The Syndicate

Okay, I guess I get it. Dom's idea basically was that I wasn't being genuine about Golden role-hinting. Well, it's not something I even believed. I thought my post was clear in presenting it as an alternative to what I actually do believe. If Golden was a cop I wouldn't be going after him, no. Does that make sense?

He did present it as an accusation, though. "I'm not buying it" isn't much of a question especially when you frame it around an inside joke thing that I had no way of interpreting correctly. He can say he doesn't buy Golden hinting at a number, but that I'm lying and obviously understood the reference? Yeah no. That's silly and not really an argument.

Enrique wrote:Okay, I guess I get it. Dom's idea basically was that I wasn't being genuine about Golden role-hinting. Well, it's not something I even believed. I thought my post was clear in presenting it as an alternative to what I actually do believe. If Golden was a cop I wouldn't be going after him, no. Does that make sense?

He did present it as an accusation, though. "I'm not buying it" isn't much of a question especially when you frame it around an inside joke thing that I had no way of interpreting correctly. He can say he doesn't buy Golden hinting at a number, but that I'm lying and obviously understood the reference? Yeah no. That's silly and not really an argument.

....It was not meant to be an argument. You are the only person saying it was. Once again, only you have framed it this way.

Okay, so what was the purpose of that post?

DrWilgy wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm gonna be sad if I'm the only one going to Mooney's

I'd go with you if votes were changeable.

Why did you originally choose the police station?

Enrique wrote:Okay, so what was the purpose of that post?

If one read my posts I think they would know.



I think you are posting ad nauseam about Golden because you are trying to sell people the idea that he is bad. I'm not on board with the evidence presented. You claimed that something might've been an attempted role hint, and I said I don't think you genuinely thought it was a role hint. Whether you are subverting the truth because you genuinely think Golden is bad or because you are bad remains to be seen.
Your most curious behavior to me has nothing to do with this, but rather with your response to me. You jumped to the conclusion I was accusing you of something (of which you have yet to clarify). TH later gave you a frame of reference that would make sense, but you declined to take it. Hyper-defensiveness is running through you.

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?

Neither. As humorous as my response is, it is also genuine. I don't have enough content with any of the other players but yourself to be confident in reading them even slightly. I don't see why saying that I find the amount of votes for Arkham Asylum to be alarming - which it is - has to refer to any specific votes or any specific voters.

I'm very genuinely confused, Dom.

I think Golden is bad and that's just what I see. There's no agenda.

That role hint would've made Golden good for what it's worth.

....I know. . . . . !~~~!!!!!!!!


I am saying you said that with the intention of saying his role claim was not valid.

Enrique wrote:Okay, I guess I get it. Dom's idea basically was that I wasn't being genuine about Golden role-hinting. Well, it's not something I even believed. I thought my post was clear in presenting it as an alternative to what I actually do believe. If Golden was a cop I wouldn't be going after him, no. Does that make sense?

He did present it as an accusation, though. "I'm not buying it" isn't much of a question especially when you frame it around an inside joke thing that I had no way of interpreting correctly. He can say he doesn't buy Golden hinting at a number, but that I'm lying and obviously understood the reference? Yeah no. That's silly and not really an argument.

I think your suspicion of Dom is fair.

I know that SVS has a favourite number of 8. I didn't know it was because of Lost, and I wouldn't have made an association to Lost. I just happen to know it is her favourite number because it is also mine, and don't see why anyone else should know this.

My favorite number is 881.

a2thezebra wrote:

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?

Neither. As humorous as my response is, it is also genuine. I don't have enough content with any of the other players but yourself to be confident in reading them even slightly. I don't see why saying that I find the amount of votes for Arkham Asylum to be alarming - which it is - has to refer to any specific votes or any specific voters.

So you genuinely believe me to be bad?

Maybe I should explain myself then. By calling the Arkham votes alarming, which I don't think they are at all btw, I feel like you were trying to paint some of the voters as bad. Otherwise, why would the votes for Arkham be alarming? Are you trying to say you feel the Arkham voters are civvie but it's just alarming that they voted Arkham? I don't think that's what you were insinuating with your initial post.

On top of that, when questioned why you voted your option, you turned it around with a question. When questioned again, you simply say "I like docks", which has no game relevance at all.

You also state that you "did not design this game", and thus did not answer when I asked what kind of trap Arkham could be. Yet, even though you did not design the game, you still feel confident that Arkham is some kind of trap regardless.

I dunno, it doesn't gel IMO.

Typhoony wrote:

Golden wrote:Looks like you are in the clear sig.

I know I say this and then people still sus me anyway but...

I'm GOING to be quieter this game.

I have a plan for the very few games I can sign up for in the coming months. Arkham was not on that plan. I just started a new role at work, and have heaps of other stuff going on in real life, so I need to be very careful with my time.

How's that working out for you so far Golden?

it has been ok so far. It's when I vanish for large periods and people start suspecting me because I'm not responding to them instantly that we'll have a problem.

MovingPictures07 wrote:From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

a2thezebra wrote:I agree that Enrique's paranoia isn't alignment-indicative, but it's not his paranoia that bothers me.

This exactly. Also, it's not Enrique's stated opinions about game mechanics that bother me.

I can see both sides on Enrique, but his constant assurance that I'm bad and the manner in which he has pursued that is what bothers me.

Enrique 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.

I had previously only been civ once in the last 5 years and you lynched me Day 1 in the most bullshit manner ever conceived. Maybe I remind you of when you are bad, but please don't try to meta me

I remember when I lynched you as cop. Good times.

Scotty wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm gonna be sad if I'm the only one going to Mooney's

I'd go with you if votes were changeable.

Why did you originally choose the police station?

To blow it to teeny tiny bits of course!

Enrique wrote:I think I've laid it out before. You call them indies, I call them baddies. They're a little more than non-friends, they're enemies. I don't want the game to end when I can't win, and I'm sure most of the town will agree. I have never opposed scum hunt, that's just silly, but so is opposing the so-called indie hunt. They're all bad.

Who opposed an indy hunt?

Need I remind you that this started with me suggesting we had OPTIONS (to pursue baddies or indys) and that we should remember that the inmates are not the mafia... I also said bass's point on Arkham was good.
And you suspected ME for that.
And you have continued to ask me about why I would vote Arkham, despite the fact I've consistently said it isn't a bad idea from the start.

But you are trying to paint me as the one who is anti-option. When you are the one who sussed me just for pointing out that we had them.

To me it read like you really wanted the initial focus to be on the independents, and then you've had to double down by building a rationale for it. I think the civilian reaction to my initial post would be "Oh yeah, we should keep both options in mind", which was the reaction I got from a number of others.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I agree with Enrique. I don't think any of the cops are going to want the game to end if there win condition isn't met.

Oh good. Then you also agree with me, I assume. Because I don't disagree with that, and it is not where Enrique and I disagree.

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I agree that Enrique's paranoia isn't alignment-indicative, but it's not his paranoia that bothers me.

Elaborate if you don't mind.

It's what he has focused on the most. The things that he has emphasized and advocated throughout the day. It reeks of ulterior motives to me. Now they could be civ-serving ulterior motives but regardless I think he's worth keeping an eye on just in case they are not so civ-serving. I don't have a strong read on anyone yet.

Thats the thing, right? They could be self-serving.

I think there are two possible things Enrique could be.

1) Crime family
2) Cop

I think his perspective has been entirely self-serving, whereas mine has frankly not been but rather been what is in the best interests of a civilian win. The question is, what role does Enrique have that self-serves, and those are pretty much the two that work for him.

Ultimately (after recruitments) that means Enrique should have a 6/14 chance of being crime and an 8/14 chance of being civ.

Dom wrote:

Enrique wrote:Okay, so what was the purpose of that post?

If one read my posts I think they would know.



I think you are posting ad nauseam about Golden because you are trying to sell people the idea that he is bad. I'm not on board with the evidence presented. You claimed that something might've been an attempted role hint, and I said I don't think you genuinely thought it was a role hint. Whether you are subverting the truth because you genuinely think Golden is bad or because you are bad remains to be seen.
Your most curious behavior to me has nothing to do with this, but rather with your response to me. You jumped to the conclusion I was accusing you of something (of which you have yet to clarify). TH later gave you a frame of reference that would make sense, but you declined to take it. Hyper-defensiveness is running through you.

OK, I actually get your perspective now dom, that makes sense.

Matt wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

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?

Neither. As humorous as my response is, it is also genuine. I don't have enough content with any of the other players but yourself to be confident in reading them even slightly. I don't see why saying that I find the amount of votes for Arkham Asylum to be alarming - which it is - has to refer to any specific votes or any specific voters.

So you genuinely believe me to be bad?

Maybe I should explain myself then. By calling the Arkham votes alarming, which I don't think they are at all btw, I feel like you were trying to paint some of the voters as bad. Otherwise, why would the votes for Arkham be alarming? Are you trying to say you feel the Arkham voters are civvie but it's just alarming that they voted Arkham? I don't think that's what you were insinuating with your initial post.

On top of that, when questioned why you voted your option, you turned it around with a question. When questioned again, you simply say "I like docks", which has no game relevance at all.

You also state that you "did not design this game", and thus did not answer when I asked what kind of trap Arkham could be. Yet, even though you did not design the game, you still feel confident that Arkham is some kind of trap regardless.

I dunno, it doesn't gel IMO.

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.

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.

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?

Matt, I asked you a question which you didn't answer.

Ugh, I stuffed up that response to zebra earlier. I didn't mean to say 'they could be self-serving'. I think they are patently self-serving. I meant to say they could be self-serving civ.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I agree that Enrique's paranoia isn't alignment-indicative, but it's not his paranoia that bothers me.

Elaborate if you don't mind.

It's what he has focused on the most. The things that he has emphasized and advocated throughout the day. It reeks of ulterior motives to me. Now they could be civ-serving ulterior motives but regardless I think he's worth keeping an eye on just in case they are not so civ-serving. I don't have a strong read on anyone yet.

Thats the thing, right? They could be self-serving.

I think there are two possible things Enrique could be.

1) Crime family
2) Cop

I think his perspective has been entirely self-serving, whereas mine has frankly not been but rather been what is in the best interests of a civilian win. The question is, what role does Enrique have that self-serves, and those are pretty much the two that work for him.

Ultimately (after recruitments) that means Enrique should have a 6/14 chance of being crime and an 8/14 chance of being civ.

See I think Enrique is an entirely different thing.

What do you mean Turnip Head by "an entirely different thing"?

Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

juliets wrote:What do you mean Turnip Head by "an entirely different thing"?

Golden said he thinks Enrique is one of two things. I don't think Enrique is either of those things.

MacDougall wrote:Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

Thanks for checking in

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?

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.

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?

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.

Linki - Golden, what question?

@Zebra

Why vote for anything randomly? I really believe its in our best interest to discuss or think about what effect our choice has on the game.

Why vote randomly yet still be suspicious of us who voted for what we actually think helps us? Can you please elaborate?

Golden - Nvm, found it.

Between you and Enrique, I was mostly siding with Enrique in your "argument", and I didn't understand why you were sussing him over it.

*sigh* That's the deal, Golden. We really really don't agree about game mechanics and to me that's a big deal.

First I wanna point out re: me backing down from AA (I refuse to call them independents), this is just really messy. From the start, and I really haven't changed my mind here (if anything I'm more for lynching them first), I've wanted to keep this balanced and lynch who we think is bad. Not who we think is mafia, because it's not the same. I've explained why the inmates to me are bad, several times. They are. I actually don't think I had talked about this distinction before I 'd that one post of yours asking to focus on the Mafia. I still read it the same way as I did then. Oblivious to the town's actual win conditions.

I don't like you painting yourself as some sort of civvie savior who's gonna win the game with his method. Because I disagree with it completely. We need to fulfill our win conditions, which goes way beyond killing the mafia. Your civilian win, if real, isn't the same as nearly any other civilian win.

I AM self serving in the sense that I'm playing to win. I'm also playing for the rest of the town to win, and you've said it yourself, how can we know if our inmates are dead? We don't, but we can always do our best to eliminate them and give the Mafia hunt a purpose. Because, again, we don't win otherwise. I don't benefit from killing all the Mafia if the inmates are still intact by the end of the game.

You bring up your voting for Arkham, and I see it as an inconsistency, not a point in your favor. Yes, you've been there from the beginning, but I still don't really understand why. Aren't the inmates independent? I do see you as being anti indie hunt, simply because I don't understand how you can reconcile those views, and because you have said we should focus on the Mafia, repeatedly.

I don't get the self-serving argument or how you're narrowing down my possible roles already. This is how civvies win. Arkham Asylum is a baddie faction. You not seeing that doesn't make it untrue.

(Hopefully this has been cleared up already @Dom, but just in case, I don't think the number thing was a claim at all. Not a fake claim, not a real claim. Just a post that could be interpreted like that if you were really looking. So yes I see what you were saying, but it all comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of my post.)

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

If it is alignment-indicative, then I don't get it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

If it is alignment-indicative, then I don't get it.

He thinks Mafia would want to focus on Arkham. I argue Arkham would want to focus on Mafia. Same dealio.

Enrique wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

If it is alignment-indicative, then I don't get it.

He thinks Mafia would want to focus on Arkham. I argue Arkham would want to focus on Mafia. Same dealio.

This is as lost on me as the whole Jabba the Hutt Russ/bcornett thing from Star Wars, which I didn't get either.

Golden wrote:

Enrique wrote:Okay, I guess I get it. Dom's idea basically was that I wasn't being genuine about Golden role-hinting. Well, it's not something I even believed. I thought my post was clear in presenting it as an alternative to what I actually do believe. If Golden was a cop I wouldn't be going after him, no. Does that make sense?

He did present it as an accusation, though. "I'm not buying it" isn't much of a question especially when you frame it around an inside joke thing that I had no way of interpreting correctly. He can say he doesn't buy Golden hinting at a number, but that I'm lying and obviously understood the reference? Yeah no. That's silly and not really an argument.

I think your suspicion of Dom is fair.

I know that SVS has a favourite number of 8. I didn't know it was because of Lost, and I wouldn't have made an association to Lost. I just happen to know it is her favourite number because it is also mine, and don't see why anyone else should know this.

Actually, I think it is more birthday related~ we both have birthdays on the 8th, which makews it my favorite number AND my favorite LOST number.

a2thezebra wrote:

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?

Neither. As humorous as my response is, it is also genuine. I don't have enough content with any of the other players but yourself to be confident in reading them even slightly. I don't see why saying that I find the amount of votes for Arkham Asylum to be alarming - which it is - has to refer to any specific votes or any specific voters.

So you are basically saying that you are so easily alarmed that you literally find "nothing" alarming? Yet were something *really* alarming to happen, I don't imagine you'll go running out of the thread screaming, hmm?

It's lost on me too MP. I'm confused.

MP, who do you think, gut instinct, is looking the worst on this Day 0?


Same question to you TH.

It's kinda similar, actually. Back then I was also arguing that the indie roles were dangerous and should be lynched (although that was mostly out of paranoid fear that one of them poisoned me)

But in this case they actually are baddies, so yeah.

linki: He wants to focus on the Mafia, I (from his point of view, but also kinda accurately) want to focus on Arkham. He thinks it's sus because I'm ignoring baddie factions, but to me, the same argument could be flipped right back at him. It's alignment indicative because whichever method we choose is gonna greatly affect who wins the game.

He says his is the civvie way, I say mine is the civvie way. I don't see it being settled for a while.

Dom wrote:MP, who do you think, gut instinct, is looking the worst on this Day 0?


Same question to you TH.

For me it's sig.

Enrique wrote:*sigh* That's the deal, Golden. We really really don't agree about game mechanics and to me that's a big deal.

First I wanna point out re: me backing down from AA (I refuse to call them independents), this is just really messy. From the start, and I really haven't changed my mind here (if anything I'm more for lynching them first), I've wanted to keep this balanced and lynch who we think is bad. Not who we think is mafia, because it's not the same. I've explained why the inmates to me are bad, several times. They are. I actually don't think I had talked about this distinction before I 'd that one post of yours asking to focus on the Mafia. I still read it the same way as I did then. Oblivious to the town's actual win conditions.

I don't like you painting yourself as some sort of civvie savior who's gonna win the game with his method. Because I disagree with it completely. We need to fulfill our win conditions, which goes way beyond killing the mafia. Your civilian win, if real, isn't the same as nearly any other civilian win.

I AM self serving in the sense that I'm playing to win. I'm also playing for the rest of the town to win, and you've said it yourself, how can we know if our inmates are dead? We don't, but we can always do our best to eliminate them and give the Mafia hunt a purpose. Because, again, we don't win otherwise. I don't benefit from killing all the Mafia if the inmates are still intact by the end of the game.

You bring up your voting for Arkham, and I see it as an inconsistency, not a point in your favor. Yes, you've been there from the beginning, but I still don't really understand why. Aren't the inmates independent? I do see you as being anti indie hunt, simply because I don't understand how you can reconcile those views, and because you have said we should focus on the Mafia, repeatedly.

I don't get the self-serving argument or how you're narrowing down my possible roles already. This is how civvies win. Arkham Asylum is a baddie faction. You not seeing that doesn't make it untrue.

(Hopefully this has been cleared up already @Dom, but just in case, I don't think the number thing was a claim at all. Not a fake claim, not a real claim. Just a post that could be interpreted like that if you were really looking. So yes I see what you were saying, but it all comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of my post.)

OK, but

1) The post you eyed didn't ask people to 'focus' on mafia. It pointed out that we shouldn't solely focus on the inmates. That's a really different thing. It's why to me your sussing read as wanting us not to focus on the mafia at all, which you've subsequently denied but to me thats what it REALLY looks like you were doing at the start. I actually agree with you that the inmates are bad dudes, they just are patently not the mafia. And they aren't a 'baddie faction'. In fact I'd go so far as to say they aren't a faction at all. They all have different win cons. They are, mechanically speaking, absolutely independents. That doesn't make them town-friendly. It just makes them independents.

2) The concept isn't hard to reconcile, it's actually really easy, but I think you are choosing not to. I'll repeat it again.

a) the independents are people we should be mildly looking to lynch, as a second choice to mafia
b) the mafia are people we should be strongly looking to lynch, as our primary choice
c) we could guess where mafia are, eg locations like fish mooney's, to help us get info on them
d) on the other hand, we may only have one chance to get info at Arkham, immediately after the breakout. That info might be gone if we wait. So perhaps we should prioritise the urgent, less important thing over the important, non-urgent thing.

3) I think you are confusing disagreeing with me over game mechanics with my affiliation. You seem to think I'm bad because I disagree with you, but you haven't been able to explain any baddie motive for what I'm saying (beyond saying that I wouldn't possibly ever take the view I have if I'm a cop, which just goes to show you don't know me that well), whereas I have a very clear one with what you were doing with your first suspicion of me... pushing the towns attention solely towards the independents at the exclusion of the mafia, and putting the eye on me simply for pointing out the fact that the mafia are not the inmates. And again, don't confuse me using indy and mafia with town and anti-town. They are different things. Independents can be anti-town, but it doesn't make them mafia (serial killer, eg).

4) Enrique, for me the most damning thing about you is how intently you have called me very bad from a very early point in time, when I do not think you could hold that view genuinely, and to me it does (genuinely) feel very reactive and a little caught. It felt like it particularly ramped up from you at this point:

Enrique wrote:

golden wrote:]I think trying to focus the thread very squarely on independent hunting is exactly what the baddies would want to do.

Totally called this misrepresentation. I love how bad you are already. I'm reading your role card post added to your reluctance to go after independents as a huuge early slip. Even if you were one of the three other GCPD roles, surely you'd understand that the rest of the team can't win as easily.

Which is where it felt to me like you went into another gear.

Enrique wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

If it is alignment-indicative, then I don't get it.

He thinks Mafia would want to focus on Arkham. I argue Arkham would want to focus on Mafia. Same dealio.

Why would Arkham want to focus on mafia any more than anyone else?

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.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:MP, who do you think, gut instinct, is looking the worst on this Day 0?


Same question to you TH.

For me it's sig.

is that total gut?

Bring it on Matt. Bring it fucking on.

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I agree with Enrique. I don't think any of the cops are going to want the game to end if there win condition isn't met.

Oh good. Then you also agree with me, I assume. Because I don't disagree with that, and it is not where Enrique and I disagree.

Yes but your first post did come off as strange but after you explained it I understood what you were trying to say.

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:MP, who do you think, gut instinct, is looking the worst on this Day 0?


Same question to you TH.

For me it's sig.

is that total gut?

Partially. It's also some things I've pointed out in the thread, and other things that I haven't pointed out yet but will when I get a chance to elaborate.

yikes

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:MP, who do you think, gut instinct, is looking the worst on this Day 0?


Same question to you TH.

For me it's sig.

is that total gut?

Partially. It's also some things I've pointed out in the thread, and other things that I haven't pointed out yet but will when I get a chance to elaborate.

I look forward to it

Dom wrote:MP, who do you think, gut instinct, is looking the worst on this Day 0?


Same question to you TH.

I don't really have a remotely solid lead or suspect, but I don't understand the purpose of zebra's "this is alarming" when she is able to extract practically no alignment-based information off of it, except for Matt. GTH it seemed contrived, but civilian zebra is known to make some reaches as well, so it's a weak thought for me. Nonetheless, that's my answer.

Enrique wrote:Arkham Asylum is a baddie faction. You not seeing that doesn't make it untrue.

Yes, they are a baddie faction (if you can call them a faction). I've never not seen it. I've been consistent about this since before you were even sussing me.

But they are INDEPENDENTS who, in each case, most civilians do not need dead to win.

They are still worrying, some more than others.

But, say for example the penguins cop equivalent is lynched on day one. Is it still in the towns interests to kill the Penguin at that point?

Greetings, All It's wonderful to be back here with you all old friends and some new friends to be made, I'm sure Sadly, I only accidentally found that this game had started (I'd have thought Sig might have let me know...) so I'll do some reviewing and come back to you hopefully with something constructive to contribute. I must confess, I've read two and a half pages and am already confused as to how this all fits together...