Arkham Mafia [ENDGAME]

[Bass_the_Clever]

Let me make it clear right now that I refuse to support the lynch of a low poster.

I find this odd coming from you since in the past you have been for lynching low posters.

[a2thezebra]

Let me make it clear right now that I refuse to support the lynch of a low poster.

Why?

Because in my experience that has never benefited the civ cause. Not once.

Better than randomizing. At least it's a reason, and IMO it's better to lynch someone who isn't getting involved than it is to pretend some contrived tiny thing you found is a legit excuse for a lynch. Day 1 can be hard. Also yes I'm aware I say this as one of the lowest posters in the game since I missed nearly all of day 0 but tbf I did say I'd be doing that beforehand.

I agree that it's better than randomizing but I would prefer to avoid both of those pitfalls. I have never self-voted, never randomized, and though I have gone after low posters before it has never ended well. I do think you have to rely on tiny things in Day 1 to have the best chance at a successful lynch and if not a successful lynch, then at least one where you can analyze who was driving for that mislynch in the most disingenuous way the day before, and then go after them. There's just more to work with. Also, it doesn't have to be contrived. Are you saying no one has pinged you yet even slightly after all of these posts and if you were to say that someone did, your opinion would be contrived?

[sig]

Let me make it clear right now that I refuse to support the lynch of a low poster.

Why?

Because in my experience that has never benefited the civ cause. Not once.

Do you think it is more common for the mafia to push for lynching low posters or to defend low posters?

It depends on the situation. You could have some mafia wanting to defend a low poster that they know is civ if everyone's going after them, and you can have some mafia wanting to lynch low posters if no one's going after them so that they can't really be blamed for the low posters flipping civ since there wasn't that much content to misinterpret. In a game like this with multiple factions and a ton of indys there's no telling, but in any case I don't think a low poster lynch will be beneficial. I think we want to go those who are talking more so that if we get a mafia there, we'll have lots of content to look for connections and create a domino effect for dead baddies. A low poster lynch, even if it's not a mislynch, only helps us with numbers slightly and always leaves us at square one for the scumhunt.

Okay I agree with you here, if a low poster has said something slightly suspicious then sure I'd be down for lynching them, but if they haven't it is a waste imo. If the player is completely inactive and never post they will either be mod killed or replaced so say lynching none posters is a waste.

I seem to remember Scotty pushing this in past games regardless of alignment?

@Scotty if you could choose which low poster got lynched today which one would it be and why?

[a2thezebra]

Let me make it clear right now that I refuse to support the lynch of a low poster.

I find this odd coming from you since in the past you have been for lynching low posters.

You're obviously referring to Star Wars. For one, I was a baddie then. Two, I disagree that I was lynching low posters or even advocating the lynch of low posters. I think you got that impression because I did an ISO of every player on Day 1 to appear supatown with GTH reads on each one, but even then with most of the lower posters that I read as bad (and I read a lot of the higher posters as bad as well) I said with each one of them that I could easily change my mind because my thoughts on them came from such little content at that time, and in most cases that turned out to be true. Hell, one of the low posters that I read as bad was my teammate DrWilgy, and he was the only one I was really vocal about possibly advocating a lynch for later in the game.

[S~V~S]

Let me make it clear right now that I refuse to support the lynch of a low poster.

Why?

Because in my experience that has never benefited the civ cause. Not once.

Do you think it is more common for the mafia to push for lynching low posters or to defend low posters?

It depends on the situation. You could have some mafia wanting to defend a low poster that they know is civ if everyone's going after them, and you can have some mafia wanting to lynch low posters if no one's going after them so that they can't really be blamed for the low posters flipping civ since there wasn't that much content to misinterpret. In a game like this with multiple factions and a ton of indys there's no telling, but in any case I don't think a low poster lynch will be beneficial. I think we want to go those who are talking more so that if we get a mafia there, we'll have lots of content to look for connections and create a domino effect for dead baddies. A low poster lynch, even if it's not a mislynch, only helps us with numbers slightly and always leaves us at square one for the scumhunt.

Okay I agree with you here, if a low poster has said something slightly suspicious then sure I'd be down for lynching them, but if they haven't it is a waste imo. If the player is completely inactive and never post they will either be mod killed or replaced so say lynching none posters is a waste.

I seem to remember Scotty pushing this in past games regardless of alignment?

@Scotty if you could choose which low poster got lynched today which one would it be and why?

Epignosis is famed for not modkilling.

[Enrique]

Zebra, your team in of Montreal got away with making up a role and getting Made lynched because nobody who was paying attention was left. Inactive players are a huuge disadvantage, and there's no guarantee they're not bad either.

That said it'd be neat to get a better candidate. I understand Mac's POV re: TH better, but I still don't really have a problem with his original post and, like DF mentioned, that's something you overthink sometimes whether you're a civvie or not. I'm not voting TH for that reason.

I thought I'd caught Golden on a slip, but nobody else seems to think so and many even agree with him. I still don't, and I think it's odd that he's still trying to paint the picture that I want to spare the Mafia, but overall he's responded well and I might've just gotten carried away before. Keeping an eye out, but it's not as clear-cut as it appeared.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to sig but I don't like the way he talks about me vs Golden. Then again I feel this way about sig in almost every game... at the beginning he's sensible and I agree more with him than most, then we completely lose track of each other.

[Bullzeye]

I agree that it's better than randomizing but I would prefer to avoid both of those pitfalls.

It's not always possible. Note that I'm not defending the strategy here so much as in general because I think it's a valid strategy for day 1, especially in games that have had little actually happen in them (ie the opposite of this game).

I have never self-voted, never randomized, and though I have gone after low posters before it has never ended well. I do think you have to rely on tiny things in Day 1 to have the best chance at a successful lynch and if not a successful lynch, then at least one where you can analyze who was driving for that mislynch in the most disingenuous way the day before, and then go after them. There's just more to work with. Also, it doesn't have to be contrived. Are you saying no one has pinged you yet even slightly after all of these posts and if you were to say that someone did, your opinion would be contrived?

There's still maybe 5 pages of day 0 I haven't read in depth because it seems like too much effort. Ultimately, like many day zeroes before it, I think the mass of discussion will have little bearing on the overall direction of the game and probably not be indicative of anyone's alignment. I have not yet decided who I'll be voting for today and there's no one so far that has caught my eye particularly strongly. I don't think it would be contrived for me, you, or anyone else to have a solid ping on someone today though, but was just referring to the fact that day 1 lynches can and do happen for absolutely terrible reasons. I was once lynched for being the first person to put a second vote on someone. That's probably the most contrived reason I can think of. All I'm trying to say is that I think lynching a person for being a low poster on day one is a solid argument. Currently I doubt I'll do it because I think it'd be hypocritical in this game but who knows.

Also I do intend to go back to those few pages and push through, it's just daunting to see so much when you were expecting a standard lighthearted day 0 catchup.

[a2thezebra]

Zebra, your team in of Montreal got away with making up a role and getting Made lynched because nobody who was paying attention was left. Inactive players are a huuge disadvantage, and there's no guarantee they're not bad either.

I'm not saying this isn't the case, all I'm saying is that aiming for their lynch unless there's simply no other option is something I can't agree with and can't get behind it.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to sig but I don't like the way he talks about me vs Golden. Then again I feel this way about sig in almost every game... at the beginning he's sensible and I agree more with him than most, then we completely lose track of each other.

sig pinged me pretty hard very recently when he advocated encouraging map discussion from the civs, when the host himself has said that it is essentially discouraged for everyone in general.

[thellama73]

Can I just say as an impartial observer, that I love that the debate over lynching low posters remains alive even in my absence.

[a2thezebra]

I agree that it's better than randomizing but I would prefer to avoid both of those pitfalls.

It's not always possible. Note that I'm not defending the strategy here so much as in general because I think it's a valid strategy for day 1, especially in games that have had little actually happen in them (ie the opposite of this game).

No it's not always possible, but for me at least, today it already is. I've already gotten serious pings from both Matt and now sig, and I would vote for them over a low poster in a heart beat if no better options come along. I understand no one has seriously pinged you yet, but all I said was that I would not be contributing to the lynch of a low poster today. In games where little has happened I can understand the appeal of a low poster lynch, but you agree that this is anything but one of those games.

I have never self-voted, never randomized, and though I have gone after low posters before it has never ended well. I do think you have to rely on tiny things in Day 1 to have the best chance at a successful lynch and if not a successful lynch, then at least one where you can analyze who was driving for that mislynch in the most disingenuous way the day before, and then go after them. There's just more to work with. Also, it doesn't have to be contrived. Are you saying no one has pinged you yet even slightly after all of these posts and if you were to say that someone did, your opinion would be contrived?

There's still maybe 5 pages of day 0 I haven't read in depth because it seems like too much effort. Ultimately, like many day zeroes before it, I think the mass of discussion will have little bearing on the overall direction of the game and probably not be indicative of anyone's alignment. I have not yet decided who I'll be voting for today and there's no one so far that has caught my eye particularly strongly. I don't think it would be contrived for me, you, or anyone else to have a solid ping on someone today though, but was just referring to the fact that day 1 lynches can and do happen for absolutely terrible reasons. I was once lynched for being the first person to put a second vote on someone. That's probably the most contrived reason I can think of. All I'm trying to say is that I think lynching a person for being a low poster on day one is a solid argument. Currently I doubt I'll do it because I think it'd be hypocritical in this game but who knows.

I strongly disagree that a lot of the Day 0 discussion probably won't be indicative of anyone's alignment, especially as the game goes on and teammate connections start to become easier to notice. I agree that Day 1 lynches often happen for terrible reasons but I strongly discourage you getting behind a low poster lynch today, and not just because you consider yourself a somewhat low poster yourself at the moment.

Also I do intend to go back to those few pages and push through, it's just daunting to see so much when you were expecting a standard lighthearted day 0 catchup.

I know what you mean. There are still some things that I need to go back and re-read more carefully myself, this day has been a hurricane of discussion.

linki @ llama -

[Enrique]

I'm saying is that aiming for their lynch unless there's simply no other option is something I can't agree with and can't get behind it.

Well, sure. We still got a lot of time left and tons of options to discuss. I don't think anybody's saying "guys we MUST lynch a low poster today!", but in the end it might be preferable to someone else we're not sure about yet.

[Bullzeye]

I'm at least 85% sure I won't vote for a low poster today (at least not because they're a low poster) but getting into a discussion about it is helping me to get invested in a game I started late, which is basically why I mentioned my view on it. If I don't find something in what has already been said to justify a vote, I'm sure I'll find something in what is yet to be mentioned.

[a2thezebra]

I'm saying is that aiming for their lynch unless there's simply no other option is something I can't agree with and can't get behind it.

Well, sure. We still got a lot of time left and tons of options to discuss. I don't think anybody's saying "guys we MUST lynch a low poster today!", but in the end it might be preferable to someone else we're not sure about yet.

Scotty has come dangerously close to just that in my opinion.

[a2thezebra]

I'm at least 85% sure I won't vote for a low poster today (at least not because they're a low poster) but getting into a discussion about it is helping me to get invested in a game I started late, which is basically why I mentioned my view on it. If I don't find something in what has already been said to justify a vote, I'm sure I'll find something in what is yet to be mentioned.

Sounds good.

[Marmot]

I am 100% certain I won't vote for a low poster today.

[a2thezebra]

[Enrique]

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

This made me facepalm and it's just so terribly worded to make me look bad. I said Golden was a baddie for wanting to hunt mafia and not just the inmates? Really? Is that how you perceive me?

[Bullzeye]

I am 100% certain I won't vote for a low poster today.

I dunno, if everyone but Zebra made a huge effort we could probably swing it so you've voted for the lowest poster.

[sig]

Zebra, your team in of Montreal got away with making up a role and getting Made lynched because nobody who was paying attention was left. Inactive players are a huuge disadvantage, and there's no guarantee they're not bad either.

I'm not saying this isn't the case, all I'm saying is that aiming for their lynch unless there's simply no other option is something I can't agree with and can't get behind it.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to sig but I don't like the way he talks about me vs Golden. Then again I feel this way about sig in almost every game... at the beginning he's sensible and I agree more with him than most, then we completely lose track of each other.

sig pinged me pretty hard very recently when he advocated encouraging map discussion from the civs, when the host himself has said that it is essentially discouraged for everyone in general.

The second and imo more important part is Zebra. She is one of the few people who visited a place on her own and is trying to shut down us discussing any messages we received. This is very pingy. The mafia will already be sharing any information they got and they would most likely have picked different locations. The fact she doesn't want to discus this at all is troublesome to me. The host did say it was discouraged true, but we are still allowed to do it.

I'd like some other opinions on this. Should we or should we not share information about map locations?


linki: It was one of the main reasons for your conflict with Golden, and I thought you where implying he had anti civ motives or not wanting to equally focus on the inmates. Since then I think you've clarified your stance on the inmates/mafia and I find it less pingy. However, yes that is how I perceived portions of your discussions.

[a2thezebra]

I'm not trying to shut down discussions about the map and even if I was that shouldn't be pingy. It's pingy that you're encouraging discussion about it despite acknowledging that the host discourages that, not for the game's balance, but for those in particular who would be discussing it. It seems to me like you know how mafia could take advantage of the civs discussing where they've been so you want to see that happen to gather information.

[Bullzeye]

Zebra, your team in of Montreal got away with making up a role and getting Made lynched because nobody who was paying attention was left. Inactive players are a huuge disadvantage, and there's no guarantee they're not bad either.

I'm not saying this isn't the case, all I'm saying is that aiming for their lynch unless there's simply no other option is something I can't agree with and can't get behind it.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to sig but I don't like the way he talks about me vs Golden. Then again I feel this way about sig in almost every game... at the beginning he's sensible and I agree more with him than most, then we completely lose track of each other.

sig pinged me pretty hard very recently when he advocated encouraging map discussion from the civs, when the host himself has said that it is essentially discouraged for everyone in general.

The second and imo more important part is Zebra. She is one of the few people who visited a place on her own and is trying to shut down us discussing any messages we received. This is very pingy. The mafia will already be sharing any information they got and they would most likely have picked different locations. The fact she doesn't want to discus this at all is troublesome to me. The host did say it was discouraged true, but we are still allowed to do it.

I'd like some other opinions on this. Should we or should we not share information about map locations?

According to the polls thread, Zebra isn't the only person who went to the docks. Typh did too. I agree with you that the mafia will be discussing the info anyway and think it's probably in the civ's interests to have some discussion but if the hosts are discouraging it then maybe the subject should be dropped or at least approached with care. Based on the 'info' I got, I don't know if it'll do us much good anyway at this stage of the game.

[a2thezebra]

Also sig, you've only mentioned being pinged that I wanted to - in your words - shut down discussion about the map after I had already made clear that I was pinged by you being in favor of discussing it. Why the wait?

[Enrique]

I don't understand why nobody else ever used the opposite argument. Hello? Didn't people have a problem with me wanting to hunt the inmates and not just the Mafia? Isn't that how this whole thing started? With me eyeing Golden for seemingly dismissing a whole baddie faction?

I didn't just imply that, I stated it. I want to have a discussion where I'm correctly represented for once.

[Typhoony]

I'm not opposed to voting a low poster, but I will rarely actually advocate lynching one. I did that just recently in Enriques speed game, and those were pretty extraordinary circumstances that we're not even close to here.
Aside from that, I don't think it should ever be the main focus of the thread.

[Enrique]

For what it's worth, I think discussion of the map is pointless and if the hosts discourage it then maybe we shouldn't do it.

You guys realize that the biggest (aka all) Mafia teams have two members, right? They know the results to two of the places as most. It's not like they have some sort of massive advantage over us, why are we contributing to what they know?

[Enrique]

Which brings up the idea that they might've voted different places just to check them out.

[sig]

I could discuss it Zebra yes and I plan to, but I don't want to be one of the only players to do this.

Basically someone has stolen money from Wayne Enterprise (ooops someone is getting firrred) and Fox is on the case. Top suspect is Hugo Strange and a possibly location which isn't a map location. So really no information here at all however, this doesn't mean other locations have no information.

I think the mafia would be more likely to vote for two different locations then just one.

[Enrique]

okay sig that's not a good look. It's like you simultaneously borrowed from and completely ignored my last post.

[a2thezebra]

Okay, sig. I'll play ball.

Spoiler: show

Hugo Strange's hideout doesn't have the stolen money.

[Enrique]

but why

[a2thezebra]

I don't know. That information comes from a source which came from another source that went crazy. That said, I doubt it's a red herring or misleading information.

[sig]

okay sig that's not a good look. It's like you simultaneously borrowed from and completely ignored my last post.

I already said we should share some information about our locations, so of course I'd share the information I had, if I didn't it would have looked even worse no?

[Typhoony]

nub Zebra.

[a2thezebra]

nub Zebra.

Do you think revealing this is going to hurt the both of us or just me?

[Enrique]

but why are you playing along now

linki: i would've appreciated a rebbutal

btw im in the waiting room now about to have an interview. pray 4 me

[a2thezebra]

I'm playing along now to catch some fish.

[Bullzeye]

but why are you playing along now

linki: i would've appreciated a rebbutal

btw im in the waiting room now about to have an interview. pray 4 me

Knock 'em dead. I mean, not literally because that won't reflect well on you as a candidate. Unless it's for an assassin job in which case I assume it'll be a requirement. Good luck either way

[Typhoony]

nub Zebra.

Do you think revealing this is going to hurt the both of us or just me?

I don't think it will hurt either of us. I'm more concerned with who it might potentially help.
And since we have no idea on that front, I would have preferred if you had not mentioned it.

[Enrique]

Sudden change of heart. Okay.

[sig]

I'm playing along now to catch some fish.

Interesting choice of wording isn't it?

good luck Enrique.

[Enrique]

Why do we fall, Zeebs?

[a2thezebra]

Yes good luck Enrique. Don't forget to mention what a fine host you are.

linki @ sig - It's intended to be interesting, I'm glad you like it.

[Bass_the_Clever]

Let me make it clear right now that I refuse to support the lynch of a low poster.

I find this odd coming from you since in the past you have been for lynching low posters.

You're obviously referring to Star Wars. For one, I was a baddie then. Two, I disagree that I was lynching low posters or even advocating the lynch of low posters. I think you got that impression because I did an ISO of every player on Day 1 to appear supatown with GTH reads on each one, but even then with most of the lower posters that I read as bad (and I read a lot of the higher posters as bad as well) I said with each one of them that I could easily change my mind because my thoughts on them came from such little content at that time, and in most cases that turned out to be true. Hell, one of the low posters that I read as bad was my teammate DrWilgy, and he was the only one I was really vocal about possibly advocating a lynch for later in the game.

I understand that but the thing that's bothering me this game with you is how you keep going out your way to say " I was bad when I did that" . I think it's typical baddie behavior to point out how they are playing the game different this game. If that makes any sense.

[a2thezebra]

Let me make it clear right now that I refuse to support the lynch of a low poster.

I find this odd coming from you since in the past you have been for lynching low posters.

You're obviously referring to Star Wars. For one, I was a baddie then. Two, I disagree that I was lynching low posters or even advocating the lynch of low posters. I think you got that impression because I did an ISO of every player on Day 1 to appear supatown with GTH reads on each one, but even then with most of the lower posters that I read as bad (and I read a lot of the higher posters as bad as well) I said with each one of them that I could easily change my mind because my thoughts on them came from such little content at that time, and in most cases that turned out to be true. Hell, one of the low posters that I read as bad was my teammate DrWilgy, and he was the only one I was really vocal about possibly advocating a lynch for later in the game.

I understand that but the thing that's bothering me this game with you is how you keep going out your way to say " I was bad when I did that" . I think it's typical baddie behavior to point out how they are playing the game different this game. If that makes any sense.

But I'm not the one who brought up my meta, you did. If you're going to suspect me based on how my game here is different from previous games, then the only defense I give is going to be illustrating how it's an inaccurate comparison in more ways than one. I also wouldn't say that I'm even using it as a defense, I'm just using to clarify what I feel are some misunderstandings with you about my game in general. I have never been known for lynching low posters and even in the game you're thinking of where you kept claiming that that's what I was doing, I wasn't doing that. And I was bad in that game in the first place, so I don't see how suspecting me because I'm differing from a game where I was bad makes any sense.

[a2thezebra]

I see Glorfindel and TheFloyd are here. Any current thoughts, gentlemen?

[Bass_the_Clever]

Let me make it clear right now that I refuse to support the lynch of a low poster.

I find this odd coming from you since in the past you have been for lynching low posters.

You're obviously referring to Star Wars. For one, I was a baddie then. Two, I disagree that I was lynching low posters or even advocating the lynch of low posters. I think you got that impression because I did an ISO of every player on Day 1 to appear supatown with GTH reads on each one, but even then with most of the lower posters that I read as bad (and I read a lot of the higher posters as bad as well) I said with each one of them that I could easily change my mind because my thoughts on them came from such little content at that time, and in most cases that turned out to be true. Hell, one of the low posters that I read as bad was my teammate DrWilgy, and he was the only one I was really vocal about possibly advocating a lynch for later in the game.

I understand that but the thing that's bothering me this game with you is how you keep going out your way to say " I was bad when I did that" . I think it's typical baddie behavior to point out how they are playing the game different this game. If that makes any sense.

But I'm not the one who brought up my meta, you did. If you're going to suspect me based on how my game here is different from previous games, then the only defense I give is going to be illustrating how it's an inaccurate comparison in more ways than one. I also wouldn't say that I'm even using it as a defense, I'm just using to clarify what I feel are some misunderstandings with you about my game in general. I have never been known for lynching low posters and even in the game you're thinking of where you kept claiming that that's what I was doing, I wasn't doing that. And I was bad in that game in the first place, so I don't see how suspecting me because I'm differing from a game where I was bad makes any sense.

If that's the case then why start off by saying I was a baddie then? Why not just clarify that I was misunderstanding your game?

[Bass_the_Clever]

Can I get an outsider's opinion on what I'm seeing in zebra's game.

[a2thezebra]

Let me make it clear right now that I refuse to support the lynch of a low poster.

I find this odd coming from you since in the past you have been for lynching low posters.

You're obviously referring to Star Wars. For one, I was a baddie then. Two, I disagree that I was lynching low posters or even advocating the lynch of low posters. I think you got that impression because I did an ISO of every player on Day 1 to appear supatown with GTH reads on each one, but even then with most of the lower posters that I read as bad (and I read a lot of the higher posters as bad as well) I said with each one of them that I could easily change my mind because my thoughts on them came from such little content at that time, and in most cases that turned out to be true. Hell, one of the low posters that I read as bad was my teammate DrWilgy, and he was the only one I was really vocal about possibly advocating a lynch for later in the game.

I understand that but the thing that's bothering me this game with you is how you keep going out your way to say " I was bad when I did that" . I think it's typical baddie behavior to point out how they are playing the game different this game. If that makes any sense.

But I'm not the one who brought up my meta, you did. If you're going to suspect me based on how my game here is different from previous games, then the only defense I give is going to be illustrating how it's an inaccurate comparison in more ways than one. I also wouldn't say that I'm even using it as a defense, I'm just using to clarify what I feel are some misunderstandings with you about my game in general. I have never been known for lynching low posters and even in the game you're thinking of where you kept claiming that that's what I was doing, I wasn't doing that. And I was bad in that game in the first place, so I don't see how suspecting me because I'm differing from a game where I was bad makes any sense.

If that's the case then why start off by saying I was a baddie then? Why not just clarify that I was misunderstanding your game?

Because it's a valid point that I was a baddie then, so I find it odd (and still do) that you're saying it's suspicious of me to be differing from a game...where I was a baddie.

[a2thezebra]

Not to mention that I and others already have clarified that you were misunderstanding my game during that game but you're still under the impression that I'm known for lynching low posters anyway, when that's not the case at all.

[Bass_the_Clever]

Let me make it clear right now that I refuse to support the lynch of a low poster.

I find this odd coming from you since in the past you have been for lynching low posters.

You're obviously referring to Star Wars. For one, I was a baddie then. Two, I disagree that I was lynching low posters or even advocating the lynch of low posters. I think you got that impression because I did an ISO of every player on Day 1 to appear supatown with GTH reads on each one, but even then with most of the lower posters that I read as bad (and I read a lot of the higher posters as bad as well) I said with each one of them that I could easily change my mind because my thoughts on them came from such little content at that time, and in most cases that turned out to be true. Hell, one of the low posters that I read as bad was my teammate DrWilgy, and he was the only one I was really vocal about possibly advocating a lynch for later in the game.

I understand that but the thing that's bothering me this game with you is how you keep going out your way to say " I was bad when I did that" . I think it's typical baddie behavior to point out how they are playing the game different this game. If that makes any sense.

But I'm not the one who brought up my meta, you did. If you're going to suspect me based on how my game here is different from previous games, then the only defense I give is going to be illustrating how it's an inaccurate comparison in more ways than one. I also wouldn't say that I'm even using it as a defense, I'm just using to clarify what I feel are some misunderstandings with you about my game in general. I have never been known for lynching low posters and even in the game you're thinking of where you kept claiming that that's what I was doing, I wasn't doing that. And I was bad in that game in the first place, so I don't see how suspecting me because I'm differing from a game where I was bad makes any sense.

If that's the case then why start off by saying I was a baddie then? Why not just clarify that I was misunderstanding your game?

Because it's a valid point that I was a baddie then, so I find it odd (and still do) that you're saying it's suspicious of me to be differing from a game...where I was a baddie.

OK and that's the part I find suspicious is that you pointed out being a baddie. Where is the communication break down happing?