Ah, fuck sleep.
Dom wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:Ha, I couldn't help but check the results before actually falling asleep. I had a strange feeling the Cybermen were going to try to kill me tonight. Nice try, suckers!
Dom, that's not true. I failed to mention it before, but I strongly believed juliets was bad and I followed that through hard until the very end.
That's true. You're right. I apologize for that oversight.
Hey, not a problem! I failed to mention it myself.
Turnip Head wrote:Dom wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:Dom, an addendum: I suppose I've felt temporarily strong about various suspicions I've had throughout the game, but the lasting strength of the arguments didn't really stand up when I took a step back. If that makes sense.
This has me worried about you tbh.
you seem to be setting fires and then walking away from them. At first, I thought itwas you playing carefully... but you haven't stuck to a suspicion all game.
This is the same concern I'm having re: MP, stemming all the way back to his gambit on Day 1. He accused Zeek of some trivial things early, then played that off as a gambit saying he caught a baddie in Enrique, but then he backed off of that too. And then yesterday he stayed on Daisy's case all day but kept qualifying his suspicion ("I'll allow myself to be wrong", "I could be wrong", "I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong" etc etc).
How are you feeling about Daisy these days, MP, and why?
I did not back off of juliets. I've been completely transparent in all of my thoughts, though, it's not like I'm backing off without explanation or reason, only after I believe my cases to have not held up to scrutiny, typically from counterarguments from the accused players themselves.
There's nothing wrong with qualifying my suspicion; the reason I'm doing it is so that people know exactly my level of confidence in my suspicions at any given time (I realize I post a lot, so I try to make this clear).
I have no reason to feel even remotely close to 100% or even 90% about a suspicion this early. Do you think I should?
I love how even the second incarnation of you apparently can't resist talking about only me.
And to answer your question... I've been mulling it over for quite some time. I want to make sure I'm not just judging her more harshly because I know her better RL than anyone else. That said, she is still one of my main suspects at the moment.
keys56000000000 wrote:I didn't shrug it off, I literally just explained why the change. To reiterate, again, I think I caught Dana defending you with an argument I find to be entirely unconvincing. I said I certainly don't suspect you yet, which I thought implied that I was giving you a chance. I would have probably gone on thinking you were just an over-zealous, verbose player had Dana not posted that.
You keep complaining about it being one post from someone else. What does it matter how many posts or from whom? I think everyone else will agree with me that it can only take one unfortunate post from a teammate to blow one's cover.
Again, ridiculing my suspicion of you. It's crazy, huh? I think the notion of you relishing hiding in the spotlight is perfectly reasonable, and I'm betting others will see it that way, too. You post A LOT. You accuse practically anyone you can get your hands on, for literally anything. You have people defending you out of the realms of reason.
I'll get to Dana. I thought I saw him/her defending Enrique in a similarly conspicuous fashion, who is coincidentally defending you, too. I can only take on so much, I'm still catching up and I have little sway against you veterans of this site, but I'll get there. Your come at me bro (btw 2011 called and they want their smack talk back) challenge has been accepted.
Okay, so apparently you guarantee I'm bad based on behavior that isn't even mine. It does matter how many posts or from whom; are you serious? If someone finds 10 posts of someone's own words that are suspicious versus 1 post of someone else's words... surely that's a difference, yes? I won't argue with a teammate sinking anyone; I just find it odd as fuck that you therefore try to argue I should go first. If you're basing the argument that I'm bad based off of the defense of someone else -- if Dana's post TRULY is the ONLY thing that convinced you that I'm bad -- then why make up all these other WIFOM related reasons that you mentioned earlier in the game? And why lynch me before lynching her if my baddieness is conditional upon her defending me? It's simple causation-based logic, yet you haven't given me an answer to that.
And yes, I firmly believe "guaranteeing" someone as bad based off of one post posted by someone else whose alignment you also don't know to be crazy, yes. I'm not insulting you or ridiculing you; I'm sorry if you took it that way because it's clearly not. But it's incredibly illogical to conclude with such confidence in such circumstances, especially when there are so many other players you haven't issued any opinions on whatsoever.
You also failed to address my two points about zeek twice now: (1) zeek has posted even more than I have, so clearly he's taking a similar strategy. No opinion of him? And (2), here you said:
keys56000000000 wrote:It's great to see players getting stuck in right from the get-go! I hate games where people are too afraid to post. Good to see some balls.
Two things I want to post on.
First, my two cents on the issue of speculating on role powers. IMO it's better to put all our cards on the table. Baddies will be trying to figure this stuff out regardless of anything posted here.
Second, while I agree that it's too soon to really judge anyone, it kinda seems like MP hit on a nerve. Do I detect a bit of Dana defending Zeek? Or is it Dana jumping the gun on what she identifies as an easy lynch? Hard to tell at this early stage, but very possibly. At any rate, I certainly don't suspect MP yet, whereas Dana has "pinged" my suspicio-meter.
If Dana was defending zeek too, then surely he must be her baddie teammate too, right?
It appears your arguments are collapsing amid scrutiny, yet you fail to acknowledge that.