The Syndicate

RondoDimBuckle wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:11 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:37 pm @RondoDimBuckle why are you voting for me?

I didnt like how you tried to quash conversation by threatening to get enough people to vote off Archo. Its more of a protest vote than an actual vote. I also wanted to see who would follow

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:09 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:07 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:06 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:05 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:04 am Well 1 is not a base assumption of mine actually. I think having all the data helps but may not be needed to be correct on things.

In this case specifically however:

Mac posited I have an omgus problem
I point out that this is factually incorrect citing a post he responded to and how I have not omgus'd anyone this game
Mac says he doesn't read all of the posts.

In this example Mac has stated a theory of why I am suspecting them snd I countered with known public information that he had access to and is claiming he did not read.

So because his example read of 'you have an omgus problem" is contradicted by a broader reading of the game it is entirely on point for me to dismiss his point on this basis.

I'll leave this to others to read, I don't believe you hold this position one bit

... lol? This is a plain reading of the facts.

that doesn't mean you believe it

There is nothing to believe here. It's like me saying it is 78 degrees outside and you going no.

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:10 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:08 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:06 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:05 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:03 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:13 pm

MacDougall wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:12 pm

what in practical terms does me voting for you right now actually cause?

Well if you're 100% sure it shows your vote matches your read. Mafia basics really.

same thing with the odd assumptions
1. You have to always vote who you think is mafia
2. If you don't have him voted you don't think he's actually mafia
3. That means you are lying/being dishonest or something
which lowers the confidence of such a read from the perception of others

This one wasn't meant to be that deep I was calling for a thunderdome lol

I don't care about your intentions, those are clearly the assumptions you had which are strange to me

No because if I cared this much about this I would have questioned Mac more about why they weren't voting porscha

you misunderstand me, if you weren't conscious of your assumptions that makes the message even more valuable, caring has nothing to do with it

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:12 am actually show me how you drew the conclusion i was threatening to quash conversation

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:11 am

RondoDimBuckle wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:11 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:37 pm @RondoDimBuckle why are you voting for me?

I didnt like how you tried to quash conversation by threatening to get enough people to vote off Archo. Its more of a protest vote than an actual vote. I also wanted to see who would follow

show me where there was a threat to act?

RondoDimBuckle wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:10 pm

MacDougall wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:50 pm

Achromatic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:50 pm

MacDougall wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:48 pm it's okay though because you haven't claimed to be able to read me so I'm not gonna slap you around for it achro

[VOTE: MacDougall] aubergine

No, no please. Slap me around.

I'd like to see you try.

I'm pretty sure if I wanted to get you chopped here I could just do it by asking people. I'm a god to these people.

[VOTE: Mac ] aubergine

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:10 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:08 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:06 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:05 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:03 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:13 pm

Well if you're 100% sure it shows your vote matches your read. Mafia basics really.

same thing with the odd assumptions
1. You have to always vote who you think is mafia
2. If you don't have him voted you don't think he's actually mafia
3. That means you are lying/being dishonest or something
which lowers the confidence of such a read from the perception of others

This one wasn't meant to be that deep I was calling for a thunderdome lol

I don't care about your intentions, those are clearly the assumptions you had which are strange to me

No because if I cared this much about this I would have questioned Mac more about why they weren't voting porscha

you misunderstand me, if you weren't conscious of your assumptions that makes the message even more valuable, caring has nothing to do with it

I will grant you that it is very likely I am misunderstanding you atm because I don't think we are on the same wavelength atm.

RondoDimBuckle wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:14 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:12 am actually show me how you drew the conclusion i was threatening to quash conversation

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:11 am

RondoDimBuckle wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:11 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:37 pm @RondoDimBuckle why are you voting for me?

I didnt like how you tried to quash conversation by threatening to get enough people to vote off Archo. Its more of a protest vote than an actual vote. I also wanted to see who would follow

show me where there was a threat to act?

RondoDimBuckle wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:10 pm

MacDougall wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:50 pm

Achromatic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:50 pm

MacDougall wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:48 pm it's okay though because you haven't claimed to be able to read me so I'm not gonna slap you around for it achro

[VOTE: MacDougall] aubergine

No, no please. Slap me around.

I'd like to see you try.

I'm pretty sure if I wanted to get you chopped here I could just do it by asking people. I'm a god to these people.

[VOTE: Mac ] aubergine

Maybe I just read it that way but it felt like a threat, I didnt like it

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:09 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:07 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:06 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:05 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:04 am Well 1 is not a base assumption of mine actually. I think having all the data helps but may not be needed to be correct on things.

In this case specifically however:

Mac posited I have an omgus problem
I point out that this is factually incorrect citing a post he responded to and how I have not omgus'd anyone this game
Mac says he doesn't read all of the posts.

In this example Mac has stated a theory of why I am suspecting them snd I countered with known public information that he had access to and is claiming he did not read.

So because his example read of 'you have an omgus problem" is contradicted by a broader reading of the game it is entirely on point for me to dismiss his point on this basis.

I'll leave this to others to read, I don't believe you hold this position one bit

... lol? This is a plain reading of the facts.

that doesn't mean you believe it

There is nothing to believe here. It's like me saying it is 78 degrees outside and you going no.

"facts" frame it as an absolute, which it is certainly not. it is a perspective and all truths are subjective, therefore I can say you don't believe a single perception because it's just stupid from my perspective

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:14 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:10 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:08 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:06 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:05 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:03 am

same thing with the odd assumptions
1. You have to always vote who you think is mafia
2. If you don't have him voted you don't think he's actually mafia
3. That means you are lying/being dishonest or something
which lowers the confidence of such a read from the perception of others

This one wasn't meant to be that deep I was calling for a thunderdome lol

I don't care about your intentions, those are clearly the assumptions you had which are strange to me

No because if I cared this much about this I would have questioned Mac more about why they weren't voting porscha

you misunderstand me, if you weren't conscious of your assumptions that makes the message even more valuable, caring has nothing to do with it

I will grant you that it is very likely I am misunderstanding you atm because I don't think we are on the same wavelength atm.

you are not alone in misunderstanding me

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:15 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:09 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:07 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:06 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:05 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:04 am Well 1 is not a base assumption of mine actually. I think having all the data helps but may not be needed to be correct on things.

In this case specifically however:

Mac posited I have an omgus problem
I point out that this is factually incorrect citing a post he responded to and how I have not omgus'd anyone this game
Mac says he doesn't read all of the posts.

In this example Mac has stated a theory of why I am suspecting them snd I countered with known public information that he had access to and is claiming he did not read.

So because his example read of 'you have an omgus problem" is contradicted by a broader reading of the game it is entirely on point for me to dismiss his point on this basis.

I'll leave this to others to read, I don't believe you hold this position one bit

... lol? This is a plain reading of the facts.

that doesn't mean you believe it

There is nothing to believe here. It's like me saying it is 78 degrees outside and you going no.

"facts" frame it as an absolute, which it is certainly not. it is a perspective and all truths are subjective, therefore I can say you don't believe a single perception because it's just stupid from my perspective

Lots of objective truth. If 5 people have shaded me and I town read 4 of them that's not an omgus problem tbh

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:15 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:09 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:07 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:06 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:05 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:04 am Well 1 is not a base assumption of mine actually. I think having all the data helps but may not be needed to be correct on things.

In this case specifically however:

Mac posited I have an omgus problem
I point out that this is factually incorrect citing a post he responded to and how I have not omgus'd anyone this game
Mac says he doesn't read all of the posts.

In this example Mac has stated a theory of why I am suspecting them snd I countered with known public information that he had access to and is claiming he did not read.

So because his example read of 'you have an omgus problem" is contradicted by a broader reading of the game it is entirely on point for me to dismiss his point on this basis.

I'll leave this to others to read, I don't believe you hold this position one bit

... lol? This is a plain reading of the facts.

that doesn't mean you believe it

There is nothing to believe here. It's like me saying it is 78 degrees outside and you going no.

"facts" frame it as an absolute, which it is certainly not. it is a perspective and all truths are subjective, therefore I can say you don't believe a single perception because it's just stupid from my perspective

Lots of objective truth. If 5 people have shaded me and I town read 4 of them that's not an omgus problem tbh

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:17 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:15 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:09 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:07 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:06 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:05 am

I'll leave this to others to read, I don't believe you hold this position one bit

... lol? This is a plain reading of the facts.

that doesn't mean you believe it

There is nothing to believe here. It's like me saying it is 78 degrees outside and you going no.

"facts" frame it as an absolute, which it is certainly not. it is a perspective and all truths are subjective, therefore I can say you don't believe a single perception because it's just stupid from my perspective

Lots of objective truth. If 5 people have shaded me and I town read 4 of them that's not an omgus problem tbh

you can have an omgus problem and not do it all the time man lol

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:16 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:14 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:10 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:08 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:06 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:05 am

This one wasn't meant to be that deep I was calling for a thunderdome lol

I don't care about your intentions, those are clearly the assumptions you had which are strange to me

No because if I cared this much about this I would have questioned Mac more about why they weren't voting porscha

you misunderstand me, if you weren't conscious of your assumptions that makes the message even more valuable, caring has nothing to do with it

I will grant you that it is very likely I am misunderstanding you atm because I don't think we are on the same wavelength atm.

you are not alone in misunderstanding me

Kind of cool how you have a unique way of trying to look at people though. I dig it.

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:19 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:17 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:15 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:09 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:07 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:06 am

... lol? This is a plain reading of the facts.

that doesn't mean you believe it

There is nothing to believe here. It's like me saying it is 78 degrees outside and you going no.

"facts" frame it as an absolute, which it is certainly not. it is a perspective and all truths are subjective, therefore I can say you don't believe a single perception because it's just stupid from my perspective

Lots of objective truth. If 5 people have shaded me and I town read 4 of them that's not an omgus problem tbh

you can have an omgus problem and not do it all the time man lol

I feel like if you suspect 1/5 of the people going after you in a game where about 1/5 people are a wolf that's just not a problem lol.

Also you can hop on over to quals where I was very friendly to people who voted me.

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:19 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:16 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:14 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:10 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:08 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:06 am

I don't care about your intentions, those are clearly the assumptions you had which are strange to me

No because if I cared this much about this I would have questioned Mac more about why they weren't voting porscha

you misunderstand me, if you weren't conscious of your assumptions that makes the message even more valuable, caring has nothing to do with it

I will grant you that it is very likely I am misunderstanding you atm because I don't think we are on the same wavelength atm.

you are not alone in misunderstanding me

Kind of cool how you have a unique way of trying to look at people though. I dig it.

this is my d1 play btw, even though I don't make reads just yet I generate content

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:19 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:17 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:15 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:09 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:07 am

that doesn't mean you believe it

There is nothing to believe here. It's like me saying it is 78 degrees outside and you going no.

"facts" frame it as an absolute, which it is certainly not. it is a perspective and all truths are subjective, therefore I can say you don't believe a single perception because it's just stupid from my perspective

Lots of objective truth. If 5 people have shaded me and I town read 4 of them that's not an omgus problem tbh

you can have an omgus problem and not do it all the time man lol

I feel like if you suspect 1/5 of the people going after you in a game where about 1/5 people are a wolf that's just not a problem lol.

Also you can hop on over to quals where I was very friendly to people who voted me.

it's still a problem if you are doing it to one person, a problem can be a singular circumstance

your hyperfixating on context ownership is super frusrating

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:21 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:19 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:16 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:14 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:10 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:08 am

No because if I cared this much about this I would have questioned Mac more about why they weren't voting porscha

you misunderstand me, if you weren't conscious of your assumptions that makes the message even more valuable, caring has nothing to do with it

I will grant you that it is very likely I am misunderstanding you atm because I don't think we are on the same wavelength atm.

you are not alone in misunderstanding me

Kind of cool how you have a unique way of trying to look at people though. I dig it.

this is my d1 play btw, even though I don't make reads just yet I generate content

I feel like saying you don't believe me is a pretty obvious read even if not stated.

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:22 am is this the part where you take lucy's very valid and easy to comprehend concerns and flip them into suspicious ones by fixating on details until she slips up on phrasing and then annoy her for 2 hours?

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:22 am is this the part where you take lucy's very valid and easy to comprehend concerns and flip them into suspicious ones by fixating on details until she slips up on phrasing and then annoy her for 2 hours?

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:21 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:19 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:17 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:15 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:09 am

There is nothing to believe here. It's like me saying it is 78 degrees outside and you going no.

"facts" frame it as an absolute, which it is certainly not. it is a perspective and all truths are subjective, therefore I can say you don't believe a single perception because it's just stupid from my perspective

Lots of objective truth. If 5 people have shaded me and I town read 4 of them that's not an omgus problem tbh

you can have an omgus problem and not do it all the time man lol

I feel like if you suspect 1/5 of the people going after you in a game where about 1/5 people are a wolf that's just not a problem lol.

Also you can hop on over to quals where I was very friendly to people who voted me.

it's still a problem if you are doing it to one person, a problem can be a singular circumstance

your hyperfixating on context ownership is super frusrating

What would you like to discuss instead?

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:22 am is this the part where you take lucy's very valid and easy to comprehend concerns and flip them into suspicious ones by fixating on details until she slips up on phrasing and then annoy her for 2 hours?

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:24 am or more accurately, I do not slip up in my phrasing

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:23 am
this is insanely funny

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:25 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:22 am is this the part where you take lucy's very valid and easy to comprehend concerns and flip them into suspicious ones by fixating on details until she slips up on phrasing and then annoy her for 2 hours?

I won't slip up my phrasing

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:24 am or more accurately, I do not slip up in my phrasing

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:23 am
this is insanely funny

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:25 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:21 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:19 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:17 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:15 am

lucy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am

"facts" frame it as an absolute, which it is certainly not. it is a perspective and all truths are subjective, therefore I can say you don't believe a single perception because it's just stupid from my perspective

Lots of objective truth. If 5 people have shaded me and I town read 4 of them that's not an omgus problem tbh

you can have an omgus problem and not do it all the time man lol

I feel like if you suspect 1/5 of the people going after you in a game where about 1/5 people are a wolf that's just not a problem lol.

Also you can hop on over to quals where I was very friendly to people who voted me.

it's still a problem if you are doing it to one person, a problem can be a singular circumstance

your hyperfixating on context ownership is super frusrating

What would you like to discuss instead?

how does me saying you have an omgus problem actually require this level of dragging out?

it's not difficult for anyone to rationalise why i would think you were omgussing me
i dont have to recognise that you have some standing reads on other people that demonstrate the contrary to make that comment in the first place
it's not alignment indicative, so much of what you care about is lol

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:28 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:25 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:21 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:20 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:19 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:17 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:15 am

Lots of objective truth. If 5 people have shaded me and I town read 4 of them that's not an omgus problem tbh

you can have an omgus problem and not do it all the time man lol

I feel like if you suspect 1/5 of the people going after you in a game where about 1/5 people are a wolf that's just not a problem lol.

Also you can hop on over to quals where I was very friendly to people who voted me.

it's still a problem if you are doing it to one person, a problem can be a singular circumstance

your hyperfixating on context ownership is super frusrating

What would you like to discuss instead?

how does me saying you have an omgus problem actually require this level of dragging out?

it's not difficult for anyone to rationalise why i would think you were omgussing me
i dont have to recognise that you have some standing reads on other people that demonstrate the contrary to make that comment in the first place
it's not alignment indicative, so much of what you care about is lol

Well some wolves when attacked will defend themselves with flawed reasoning to attempt to get people off of them. Accusing me of omgus for example could be seen as such a tactic when a broader reading of the game makes clear I am not prone to such things.

I also don't tend to take my cues on what is alignment indicative from the person I am thinking over. That's the whole point of discussions and thinking things over.

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:32 am you know that when i attacked you for omgus i was implying a town read right? like for me to say you have an omgus problem is inherently coming from the mindset that ur town

Sabiplz wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:41 am Mac so far has argued and got into fights with:
Seanize
Rondo
Achro

I doubt mafia Mac would antagonize multiple people in a game

My townread on him grows.

Sabiplz wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:41 am Mac so far has argued and got into fights with:
Seanize
Rondo
Achro

I doubt mafia Mac would antagonize multiple people in a game

My townread on him grows.

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:42 am

Sabiplz wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:41 am Mac so far has argued and got into fights with:
Seanize
Rondo
Achro

I doubt mafia Mac would antagonize multiple people in a game

My townread on him grows.

Ah. Is Mac very polarized then?

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:42 am

Sabiplz wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:41 am Mac so far has argued and got into fights with:
Seanize
Rondo
Achro

I doubt mafia Mac would antagonize multiple people in a game

My townread on him grows.

how dare u

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:43 am i am a polarised noob

Sabiplz wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:43 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:42 am

Sabiplz wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:41 am Mac so far has argued and got into fights with:
Seanize
Rondo
Achro

I doubt mafia Mac would antagonize multiple people in a game

My townread on him grows.

how dare u

Punish me then

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:52 am My only kink is solving tbh.

So Mac do you think Tommy is a good hit chance?

MacDougall wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:54 am

Achromatic wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:52 am My only kink is solving tbh.

So Mac do you think Tommy is a good hit chance?

I really have no idea why anyone would think the opposite. Tommy has simply made no attempt to solve the game. They are a must resolve eventually anyway.