expect to be treated the same way in the same post? I am suspicious of you and not suspicious of MP.

I didn't intend to be condescending at any point, so I apologize for coming across that way. I honestly don't know what you're referring to even, but I apologize regardless. Condescension is frustrating.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

JJJ, I read your case on Dom, and I have to side with Dom here. He was not being inconsistent in criticizing MP's hypocrisy while acknowledging his propensity for outbursts. Those are not the same thing.

Would you agree that the causes of MP's hypocrisy and his emotional outburst were the same thing?

MM accused MP. DH did not accuse MP.

MP hates accusations.

I don't know the causes of MP's hypocrisy, because I don't know his alignment.

I'm saying that in my experience with MP, his emotional responses to being accused often feature some manner of No U. I saw it in his dealings with Epignosis in Economics, I'm pretty sure it happened in Broadway, and I know it's happened in our RYM games.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

But please, continue to conflate the issues.

WTF is this sentence? Why is it here? This kind of snark just serves to irritate.

When I accuse people of things I do my best to speak from a detached and objective perspective. I may not always succeed, but I try.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

votes JJJ

, man. .

[Draconus]

Wait wat? It almost feels like everything we looked at today didn't matter. fuckin Umbridge or whomever futzed with the votes.

RIP unfurl ? and i am confused, why did unfurl get lynched and not me,according to the poll i got the most votes...?? if by some miracle im still alive i will be happy to address any questions! somewhat caught up and have time today

I think some baddies had other ideas tonight. unfurl literally had 0 votes in the poll, so someone must have really wanted to save you.

Speaking of, how nice to you to drop in moments after you aren't lynched after having been gone for 3/4 of Day 4!

Im sorry, i was working overtime had no computer access! i wanted to come back before poll closed ,but didnt get time ><

and whoever saved me, you have my thanks, nutella was right the mods didnt make a mistake. i kind of dont expect to live another night though, 10 votes man... sheeeesh. and RIP unfurl, you didn't deserve to die

my biggest suspect right now is Devin,based on his voting patterns and also the vagueness of his posts, which MP made a good case on.

Yeah I'm voting for you next. Hope this is vague enough and adds to my suspicious voting pattern for you
Also, MP'S good case on me was just quoting and commenting on all of my posts to get a response out of me. Not totally a case

[Black Rock]

I have been playing mafia with MP since before you guys were born.

please... I have been playing with him longer.

[Dom]

I have played Mafia with MP for years. You, JJJ, were extremely condescending in your wording of my history with MP. So I was condescending back. You now know how your words were-- manipulative. That post literally used the most vitriolic language when it came to descriptions of my actions, but benign tones when it came to MP's. It does not have the level-headedness I've come to expect from you.

I have come to expect tantrums from MP over the years; however, this is not a free pass for him.

Why do you expect to be treated the same way in the same post? I am suspicious of you and not suspicious of MP.

I didn't intend to be condescending at any point, so I apologize for coming across that way. I honestly don't know what you're referring to even, but I apologize regardless. Condescension is frustrating.

Why do I expect to be treated the same way?
You answered your own question:

But please, continue to conflate the issues.

WTF is this sentence? Why is it here? This kind of snark just serves to irritate.

When I accuse people of things I do my best to speak from a detached and objective perspective. I may not always succeed, but I try.

How did you even begin to try in that post?

[Black Rock]

NIGHT ENDS IN 6 MINUTES

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Dom, you are literally asking why I don't use the same language when describing suspects as I do when describing people I don't suspect. Who in the history of Mafia has ever done that?

[Draconus]

Here is a list of the games TinyBubbles has payed on the Syndicate:
Recruitment 4
Angry Birds
Frisky Dingo
Bullets Over Broadway
Watchmen
Death and Taxes
Omtera

Can we stop saying she's "new to mafia"?

Wow, I did not play many of those, but I played a couple (and modded several) and I don't remember her at all, really. I thought this was the first game I had played with her. I am so embarassed

This is the first game I've played with her and even I knew she wasn't new