MAD MAX: GAME OVER

#1351

Quin wrote:
MacDougall wrote:There was one post Scotty made that someone pointed to that sounded really civvie that I was going to point out but I didn't notice the day had already expired when I saw it so that's a shame. Not that my 1 vote would have counted for anything. I wouldn't have voted to make it a tie or no lynch in the end so I couldn't affect the result.

Dom - Re your question ... To my nose, Sloonei has seemed half in half out. Some of his posts have been assertive and some of them have seemed non committal. I'll point some out when I am not at work.

Wilgy/Spirityo in the interest of fairness I wouldn't want to combine our powers as we would be far too powerful an organisation to overcome. It's just not cricket.
This post doesn't jive with me, Mac. This sounds like an attempt to wash your hands of a bad lynch.

It's not. I didn't vote on the first day at all so I am unsure why you think I would need to wash my hands of it.

#1352

Explain the Mafia context of that post? Are you saying that as Mafia I would post mortem try to claim townpoints for town reading a dead confirmed townie?

#1353

I may be odd, but I'm not bad. I came out with a theory that was just a theory. I was throwing out an idea. Of course I wasn't sure if it. I did think the svs kill strange and I didn't perceive her as a "consensus civ." I personally wasn't sure of her until she was killed. So yes, I thought her an odd choice. I often add caveats of u sureness to theories because they are just theories and I tend to question my own ideas. And my conclusion, if you read my post, is that Eli is suspicious. That it could have been a frame thing I mentioned as a possibility, but one less likely than her being bad.

I can't help being strange. It won't be the first or last time it has gotten me a vote. But I strut you that I am not bad. And if theorizing about what the baddies were thinking when they made a kill, then I'm not sure I understand how other people think about this game. That's what I do as a civ. I try to figure out the baddies. When I saw the kill, I immediately looked up svs's posts. Eli's was a name I had noticed, -'d was a player I already had suspicion of. I thought it worthy to mention, and shared my thought process. That's really what that post was.

I don't really know what else to say other than reiterate that I am. It bad.

Also, I have another more than 12 hour work day coming up, and I'm not sure how much I'll be on. So voting now. Voting elo.

#1354

MacDougall wrote:Explain the Mafia context of that post? Are you saying that as Mafia I would post mortem try to claim townpoints for town reading a dead confirmed townie?

That's it. If you didn't vote for him at all then I don't see why someone independent from the lynch would have felt the need to justify an obsolete read like that.

#1355

MacDougall wrote:Unless you are to elaborate you are saying my reaction to ricochet is manipulative? I have very little context further than that to help you see that I am not Mafia.

Sure.

Nearly everything you said about Ricochet on Day 2 was patently false. The subjective things you "read" about Rico's play was universally negative, like you had no interest at all in trying to see a possible townie in him. You painted an image of how he was playing this game which did not remotely align with how he was actually playing this game. You accused him of spending all of his focus on you (wrong), you gave his non-Mac-related content no chance whatsoever (tunneling at best, opportunism at worst). You literally said you weren't reading his posts after Zebra had previously suggested the possibility (I hesitate to believe you and think you could have been straw manning Ricochet on purpose).

You reduced his content into a much less valuable thing than it really was despite repeated insistence from Sloonei, MP, and I for you to look at his posts in a different light. It's classic discredit behavior. I'm left to decide whether you literally didn't read a thing he actually said on Day 2 and just gave him shit anyway, or you did read it and fed into the bad press he was getting by manipulating it into something it wasn't. The presence of INH and Zebra provided a great climate for that kind of manipulation, because they wanted to lynch him as much as you did.

#1356

Let me elaborate on the Jimmy INH thing.

JJJ had civ reads of both INH and Rico. He vociferously defended Rico but only passively defended INH. Perhaps he as Mafia had the safe zone of knowing he was right about Rico but also had concerns about so blatantly defending INH for fear of an INH flip looking bad for him if he did defend him.

#1357

MacDougall wrote:Let me elaborate on the Jimmy INH thing.

JJJ had civ reads of both INH and Rico. He vociferously defended Rico but only passively defended INH. Perhaps he as Mafia had the safe zone of knowing he was right about Rico but also had concerns about so blatantly defending INH for fear of an INH flip looking bad for him if he did defend him.

I was more confident about Rico being town than INH being town. For Rico, I had what I perceived to be obvious logical problems with the mafia case generated for him -- things that people were calling his worst traits were what I thought made him the most town. For INH my defense was about meta, and meta is not as strong as circumstance and context. My town read on Ricochet was about the latter, not meta.

I said all of this at the time. I was decidedly opposed to a Ricochet lynch. I was not thrilled with an INH lynch. I wanted an Elohcin lynch.

#1358

Quin wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Explain the Mafia context of that post? Are you saying that as Mafia I would post mortem try to claim townpoints for town reading a dead confirmed townie?
That's it. If you didn't vote for him at all then I don't see why someone independent from the lynch would have felt the need to justify an obsolete read like that.

I felt the need to point out that I thought his lynch was poor. He looked town to me. I was reading the thread in catch up as the day was ending without realising. I made the read to late to influence it. And I wasn't sure enough of it anyway to have caused a no lynch had I managed to comment just before the lynch.

#1359

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Unless you are to elaborate you are saying my reaction to ricochet is manipulative? I have very little context further than that to help you see that I am not Mafia.
Sure.

Nearly everything you said about Ricochet on Day 2 was patently false. The subjective things you "read" about Rico's play was universally negative, like you had no interest at all in trying to see a possible townie in him. You painted an image of how he was playing this game which did not remotely align with how he was actually playing this game. You accused him of spending all of his focus on you (wrong), you gave his non-Mac-related content no chance whatsoever (tunneling at best, opportunism at worst). You literally said you weren't reading his posts after Zebra had previously suggested the possibility (I hesitate to believe you and think you could have been straw manning Ricochet on purpose).

You reduced his content into a much less valuable thing than it really was despite repeated insistence from Sloonei, MP, and I for you to look at his posts in a different light. It's classic discredit behavior. I'm left to decide whether you literally didn't read a thing he actually said on Day 2 and just gave him shit anyway, or you did read it and fed into the bad press he was getting by manipulating it into something it wasn't. The presence of INH and Zebra provided a great climate for that kind of manipulation, because they wanted to lynch him as much as you did.

Dude, he pissed me off. I have never been called for a policy lynch before. I wanted him to be bad to justify it. Sorry that I was wrong.

#1360

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Let me elaborate on the Jimmy INH thing.

JJJ had civ reads of both INH and Rico. He vociferously defended Rico but only passively defended INH. Perhaps he as Mafia had the safe zone of knowing he was right about Rico but also had concerns about so blatantly defending INH for fear of an INH flip looking bad for him if he did defend him.
I was more confident about Rico being town than INH being town. For Rico, I had what I perceived to be obvious logical problems with the mafia case generated for him -- things that people were calling his worst traits were what I thought made him the most town. For INH my defense was about meta, and meta is not as strong as circumstance and context. My town read on Ricochet was about the latter, not meta.

I said all of this at the time. I was decidedly opposed to a Ricochet lynch. I was not thrilled with an INH lynch. I wanted an Elohcin lynch.

Okay.

#1361

LoRab wrote:I may be odd, but I'm not bad. I came out with a theory that was just a theory. I was throwing out an idea. Of course I wasn't sure if it. I did think the svs kill strange and I didn't perceive her as a "consensus civ." I personally wasn't sure of her until she was killed. So yes, I thought her an odd choice. I often add caveats of u sureness to theories because they are just theories and I tend to question my own ideas. And my conclusion, if you read my post, is that Eli is suspicious. That it could have been a frame thing I mentioned as a possibility, but one less likely than her being bad.

I can't help being strange. It won't be the first or last time it has gotten me a vote. But I strut you that I am not bad. And if theorizing about what the baddies were thinking when they made a kill, then I'm not sure I understand how other people think about this game. That's what I do as a civ. I try to figure out the baddies. When I saw the kill, I immediately looked up svs's posts. Eli's was a name I had noticed, -'d was a player I already had suspicion of. I thought it worthy to mention, and shared my thought process. That's really what that post was.

I don't really know what else to say other than reiterate that I am. It bad.

Also, I have another more than 12 hour work day coming up, and I'm not sure how much I'll be on. So voting now. Voting elo.

The highlighted portion resonates with me some. I do this pretty much every time a player is night killed. Judging what motivated a baddie team to choose a specific kill is always a shaky thing, but it's also quite wasteful to not bother at all. To check the post history of the deceased for any meaningful leads and then bring them into the thread for discussion is fine with me.

I also reiterate that I think opportunist baddies who have delivered a frame kill are usually not the ones who bring it up publicly. They don't literally promote their frame job in the thread, because that's extremely transparent. The point of a frame kill is to be subtle, and to move the townies toward a false suspicion. They almost always get there without being nudged. That nudging itself would be the most obvious way of assuring a frame kill doesn't have its intended consequence for the baddies.

Some players might do it anyway, those who favor playing with their WIFOM in your face. I don't think LoRab is that person.

#1362

The fact that you are now finding my emotional response to his emotional plea bad is kind of ironic. Lessons to be learned.

#1363

Zebra I am voting spirityo because he has appeared to me as the present yet non civ helpful prototypical mafia player. Defensive of himself, posts that are low effort and jokey to bide time and insincere tone.

#1364

MacDougall wrote:Dude, he pissed me off. I have never been called for a policy lynch before. I wanted him to be bad to justify it. Sorry that I was wrong.

That's just it. I have no problem with someone being wrong. Wrong happens. However, the kind of wrong I can easily forgive is wrong that was based upon a well-reasoned and sincere case that simply fell flat. Your brand of wrong here was something different -- it was a blind refusal to consider any details other than those that supported your argument (including details which didn't even exist in the game). You gave yourself the bare minimum chance of actually being right.

#1365

Without commenting on the case, Sloonei's vote post on LoRab has me convinced I am wrong about him. That is very reflective of thoughtful civ analysis.

#1366

MacDougall wrote:
Quin wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Explain the Mafia context of that post? Are you saying that as Mafia I would post mortem try to claim townpoints for town reading a dead confirmed townie?
That's it. If you didn't vote for him at all then I don't see why someone independent from the lynch would have felt the need to justify an obsolete read like that.
I felt the need to point out that I thought his lynch was poor. He looked town to me. I was reading the thread in catch up as the day was ending without realising. I made the read to late to influence it. And I wasn't sure enough of it anyway to have caused a no lynch had I managed to comment just before the lynch.

What was the post that made you think he looked town?

#1367

Elohcin

#1368

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Dude, he pissed me off. I have never been called for a policy lynch before. I wanted him to be bad to justify it. Sorry that I was wrong.
That's just it. I have no problem with someone being wrong. Wrong happens. However, the kind of wrong I can easily forgive is wrong that was based upon a well-reasoned and sincere case that simply fell flat. Your brand of wrong here was something different -- it was a blind refusal to consider any details other than those that supported your argument (including details which didn't even exist in the game). You gave yourself the bare minimum chance of actually being right.

It wasn't blind refusal you fucking silvertongue. I have stated frequently I couldn't rationalise his antagonism towards me on day 2 as civ behaviour. Of that I was right. He had no civ agenda. I was wrong about his alignment but I read his apathy very well.

#1369

Scotty wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Scotty wrote:I would also expect that maybe a baddie Epi would steer clear from the day 1 bussing if we were both bad. I'm still not deadest that Epi is bad either, so I'd like to move on from him for now.
These sentences confuse me. Could you restate? I'm not sure why you're even thinking about the potential for Epignosis bussing you -- that requires you to be bad to even reach the first stage of thought.
I'm putting it through the magical Neil perspective.

I dunno man. I kinda just talk off the cuff and sometimes I don't really defend myself with my thoughts. I've been nothing but honest this game.

This one.

#1370

Quin, you'd asked me about your comments on motel room:

I can see why you feel positive about that moment. I think the most positive recurring thing for motel room is that his short-and-relevant posts have tended to look authentic. Unfortunately that brevity also means substantive explanation for his reads is lacking, so I'm hesitant to give him too much credit. Too many baddies left.

#1371

MacDougall wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Dude, he pissed me off. I have never been called for a policy lynch before. I wanted him to be bad to justify it. Sorry that I was wrong.
That's just it. I have no problem with someone being wrong. Wrong happens. However, the kind of wrong I can easily forgive is wrong that was based upon a well-reasoned and sincere case that simply fell flat. Your brand of wrong here was something different -- it was a blind refusal to consider any details other than those that supported your argument (including details which didn't even exist in the game). You gave yourself the bare minimum chance of actually being right.
It wasn't blind refusal you fucking silvertongue. I have stated frequently I couldn't rationalise his antagonism towards me on day 2 as civ behaviour. Of that I was right. He had no civ agenda. I was wrong about his alignment but I read his apathy very well.

Whether he had a civilian agenda is still up in the air. We'll have to wait for his post-game comments on that one. I do think there was some sincerity in his efforts that you weren't acknowledging. I am saying that "his antagonism towards you on Day 2" barely even existed. He was prepared to move on from you until you antagonized him. That's the whole problem.

#1372

I would really love to hear what all of you think of thist post.

When I judge MP, I see a pile of little pings that continue to bug me, but that post is like running into a wall. I struggle to see a baddie in there. It looks to me like a gushing, spewing spicket of town. I am open to anyone disagreeing, I just need to see a reason.

#1373

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I would really love to hear what all of you think of thist post.

When I judge MP, I see a pile of little pings that continue to bug me, but that post is like running into a wall. I struggle to see a baddie in there. It looks to me like a gushing, spewing spicket of town. I am open to anyone disagreeing, I just need to see a reason.

This post

#1374

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Dude, he pissed me off. I have never been called for a policy lynch before. I wanted him to be bad to justify it. Sorry that I was wrong.
That's just it. I have no problem with someone being wrong. Wrong happens. However, the kind of wrong I can easily forgive is wrong that was based upon a well-reasoned and sincere case that simply fell flat. Your brand of wrong here was something different -- it was a blind refusal to consider any details other than those that supported your argument (including details which didn't even exist in the game). You gave yourself the bare minimum chance of actually being right.
It wasn't blind refusal you fucking silvertongue. I have stated frequently I couldn't rationalise his antagonism towards me on day 2 as civ behaviour. Of that I was right. He had no civ agenda. I was wrong about his alignment but I read his apathy very well.
Whether he had a civilian agenda is still up in the air. We'll have to wait for his post-game comments on that one. I do think there was some sincerity in his efforts that you weren't acknowledging. I am saying that "his antagonism towards you on Day 2" barely even existed. He was prepared to move on from you until you antagonized him. That's the whole problem.

That's not true. The first post he made after he saw the lynch was a sigh and comment at his dissatisfaction that I was still alive. I made my post about voting for him if he kept up his policy in reaction to that. I also saw him justify his policy after the day had ended.

Also hogwash on the alignment thing. Of course he was able to produce some decent scum reads given he was not scum. He produced them under duress, with apathy and everything he posted on day 2 after you and others started to call me out absolutely stank of apathy. He was very much playing bystander and my point all along was that I couldn't see a civ. I didn't consider a rogue because I didn't read all the role posts and saw no self aligned players when I scanned.

#1375

MacDougall wrote:I didn't consider a rogue because I didn't read all the role posts and saw no self aligned players when I scanned.

I didn't either to be fair. I'd totally forgotten about the Grease Rat by the time that drama was unfolding. I'm not sure if I'd have associated Rico with that at the time had I thought of it, but in hindsight I agree it makes sense.

#1376

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I would really love to hear what all of you think of thist post.

When I judge MP, I see a pile of little pings that continue to bug me, but that post is like running into a wall. I struggle to see a baddie in there. It looks to me like a gushing, spewing spicket of town. I am open to anyone disagreeing, I just need to see a reason.
This post

Why do you find it so particularly civvie sounding? I can see a civ in that post in isolation and I can see a baddie taking the opportunity to make a truthful statement with vigour. A rare and valued thing for a scum player to find an opportunity for. Anytime as Mafia one can be genuine is a time to do so with gusto is it not?

I think his asking for SVS to elab on her Sloonei orange skittle is a bit more interesting. The fact that he noted so pointedly one of our dead heroine's reads makes for a compelling nugget.

#1377

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I would really love to hear what all of you think of thist post.

When I judge MP, I see a pile of little pings that continue to bug me, but that post is like running into a wall. I struggle to see a baddie in there. It looks to me like a gushing, spewing spicket of town. I am open to anyone disagreeing, I just need to see a reason.

I generally default to labeling emotional appeals as town behaviour until they've proven emotional appeals aren't off limits for them. An observation, hopefully it'll help you sort out your thoughts, is that what he's saying isn't strictly a defence for Ricochet the player in this game, it's more of a defence for him as a person.

#1378

Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I would really love to hear what all of you think of thist post.

When I judge MP, I see a pile of little pings that continue to bug me, but that post is like running into a wall. I struggle to see a baddie in there. It looks to me like a gushing, spewing spicket of town. I am open to anyone disagreeing, I just need to see a reason.
I generally default to labeling emotional appeals as town behaviour until they've proven emotional appeals aren't off limits for them. An observation, hopefully it'll help you sort out your thoughts, is that what he's saying isn't strictly a defence for Ricochet the player in this game, it's more of a defence for him as a person.

I have made a point of noting MP has no qualms appealing to his own personal situations as defense when Mafia.

#1379

MacDougall wrote:
Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I would really love to hear what all of you think of thist post.

When I judge MP, I see a pile of little pings that continue to bug me, but that post is like running into a wall. I struggle to see a baddie in there. It looks to me like a gushing, spewing spicket of town. I am open to anyone disagreeing, I just need to see a reason.
I generally default to labeling emotional appeals as town behaviour until they've proven emotional appeals aren't off limits for them. An observation, hopefully it'll help you sort out your thoughts, is that what he's saying isn't strictly a defence for Ricochet the player in this game, it's more of a defence for him as a person.
I have made a point of noting MP has no qualms appealing to his own personal situations as defense when Mafia.

Actually that's true. I made the mistake of thinking otherwise in RotTK.

I think what I liked so much about that post was that, one it largely reflected my own perspective of Ricochet and represented the town-inclined angle that I felt Rico's opposition wasn't considering. He spelled it out in plain language better than I had been doing previously in my own frustrated, volatile arguments. I might have given him too much credit for the emotion infused in the post though. I have a personal rule that I refuse to employ any emotional appeals as a bad guy (I think it's unsportsmanlike, but that's just me). MP's emotion was clearly visible in RotTK when he was bad, so that's something I'll reconsider.

Apart from that post, the thing preventing me from scum reading MP is Elohcin. I don't think they fit together as team mates very well, and I suspect Elohcin a lot more than him.

#1380

I suppose one thing I could say about the emotion in that MP post is that it isn't self-defensive. The kind of baddie emotional appeals I think are in poor taste are those that come in defensive posts to stave off accusations. Stuff like:

"I've been having a really bad day, please just give me a break"

This post was about Ricochet, not MP himself, so that entire concept doesn't really apply. It's just emotion in an otherwise neutral context. I probably shouldn't read that as being inherently town or inherently bad.

#1381

MacDougall wrote:
Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I would really love to hear what all of you think of thist post.

When I judge MP, I see a pile of little pings that continue to bug me, but that post is like running into a wall. I struggle to see a baddie in there. It looks to me like a gushing, spewing spicket of town. I am open to anyone disagreeing, I just need to see a reason.
I generally default to labeling emotional appeals as town behaviour until they've proven emotional appeals aren't off limits for them. An observation, hopefully it'll help you sort out your thoughts, is that what he's saying isn't strictly a defence for Ricochet the player in this game, it's more of a defence for him as a person.
I have made a point of noting MP has no qualms appealing to his own personal situations as defense when Mafia.

I'm aware that he did that in RoTTK, but I don't think he was aiming to manipulate anyone in that context. Do you have any other examples?

linki: maybe I'm an idiot

#1382

Quin wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I would really love to hear what all of you think of thist post.

When I judge MP, I see a pile of little pings that continue to bug me, but that post is like running into a wall. I struggle to see a baddie in there. It looks to me like a gushing, spewing spicket of town. I am open to anyone disagreeing, I just need to see a reason.
I generally default to labeling emotional appeals as town behaviour until they've proven emotional appeals aren't off limits for them. An observation, hopefully it'll help you sort out your thoughts, is that what he's saying isn't strictly a defence for Ricochet the player in this game, it's more of a defence for him as a person.
I have made a point of noting MP has no qualms appealing to his own personal situations as defense when Mafia.
I'm aware that he did that in RoTTK, but I don't think he was aiming to manipulate anyone in that context. Do you have any other examples?

linki: maybe I'm an idiot

Well I raised points from several games when I pointed it out in Romance. I agree he may not have been explicitly using it, but he doesn't NOT do it. He doesn't hold in his personal emotions as some sort of rule like JJJ does.

#1383

GTH scum team GO

#1384

Eloh, Mac, based on evidence. Wilgy and sprityo, but adding them is forcing it.

#1385

Elohcin, Glorfindel, sprityo, indiglo

#1386

Good evening, Neil! If I may, can I ask you your interpretation of Rico's role? From my understanding, if he was targeted by a member of the MFP Night 1, he was informed of the identity of the player who targeted him and had their MFP credentials confirmed. Am I correct in that assumption?

#1387

I voted for Eloh. Goodnight pals.

#1388

Quin wrote:Eloh, Mac, based on evidence. Wilgy and sprityo, but adding them is forcing it.

You have evidence I am Mafia? That would be really interesting bullshit to read.

#1389

Glorfindel wrote:Good evening, Neil! If I may, can I ask you your interpretation of Rico's role? From my understanding, if he was targeted by a member of the MFP Night 1, he was informed of the identity of the player who targeted him and had their MFP credentials confirmed. Am I correct in that assumption?

That is how I interpret it, yes. What does this mean to you?

#1390

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:Good evening, Neil! If I may, can I ask you your interpretation of Rico's role? From my understanding, if he was targeted by a member of the MFP Night 1, he was informed of the identity of the player who targeted him and had their MFP credentials confirmed. Am I correct in that assumption?
That is how I interpret it, yes. What does this mean to you?

Thanks for that, Neil. I just wanted to make sure. I was simply postulating as to the likelihood that given his profile (while he was with us) that he may indeed have been targetted the one Night phase that he was with us...

#1391

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Elohcin wrote:I think these two posts deserve a repeat. Also in reaction to what JJJ said on the subject. He's right. If I were bad, I would have killed him Sorry JJJ. But if I were bad this game....I would see you as a risk b/c you seem less stable this game. Usually when I am bad and you are good, you are helpful to keep around for a while. You run the thread and it usually works in favor of the baddies b/c by mere chance, it's more likely for the thread to be wrong about who they think is bad in the beginning of the game. I'm not saying you are an unhelpful civ, by no means. You are very helpful. I am not sure I am explaining myself very well.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'll break it down into individual points and maybe you'll be able to clarify better.

1. I actually suggested that if you're bad it isn't necessarily true that you'd kill me. Such a kill would point directly back to you, while killing other less vocal threats (i.e. Epignosis and S~V~S) eliminates voting problems you might face without the same degree of exposure. It's speculative though I grant.

2. Why is my potentially being less stable more of a "risk" to you if you're bad? That sounds backwards.

3. Given your highlighted premise, I am brought to wonder which games you are referring to. I compiled each of the games in which you have been bad and I was also participating:

Elohcin bad / JJJ bad (The Syndicate Mafia)

Elohcin bad [late replacement] / JJJ independent (Turf Wars)

Elohcin bad / JJJ bad (Transistor)

Elohcin bad / JJJ good (Triskaidekaphobia)

Of the four times, we've been team mates twice and once I was an pro-town indy (and you made like five posts). Those wouldn't seem applicable. That leaves only Triskaidekaphobia, in which I was killed on Night 4 after spending nearly all of the game prior under immense pressure and suspicion (including your own attempt to help Epignosis mislynch me). I definitely didn't run that thread because most people didn't trust me.

Could you expand on which game(s) you have in mind when you make this statement?

Do you know who you're talking to? You are asking me to remember specific details about games. Did you remember all that off the top of your head? Or dd you have to go back and find the info to lay it out. I so wish I had the memory most of y'all do. Man, it would be awesome. All I know, JJJ, is that I have had conversations in baddie chatzys before about "should we kill JJJ" and I have gone against the idea as when you are good or even civ alligned, or perhaps bad on another team (I don't know), it always seems more helpful to my team to keep you around and let you talk the thread into this or that rather than kill you off even though keeping you around makes more posts in the thread than I want to read

. But this game, you are playing differently. You are more zany. More of a wild card (or at least you were in the beginning). So, If I were bad. I would have definitely chose YOU over SVS. I never see SVS as much of a threat. Does this explain it better? I hope so, cause that's all I got.

OKAY....my son is sitting here and begging me to put up the "scary face" So this is for him.

I will catch up more after getting all the kiddos ready for church (if I have time).

#1392

Glorfindel wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:Good evening, Neil! If I may, can I ask you your interpretation of Rico's role? From my understanding, if he was targeted by a member of the MFP Night 1, he was informed of the identity of the player who targeted him and had their MFP credentials confirmed. Am I correct in that assumption?
That is how I interpret it, yes. What does this mean to you?
Thanks for that, Neil. I just wanted to make sure. I was simply postulating as to the likelihood that given his profile (while he was with us) that he may indeed have been targetted the one Night phase that he was with us...

Is there something that makes you believe he may have been targeted?

#1393

What I'd most like to see from you at this point, Elohcin, is reads. Hopefully you can catch up soon.

#1394

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:Good evening, Neil! If I may, can I ask you your interpretation of Rico's role? From my understanding, if he was targeted by a member of the MFP Night 1, he was informed of the identity of the player who targeted him and had their MFP credentials confirmed. Am I correct in that assumption?
That is how I interpret it, yes. What does this mean to you?
Thanks for that, Neil. I just wanted to make sure. I was simply postulating as to the likelihood that given his profile (while he was with us) that he may indeed have been targetted the one Night phase that he was with us...
Is there something that makes you believe he may have been targeted?

I think it's a possibility worthy of consideration.

#1395

Glorfindel wrote:I think it's a possibility worthy of consideration.

Are there any Rico posts you feel are indicative of him having information?

#1396

I'm going to be out for much of the day. I should be back for the deadline.

#1397

Sorry all, this paper is consuming my life, especially since I have less than two weeks to finish it now. I am going to be shifting from writing to coding now, so I'll be catching up throughout the morning as I multitask on that stuff.

#1398

Back from camping. What did I miss?

#1399

MacDougall wrote:
Nobody wants to civ read me because I am dangerous and you know this. You can never be sure that I ain't carrying and I respect that.

MacDougall Trump, everyone.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I would really love to hear what all of you think of thist post.

When I judge MP, I see a pile of little pings that continue to bug me, but that post is like running into a wall. I struggle to see a baddie in there. It looks to me like a gushing, spewing spicket of town. I am open to anyone disagreeing, I just need to see a reason.
This post

Why

#1400

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What I'd most like to see from you at this point, Elohcin, is reads. Hopefully you can catch up soon.

I am just now sitting down after church/grocery shopping/lunch. So, I am not caught up....just have a few pages. But...honestly, I hate giving reads. I don't like to make suspicions. ...because no matter how genuine a suspicion may be, I always get crap from the thread that I am just making it up and that I am bad. So....until day 4-5 (assuming I make it that far), I usually keep semi-quiet on how I feel about players. And....that is how I will play this game as well. I can be an asset to the civs if I make it far enough into the game, I promise. But right now...I choose to keep my reads to myself unless something REALLY crazy pops out to me. But even when I think something crazy pops out to me and I mention it, I can feel the eyes in the room rolling.

now to go read the thread...

Who squashed LoRab?