Arkham Mafia [ENDGAME]

#1401

Golden wrote:I'm voting Matt.

The Arkham Asylum thing that zebra said has been explained to death. I can understand people misunderstanding it at the start, but not now. The worst thing is that I think Matt is deliberately choosing not to take into account any thoughts to the contrary.

I told Matt he was tunnelling (which, you know, he might have taken as a good thing given it is normally seen as civ meta). But Matt denied it. Still deny it, Matt? You are tunnely as all heck.

Put that with Mac talking about his GoC performance in which they put specific emphasis on Matt complying with his town meta when bad.

I think Matt is the best choice for my vote.

Hilarious. I asked you hours ago if I could answer anything for you, and now suddenly you're voting me?? K.

#1402

And that's not even mentioning how it's taken you way, way too long to even acknowledge its existence in the first place let alone ask for me to retrieve it for you. I mentioned it a gajillion times to you and you kept ignoring me, all the while nagging at me to answer questions of yours that I had already fucking answered multiple times.

#1403

a2thezebra wrote:
Matt wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:I spend an hour and a half on a single post trying to communicate with Matt and he can't spend two minutes to even bother finding that enormous post. And he still thinks I'm the one who should rightfully be antagonized.

Maybe you're town Matt but you're sure as hell not pro-town.
Zebra, just link the damn post and I'll respond to it. Wow.
I mean just the idea that even after reading this post you still think you're entitled for me to go through my ISO and dig it up for you when you could do it effortlessly yourself in no time at all, it just boggles my mind.

No, I'm not going to go digging through your nearly hundreds of posts. You said I was ignoring you, I kindly asked for a link. You refused. End of story.

#1404

juliets wrote:Wilgy posted a good bit at the beginning of GOC, trying to get Fuzz lynched even. He was bad there but his behavior here doesn't seem as active as it was there. I'll take a look at the beginning of Star Wars. Was he good there or bad?

He was good in Recruitment IV and Pikmin. Bad in Star Wars.

#1405

Matt wrote:
Golden wrote:I'm voting Matt.

The Arkham Asylum thing that zebra said has been explained to death. I can understand people misunderstanding it at the start, but not now. The worst thing is that I think Matt is deliberately choosing not to take into account any thoughts to the contrary.

I told Matt he was tunnelling (which, you know, he might have taken as a good thing given it is normally seen as civ meta). But Matt denied it. Still deny it, Matt? You are tunnely as all heck.

Put that with Mac talking about his GoC performance in which they put specific emphasis on Matt complying with his town meta when bad.

I think Matt is the best choice for my vote.
Hilarious. I asked you hours ago if I could answer anything for you, and now suddenly you're voting me?? K.

Yes, you did ask me. So what? Why is that relevant? I didn't have any questions. I don't feel like there are aspects of your game I need to clarify with you. But I'm not surprised to see you use the fact you asked as defensive ammo.

#1406

Do you feel like answering the questions I actually did ask, though?

#1407

a2thezebra wrote:I spend an hour and a half on a single post trying to communicate with Matt and he can't spend two minutes to even bother finding that enormous post. And he still thinks I'm the one who should rightfully be antagonized.

Maybe you're town Matt but you're sure as hell not pro-town.

And who made you the judge of this? People got in THs face for we/they but this is OK? This is a pretty over the top town claim. I want to trust/believe you but you make it easy not to. It isn't someone elses fault you spent an hour and a half on one post. I don't love it either when people refuse to look for posts, but I equally dislike it when people refuse to link posts.

Both of you, lol. IN the time you spent arguing either of you could have found the post.

#1408

Turnip Head wrote:
Black Rock wrote:I've decided to look at a few people to best get a feeling of the thread. I feel a little out of the groove. So I started with Scotty, which I was happy to see had under 30 posts. I wish I knew how to read him better. In a direct comparison to the last game I played with him and this game, he feels a lot more conservative and less accusational. He's playing it safe and I don't trust that.

I'm going to check out dharmahelper next.
This feels like a manufactured way to get involved. Have you read the thread cover to cover? And what made you start with Scotty?

It is exactly that I have time to read the thread cover to cover until tomorrow night. That will be too late for the lynch. In fact I never got to dharmahelper because I had a busy dinner rush. I had to start somewhere. Of course you are right here to criticize my attempt. Would it please you more if I didn't try at all? I have to vote now so I'm going to vote for you, I think you are trying to pick on me for an easy vote.

#1409

S~V~S wrote:Both of you, lol. IN the time you spent arguing either of you could have found the post.

So true.

I hate it when people ask me to link back to stuff. In fact it makes me really mad. But I still tend to do it lol. Do it, and then assume they are bad for taking a cba attitude to their own attacks on me, and try to lynch them.

#1410

"kindly asked for a link"

This guy. This guy. Man oh man oh man.

It took me until losing my shit and refusing to respond to you again until you found the post yourself until you decided to acknowledge that I even made the post. If I hadn't have lost my shit and threatened that then I bet a million bucks you would still be pretending that no such post exists.

linki @ S~V~S: You're missing the point. I know I could have found the post. It's called refusing because I'm refusing to link it. I am not going to continue to encourage for Matt to do this in every game I play with him. Life is too short for me to spend that much time on a post only to accommodate someone who is both not trying to hunt baddies and tunneling me and demanding things from me that I've already delivered at the same time.

#1411

Believe me if I thought linking my post would benefit the situation then I would. But I need to send a message to Matt that I'm not his mafia housewife.

#1412

Black Rock wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Black Rock wrote:I've decided to look at a few people to best get a feeling of the thread. I feel a little out of the groove. So I started with Scotty, which I was happy to see had under 30 posts. I wish I knew how to read him better. In a direct comparison to the last game I played with him and this game, he feels a lot more conservative and less accusational. He's playing it safe and I don't trust that.

I'm going to check out dharmahelper next.
This feels like a manufactured way to get involved. Have you read the thread cover to cover? And what made you start with Scotty?
It is exactly that I have time to read the thread cover to cover until tomorrow night. That will be too late for the lynch. In fact I never got to dharmahelper because I had a busy dinner rush. I had to start somewhere. Of course you are right here to criticize my attempt. Would it please you more if I didn't try at all? I have to vote now so I'm going to vote for you, I think you are trying to pick on me for an easy vote.

No need to be snippy, of course it wouldn't please me more for you to not try. If I was looking for an easy vote I would have cast one already.

#1413

New mafia game idea. Mafia housewives of LA.

#1414

So the point is not helping the rest of us move past this, instead we have to listen to the two of you bitch about one post? Life is too ahort for all of the rest of us to hear about it.

If this thread was just Zeebs & Matt, no worries. But it isn't.

Can you do me a favor and link ME to the post?

#1415

I find it very telling that Scotty wants to base all his votes on votes in a game where teams are only 2-3 members and the rest of the baddies are independent.

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Let's lynch Wilgy who history tells us posts less as a baddie and is putting in the bare minimum of effort right now.

Linki: Well done Typh
154 Posts in Star Wars.
I don't see your point, he lasted until endgame there.

He was a baddie. I lasted until endgame and only had 70 more posts than him. I talk FAR more than Wilgy.
Just saying that this is shaky. He definitely isn't vocal, but I wouldn't say he posts less as a baddie.

#1416

Golden wrote:New mafia game idea. Mafia housewives of LA.

I'm absolutely going to make a Real Housewives Game now. Adding it to my other game I'm currently developing: Hamilton Mafia.

#1417

S~V~S wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:I spend an hour and a half on a single post trying to communicate with Matt and he can't spend two minutes to even bother finding that enormous post. And he still thinks I'm the one who should rightfully be antagonized.

Maybe you're town Matt but you're sure as hell not pro-town.
And who made you the judge of this? People got in THs face for we/they but this is OK? This is a pretty over the top town claim. I want to trust/believe you but you make it easy not to. It isn't someone elses fault you spent an hour and a half on one post. I don't love it either when people refuse to look for posts, but I equally dislike it when people refuse to link posts.

Both of you, lol. IN the time you spent arguing either of you could have found the post.

Both of you, lol. IN the time you spent arguing either of you could have found the post

#1418

I'm going to go ahead and vote Scotty for two reasons basically. First, he decided to vote lovedelic even though lovedelic is new to this site yet he ruled out Equivocate because Equivocate was new. Second, and here is a quote from Mac:

Dom then went on to point out that Scotty "needs concrete info" ... I actually love Dom's point. Scotty doesn't want to lynch MP because he needs concrete info, but earlier he wanted to lynch lovedelic who hasn't even posted.

This didn't make sense then and it doesnt make any more sense now and was a good point by Dom.

I decided not to vote Wilgy this time because his game seems different than the beginning of GOC where he was bad and i don't have time to read him in Recruitment or Pikmin where he was good. If he doesnt get lynched this round I will look at this tomorrow.

lots and lots of linki

#1419

Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Let's lynch Wilgy who history tells us posts less as a baddie and is putting in the bare minimum of effort right now.

Linki: Well done Typh
154 Posts in Star Wars.
I don't see your point, he lasted until endgame there.
He was a baddie. I lasted until endgame and only had 70 more posts than him. I talk FAR more than Wilgy.
Just saying that this is shaky. He definitely isn't vocal, but I wouldn't say he posts less as a baddie.

This is purely speculation but I bet he would have had a lot more posts if he made it to endgame as a civvie.

#1420

Golden wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Both of you, lol. IN the time you spent arguing either of you could have found the post.
So true.

I hate it when people ask me to link back to stuff. In fact it makes me really mad. But I still tend to do it lol. Do it, and then assume they are bad for taking a cba attitude to their own attacks on me, and try to lynch them.

I normally do it as well, because normally either the person asking for the link didn't drive me to lose my shit, they're acknowledging that I have reasons for saying what I said and are only looking for some previous clarification, or maybe they're at least not being demanding of me and claiming that I've insulted them when it's really the other way around. This is of course different.

linki @ S~V~S: Are you not able to scroll? It's not like our back-and-forth has any pretense about progressing the game or even staying on-topic at this point. I will link it for you though, just a minute.

linki @ DH: That's not the damn point.

#1421

Golden wrote:Do you feel like answering the questions I actually did ask, though?

I really really want to respond "No" because you obviously don't care about my answers since you've already gone ahead and voted for me...

But here it is. The only two games I have ever felt truly bad about Zebra were this and Star Wars. She has displayed the same actions towards me here that she did there. It's not a cut and dry case, but that's how I feel in my gut right now.

Linki - Lol SVS. I honestly had no intention of digging through Zebra's posts, but I know she wanted me to respond so I asked her for a link. She then threw a fit saying I was entitled and whatthefuckever.

Linki times 25 million

#1422

Spoiler: show

a2thezebra wrote:Let me remind the tape a bit and elaborate on my thought-process regarding you, Matt. You started off this back-and-forth with what seemed like genuine curiosity as to why I said what I said - especially considering that you are one of the voters for Arkham Asylum - and nothing more, so I had no complaints.

Matt wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Matt wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:The amount of votes for Arkham Asylum is downright alarming.
Why do you say that Zeebs?

In a game called Arkham Mafia where the first post talks about escaping from Arkham...I'm surprised more people aren't voting that way.
That's just it, the escape has already happened. The inmates aren't in Arkham at the moment, they're outside of it. What good is going to come from going there? If anything happens, it will be a trap.

linki - Enrique, you're reminding me of me when I'm bad.
Hrm. What kind of trap?

If you're assuming that going to Arkham might be a positive for the escapees somehow, then tbh, I'd rather go there now then later in the game.

Why did you pick the Docks?
Here's your first eyebrow-raiser. I clearly said that if, not when, anything happens, it will be a trap. This doesn't mean that I think there will be one, only that there could be one, and that nothing good for the civs will come from going there, period. First you ask what kind of trap as if I would have any idea. This is problematic because it seems to me that you wished to imply that I was only saying this because I had some sort of knowledge about this particular location and game setup when either a) I don't, or b) if I did then it's clearly meant to be confidential because the baddies could profit from it being made public. Your desire for me to elaborate on what kind of trap there would be can't seem to possibly be civilian-motivated in my view, and I fail to see what you wished to gain from it that could benefit town in any way. You go on to assume that I assume something that I didn't assume.

Then you go on to ask why I picked the docks. Seems innocent enough...
Matt wrote:
a2thezebra wrote: Any kind of trap, I didn't design the game. I'm not assuming that going to Arkham will be a positive for the escapees, only that it won't be a positive for the civilians. Is there a reason why I shouldn't have picked the docks?
Did you just answer a question with a question?

Anyway, I see no reason to not go to the Docks. However, given nobody has info on the poll, and you came out of the gate "Let's go to the docks!", I'm just wondering why that option appealed to you more over any of the others. Still wondering.
...but then after my response you give me this monstrosity. You know what rhetorical questions they are and you know what purpose they tend to serve, so it's a major ping for me that you're acting like you're suspicious that I responded to you with a sentence that has a question mark at the end of it. I mean there's reaching and then there's opportunistic bull. That's the latter. You even acknowledge that you see no reason not to go to the docks yet you insist that I must have some hidden motive for choosing that option. I mean does me coming out of the gate with that declaration/suggestion with no elaboration as to why I think we should go there not explicitly tell you that I have no significant reason for picking that option over any of the others? Yet you still insist that that's what I believe by saying "still wondering". Either you're communication skills aren't doing too well today or you're being manipulative with these responses, so at this point I was scum-reading you. Then you give me this:

Matt wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Matt wrote: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?
I mean come on. Why even bother trying to make me thing that those are my only two options? Who do you think you would fool? Even if I wasn't genuine with that reads post that doesn't mean that I am somehow "refusing" to give my reads. What if I wanted you to give yours first? What if I wanted to wait until Day 1 to give my reads? There are a ton of possibilities regarding the reads besides me refusing to give them to you just because you didn't like the results. And then the other option is completely unnecessary as well...why does my "downright alarming" post somehow have to be BS if I'm not refusing to give my reads? Seriously, what logic caused you to arrive to that conclusion? I can't even begin to understand it. Which brings us to more or less the present...

Matt wrote:
a2thezebra wrote: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.
By stating that the votes were downright alarming, it seems clear to me you were asserting that some of the voters were bad. Am I the only one who got this impression from Zeebs?

Even if you aren't the only one that got that impression, it doesn't matter. There are two points: one is that your rhetoric implies that you won't allow any other interpretation of what I said, even if it's coming from me. Two, even if you and whoever may agree with you were right that my statement was meant to be interpreted to mean that some of the voters are definitely bad, why would that mean I have specific ideas as to which ones and which ones aren't and that if I can't specify which specific votes/voters I find suspicious, that somehow means that my statement isn't genuine? You still haven't answered this.

a2thezebra wrote: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.
No, I never was under the impression that you saying "I like docks" was you trying to imply relevance. I just thought it was convenient for you to call the Arkham votes "alarming", when you quite literally have no reason to vote the option you voted for. And no, I'm not "desperate" to suspect you, Zeebs. Right now, though, you and, surprisingly sig, are high on my radar.

How is that convenient for me? To what end? If I have no reason to vote the option that I've chosen and I'm suspicious of one of the other options because I don't think it would benefit the civs yet it is by far the most popular option, in what way is that convenient? Because at the end of all this it either seems like you're a baddie that is in fact desperately trying to suspect me (seriously...tell me how it isn't desperate) or you're just inexplicably perturbed that I'm weary of the Arkham Asylum option being such a riot. Either way, I'm keeping my eye on you.

a2thezebra wrote: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?
Where did you give me that impression? I suppose by calling the Arkham votes alarming, and of course, you saying that you think going to Arkham is a trap. Do you think this is like Star Wars, that we'll eventually visit all of these locations? If so, does that mean eventually town is going to be "trapped" no matter what?

Now you're straight up putting words in my mouth. Bad fucking idea if you don't want me to tunnel the shit out of you for the rest of the game, you should know better. I did not say that I think going to Arkham is a trap, I will clarify now for the third fucking time that I think it won't benefit the civs and that it could be a trap if it's anything at all. I think it's possible that we're going to visit all of these locations at some point, but you're assuming - again - that time plays no factor in whether or not they will be a trap for certain locations. Perhaps going to one location at one point could be beneficial to the civs and going to the same location later will be detrimental. Perhaps for another location, the reverse is true. In any case, the popularity for Arkham Asylum for Day 0 is alarming to me. I don't see why me having that opinion bothers you so much, like you can't wrap your head around the idea that I would think that unless I've got something up my sleeve.

If I was being opportunistic and desperate, I would've continued to suss sig for ignoring my post earlier. I'm going after you because I think you're bad.
Why do you think I'm bad? I've now gone into as much detail as I can as to why I think you're bad, so I would appreciate if you do the same for me. Especially since every time you've expressed your suspicion of me up to this point it's been clear to me that you're anything but genuine.

#1423

THANK YOU!!

Now Matt, answer the lady.

#1424

BR, I appreciate that you didn't vote Scotty just now, but I agree with TH that your original post looked like picking at an easy vote. Accurate or not, it does look like that and I find it odd that you'd use it against TH.

#1425

I had to go into work 3 hours early today for some training which means I'm... I don't even know how many pages behind...

#1426

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Let's lynch Wilgy who history tells us posts less as a baddie and is putting in the bare minimum of effort right now.

Linki: Well done Typh
154 Posts in Star Wars.
I don't see your point, he lasted until endgame there.
He was a baddie. I lasted until endgame and only had 70 more posts than him. I talk FAR more than Wilgy.
Just saying that this is shaky. He definitely isn't vocal, but I wouldn't say he posts less as a baddie.
This is purely speculation but I bet he would have had a lot more posts if he made it to endgame as a civvie.

Perhaps.
He had 114 in Tree Mafia.
118 in Lost again
225 in the GOC

#1427

Matt wrote:
Golden wrote:She then threw a fit saying I was entitled and whatthefuckever.

Tell me what fucking part of not even spending a minute to find a post in someone's ISO when they've dedicated hours of attention to trying to work with you while you throw out accusations of them that make zero sense and ask them questions that they've already answered for you multiple times, meanwhile not even spending a minute to find a post in someone's ISO when they've dedicated hours of attention to trying to work with you while you throw out accusations of them that make zero sense and ask them questions that they've already answered for you multiple times, meanwhile not even spending a minute to find a post in someone's ISO when they've dedicated hours of attention to trying to work with you while you throw out accusations of them that make zero sense and ask them questions that they've already answered for you multiple times, meanwhile not even spending a minute to find a post in someone's ISO when they've dedicated hours of attention to trying to work with you while you throw out accusations of them that make zero sense and ask them questions that they've already answered for you multiple times, meanwhile not even spending a minute to find a post in someone's ISO when they've dedicated hours of attention to trying to work with you while you throw out accusations of them that make zero sense and ask them questions that they've already answered for you multiple times, meanwhile not even spending a minute to find a post in someone's ISO when they've dedicated hours of attention to trying to work with you while you throw out accusations of them that make zero sense and ask them questions that they've already answered for you multiple times, meanwhile not even spending a minute to find a post in someone's ISO when they've dedicated hours of attention to trying to work with you while you throw out accusations of them that make zero sense and ask them questions that they've already answered for you multiple times, meanwhile not even spending a minute to find a post in someone's ISO when they've dedicated hours of attention to trying to work with you while you throw out accusations of them that make zero sense and ask them questions that they've already answered for you multiple times, meanwhile not even spending a minute to find a post in someone's ISO when they've dedicated hours of attention to trying to work with you while you throw out accusations of them that make zero sense and ask them questions that they've already answered for you multiple times would you not considered entitled?

#1428

I didn't account how long he was in that game, TH. I'll have to re-think that point.

#1429

I just looked Dom, through Day 0 and the first 3 lynches of Star Wars, Wilgy had 14 posts and most of them were either off-topic or saying how badly he needed to catch up. He missed two votes and voted for himself the other time.

#1430

S~V~S wrote:THANK YOU!!

Now Matt, answer the lady.

I will after the lynch. That's gonna take me a second, and I'd rather sit here and hit F5 until the result comes in.

#1431

Matt wrote:
Golden wrote:Do you feel like answering the questions I actually did ask, though?
I really really want to respond "No" because you obviously don't care about my answers since you've already gone ahead and voted for me...

But here it is. The only two games I have ever felt truly bad about Zebra were this and Star Wars. She has displayed the same actions towards me here that she did there. It's not a cut and dry case, but that's how I feel in my gut right now.

Linki - Lol SVS. I honestly had no intention of digging through Zebra's posts, but I know she wanted me to respond so I asked her for a link. She then threw a fit saying I was entitled and whatthefuckever.

Linki times 25 million

Being right last time on a small data pool has no bearing on your being right this time.

#1432

Matt wrote:
S~V~S wrote:THANK YOU!!

Now Matt, answer the lady.
I will after the lynch. That's gonna take me a second, and I'd rather sit here and hit F5 until the result comes in.

...That's convenient.

#1433

Matt wrote:
S~V~S wrote:THANK YOU!!

Now Matt, answer the lady.
I will after the lynch. That's gonna take me a second, and I'd rather sit here and hit F5 until the result comes in.

You having a laff m8?

#1434

I don't think wilgy is bad. He hates being bad and his posts usually reflect that imo. His posts in this game seem like he's having fun. Maybe he's an Arkham inmate but I doubt Mafia.

#1435

Turnip Head wrote:I just looked Dom, through Day 0 and the first 3 lynches of Star Wars, Wilgy had 14 posts and most of them were either off-topic or saying how badly he needed to catch up. He missed two votes and voted for himself the other time.

I was going through and checking that as well because of the point you raised. I will have to think on this. I never noticed that about Wilgy's meta.

#1436

What part of refusing do you not understand, S~V~S and DH? If either of you had asked for that post earlier I would've given it in a heartbeat because neither of you have been unreasonable with me and insulting to the effort that I try to put in this game. I know damn well it would've taken me five seconds to pull it up and that's all the more reason that Matt's refusal to find it himself when all that effort was meant primarily for him is insulting to me, there's no way of sugarcoating it. And yet he has the nerve to say that I was stooping low by being honest about how he was coming across to me alignment-wise. WHAT THE FUCK.

#1437

Sorsha wrote:I don't think wilgy is bad. He hates being bad and his posts usually reflect that imo. His posts in this game seem like he's having fun. Maybe he's an Arkham inmate but I doubt Mafia.

Do you think that means we shouldn't lynch him if that's the case?

#1438

You guys serious? I want to watch the last rush of votes come in, if you don't mind. I will respond afterwards. Even if I started responding now, I wouldn't be finished by the time the lynch is over, so what exactly is "convenient" about it, Dom?

#1439

Matt wrote:You guys serious? I want to watch the last rush of votes come in, if you don't mind. I will respond afterwards. Even if I started responding now, I wouldn't be finished by the time the lynch is over, so what exactly is "convenient" about it, Dom?

I think it's because you don't want the post to affect how those people vote.

#1440

@ Zebra, In all seriousness and with all respect, why do you think it should matter to other people how much time you spent on a post or an ISO or whatever? This seems to be your theme this game, how much time you spend on whatever.

Why does time spent = goodness?

We all spend tons of time on games.

Matt wrote:
S~V~S wrote:THANK YOU!!

Now Matt, answer the lady.
I will after the lynch. That's gonna take me a second, and I'd rather sit here and hit F5 until the result comes in.

Really?

Also gotta vote.

#1441

Matt wrote:
S~V~S wrote:THANK YOU!!

Now Matt, answer the lady.
I will after the lynch. That's gonna take me a second, and I'd rather sit here and hit F5 until the result comes in.

eesh

Matt just get this done with. Please. You've put it off for long enough already, and you're gonna refuse 10 minutes before the poll ends? Afraid it'll make you look too bad?

linki- it's not about goodness, but Matt simply isn't doing his part

#1442

Matt what are you nervous about? You have one vote, the other contenders have either 3 or 4.

#1443

I voted Dr Wiggles.

#1444

Dom wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I don't think wilgy is bad. He hates being bad and his posts usually reflect that imo. His posts in this game seem like he's having fun. Maybe he's an Arkham inmate but I doubt Mafia.
Do you think that means we shouldn't lynch him if that's the case?

I won't argue against it today. I don't even know who I'm going to vote for. I thought I was going to have another hour to catch up but this ends in a few minutes

#1445

Sorsha wrote:
Dom wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I don't think wilgy is bad. He hates being bad and his posts usually reflect that imo. His posts in this game seem like he's having fun. Maybe he's an Arkham inmate but I doubt Mafia.
Do you think that means we shouldn't lynch him if that's the case?
I won't argue against it today. I don't even know who I'm going to vote for. I thought I was going to have another hour to catch up but this ends in a few minutes

Was just wondering, thanks!

#1446

a2thezebra wrote:What part of refusing do you not understand, S~V~S and DH? If either of you had asked for that post earlier I would've given it in a heartbeat because neither of you have been unreasonable with me and insulting to the effort that I try to put in this game. I know damn well it would've taken me five seconds to pull it up and that's all the more reason that Matt's refusal to find it himself when all that effort was meant primarily for him is insulting to me, there's no way of sugarcoating it. And yet he has the nerve to say that I was stooping low by being honest about how he was coming across to me alignment-wise. WHAT THE FUCK.

And again this isn't even getting into how if it wasn't for me losing my goddamn mind and threatening to never respond to him for the rest of the game at least until he starts co-operating, he wouldn't have even asked for the post in the first place, let alone acknowledged that I made one. I know he saw me say that I had already responded to him tons, and tons, and tons, and fucking tons of times and just kept ignoring it and demanding answers to all these questions and concerns that I had already thoroughly addressed. Like where do you even get off with that attitude?

"Oh she keeps saying that she made an enormous post that she put a lot of effort into that covers everything I've asked and also elaborates on why she suspects me but I doubt it covers any of what I'm about to ask here and I'm just going to act like she suspects me for no reason anyway."

#1447

Dom wrote:
Matt wrote:You guys serious? I want to watch the last rush of votes come in, if you don't mind. I will respond afterwards. Even if I started responding now, I wouldn't be finished by the time the lynch is over, so what exactly is "convenient" about it, Dom?
I think it's because you don't want the post to affect how those people vote.

Doesn't matter to me. The rush of votes can all come on me now, and I'll just be happy seeing Zebra's reaction to how wrong she is.

Linki - BS Enrique, I literally asked for this post hours and hours ago. I'm not going to go rush to a response when the lynch is nearly over and I want to see what happens. Zeebs will get her response soon.

Linki - Lol Dom. I'm anything but nervous right now, in fact, I'm kind of chuckling over how insane Zeebs is getting.

#1448

That doesn't sit well with me one bit.

#1449

No Matt, BS you. Maybe just don't ignore it next time. Jesus Christ why do you insist on dragging this out?

#1450

S~V~S wrote:@ Zebra, In all seriousness and with all respect, why do you think it should matter to other people how much time you spent on a post or an ISO or whatever? This seems to be your theme this game, how much time you spend on whatever.

It shouldn't. Unless they're acting like they're entitled to shit when they've been ignoring me like they were getting paid to. THAT'S my problem.

Why does time spent = goodness?

It doesn't. I have not once claimed or even implied that the amount of time I've put into anything makes me more civ or a better person, whichever you mean. I'm not even asking for respect. All I'm saying is that I'm baffled that someone would claim to be offended by me because I literally did nothing more than voice suspicion of them when the haven't given me the time of day. I mean the double standard couldn't even be parodied.

We all spend tons of time on games.

I know this. Like I said, it's not the point.

Matt wrote:
S~V~S wrote:THANK YOU!!

Now Matt, answer the lady.
I will after the lynch. That's gonna take me a second, and I'd rather sit here and hit F5 until the result comes in.
Really?

What are you surprised? Welcome to the shit I've been dealing with this whole game from this amigo.

Also gotta vote.

Who killed no one?