STAR WARS Mafia [ENDGAME]

#2651

I'm still back on page 62 @40 PPP. I was reading through Roxy tonight. My opinion on Roxy is that her posts are very emotionally charged and seem riddled with hypocritical expectations/accusations. However, I don't think she is bad. But I'm not sure I trust her reads either at the moment simply for the level of emotional intensity going on in her game. I know firsthand that being that intensely focused on people because of an emotional response to them (be it offense or severe frustration or great dislike for their tactics or language) can cloud a person's judgement, making it difficult to see it from any other view. But this doesn't make her bad. In fact, I would be surprised if she flips bad. Just my two cents on that.

I apologize for the slow start for me here, but I'm off tomorrow so I'm going to try to focus on mafia properly tomorrow. Hopefully I can get those reads done.

Question Epi/DH: am I locked into this vote that my predecessor cast? I'm not sure that is where I would want my vote to go if I have the choice... If I am, I totally understand though.

#2652

Question - Does anyone else think MP could be Salacious Crumb? In one of his earlier rainbow lists, he puts Bcornett near the top in green...then later makes a bunch of drunk posts. I'm wondering if making up drunk posts in the thread would be a way to amuse Jabba.

Just splitballing. I recall earlier people thinking MP and Enrique had some sort of connection, which would also work in favor of this theory.

Back to reading.

#2653

Matt wrote:Question - Does anyone else think MP could be Salacious Crumb? In one of his earlier rainbow lists, he puts Bcornett near the top in green...then later makes a bunch of drunk posts. I'm wondering if making up drunk posts in the thread would be a way to amuse Jabba.

Just splitballing. I recall earlier people thinking MP and Enrique had some sort of connection, which would also work in favor of this theory.

Back to reading.

I'm going to bed, but before I do I would like to say I can attest to the fact he was very very very drunk that night. They were not at all made up. I have not yet read his posts (God help me...) so I'll give my opinion on him once I do, but that was not faked.

#2654

Lol that's almost unfair that you know that haha.

#2655

Sorsha wrote:
Golden wrote:I wish I could pull quotes and stuff... but that takes a lot more time than just the engagement of reading and posting, time I genuinely just don't have.

But - I hope that people will choose to look at his iso and my iso.

I think you will see that my iso is full of a very genuine progression of thought on both bcornett and enrique. I talked about how I felt about each of them and why, and when my views changed I explained why. It's all there.

For Mac... his views aren't particularly backed up, and you should really look at the progression of his opinions on me, as well. I think they represent the views of someone who sees me as a threat to their game, and wants to find a way to get me lynched by getting others against me. He has used some very emotive negative language about me to that end.
Have you ever bussed a teammate before?

Absolutely. I do it in a heartbeat. In Economics, I bussed my entire team to win.

But never just because I can. If I'm going to bus, I'm going to do it with a purpose. In Eco, I subbed into a team that was already going down in flames, I had been a civ for one day in that game (sidenote: I was lynched because of 'lack of effort' and 'being funny' in that game too, and ironically being lynched got me the win because I subbed into the baddie team). So, I had scum reads as a civ on the people who ended up being my teammates, and I bussed them to stick consistent with the reads I had before I subbed in bad.

It was a risky play, but I did it at the right time to get cred and because I could see the path to the endgame.

I've never bussed a teammate out of the blue just because I can, and I never will. Bussing is something to be done only to gain some kind of strategic advantage. Imagine I take out two of my own teammates that early in the game... and then get nightkilled. It's not like I'm not a nightkill target. Then my team is down three people and only has one left. Is that sensible? Not in the slightest.

Everyone knows I'm a rational player. Everything I do, I do for a purpose. That includes my conduct in the last couple of days in this game.

#2656

MacDougall wrote:Lol that's almost unfair that you know that haha.

Privileges of marriage, I suppose.

#2657

Matt wrote:Derp, you do realize that me and Mac aren't the same person, right Golden?

Freudian slip!

#2658

I never said you bussed for no reason. I am claiming that you bussed him because his continued existence was putting you at risk of dying by not being able to amuse him due to him not being present.

#2659

Matt wrote:very civ like, Golden

I know you meant that in sarcastic orange - but seriously, people always label these big fights I have civ vs civ, every time. Sometimes, but rarely, they are. Usually, I've got a baddie.

When I have these big fights, people can't be bothered reading the content. They just take emotional vibes away. They go 'both of them look passionate, therefore both are civ'.

It's peoples biggest blind spot in mafia, and its so easy to abuse. I've done it. MP has done it. In this game, I believe Mac is doing it. Just go look at the language he has used towards me all game. It's intentionally incendiary, and he has even admitted that. He wanted to start a fight.

@Mac - what? BC doesn't turn up for 5 hours, and that puts me at risk? That is actually in your case that I didn't read?

That's insane. I've played many games with BC, and he would never just vanish, and I would never think he would. Plus - AS YOU KNOW - he didn't vanish. He was turning up... voting for me without explanation... etc. He was always there. He always puts in his all. And how does your theory work if BC is silenced for a game. would Crumb just die because Jabba can't laugh? You are basically suggesting Epi and DH created a game where a team member would die just because someone else wasn't present. How fun would that be? Not. Once again... you demonstrate that your theory lacks rational thought.

#2660

Golden wrote:
Matt wrote:very civ like, Golden

I know you meant that in sarcastic orange - but seriously, people always label these big fights I have civ vs civ, every time. Sometimes, but rarely, they are. Usually, I've got a baddie.

When I have these big fights, people can't be bothered reading the content. They just take emotional vibes away. They go 'both of them look passionate, therefore both are civ'.

It's peoples biggest blind spot in mafia, and its so easy to abuse. I've done it. MP has done it. In this game, I believe Mac is doing it. Just go look at the language he has used towards me all game. It's intentionally incendiary, and he has even admitted that. He wanted to start a fight.

@Mac - what? BC doesn't turn up for 5 hours, and that puts me at risk? That is actually in your case that I didn't read?

That's insane. I've played many games with BC, and he would never just vanish, and I would never think he would. Plus - AS YOU KNOW - he didn't vanish. He was turning up... voting for me without explanation... etc. He was always there. He always puts in his all. And how does your theory work if BC is silenced for a game. would Crumb just die because Jabba can't laugh? You are basically suggesting Epi and DH created a game where a team member would die just because someone else wasn't present. How fun would that be? Not. Once again... you demonstrate that your theory lacks rational thought.

Dude he made like five posts on day 2 and 3. He was pretty much absent.

I expect that if he were silenced the mods would give the other role a pass. I would if I were the mod.

#2661

Well, if I were the mod, I wouldn't create a role that would die if his teammate wasn't present.

And I don't think you would either.

And I'm sure Epi wouldn't. I've played enough of his games by now.

#2662

Thanks Daisy.

Still, if MP were Crumb and if you subbed in as his teammate, then a brilliant answer.

Going to trust you for now. I think the drunken posts are believable.

I'm kind of interested in what happens if Golden is lynched.

Though last time Golden pulled this as a civ (if he is indeed a civ this game) he ended up getting poor bea lynched.

Anywho, managed to read 4 pages tonight. Woot! I'm gettin' there peeps but I'm out for now.

Peace

Linki - Golden, dude, in the few times I've seen this from you, it hasn't worked out so well. I think in TH it was a 1 v. 1 you wanted with 3J, who was civ. And then in Dune I think you wanted a 1 v. 1, and Zebra ended up being civ.

I dunno dude. i'm tired. Not sure who I'll be voting for tomorrow but I have to vote earlyish, long work day tomorrow

#2663

Btw I dunno why, but I'm not so sure I'm correct on you wanting a 1 v. 1 with 3J in THeads. But maybe it was someone else. I dunno.

Anyway night peeps

#2664

Fair enough. I probably would not.

Matt pointing out MPs drunk posting as potential court jester material is actually the first reason I've had to think that anybody else could be Crumb. The other idea about the poisoning was a stretch from Zebra based on the testament of a dead scum. MP also was very quick to town read Brian after the initial fight between he and Golden too. Again, Matt that's a good catch.

If Golden is not Crumb, and that's possible. I have always affirmed that there is a chance I am wrong. There are still numerous reasons why he is bad. Sorry Golden, you're going to hate that comment, and the next two paragraphs no matter what alignment you are.

Making a really formidable case on a later confirmed scum but voting elsewhere, even backing down. < This is a powerful scum tell. The exact one that ultimately got me lynched in Talking Heads. I am struggling to understand how Golden saw Matt as a better vote than Brian with the strength of the case he had made against him.

Voting the very same scum for sketchy reasons on day 3 with what I see as fabricated reasons (getting it on before the planet blows up

)

His unusual behavior since I called him out. Which I could see being explained by him being scum caught with false conclusions.

Hell it's entirely possible Golden didn't even intend to get Brian lynched on day 3 and was just distancing again and it backfired. After all he was the first on the bandwagon. Niju, Zebra, sorsha and metalmarsh were the ones who voted after him.

There are numerous possibilities but the fact remains that there is a lot of evidence that Golden is bad and most of it is not mutually exclusive.

I still think that Brian's ultimate lynch was weird and it was Zebra that was saved for it. Brian lost that vote tally 5-4. So if you take Golden out, those other four players effectively Chinese Fire Drilled Brian with not much of a case for it, and have since pretty much let Golden take all the credit for it. Considering I had a civ read on Brian, and I seem to remember at least a few others did too, for five players to vote him within 2 pages to get him lynched at end of day is pretty bizarre to me.

#2665

Matt wrote:Linki - Golden, dude, in the few times I've seen this from you, it hasn't worked out so well. I think in TH it was a 1 v. 1 you wanted with 3J, who was civ. And then in Dune I think you wanted a 1 v. 1, and Zebra ended up being civ.

When I wanted a 1 v 1 with JJJ, it entirely worked. I found two baddies out of it. Plus, in that case, I knew I would survive. Which I won't in this case.

I never asked for a 1 v 1 with zebra.

#2666

Plus, in TH, it was a way to out my role while still being alive.

#2667

Golden wrote:
Matt wrote:Linki - Golden, dude, in the few times I've seen this from you, it hasn't worked out so well. I think in TH it was a 1 v. 1 you wanted with 3J, who was civ. And then in Dune I think you wanted a 1 v. 1, and Zebra ended up being civ.
When I wanted a 1 v 1 with JJJ, it entirely worked. I found two baddies out of it. Plus, in that case, I knew I would survive. Which I won't in this case.

I never asked for a 1 v 1 with zebra.

Hang on. Why wouldn't you survive if I get lynched first Golden?

#2668

MacDougall wrote:If Golden is not Crumb, and that's possible. I have always affirmed that there is a chance I am wrong. There are still numerous reasons why he is bad. Sorry Golden, you're going to hate that comment, and the next two paragraphs no matter what alignment you are.

Lol. You have not 'always' affirmed that there is a chance you are wrong. You've spent most of the game saying stuff like 'confirmed scum' and talking about all the things that could never possibly have any other interpretation at all under the sun.

@Mac - I have no patience with semantic arguments. Obviously, I mean if people lynch me (be it before or after you). I've already confirmed that I am quite comfortable with being lynched after you. As very much demonstrated so far, I can't control peoples votes - I will also obviously survive if people don't try to lynch either of us.

#2669

Golden wrote:
MacDougall wrote:If Golden is not Crumb, and that's possible. I have always affirmed that there is a chance I am wrong. There are still numerous reasons why he is bad. Sorry Golden, you're going to hate that comment, and the next two paragraphs no matter what alignment you are.
Lol. You have not 'always' affirmed that there is a chance you are wrong. You've spent most of the game saying stuff like 'confirmed scum' and talking about all the things that could never possibly have any other interpretation at all under the sun.

@Mac - I have no patience with semantic arguments. Obviously, I mean if people lynch me (be it before or after you). I've already confirmed that I am quite comfortable with being lynched after you. As very much demonstrated so far, I can't control peoples votes - I will also obviously survive if people don't try to lynch either of us.

Lol semantics. You just said you aren't going to survive. The only way that's a guarantee is if I flip civ and get lynched before you. That's a scumslip pal.

#2670

MacDougall wrote:Making a really formidable case on a later confirmed scum but voting elsewhere, even backing down. < This is a powerful scum tell. The exact one that ultimately got me lynched in Talking Heads. I am struggling to understand how Golden saw Matt as a better vote than Brian with the strength of the case he had made against him.

1) My case on brian the first time around wasn't strong. My case was that he said things about me that weren't true. Then he isoed me, and admitted that he was wrong. When I did go on to lynch BC (and make no mistake - he would not have been lynched if I didn't push for it) it was because he did new additional things that I found suspicious, and started making contradictory statements like his position on bass and bubbles.

2) I saw Matt as a better vote than Brian because the case on Matt was also good. He was not acting like his civ self.

3) This part of your case is basically that I can't choose to vote for one baddie ping over another baddie ping. So, you think the civilian thing to do is have only one suspect and tunnel them into the ground, even though they actually address your concern? If BC hadn't gone back and said he isoed me and he was wrong, I wouldn't have backed off.

linki - everything to you is a 'scumslip', yet you continue to say you are the one who 'always' leaves room for doubt. Man, what a terrible baddie I must be, scumslipping every second post. OK, so say I'm scum and that's a scumslip... then why AM I so sure I'm not going to survive? Why does me being certain in my non-survival make me scum?

#2671

I mean, honestly Mac, fucking hell - do you not see that you just say whatever you want and apply no actual thought to it.

Rational mind - golden means that, unlike in TH (a game Mac played in and remembers the 1 v 1 very well), if golden gets the most votes he won't survive the way he did in TH.
Mac's mind - golden said he isn't going to survive, therefore scumslip, because how does golden know he won't survive if Mac is lynched first?

WHAT THE HELL?

I don't understand even how to deal with your mind. It makes no sense.

#2672

Golden wrote:I mean, honestly Mac, fucking hell - do you not see that you just say whatever you want and apply no actual thought to it.

Rational mind - golden means that, unlike in TH (a game Mac played in and remembers the 1 v 1 very well), if golden gets the most votes he won't survive the way he did in TH.
Mac's mind - golden said he isn't going to survive, therefore scumslip, because how does golden know he won't survive if Mac is lynched first?

WHAT THE HELL?

I don't understand even how to deal with your mind. It makes no sense.

I don't really understand what's so confusing about the fact that that looked like a scum slip Golden. You're doing a great job of making it look like it's a weird thing to think though and hey that has been your entire defense and case on me. It's all been a thorough attempt to discredit the fuck out of me with barely any actual defenses of the points...

But hey, if you think I'm stupid or something that's cool. Do you think I'm stupid? You seem to be veering towards saying that.

#2673

No, cmon mac, answer the question. How IS it a scumslip. Don't just do what you have done before and say you don't see how it is confusing.

Just answer the question plainly and simply.

What is the scum motivation/thought process for saying that, which makes it a scumslip.

One straight answer, please.

#2674

A scumslip is when a scum player makes a post that reveals that they are scum by showing insight into what they genuinely believe. You genuinely believe that you're going to die through all this and you accidentally revealed it. Scumslip.

Golden I have a scum read on you. It has a ton of points on it. Of course I am going to continue to point out each and every thing you do that looks scum to me. I think you're bad and I want to lynch you. Acting like what I am doing is confusing is just that, an act. All I have been doing is trying to get a guy I believe is scum lynched, which is what the game is about. And I have made a thorough case, and you continue to do things that make me think you're bad and you just continue to attack my credibility and my ability more than the actual points.

#2675

You keep attacking the man not the ball. You just claim I'm being outrageous and weird or whatever. Your continued insistence that my points are all dumb, or thoughtless, or aren't genuine, is either a civilian Golden gone completely OMGUS. So angry! Or a scum Golden caught. With all the evidence I have stacked up, I believe it's the latter.

We're going around in circles now.

#2676

MacDougall wrote:But hey, if you think I'm stupid or something that's cool. Do you think I'm stupid? You seem to be veering towards saying that.

Mac

No, I think you are BAD precisely because I DON'T think you are stupid.

If you are not bad, then I think even you will look back on this game and realise how many wild leaps of logic you have taken to the incorrect conclusion, and you will feel that it was not your best game. You will see that my very rational statements about how Crumb's role could not work how you claim it to work don't make mechanical sense from a host perspective. You will see that you are reading great big hulking motives into things like jokes and accepting BC's defence.

But... if I'm overestimating you, then fine. I'd rather do that.

I'll say it again... I think you are bad because I strongly believe you are one of the least stupid people I have had the privilege to play with. And your blind focus on your own interpretations without rational thought or taking into account any one elses contrary suggestions does not look to me like someone who is trying to solve the game.

linki - oh, you have a scum read on me do you? There's a surprise

No, you didn't get insight into what I 'genuinely believe'. You got my response to Matt trying to figure out why I was asking for 1 v 1. I don't want anyone to think I'm pulling a fast one and won't die like in that game. Does that interpretation not strike you as very rational? Why do you dismiss it?

#2677

Golden wrote:
MacDougall wrote:But hey, if you think I'm stupid or something that's cool. Do you think I'm stupid? You seem to be veering towards saying that.
Mac

No, I think you are BAD precisely because I DON'T think you are stupid.

If you are not bad, then I think even you will look back on this game and realise how many wild leaps of logic you have taken to the incorrect conclusion, and you will feel that it was not your best game. You will see that my very rational statements about how Crumb's role could not work how you claim it to work don't make mechanical sense from a host perspective. You will see that you are reading great big hulking motives into things like jokes and accepting BC's defence.

But... if I'm overestimating you, then fine. I'd rather do that.

I'll say it again... I think you are bad because I strongly believe you are one of the least stupid people I have had the privilege to play with. And your blind focus on your own interpretations without rational thought or taking into account any one elses contrary suggestions does not look to me like someone who is trying to solve the game.

linki - oh, you have a scum read on me do you? There's a surprise

No, you didn't get insight into what I 'genuinely believe'. You got my response to Matt trying to figure out why I was asking for 1 v 1. I don't want anyone to think I'm pulling a fast one and won't die like in that game. Does that interpretation not strike you as very rational? Why do you dismiss it?

Fair call. I read that wrong.

But evidently you do think I'm stupid then.

#2678

Hey buddy the feeling is mutual by the way! If you're good you're going to feel like a dunce cap wearing motherfucker. Unless you're going to pin the blame on me if you're civ and claim you only read me as bad because I'm stupid not because you are.

#2679

MacDougall wrote:You keep attacking the man not the ball. You just claim I'm being outrageous and weird or whatever. Your continued insistence that my points are all dumb, or thoughtless, or aren't genuine, is either a civilian Golden gone completely OMGUS. So angry! Or a scum Golden caught. With all the evidence I have stacked up, I believe it's the latter.

We're going around in circles now.

Yes, I am attacking the man Mac, you are right....

You get it!

Because the MAN is my case.

I think you are bad because of your behaviour, because of the way you are acting. I think you are bad because I do not believe YOU are being genuine YOU.

I am attacking the man because I think the man's attitude is what shows him to be bad.

The ball is a smokescreen. That's why I'm mostly ignoring it. There's nothing more I can say on it anyway. The ball is that you have a theory about Crumb's role secret, and you are determined to fit my actions into it. I've provided plenty of rational points to refute it, but you won't hear of them. So, more playing of the ball is a waste of time. Because you aren't actually interested in thinking about the ball. You've got it clutched tight in your arms, and you won't let go of it. There is nothing anyone can do to change your mind about the ball.

linki again - no Mac, evidently I do not think you are stupid. Evidently I think you are lying.

If you are not lying, then yes I admit I think you are stupid. I don't like using that word in that way, but basically what I'm saying is that your case is so far fetched and contrived that I do not believe in any scenario where you could actually believe it to be true. That's why I'm so sure you are bad. Because you are not a stupid person. Because I feel absolutely sure that, if you had any inclination to, you could see yourself how far-fetched and ridiculous your theory actually is. Your choice to refuse to see it and to just push forward blindly is entirely why I am pushing for your lynch so hard. If I felt there was ever a moment of genuine doubt that you expressed, I might feel differently. But you haven't. Sure, when I did a gambit, you briefly felt like your gig was up... but I think it is because just for a moment you saw your ability to get me lynched go down in flames. And it lasted all of no time at all... that was like my last ditch effort to get you to snap to your senses.

When you went after me AGAIN after that gambit...

Well, that's when I stopped believing there was any chance that you were being genuine. And I still don't believe there is any chance you are being genuine. Sorry. If you are, then I believe you will look back on this and admit yourself that you owe Matt an apology for calling for his policy lynch in every game when I've never seen him do anything half as bad or ill-justified as what you are doing now (and yes, that includes his case in that game, which in many ways very much mirrors your case in this one... a half baked idea that he became so convinced about that he ignored all evidence to the contrary).

#2680

That's hyperbole in the extreme Golden considering not one other player in the game has the same opinion. My case on you is apparently clearly, bafflingly stupid, but only you feel that way. So maybe it's not stupid Golden. Have you ever considered that it's actually not as stupid as you apparently think it is? No, that's why I think you are bad. For exactly the same reason. Everything you are saying about me here, literally all of it, applies to you. It's exactly how I feel about you.

I already stated points where you could be bad without being Crumb. I've also tried to look elsewhere while you play some ridiculous 1 v 1 game and threaten to derail the thread with it. I've tried to entertain the notion that you are good man. Don't tell me I haven't lol. I mean, I'm even doing it in these very last few posts for crying out loud.

This is why I have called you a hypocrite. All your criticisms apply to you if you are civ.

#2681

MacDougall wrote:Hey buddy the feeling is mutual by the way! If you're good you're going to feel like a dunce cap wearing motherfucker. Unless you're going to pin the blame on me if you're civ and claim you only read me as bad because I'm stupid not because you are.

No, I think that's what you are going to claim - you've been setting it up since the start. "Oh, it's not my fault I thought golden was bad, he had so many obvious signs. Why wouldn't he just defend himself?"

I won't feel stupid though. You can take that to the bank. If you are civ, then I'll get lynched the day after, which as you've rightly pointed out is something I otherwise might not be able to achieve.

All my decisions are rational, Mac. You should remember that. I wouldn't be asking for a 1 v 1 if I was going to feel stupid afterwards.

#2682

MacDougall wrote:I mean, I'm even doing it in these very last few posts for crying out loud.

Thtas bullsuit - unless your idea of doing it is to say I'm scumslipping and keep telling me why I'm bad.

Is that what you think is thinking about it? Because it doesn't read that way to me.

#2683

You're tunneling me.

You're refusing to see a potential that I am civilian.

Your case on me is worse than mine on you. You are basically just saying that you think I am bad because I'm not stupid. Yet you've been pointing out that I have no right to claim to know how you play because we haven't played together much. Yet, you apparently know me well enough to be able to call me scum just because I'm apparently so utterly wrong that smart guy MacDougall couldn't do that.

Do you see how you are guilty of what you're accusing me of?

#2684

Golden wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Hey buddy the feeling is mutual by the way! If you're good you're going to feel like a dunce cap wearing motherfucker. Unless you're going to pin the blame on me if you're civ and claim you only read me as bad because I'm stupid not because you are.
No, I think that's what you are going to claim - you've been setting it up since the start. "Oh, it's not my fault I thought golden was bad, he had so many obvious signs. Why wouldn't he just defend himself?"

I won't feel stupid though. You can take that to the bank. If you are civ, then I'll get lynched the day after, which as you've rightly pointed out is something I otherwise might not be able to achieve.

All my decisions are rational, Mac. You should remember that. I wouldn't be asking for a 1 v 1 if I was going to feel stupid afterwards.

If I flip civilian you won't feel stupid because you're bad. So yeah I believe you.

#2685

Yeah, see, you so consider the alternative that I might be good with your recent posts. Not.

I won't feel stupid, but not because I'm bad. If you thought about it, you might figure out why I won't feel stupid - as I've said a lot, all I've asked from you is rational thought. It's something you don't want to give, though.

#2686

Golden wrote:
MacDougall wrote:I mean, I'm even doing it in these very last few posts for crying out loud.
Thtas bullsuit - unless your idea of doing it is to say I'm scumslipping and keep telling me why I'm bad.

Is that what you think is thinking about it? Because it doesn't read that way to me.

I gave you fair play on at least one point. I can see a possibility that you aren't Crumb thanks to Matt. I have been trying to get you to entertain the idea that I might be a civilian and you basically just said I'm stupid if I'm civilian despite nobody else really calling me out on the points I raised against you. I'm trying to help you drop this ridiculousness and be the normal Golden so I have an actual chance of changing my mind but you literally won't let me.

Linki: You keep saying I'm not applying rational thought. It's starting to really piss me off Golden.

#2687

Do you rate Zebra?

a2thezebra wrote:@Mac I want to see how Golden responds to that. Other than the mods giving Salacious a pass for effort (I find that unlikely at best) I have little to disagree with about that analysis.

@Spacedaisy Good to hear.

Because Zebra has little to disagree with about my analysis.

How do you feel about that?

#2688

How about Canucklehead? How do you feel about them?

Canucklehead wrote:Firstly, I don't understand why Golden thinks Matt's/Mac's theory is crazy, especially since he played Rober Rabbit where I invented a very similar gambit to catch ALLTHE BADDIES HAHAHAHAHHAHHAA, which Epi liked....unless, of course, Golden is bad. He's claiming he had a role similar to Crumb in that game, and I don't remember that....but maybe it was just because I was too wrapped up in CATCHING ALL THE BADDIES HAHAHHAHHAAHHAH.
Regardless, there is NO REASON that Golden should be pushing back so crazily against this idea of Mac's because, like, it has literally been done in an Epi game before. So Golden suggesting Mac is wrong is fine....but suggesting that the whole idea is preposterous is......preposterous.

And to be honest, I actually agree with Mac that the whole real-life-personal-ethics bets should be off the table. Dog bets, too, but I give less shits about those.

I assume them entertaining my ideas makes them bad or stupid too? Or are you just so amazingly insightful that only you can see through my facade?

#2689

Sorsha wrote:Golden vs Mac, kiwi vs Aussie, east coast vs west coast, bloods vs crips, etc etc

I think Macs theory is fine, I checked the last couple of games Golden has played (recruitment and world reborn) and Golden Didnt make any memes in those. Mac might be bad too but I like the meme observation he found for golden.

Sorsha thinks my theory is fine. She must be bad or stupid too Golden.

#2690

sig wrote:I don't think I've ever had a town read on mac expect for in Dune when I was the scum team. This game I do have a town read on him, I think he is being genuine in his reads. Having said that I'm also confident Golden isn't a member of either mafia team. I really don't have much more to add.
@Zebra No I don't think Enrique new who his teammates were.

Sig town reading me. He's bad or stupid.

#2691

Matt wrote:
Dom wrote:
MacDougall wrote:You ask Golden to tell you why I'm bad, he gives you an answer that I easily refute, you vote. That's that.

Not a good look Dom.
I think you are too arrogant in your beliefs to catch a baddie.
In Dune, his first three susses of the game were all Mafia. Just FYI.

Anywho, if I had to vote now, and it was between solely Mac or Golden, I'd pick Golden.

For two reasons...

a) I think, of the two, Mac has a better case.

b) Golden seems to not care if he's lynched, and if he's civ and has some master plan, then eff it.

That being said, is this just a Mac vs Golden thing today, or are we going to do as sig suggests and look for other candidates as well? Golden threatened to derail the thread though (very civ like, Golden) if we don't lynch him or Mac, sooooooo I dunno.

That being said, looooong effin' work day, goin' to start from page 32 onward, and we'll see where I land before my eyes can't stay open any longer.

Oh I almost forgot...

Golden wrote:
MacDougall wrote:What exactly am I crafting Golden. Crafting indicates I am producing a story. All I am doing is looking at what happened in the thread and pointing it out. That's not crafting, that's looking. And how does any of this have the end goal of me trying to not look Hutt? Are you saying that I am bussing you? Really? Are you trying to plant a seed of doubt in towns mind that I have actually bussed you when you flip Hutt?
Oh of course, Matt, because everyone would buy that I was bussing my final teammate if I flipped Hutt
Derp, you do realize that me and Mac aren't the same person, right Golden?

Linki - DFaraday what up!! I mentioned you earlier and asked what everyone thought of you, but nobody wanted to play that game

Beatles Forever, my friend. Your awesome game is why everyone has to tolerate my ass haha

Matt taking the gun you put to his head and pointing it at you begrudgingly. He's also bad or stupid.

#2692

Dom wrote:vote=mac

Your lone ally Golden. I guess he's a genius like you right? Funny how all the people who seem to at least entertain my idea have withheld judgement. The one who agrees with you is haphazard with his lynch vote and actually making you look pretty fucked by assocation.

I'm not pointing all these out to be petulant. I think it's a fair point. Take a look in the mirror if you are civilian. You've basically said that all these people are either scum or stupid by claiming my case is impossibly dumb for a civ.

#2693

Well, it pissed me off days ago. It's why I stopped reading your cases.

Mac, you are the guy who has spent the whole game saying to me that you expect more of me. YOU EXPECT MORE. You came in here with an attitude towards me that was, frankly, really shitty. From day 0. You don't get to choose what to expect from me. You have been determined I'm bad from nearly the start of the game, and it was never because of anything I'd done, it's just because you 'expect something different'.

Oh, you could have made meta based arguments and been nice about it. But you didn't. And anyway, I gave meta based defences, which you have then gone on to choose to ignore. So, I dont' know why you expect more from me... clearly not my meta. Have you tried to figure out if it is true that the less contribution, more jokey golden is civ? Have you made any effort to do that?

I'm giving it back to you. I'll admit to being a hypocrite. But I expect more from you. If you are determined to expect more from me, then I expect you to be giving the same back. I expect you to read and take my posts into account.

I expect you to think about my meta defences
I expect you to think about my mechanics defences
Most of all, I expect you to think about what makes rational sense from the perspective of scum

But there is literally no sign from you that you have even read by points, let alone understood them, let alone thought about them. Your response to them is usually something like.

"Golden: It could also be B"
"Mac: But it is so obviously A"

There is no reasoning with you at all. That is how I've felt this game.

This entire exercise is pointless. It's why I stopped reading your case, and have tried to get myself to stop caring and stop responding. There is literally nothing I could ever do to persuade you that you are wrong.

There are so many very strong hints in my posts that, if you just thought about them, you might actually figure some stuff out. But you just won't do it, you refuse.

#2694

Yep whatever.

Civilians need to just ask themselves if they genuinely think my case is stupid enough to justify a civilian Golden making such a point of it being stupid. If the answer is no, then you have to scum read him and vote for him. Unless you agree with him that you're stupid.

#2695

MacDougall wrote:I'm not pointing all these out to be petulant. I think it's a fair point. Take a look in the mirror if you are civilian. You've basically said that all these people are either scum or stupid by claiming my case is impossibly dumb for a civ.

@Mac - honestly - I wish we didn't have to do this discussion.

I don't want to get personal with you.

I was begging hours ago for everyone to just lynch me.

You are wrong - there are so many things pointing to it - but you refuse to listen.

What else am I supposed to say?

Your case is like lipstick on a pig. I don't expect those forced to wade through our arguments to understand the finer details and figure out if the case is good. But, given you are the one writing it, I expect YOU to have thought about it. I expect YOU to have a sound baddie motivation for the claimed actions... but you just ignore the bits oyu don't like, you never answer them or even acknowledge them.

#2696

MacDougall wrote:Yep whatever.

Civilians need to just ask themselves if they genuinely think my case is stupid enough to justify a civilian Golden making such a point of it being stupid. If the answer is no, then you have to scum read him and vote for him. Unless you agree with him that you're stupid.

Yes, you HAVE to scum read me guys.

MacDougall - champion of 'there is always doubt'.

#2697

Golden wrote: Your response to them is usually something like.

"Golden: It could also be B"
"Mac: But it is so obviously A"

Reductionism of this magnitude is a scum tell. It's not even true. I asked you before, does every scum player make uniquely scum posts. Is it the intention of a scum player to look like a civ. Of course you are going to have civilian seeming posts. That's the point.

#2698

It's more like this;

Golden: Yeah but if I was scum would I do this?

Mac: Civ Golden would do that, and scum Golden would do that to look like civ Golden. Here are also other reasons that you look bad...

But you continue to just claim my case is stupid, and shift my meanings, misrepresent me and now have reduced my entire play down to that silly point I just quoted.

#2699

Humour me. Why do those five people entertain my case if it's so silly?

#2700

I will just say, though, Mac.

I think I was wrong when I said you will feel dumb. It's clear to me, that this is not the way your mind works. You do want to blame ME for it if I get lynched, and feel completely justified in your own case, and not be the person who feels any culpability for the case.

If that is the way it is, then ok. C'est la vie.

@Mac - see, that's my point. Any other possible defence to you is just 'oh yeah, that part would just be you trying to look civ'. Do you not see how that makes your case undefendable?

But, actually, I was referring to some of the more objective things. Like 'why wouldn't BC laugh at everyone to hide his teammate'. You've already claimed thats why I was making lots of people laugh, for cover. If that was the teams plan, wouldn't both people be doing it? You've ignored all my mechanics points. When Zebra came up with another idea for what Crumb's role could be, your response was literally basically that example I gave above.

Who Dies Next?