Arkham Mafia [ENDGAME]

#6501

MacDougall wrote:And yet we still haven't lynched a pro-town player.

Because we're really good at this game yo.

#6502

Golden I'm not hung up on the killing of inactives but I am hung up on her voting for herself. I was also bad with her in AWR and saw her frustrated but never did she even mention voting herself. I just don't understand that move if she is bad, with so few people on a team it would make a big impact. I'm not dismissing your theory that she's bad, just letting you know where I'm tripped up.

#6503

Golden wrote:I will admit, TH's 'getting into SVS headspace' does ring true for SVS's view of the world.

@TH - If that's your perspective, you are wrong. I'm giving both sides full consideration. See above quote as an example. I've also called out reasons for considering SVS to be bad that I disagree with, eg Dom's perspective about her feeling towards Mac's role hints.

I am completely capable of talking about my views of both sides of the equation. Gth is a very misleading view of how I actually see the world. I see the status of people I suspect as far more grey, with pros and cons on each side.

I'm going to call out where I think people's views are flawed, whether or not they align with my view of the world. Having taken lots of things into account, I still think on balance that SVS is more likely to be bad.

#6504

Turnip Head wrote:Here's a thought: if SVS is bad and is killing active players, why didn't she just kill Mac?

Who knows or cares why SVS would choose the marks she does.

Here is one serious point against SVS being bad that I've considered despite the fact no-one else has raised it. Would SVS kill bea? I think some people would say no to that.

#6505

If SVS is bad, it would only be about the millionth time I've tried to shout down the thread saying it, to have no-one listen, and only to be proven right. And if I'm wrong and she is civ, it would only be about the millionth time I've read SVS wrong. And all of that is already put into my thinking as well.

#6506

So don't go making the mistake of thinking that I am avoiding complex thought on the matter.

#6507

Golden wrote:
Enrique wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:It's not like it makes SVS bad. But some of the theories for why she is not bad don't really check out, in my opinion.
What does this mean? Is she guilty until proven innocent? Why does it seem like you want her to be bad?
I'm getting this exact vibe. Like what does make her bad?
What makes her good?

Yeahh this is a complete deflection. I don't know what makes her good, I'm not making that case.

#6508

juliets wrote:Golden I'm not hung up on the killing of inactives but I am hung up on her voting for herself. I was also bad with her in AWR and saw her frustrated but never did she even mention voting herself. I just don't understand that move if she is bad, with so few people on a team it would make a big impact. I'm not dismissing your theory that she's bad, just letting you know where I'm tripped up.

But... isn't there a big difference between a game where you have a real chance at winning and a game where she would throw in the towel feeling like she doesn't? What if her third teammate is inactive? In World Reborn she had basically 6 people (including MM) and I'm sure you were all hanging out in the chatroom etc. How does SVS act if she doesn't feel like there is a legitimate show at winning?

Typh suggested that SVS was also motivated by revenge in AWR, a motive which doesn't exist here.

#6509

Metalmarsh89 wrote:At this moment, I would not vote for SVS. I made a claim in a recent game that SVS would get defensive and emotional as a baddie.

Did she do that in Home Alone though?

#6510

I actually have a question, if people are suspicious of me, then is it just there are others that are more suspicious to the point that I'm not needing to be lynched? I mean I guess I'm just sitting over here gathering wandering eyes.

#6511

Enrique wrote:
Golden wrote:
Enrique wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:It's not like it makes SVS bad. But some of the theories for why she is not bad don't really check out, in my opinion.
What does this mean? Is she guilty until proven innocent? Why does it seem like you want her to be bad?
I'm getting this exact vibe. Like what does make her bad?
What makes her good?
Yeahh this is a complete deflection. I don't know what makes her good, I'm not making that case.

You appear to be making that case, because you are attacking me for pointing out why things she does don't make her good, and ignoring the fact that I keep repeating my case.

Here it is, very clear, just for you Enrique so that you can't once again accuse me of not making it clear why she is bad.

SHE VOTED MAC TO ATTEMPT TO SAVE SABIE.

That's why I think she is bad. I don't think her Mac vote was genuine. The analysis of her night polling lines up with a Sabie teammate. I think it is the best lead we have for a Sabie teammate. I have said this like 6 times. Clear enough now?

#6512

I feel like you and TH have both missed parts of the thread and are accusing me of something without actually having read all of the context.

#6513

Golden wrote:I feel like you and TH have both missed parts of the thread and are accusing me of something without actually having read all of the context.

Shots fired.

#6514

DharmaHelper wrote:
Golden wrote:I feel like you and TH have both missed parts of the thread and are accusing me of something without actually having read all of the context.

Shots fired.

I still think they are both civilian, but I really don't understand what they are accusing me of. TH says it isn't taking into account all sides, but to me analysis of whether arguments for and against are flawed is a critical part of taking into account all sides. Enrique is just accusing me of... not having a case, I guess? I honestly don't know.

#6515

Golden wrote:I feel like you and TH have both missed parts of the thread and are accusing me of something without actually having read all of the context.

(I thought this suited well :3c )

#6516

Clever of Epignosis not to define what timezone he meant when he said PM's would go out this afternoon

#6517

He didn't specify WHICH afternoon either.

I should probably do something productive now

#6518

sprityo wrote:He didn't specify WHICH afternoon either.

I should probably do something productive now

A case?

#6519

I know that's what you're saying, because that's the only reason you've put forth. You've dismissed every argument against it simply by making up a scenario where she's still bad anyway. Frankly, that's not enough. I'm not attacking you dude I'm just confused about what you're trying to get at.

She voted for Mac, what else? I don't think her not coinciding with sabie on the last three nights means as much as you think it does. They didn't vote for the same place in three nights, so what? I've never coincided with them, either. They still kept going to places the other had visited before, where they would've found the same info. There's not really a lot to this.

You call it flawed arguments, Golden, but I see it as you poking holes in them to point that we can't be sure of anything, which I'm not sure is being disputed at all. People exchange reasons why they feel on way or another, but no one seems as certain of anything as you are that she's a threat.

Yes you're hearing other arguments etc., but as far as I can tell, you've had your mind set on proving her guilt all the way through.

#6520

Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Golden wrote:I feel like you and TH have both missed parts of the thread and are accusing me of something without actually having read all of the context.

Shots fired.
I still think they are both civilian, but I really don't understand what they are accusing me of. TH says it isn't taking into account all sides, but to me analysis of whether arguments for and against are flawed is a critical part of taking into account all sides. Enrique is just accusing me of... not having a case, I guess? I honestly don't know.

For a player who has admitted he doesn't read SVS's tone well, you are hinging an awful lot of your thoughts re: her on a single vote that she made. That's all I'm saying. Change the counterwagon from "Mac" to "sprityo", take away your early DH vote, and you could be in the same position she's in.

Golden wrote:If I hadn't gotten pissy at DH for all his sarcasm, I'd probably be using my own vote on Sprityo.

And we'd all be sitting here talking about how in hindsight your sprityo vote doesn't look genuine. Just something worth thinking about.

#6521

You might even say his spirityo vote would have been false.

#6522

Golden wrote:Dom said he was reminded that SVS killed inactives when bad. I reminded him of a game he hosted where that didn't happen.

That's literally all that it was, until you and Enrique expressly questioned it.

....what?

She literally didn't have a chance to kill in that game. She was lynched Day 1. Why are you presenting misleading evidence?

#6523

Enrique wrote:I know that's what you're saying, because that's the only reason you've put forth. You've dismissed every argument against it simply by making up a scenario where she's still bad anyway. Frankly, that's not enough. I'm not attacking you dude I'm just confused about what you're trying to get at.

No. I've dismissed two arguments against why she is bad because I think they are flawed, as well as one argument in favour of why she is bad. I've agreed with other scenarios about why she is good.

Now, do you think the scnenarios I've dismissed hold water? Do you think SVS kills inactives, and it's so reliable that I shouldn't dismiss that argument? Do you think a baddie SVS would never self vote? Because those are the two arguments I've dismissed.

Enrique wrote:You call it flawed arguments, Golden, but I see it as you poking holes in them to point that we can't be sure of anything, which I'm not sure is being disputed at all. People exchange reasons why they feel on way or another, but no one seems as certain of anything as you are that she's a threat.

Yes you're hearing other arguments etc., but as far as I can tell, you've had your mind set on proving her guilt all the way through.

I'm not in any way certain she is a threat. I do think she is bad. I've never said anything more than what I think. I don't have any VERY strong read that someone is bad, including SVS. I don't have any read on anyone that even approaches certainty. And I'm by no means sure that I want to vote SVS today. If anyone is pushing the narrative that I'm absolutely certain SVS is bad, it certainly isn't me. As you point out, my case isn't massive. I even said I'm hoping for the time to go and test it against earlier behaviour, which I haven't done yet.

So what exactly have I done, that you think I should have done differently? And even if you were right, that I feel very certain about it, why does that bother you? Do you think I would have baddie reasons to want SVS gone?

#6524

Dom wrote:
Golden wrote:Dom said he was reminded that SVS killed inactives when bad. I reminded him of a game he hosted where that didn't happen.

That's literally all that it was, until you and Enrique expressly questioned it.
....what?

She literally didn't have a chance to kill in that game. She was lynched Day 1. Why are you presenting misleading evidence?

Go read your own game, Dom. SVS convinced me and ninja to vote with her on the last day to ensure her mafia team won the game, after having plenty of opportunities to kill.

#6525

Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Golden wrote:I feel like you and TH have both missed parts of the thread and are accusing me of something without actually having read all of the context.

Shots fired.
I still think they are both civilian, but I really don't understand what they are accusing me of. TH says it isn't taking into account all sides, but to me analysis of whether arguments for and against are flawed is a critical part of taking into account all sides. Enrique is just accusing me of... not having a case, I guess? I honestly don't know.
For a player who has admitted he doesn't read SVS's tone well, you are hinging an awful lot of your thoughts re: her on a single vote that she made. That's all I'm saying. Change the counterwagon from "Mac" to "sprityo", take away your early DH vote, and you could be in the same position she's in.

Golden wrote:If I hadn't gotten pissy at DH for all his sarcasm, I'd probably be using my own vote on Sprityo.
And we'd all be sitting here talking about how in hindsight your sprityo vote doesn't look genuine. Just something worth thinking about.

What's your point? Why are you so defensive of SVS that it seems like a personal affront to you that I could suspect her?

#6526

I don't feel like SVS has been on her civ game at all this game. I suspected her before the vote.

#6527

Hey DharmaHelper, you're not a civ hey?

#6528

MacDougall wrote:Hey DharmaHelper, you're not a civ hey?

Hey Mac, dismissed.

#6529

DharmaHelper wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Hey DharmaHelper, you're not a civ hey?
Hey Mac, dismissed.

Yeah but like you aren't a civ hey?

#6530

TH, my perspective of you going after me boils down to this. "Oy, golden. I'm hitting you with the blue shell. Snap out of it. SVS is good."

And I'm beginning to think maybe you know what you are talking about.

#6531

Let's lynch DharmaHelper.

#6532

Golden wrote:TH, my perspective of you going after me boils down to this. "Oy, golden. I'm hitting you with the blue shell. Snap out of it. SVS is good."

And I'm beginning to think maybe you know what you are talking about.

I don't know what I'm talking about, if you're implying that I have info. I just disagree with your findings and I'm trying to communicate to you why.

#6533

Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:TH, my perspective of you going after me boils down to this. "Oy, golden. I'm hitting you with the blue shell. Snap out of it. SVS is good."

And I'm beginning to think maybe you know what you are talking about.
I don't know what I'm talking about, if you're implying that I have info. I just disagree with your findings and I'm trying to communicate to you why.

I fully understand why, and have for a while. You have made by far the most persuasive arguments in SVS favour (Typhoony has helped a little too). But I haven't made any findings yet, and I'm not going to make any, or to change my own 'read', until I've had a chance to look back on her pre-sabie content for myself. Everyone seems to be superficially focussed on her behaviour in the last phase alone.

To be clear (as with earlier in the game and not voting Enrique) I wouldn't vote for SVS ahead of sprit if I didn't have time to do that either.

But I am still going to call out bad arguments - whatever side they are on.

#6534

sprityo "doesn't need to be in the game anymore," am I the only one curious to confirm he's not bullshitting?

#6535

I mean, seriously TH - SVS is good because no inactives have been nked?

That's where this began... with Dom aclling me out for being 'misleading' for accurately stating what happened in Bullets Over Broadway, as a counter to him thinking SVS was good because no inactives have died.

Can you not see why it is actually important and useful to debunk bad arguments.

#6536

Enrique wrote:sprityo "doesn't need to be in the game anymore," am I the only one curious to confirm he's not bullshitting?

I want to lynch so many players. He's one.

Let's just get to the lynching.

#6537

Enrique wrote:sprityo "doesn't need to be in the game anymore," am I the only one curious to confirm he's not bullshitting?

I figured we could save him for a rainy day. It's not like he's taking up much space

#6538

again, all talk, no action

if you want me gone, by golly do it. otherwise think through whatever else we have

#6539

I think a case could be made that sprityo is Mr. Freeze and has already won the game. Correct me if I'm wrong but we've only seen one player silenced by Montoya and no kills from Freeze. Maybe he blocked her early and now he's twiddling his thumbs

#6540

just dont overthink it TH

#6541

that sounds subtly riddler-esq and i did not mean that

#6542

So Freeze wins even if he's lynched?

#6543

@Hosts: Is Mr. Freeze told if his win conditions are met?

#6544

MacDougall wrote:So Freeze wins even if he's lynched?

I'm pretty sure I asked earlier if he had to be alive and the answer was no.

#6545

Epignosis wrote:
Enrique wrote:@Hosts: Does Mr. Freeze have to be alive to win? (before he goes postal)
No.

#6546

sprityo wrote:that sounds subtly riddler-esq and i did not mean that

I did not think it sounded either subtle or riddler-esque lol.

#6547

Okay so like. He roleblocked Montoya twice, has won ... but Montoya is still alive?

So now he's just an agent of chaos with a double roleblock every night?

Hey Spirityo can you not roleblock me anymore kthx.

#6548

Calling him Spirityo doesn't sound like a good place to start.

#6549

Golden wrote:Calling him Spirityo doesn't sound like a good place to start.

Huh

#6550

Oh it's sprityo my bad. Live and learn. Sorry.

Who killed no one?