Arkham Mafia [ENDGAME]

[Black Rock]

Enrique, how desperate are you to get Golden out of this game and why?

Although I am generally the person who jumps all over Goldens shit at the start, Enriques single mindedness is kinda freaking me a bit here. He has some good points, but so does Golden (some of the Indys will be attritioned out via NKs, or lynches, etc.). I mean we need to keep them in mind, especially if they individually impact our individual win condition, but getting the baddies is paramount, IMO.

Actually, having just hosted the Champs game, I think our goal should be to NOT lynch the other civs, then lynch baddies>lynch Indies.

Yeah, SVS, thanks for saying in one paragraph my exact point that it takes me 1500 posts to make.

What bothers me about Enrique is not so much that he wants to get indys, but that the start of this chain was about him sussing me for pointing out that the mafia are not the escapees. I don't think we should ignore the Arkham independents (because some of them look dangerous), but the crime families are clearly the mafia.

I get you now. Where you started from was pretty suspicious but you have talked yourself right out of it.

[Black Rock]

I believe I explain my thoughts on Golden either before or after that post. I have no information about his role. Why does he sound off to you?

Because I'm early. I saw your post. It makes sense, although I still think you were jumping on that early, but I have already come around on Golden.

I have to talk myself through this or I will be disconnected from the game the whole entire time.

[Turnip Head]

Also, riddle me this, what does a player feigning intrest look like compared to a player disinterested?

Trick question, they both look like DrWilgy

I'll respond to your other points in a minute, but you showing interest in the game would go a long way towards changing my mind about you.

[bea]

Look - you guys. I know I'm the suck and I'm going to continue to be the suck.

It is large 5.99 two topping pizzas this week across PHX at our stores. So, if you are in the hood, let me know, I can hook a brotha up. But only at my location. Don't give money in PHX to anyone but me. Cuz you guys love me right?

That said - here's the trend on that special. You are slow beginning of the week and it gets progressivly more busy as word spreads and people cram to order at the price point while they can. Makes sense right?

My first day back - wed was a 1000 lunch I worked before any other inside help showed up. On a wed. That is unheard of. I did totally take like 4 hours out of my day to enjoy the very nice dinner with wine that my hubby prepaired for me srrsly BDH/Diggz is getting some amazing kitchen skills these days!!

Today was only 1400. Thank god Friday lands on a night cycle because I CAN'T EVEN.

I know even now going into it that Sunday's lynch is going to land right the eff in the middle of the last day of 5.99 carry out. And I can either vote 10 hours early or try to hang on and stay as caught up as possible and fly by vote.

That's it you guys.

Those are the two options that voting bea has. I can't say I made the most informed day 1 vote I've ever made, but I can't also say I've made the least sucky one I've ever made.

You all have to really really understand that till at least Monday - my whole life is OMGFUCKINGPIZZA RIGHT NOW!!! Cuz that's what pays the bills and it eats up 12 plus hours of each of my day from friday to sunday. I can only HOPE no major catastrophe happens so that I can actually be around a little bit on monday....followed by a tues/wed day off then all hell breaks loose again.

This is my cycle every week. No matter what game I play.

So now - N1 poll....

linki - Dom - thank you for reminding me.

Welcome Sabie!! I've missed seeing you around too. how's it?

Dom - given that Sabie has now replaced in - do you find scotty more or less suspish? I can see where you are coming from in the quiet of being able to catch up and think about now that things are kinda quiet and not OMG FUCKING PIZZA NOW!!!
(and I'm looking at the ticker and thinking eat now, go to bed by x time, hit first snooze alarm at 6. second at 6:30 I can be at the store by 8....really I can....)

As far as the N1 poll goes, I'm down with exploring, but there's also this bit in my hed that wants to go back to the same place twice just to see if the message changes.

I'm still going to keep what I heard close to my chest - unless I see a good reason to not head the host warnings.

Speaking of hosts.

Doesn't Epi hate ties? I can't rememer off the top of my hed what his meta is for ties as a host though. I think him saying something about it being a stop not a tie should be considered.

I know that more of my post should have been in green than what was but I can't be assed to figure out which parts of it were relevant to game play because IMO my schedule is relevant to my game play.

[Black Rock]

This is so incredibly misleading and twiwtsy.

Let's see how this goes.

Enrique, this is the last time I'll say this. There are literally NO civilian roles for whom independent chasing is the best move. Except the dirty cops who get recruited.

This is so incredibly misleading and twiwtsy! (am I using that word right? I don't actually know what it means)

It's also straight up false. Do I need to explain to you how the Wayne Manor roles work? Because it's not hard to figure out. They need to achieve a 100% win condition to win the game; each dead Mafia / bought up gives them 5%, so that's at most 30% they can get from them. Where does the rest come from? Arkham Asylum. Each inmate gives them 12%, so if they manage to kill all the Mafia and 6 inmates, that's the least they can do to win the game! But then, that leaves them with 102%. If one GCDP civvie dies, they lose 2%, so even all the mafia + six inmates isn't enough if two civvies die! And they lose a WHOLE 8% for every member of their faction that dies. So that's a fuckton of inmates they need to kill. That at least one other civvie needs to kill as well or they don't win. Why the hell would I as a cop go and kill the mafia when, unless I've killed my assigned indie, it does NOTHING for me?

Don't try to argue Wayne Manor isn't civvie because nearly all of us have different win conditions.

The civilian cops need 6 out of 6 baddies dead and 1 out of 10 independents dead. The other three need 6 out of 6 baddies dead and 0 out of 10 independents dead.

Yes. So every inmate (you keep saying independent, more on that later) is needed dead by the civvies. Got you.

On the other hand, the independents don't have any stake in killing the baddies (Except one or two discrete instances like the joker)

No. This is false. They absolutely do. Whether their win condition is to survive, to kill certain players, to align themselves with another player, they ALL need the game to end with their conditions in place. The game ends when the Mafia dies. There IS no going back. Why would you even say that? What are their stakes according to you? From how I see it, the game ending with them still alive is the best thing that could happen to them.

So you're wrong again. You use the opposite argument against me, "of course baddies would benefit from indie hunt!" but you fail to see how that goes both ways. Why?

so how do you get 'there are fifteen baddie roles that need to baddie hunt'.... That makes no sense at all.

First off, that's not a real quote so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Second of all, what are we doing right now? What did the opening post say? Aren't we looking for the escapees? That's a fundamental part of this game that you're completely DENYING, and dude, you can't do that. Because they're the only players (with exactly three exceptions) who win that way.

Plus, you still fail to address my point that going after independents is exactly what the baddies WOULD be doing.

Woops, I actually addressed that prematurely. So let me hint at the next point that I've actually stated before: the inmates are baddies.

And you say '15 baddie ones' which just goes to prove that you are still painting the independents as mafia when they are not.

They absolutely are, Golden, I'm sorry. You were the first to describe them as "independents," the roles list never did such thing. You act like they're our allies in some way but that simply doesn't work. Sure, we can win with some of them, but not all of us! Not with all! They're the ENEMY, the goal of the game is to FIND THEM. I care about the mafia. I'm tired of being portrayed as if I'm only going after the inmates. But BOTH need to go, no buts. The argument to leave the inmates alone doesn't hold up. It's a terrible idea. You can't just ask the civvies to leave their victory to chance instead of pursuing it.

I'll tell you how many role cards suggest chasing the baddies before the indys.

13 civilian ones.
And NOONE else.
Thats it.

Not even close to the truth. The game ENDS when the mafia dies. If the game ends with the mafia dead and the inmates alive, the only winners are the inmates! Why are you ignoring that? The statement you just made is completely false.

This shouldn't be hard to understand. I'm sorry. I'm right.

@linki: have YOU tried slipping into my perspective, Golden? I'm not making it a secret. Your method isn't helping me, and you're not only denying it but using it against me. That's why I'm convinced that you're bad.

WTF, are you really expecting that the Mafia are going to be lynched one after another and all the Independents will be alive? Golden has made a really good point. Independents will die. I don't really understand you at this point. Like, at all.

[Dom]

Bea, really, it wasn't so much that he wanted to vote lovedesic (and did). It was that he wanted to vote her and not MP because there wasn't "anything concrete"

[bea]

that's a fair point dom. And also can't you have a bit of tunnel vision just a bit because it's MP? Would you feel the same way if he had been saying that about Zeeb or Matt or Enrique or Golden? I do also get that he said MP was his biggest suspish and he went with no poster vs suspish.

I'm just asking the question cuz I feel like, for the sake of fairness I should. Ya know?


also - I really like BR's catch up. It makes me sad she wasn't around while all this was going down, but happy she is here now.

[Turnip Head]

also - I really like BR's catch up. It makes me sad she wasn't around while all this was going down, but happy she is here now.

You weren't around while all this was going down either, so this seems like a weird comment. A similar catch-up from you would be likewise appreciated though

[Black Rock]

....?

What's your aim here?



I said I don't believe your post was genuine because you know SVS and Golden enough to realize what they were talking about. It makes me doubt your motives. What don't you understand? It wasn't an accusation which is why I find it so strange you used that word.

For what it's worth, at this point (pg 5) I'm reading Dom as civ and genuine.

[Black Rock]

Looks like you are in the clear sig.

I know I say this and then people still sus me anyway but...

I'm GOING to be quieter this game.

I have a plan for the very few games I can sign up for in the coming months. Arkham was not on that plan. I just started a new role at work, and have heaps of other stuff going on in real life, so I need to be very careful with my time.

How's that working out for you so far Golden?

At this point I would be asking if you had any of your own opinions... I will soon see in the future.

[Black Rock]

For those of you that voted to go to the Police Station: any reason? Are you guys just wanting to sit around eating donuts in the break room, or PLANT EXPLOSIVES IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE?

'Fraid those are the only reasons I can see.

I did not vote in the day 0 poll so I don't know what happened. I would have not thought any of these reasons, maybe lintel on baddies though. Such a weird post. Are you trying to be jokey?

[bea]

also - I really like BR's catch up. It makes me sad she wasn't around while all this was going down, but happy she is here now.

You weren't around while all this was going down either, so this seems like a weird comment. A similar catch-up from you would be likewise appreciated though

I can go back and relook at anything you want me to look at TH. Which things did you not think I sufficiently commented on?

TBH - the only thing I can think of I haven't commented on is this bit with Griff/sig which I don't think I completely understand well enough to comment on as from what I can tell it involves some meta from other games at other sites.

Oh and griff. Griff reminds me that SVS is a thing. This is the thing. SVS is way better at reading me than I ever am at reading her. I've not seen anything that makes me think she's bad yet, but I've not seen *my* civ SVS either. I usually need about 3/4 days to know for sure and tbh I'm usually lynched by then when we play together.

Are you thinking there might be a connection with SVS and sig?


I think a safe bet in reading me this game is much like GoC. That you just hosted. I concider it a feat to keep caught up. Even if I miss some of the details. I'm happy to go into depth if you want my opnion on things I've read and not commented on.

[bea]

I would also like to point out that what BR is doing right now is how I have caught up so often in the past. And someone always laughs or disses me for it. Bea's wall of posts. Bea just posted 10 things in a row. I'm not saying YOU did that TH. But it's something I struggle with lots. So you know, how to do catch up is always difficult *for me* given how many people tend to just gloss over me anyway.

I've thought in past games that I've said important things only to be told I just ramble. And read 4 posts later someone else say what I thought I just said.

I've tried so hard to adapt my play style to fit both my schedule and the fact that there is usually no one around when I'm reading stuff and able to talk. And I never seem to find that sweet spot.

[Turnip Head]

also - I really like BR's catch up. It makes me sad she wasn't around while all this was going down, but happy she is here now.

You weren't around while all this was going down either, so this seems like a weird comment. A similar catch-up from you would be likewise appreciated though

I can go back and relook at anything you want me to look at TH. Which things did you not think I sufficiently commented on?

TBH - the only thing I can think of I haven't commented on is this bit with Griff/sig which I don't think I completely understand well enough to comment on as from what I can tell it involves some meta from other games at other sites.

Oh and griff. Griff reminds me that SVS is a thing. This is the thing. SVS is way better at reading me than I ever am at reading her. I've not seen anything that makes me think she's bad yet, but I've not seen *my* civ SVS either. I usually need about 3/4 days to know for sure and tbh I'm usually lynched by then when we play together.

Are you thinking there might be a connection with SVS and sig?


I think a safe bet in reading me this game is much like GoC. That you just hosted. I concider it a feat to keep caught up. Even if I miss some of the details. I'm happy to go into depth if you want my opnion on things I've read and not commented on.

I'm a little confused . You only had 2 posts on Day 1 and one of them was your randomized vote. I'm used to seeing your catch-up posts where you either multi-post your thoughts in real time or where you compile all your thoughts into one big catch up post. Either way I associate those posts with *civ* Bea who isn't afraid of anything she'll say. You're acting like I should think you've sufficiently commented on everything but I don't see that anywhere. It makes me think that you *reading* the thread and you *reacting* to the thread are happening at different times, and that seems unusual for you.

linki: Well then

[Black Rock]

From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Although I agree on them arguing semantics, I disagree that at this point you couldn't discern alignment-indicative behavior. I definitely have ideas of their alignment already. Usually you're more opinionated.

Linki: I will never laugh at you for it Bea. To me, right now, it's necessary to get in to the flow of the game. It's taking much longer than I thought and there is no way I will finish tonight as it it almost 1 am and I have to work in the morning.

[Black Rock]

Zeebs - Strong or not, can you give me your current read of each of the Arkham voters? Considering the votes for Arkham are "downright alarming", just wondering.

Bass_the_Clever - Null
ekeknat - Null
sprityo - Null
Matt - Bad
Scotty - Null
MovingPictures07 - Null
Nerolunar - Null

At this point I don't understand why you are reading Matt as bad. Maybe in future posts I will understand. If not can you explain?

[Turnip Head]

Zeebs - Strong or not, can you give me your current read of each of the Arkham voters? Considering the votes for Arkham are "downright alarming", just wondering.

Bass_the_Clever - Null
ekeknat - Null
sprityo - Null
Matt - Bad
Scotty - Null
MovingPictures07 - Null
Nerolunar - Null

At this point I don't understand why you are reading Matt as bad. Maybe in future posts I will understand. If not can you explain?

Oh god. I feel so bad for you right about now. You're about to go down the rabbit hole

[Black Rock]

Okay, so what was the purpose of that post?

If one read my posts I think they would know.



I think you are posting ad nauseam about Golden because you are trying to sell people the idea that he is bad. I'm not on board with the evidence presented. You claimed that something might've been an attempted role hint, and I said I don't think you genuinely thought it was a role hint. Whether you are subverting the truth because you genuinely think Golden is bad or because you are bad remains to be seen.
Your most curious behavior to me has nothing to do with this, but rather with your response to me. You jumped to the conclusion I was accusing you of something (of which you have yet to clarify). TH later gave you a frame of reference that would make sense, but you declined to take it. Hyper-defensiveness is running through you.

You are starting to remind me of baddie Dom to be honest. It's been a while since I've have had that perspective with you but you are reminding of that time you and LC went at it and you were both bad.

[Black Rock]

Zeebs - Strong or not, can you give me your current read of each of the Arkham voters? Considering the votes for Arkham are "downright alarming", just wondering.

Bass_the_Clever - Null
ekeknat - Null
sprityo - Null
Matt - Bad
Scotty - Null
MovingPictures07 - Null
Nerolunar - Null

At this point I don't understand why you are reading Matt as bad. Maybe in future posts I will understand. If not can you explain?

Oh god. I feel so bad for you right about now. You're about to go down the rabbit hole

Oh no! I just started page 6 and this is page 40.

[Black Rock]

....I know. . . . . !~~~!!!!!!!!


I am saying you said that with the intention of saying his role claim was not valid.

What role claim?

Okay, I guess I get it. Dom's idea basically was that I wasn't being genuine about Golden role-hinting. Well, it's not something I even believed. I thought my post was clear in presenting it as an alternative to what I actually do believe. If Golden was a cop I wouldn't be going after him, no. Does that make sense?

He did present it as an accusation, though. "I'm not buying it" isn't much of a question especially when you frame it around an inside joke thing that I had no way of interpreting correctly. He can say he doesn't buy Golden hinting at a number, but that I'm lying and obviously understood the reference? Yeah no. That's silly and not really an argument.

I think your suspicion of Dom is fair.

I know that SVS has a favourite number of 8. I didn't know it was because of Lost, and I wouldn't have made an association to Lost. I just happen to know it is her favourite number because it is also mine, and don't see why anyone else should know this.

Not an accusation but a WHA??!!! Anyone who pays attention to SVS should know... wait not an accusation just a.... Wha??!!!!

[Black Rock]

My favorite number is 881.

Okay, now you guys are distracting me. Ask LC what his favourite number is. It's very precise.

[MacDougall]

Dom sorry for missing that question about being nervous.

The answer is no, and it will remain no unless I get to lylo and don't know who the bad guys are.

As it stands, Scotty and Turnip Head remain suspects. Turnip Head's case making, while voluminous, has lacked much chutzpah. When questioned on his reasons on a couple of occasions he responded with sketchy reasoning and/or nervous seeming sarcastic retorts. I find that suspicious.

Scotty continues to ping me tonally, and the well documented contradiction between his non willingness to lynch MP but willingness to lynch Lovedelic remains a key motivator for me wanting him lynched.

I remain wary of Matt, Bea, Lorab and Bass. DharmaHelper has also started to worry me.

Also it's possible... PROBABLE even, that the loser of the coin flip in this case happened to be Robin, who is able to prevent his own lynch. I'd guess Wilgy based on his annoyed sounding reaction.

[Black Rock]

From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

Why are you trying so hard to claim an alignment so early?

[Black Rock]

OMG!! No quote but TH was not lying about the rabbit role. My eyes are bleeding.

[MacDougall]

rabbit role

[Enrique]

Do you guys think Scotty has a reason for wanting to keep Equivocate over lovedelic, or does his inconsistency serve like no function at all?

sig I've explained that so many times, I'm just tired at this point. There's no guarantee I'll vote for you again tomorrow, you need to chill, but I've explained why I thought that whole attitude/push was suspicious and I've repeated myself enough as it is in this game.

[MacDougall]

Do you guys think Scotty has a reason for wanting to keep Equivocate over lovedelic, or does his inconsistency serve like no function at all?

My initial thought was that it may be indicative of equivocate being a teammate, but I am cautious against making obvious connections such as that. It could be just as likely wifom designed to link Equivocate to him should he die. That is something I do often. I love leaving breadcrumbs behind that make people think they are my teammates.

[Enrique]

We'll see. Whoever gets lynched tomorrow, it needs to be a clearer decision. Today's result was about the most disappointing thing that could happen in terms of telling us anything, but hopefully whatever power stopped it (Joker secret?) was a one-time use thing. I just know this made me a lot less comfortable with ties.

[MacDougall]

We'll see. Whoever gets lynched tomorrow, it needs to be a clearer decision. Today's result was about the most disappointing thing that could happen in terms of telling us anything, but hopefully whatever power stopped it (Joker secret?) was a one-time use thing. I just know this made me a lot less comfortable with ties.

I would appreciate it if you actually read my posts. As I said a moment ago, it would appear most likely to be Robin's ability that was activated to prevent that lynch on account of Robin being the only role documented to have it.

I don't think a failed lynch on day 1 is all that bad in a game with a lot of powerful anti-mafia roles. We're always more likely to lynch wrong on day 1 anyway.

[Turnip Head]

As it stands, Scotty and Turnip Head remain suspects. Turnip Head's case making, while voluminous, has lacked much chutzpah. When questioned on his reasons on a couple of occasions he responded with sketchy reasoning and/or nervous seeming sarcastic retorts. I find that suspicious.

Maybe Day 1 chutzpah is a civ trait of yours but it's not one of mine. At the start of games I prefer to feel people out and develop my reads over time. I don't really have anything to say about you calling my reasoning sketchy or my retorts nervous-seeming, you're entitled to your opinion.

[Black Rock]

Zeebs - Strong or not, can you give me your current read of each of the Arkham voters? Considering the votes for Arkham are "downright alarming", just wondering.

Bass_the_Clever - Null
ekeknat - Null
sprityo - Null
Matt - Bad
Scotty - Null
MovingPictures07 - Null
Nerolunar - Null

So you are either refusing to give your reads or your "downright alarming" post was BS.

Which one?

Neither. As humorous as my response is, it is also genuine. I don't have enough content with any of the other players but yourself to be confident in reading them even slightly. I don't see why saying that I find the amount of votes for Arkham Asylum to be alarming - which it is - has to refer to any specific votes or any specific voters.

So you genuinely believe me to be bad?

Maybe I should explain myself then. By calling the Arkham votes alarming, which I don't think they are at all btw, I feel like you were trying to paint some of the voters as bad. Otherwise, why would the votes for Arkham be alarming? Are you trying to say you feel the Arkham voters are civvie but it's just alarming that they voted Arkham? I don't think that's what you were insinuating with your initial post.

On top of that, when questioned why you voted your option, you turned it around with a question. When questioned again, you simply say "I like docks", which has no game relevance at all.

You also state that you "did not design this game", and thus did not answer when I asked what kind of trap Arkham could be. Yet, even though you did not design the game, you still feel confident that Arkham is some kind of trap regardless.

I dunno, it doesn't gel IMO.

If I was wishing to imply something more specific when I said that I thought the amount of votes for Arkham Asylum was alarming, then I would have outright said whatever it was you're assuming I meant to imply. Maybe the amount of votes for Arkham are alarming because of misguided civs, maybe it's because of scheming baddies. Maybe it's a mix. I don't know.

I already told you that my question was rhetorical, and therefore the equivalent of a statement. You're not helping my baddie read of you by continuing to pretend otherwise. I also don't believe that you think that I was trying to give the impression that saying "I like docks" somehow was relevant to the game. My point in saying it was that it wasn't because you're looking for game-relevant answers that aren't there. I have no game-relevant reason for voting for that particular option. For most Day 0 votes I've come across, this one included, I don't think there's much use trying to figure out which option would be best for the civ cause. Instead, I only avoid the options that seem shady to me (the one you voted for being one of them) and out of the options left I tend to pick a more-or-less random one for reasons that aren't relevant to the game. Your insistence that I have to have some game-related motive for voting the docks seems disingenuous to me, and you seem pretty desperate to be suspicious of me for, frankly, stupid reasons.

Where did I give you the impression that I am confident that Arkham is a trap? I even outright stated that it's not that I think it will be harmful to the civs (though it very well could be) but rather that I don't see how it could be beneficial to the civs. You insist I give you more specific answers for my prevous statements under the assumption that I either have knowledge, are implying something more specific than what I said, have a game-related reason for everything I have done and said so far, and am completely confident with everything I have done and said so far as well. You have absolutely zero reason to assume any of this yet you assume it all anyway in a pathetic attempt to justify your suspicion of me and ask me questions that I either have already answered with my initial statements or can't answer because the questions don't apply to me in the first place. Every thing you've said and asked directed at me so far has come off as opportunistic and desperate. So yes, I genuinely believe you to be bad. Surprised?

I think asking that question is understating how you state things. I have read you as pushing the trap idea.

[Enrique]

THERE'S A TIE?

Ooooooooooooo. It always brings a smile to my face.

I think this guy did. I like to think Robin is less of a dick.

You could read mine as well, Mac. I don't necessarily agree and that's okay. I'd think Epi posting a huge pic of the Joker saying oooh I love ties! means something, but who knows. Let's just not tie it up again.

btw i kinda accidentally made a great joke in that post. dh dh are you listening?

[Black Rock]

Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

I hope you backed this up.

[MacDougall]

Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

I hope you backed this up.

Maybe you should wait until the end of your reads before making numerous posts otherwise one might be inclined to feel like you are just trying to jack your post count for cred.

[Black Rock]

From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

If it is alignment-indicative, then I don't get it.

OMG MP you are killing me. I don't like you saying you don't get things, I find it hard to believe. Giving that I feel you are very smart.

Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

I hope you backed this up.

Maybe you should wait until the end of your reads before making numerous posts otherwise one might be inclined to feel like you are just trying to jack your post count for cred.

So you are saying you did?

I'm not trying to "jack my post count" I don't out that much faith in a post count to care. I'm just doing what's best for me.

[MacDougall]

As it stands, Scotty and Turnip Head remain suspects. Turnip Head's case making, while voluminous, has lacked much chutzpah. When questioned on his reasons on a couple of occasions he responded with sketchy reasoning and/or nervous seeming sarcastic retorts. I find that suspicious.

Maybe Day 1 chutzpah is a civ trait of yours but it's not one of mine. At the start of games I prefer to feel people out and develop my reads over time. I don't really have anything to say about you calling my reasoning sketchy or my retorts nervous-seeming, you're entitled to your opinion.

You've been very active on day 1. Not arguing with the direct point is not the reaction I expected. I expected you to disagree and say that your cases have been well reasoned.

You made many accusatory posts and rallied the troops against Wilgy with a beer smiley. Your play did not indicate a desire to "feel people out" and develop reads. Your play indicated a desire to have influence. This is not what I would associate with a player who prefers to feel people out and develop reads over time.

[MacDougall]

From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

If it is alignment-indicative, then I don't get it.

OMG MP you are killing me. I don't like you saying you don't get things, I find it hard to believe. Giving that I feel you are very smart.

Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

I hope you backed this up.

Maybe you should wait until the end of your reads before making numerous posts otherwise one might be inclined to feel like you are just trying to jack your post count for cred.

So you are saying you did?

I'm not trying to "jack my post count" I don't out that much faith in a post count to care. I'm just doing what's best for me.

How is the post you made in your own best interests? I see it as an attempt to cast doubt on me by bringing something up from the catacombs without even having fact checked it.

Yes, I did back it up. Quite so.

[Black Rock]

From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

If it is alignment-indicative, then I don't get it.

OMG MP you are killing me. I don't like you saying you don't get things, I find it hard to believe. Giving that I feel you are very smart.

Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

I hope you backed this up.

Maybe you should wait until the end of your reads before making numerous posts otherwise one might be inclined to feel like you are just trying to jack your post count for cred.

So you are saying you did?

I'm not trying to "jack my post count" I don't out that much faith in a post count to care. I'm just doing what's best for me.

"I don't out that much faith in a post count to care." I don't put, not out.

[Black Rock]

From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

If it is alignment-indicative, then I don't get it.

OMG MP you are killing me. I don't like you saying you don't get things, I find it hard to believe. Giving that I feel you are very smart.

Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

I hope you backed this up.

Maybe you should wait until the end of your reads before making numerous posts otherwise one might be inclined to feel like you are just trying to jack your post count for cred.

So you are saying you did?

I'm not trying to "jack my post count" I don't out that much faith in a post count to care. I'm just doing what's best for me.

How is the post you made in your own best interests? I see it as an attempt to cast doubt on me by bringing something up from the catacombs without even having fact checked it.

Yes, I did back it up. Quite so.

I think you are jumping to conclusions far too early as to what I'm trying to do.

[Turnip Head]

At the end of the Day I think it's fair to say I tried to influence. I felt Wilgy was a much better choice than Floyd, Scotty or Zebra. That doesn't somehow invalidate or contradict everything I was doing before that.

[Golden]

WTF, are you really expecting that the Mafia are going to be lynched one after another and all the Independents will be alive? Golden has made a really good point. Independents will die. I don't really understand you at this point. Like, at all.

This is why I was sussing Enrique at the time, I think you are the first person to understand why I was finding Enrique suss.

I felt ok about him by the end, though.

[Black Rock]

WTF, are you really expecting that the Mafia are going to be lynched one after another and all the Independents will be alive? Golden has made a really good point. Independents will die. I don't really understand you at this point. Like, at all.

This is why I was sussing Enrique at the time, I think you are the first person to understand why I was finding Enrique suss.

I felt ok about him by the end, though.

I haven't gotten there yet, looking forward to it.

[MacDougall]

At the end of the Day I think it's fair to say I tried to influence. I felt Wilgy was a much better choice than Floyd, Scotty or Zebra. That doesn't somehow invalidate or contradict everything I was doing before that.

I'm unsure that your explanation directly relates to what I was saying was suspicious. I felt that your explanations for your play, when questioned by Dom and I, were found to be lacking. While at the time you were carrying them off as though they were something that you felt strongly enough about to making movements towards casting doubt against the players subjected to your play.

Your explanation that your day 1 play is generally feeling out and developing reads, is not an explanation for why your case came across weak to both myself and to Dom when placed under a microscope.

If you prefer to dip your toes in, why proceed to influence the thread with your reads?

[Turnip Head]

Because come crunch time at End of Day I'm gonna try to get a baddie lynched. If you were reading my intentions as civ I think that would be clear. Why do you think I, as a baddie, would be trying to influence the thread at that time?

Which case are you specifically referring to as being weak and why are you dragging Dom into it?

[Turnip Head]

To be honest I'm not sure what you're getting at with your first paragraph so feel free to reword. But I've resigned myself to the fact that you're gonna disagree with any move I make or the reasons I make them.

[MacDougall]

Of course I would do that, if you keep doing suspect things.

[Turnip Head]

My behavior is not suspicious from my point of view so I'm not gonna stop playing the way I play.

[MacDougall]

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

And the possibility of Matt being out of character is more compelling than the points raised against Scotty?

I'm pretty sure I already said that it is and even explained why I think so.

Okay that's fine. I disagree.

This one in particular.

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

You do?
Really?

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

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

Do I need to remind you of A World Reborn?

Dom indicated similar misgivings about the very same case. Note that you dropped it and came out with the attempted Wilgy lynch that almost came off.

And if you haven't noticed, Dom has questioned you more than I have.

[MacDougall]

To be honest I'm not sure what you're getting at with your first paragraph so feel free to reword. But I've resigned myself to the fact that you're gonna disagree with any move I make or the reasons I make them.

I am referring to this.

As it stands, Scotty and Turnip Head remain suspects. Turnip Head's case making, while voluminous, has lacked much chutzpah. When questioned on his reasons on a couple of occasions he responded with sketchy reasoning and/or nervous seeming sarcastic retorts. I find that suspicious.

Maybe Day 1 chutzpah is a civ trait of yours but it's not one of mine. At the start of games I prefer to feel people out and develop my reads over time. I don't really have anything to say about you calling my reasoning sketchy or my retorts nervous-seeming, you're entitled to your opinion.

Your answer doesn't address what I was specifically saying I was suspicious of. You misunderstood or misrepresented my meaning. I didn't say your entire play lacked chutzpah. I said your case making and particularly referred to the times you were requested to elaborate on your statements.

Your response was along the lines of me having made that statements against your entire play.

[Black Rock]

Neither. As humorous as my response is, it is also genuine. I don't have enough content with any of the other players but yourself to be confident in reading them even slightly. I don't see why saying that I find the amount of votes for Arkham Asylum to be alarming - which it is - has to refer to any specific votes or any specific voters.

So you are basically saying that you are so easily alarmed that you literally find "nothing" alarming?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Yet were something *really* alarming to happen, I don't imagine you'll go running out of the thread screaming, hmm?

Still don't know what you mean.

Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I really don't understand this exchange... at all. Can someone simplify it for me?