The Syndicate

Nerolunar wrote:@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?

It is not entirely a random vote. Like I said, I narrowed down the options by eliminating the ones which I am cautious of choosing to the ones that I don't think could have much of a bearing on the game, and picked randomly from those (although I do like docks). I want Day 1 to be as regular of a day as possible, where we look for who's the most suspicious and lynch them with no lynch switches, vote manipulation, basically as little foul play as we can hope for. I also believe its in our best interest to look at what options effect the game the most, and I haven't heard a good case for why Arkham Asylum would be in any way ideal.

Like I said, I am not suspicious of anyone in particular who voted for Arkham Asylum (even in Matt's case I'm suspicious of him for other more recent reasons), I am only suspicious of the option itself.

Dom wrote:

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

Cool. Was that "yikes" directed at me? :P

S~V~S wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: 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?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

S~V~S wrote:Yet were something *really* alarming to happen, I don't imagine you'll go running out of the thread screaming, hmm?

Still don't know what you mean.

Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

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.

Thats interesting. Sig looks good to me.

For me its MP.

I find the lack of votes for Wayne Manor alarming.

Yeah okay, thanks for explaining.

I still believe we should go to AA though. Im wondering if there is a mechanic that makes the Riddler place clues where he has been. He has been at Arkham, so it wouldn´t surprise me if there was one.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

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.

Where is this coming from? First Matt, then Nerolunar, possibly S~V~S, and now you, all assuming that me thinking that the Arkham Asylum option being so popular has to be some kind of statement about particular people that voted for it. It's not. Nor is it meant to extract any information about anyone. That statement was literally just me expressing that I don't like how popular that option is. I'm stunned that it has become this controversial. How is it a reach, anyway? What am I even saying that can be weighed on a reaching to not-reaching scale? It's literally just an opinion about a poll option. I don't get it.

S~V~S wrote:Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I'm alarmed at the poll option being so popular. I am not alarmed at anyone in particular who voted for it. Why is this impossible to understand?

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

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

Cool. Was that "yikes" directed at me? :P

Nah. The monstrosity of a post from zebra.

Golden 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.

Thats interesting. Sig looks good to me.

For me its MP.

Because he joked about finding me suspicious in case he's wrong? So he can easily lynch me if the pendulum swings that way?

This is the same reason I thought zebra was bad last game u played with her. She just says shit to make it seems like she cares.

Golden 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.

Thats interesting. Sig looks good to me.

For me its MP.

I look forward to you being proven wrong.

My reads were null because I don't lean good or bad on anyone but Matt, and in Matt's case I read him as bad for reasons unrelated to his vote. My reads of the people who voted for Arkham Asylum being null has nothing to do with me finding the Arkham Asylum option being so popular alarming. I don't know how many times in how many different ways I have to say this.

S~V~S wrote:Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I'm with S~V~S here.

Nerolunar wrote:Yeah okay, thanks for explaining.

I still believe we should go to AA though. Im wondering if there is a mechanic that makes the Riddler place clues where he has been. He has been at Arkham, so it wouldn´t surprise me if there was one.

You're welcome, and thank you for understanding my point-of-view.

linki @ MP - omg

a2thezebra wrote: Nor is it meant to extract any information about anyone.

Then what was the point of saying it?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:This is the same reason I thought zebra was bad last game u played with her. She just says shit to make it seems like she cares.

And the last game you played with me, the reasons why you suspected me were incorrect. Even when I am bad I am more genuine than not with how I express myself and I never just say shit, thank you very much.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I'm with S~V~S here.

I also agree. If you think the option was bad why would you think any of the people who voted it to be bad?

zebra, you get systematically mislynched game after game, yet you go out of your way to bring attention to yourself by making statements that have no bearing on any information about anyone, but the language you use in those statements otherwise would indicate something illuminating to the highest degree ("alarming").

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: Nor is it meant to extract any information about anyone.

Then what was the point of saying it?

The answer to that question is the sentence right after the one you're quoting here. You had to have read it if you read that post.

a2thezebra wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:This is the same reason I thought zebra was bad last game u played with her. She just says shit to make it seems like she cares.

And the last game you played with me, the reasons why you suspected me were incorrect. Even when I am bad I am more genuine than not with how I express myself and I never just say shit, thank you very much.

Haha how were they incorrect I felt you were picking on low posters to seem like you were trying to find scum among them. You were bad and I was right.

MovingPictures07 wrote:zebra, you get systematically mislynched game after game, yet you go out of your way to bring attention to yourself by making statements that have no bearing on any information about anyone, but the language you use in those statements otherwise would indicate something illuminating to the highest degree ("alarming").

How on earth is "alarming" indicative of "something illuminating to the highest degree?" That's reaching to say the least. I never go out of my way to bring attention to myself and you know that. I have opinions and viewpoints, I state them, and for whatever reason that gets me systematically mislynched game after game. I know you're not implying that the way I play the game is the problem, so what are you implying?

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: Nor is it meant to extract any information about anyone.

Then what was the point of saying it?

The answer to that question is the sentence right after the one you're quoting here. You had to have read it if you read that post.

I did read it.

My point is that you do this to yourself and the thread every game you play. It's like you can't help but bring attention to yourself by causing misunderstandings, then you get either mislynched or lynched, and during the latter people get vindicated because they think they caught you, when in reality you consistently get lynched because people fail to make the same connections that you are, or think that you're blowing something out of proportion. Look at the train that's forming now.

Now, knowing that, why do you continue to make statements containing language such as "alarming" if you really only want to express dislike for one option receiving so many votes, and then express outrage when people fail to see the point of your extensive language/posts?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:This is the same reason I thought zebra was bad last game u played with her. She just says shit to make it seems like she cares.

And the last game you played with me, the reasons why you suspected me were incorrect. Even when I am bad I am more genuine than not with how I express myself and I never just say shit, thank you very much.

Haha how were they incorrect I felt you were picking on low posters to seem like you were trying to find scum among them. You were bad and I was right.

Oh boy, I am not game for arguing about a game that is long over, but I also cannot let you think you're right when you think that I was picking on anyone, let alone low posters. That's fucked and I don't do that, so you were wrong for reading me as scum because of that, even if you were right for reading me as scum in general. Again, I never just say shit.

Nerolunar wrote: I still believe we should go to AA though. Im wondering if there is a mechanic that makes the Riddler place clues where he has been. He has been at Arkham, so it wouldn´t surprise me if there was one.

What is this based on?

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:zebra, you get systematically mislynched game after game, yet you go out of your way to bring attention to yourself by making statements that have no bearing on any information about anyone, but the language you use in those statements otherwise would indicate something illuminating to the highest degree ("alarming").

How on earth is "alarming" indicative of "something illuminating to the highest degree?" That's reaching to say the least. I never go out of my way to bring attention to myself and you know that. I have opinions and viewpoints, I state them, and for whatever reason that gets me systematically mislynched game after game. I know you're not implying that the way I play the game is the problem, so what are you implying?

Alarming is a strong word, to me, especially in a game of deception, so I don't understand why you think that's reaching.

But you're doing it right now, you're blowing something completely out of proportion when you could have simply stated your dislike for one option receiving so many votes in a much less explosive manner.

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I'm alarmed at the poll option being so popular. I am not alarmed at anyone in particular who voted for it. Why is this impossible to understand?

Kinda.

It just seemed liek you said that for something to say, a throwaway comment. Then when asked about it, you tried to lulz it off with the *null* post.

Linki, OMG what?

zebra, if you are civilian, I have no interest in seeing you get mislynched again, so I'm not trying to contribute to that, but to help you see that your comment is obviously being misunderstood by multiple people, myself included.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: Nor is it meant to extract any information about anyone.

Then what was the point of saying it?

The answer to that question is the sentence right after the one you're quoting here. You had to have read it if you read that post.

I did read it.

My point is that you do this to yourself and the thread every game you play. It's like you can't help but bring attention to yourself by causing misunderstandings, then you get either mislynched or lynched, and during the latter people get vindicated because they think they caught you, when in reality you consistently get lynched because people fail to make the same connections that you are, or think that you're blowing something out of proportion. Look at the train that's forming now.

Now, knowing that, why do you continue to make statements containing language such as "alarming" if you really only want to express dislike for one option receiving so many votes, and then express outrage when people fail to see the point of your extensive language/posts?

Because I outline the point extensively, over and over again, and people still don't get it. Do you think I intend to cause the misunderstandings that surround me? How is "alarming" anything more than expressing my dislike? How would you rather I expressed it? How do you think I should express so as not to cause any misunderstandings? I find it alarming so I said that I find it alarming.

So I still don't get your point. It would be disingenuous for me to use language that doesn't reflect how I feel, so why would I use any language but the language that I use?

a2thezebra wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:This is the same reason I thought zebra was bad last game u played with her. She just says shit to make it seems like she cares.

And the last game you played with me, the reasons why you suspected me were incorrect. Even when I am bad I am more genuine than not with how I express myself and I never just say shit, thank you very much.

Haha how were they incorrect I felt you were picking on low posters to seem like you were trying to find scum among them. You were bad and I was right.

Oh boy, I am not game for arguing about a game that is long over, but I also cannot let you think you're right when you think that I was picking on anyone, let alone low posters. That's fucked and I don't do that, so you were wrong for reading me as scum because of that, even if you were right for reading me as scum in general. Again, I never just say shit.

I'm not arguing about a game that's over but I think it's important to look at people's past actions in games and your interactions with that person. I'm just saying from my experience with you it seems like you sling bull shit when you are bad.

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I'm alarmed at the poll option being so popular. I am not alarmed at anyone in particular who voted for it. Why is this impossible to understand?

It isn't.

Dom wrote:Because he joked about finding me suspicious in case he's wrong? So he can easily lynch me if the pendulum swings that way?

That's part of it. I've been finding his tone disingenuous. Hard to say if its MP trying to invest less.

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: Nor is it meant to extract any information about anyone.

Then what was the point of saying it?

The answer to that question is the sentence right after the one you're quoting here. You had to have read it if you read that post.

I did read it.

My point is that you do this to yourself and the thread every game you play. It's like you can't help but bring attention to yourself by causing misunderstandings, then you get either mislynched or lynched, and during the latter people get vindicated because they think they caught you, when in reality you consistently get lynched because people fail to make the same connections that you are, or think that you're blowing something out of proportion. Look at the train that's forming now.

Now, knowing that, why do you continue to make statements containing language such as "alarming" if you really only want to express dislike for one option receiving so many votes, and then express outrage when people fail to see the point of your extensive language/posts?

Because I outline the point extensively, over and over again, and people still don't get it. Do you think I intend to cause the misunderstandings that surround me? How is "alarming" anything more than expressing my dislike? How would you rather I expressed it? How do you think I should express so as not to cause any misunderstandings? I find it alarming so I said that I find it alarming.

So I still don't get your point. It would be disingenuous for me to use language that doesn't reflect how I feel, so why would I use any language but the language that I use?

Saying "5 = 5 x 1" over and over again won't help if the person cannot make that connection; instead, sometimes starting from the beginning and succinctly rewording something you've said will assist much more, and if someone is able to make the connection to what you're saying by coming about it via "5 = 4 + 1" then so be it.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to tell you how to play, so I hope you don't take it that way. I just know that I'm already having trouble connecting together what you're saying and it seems others are as well.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:zebra, you get systematically mislynched game after game, yet you go out of your way to bring attention to yourself by making statements that have no bearing on any information about anyone, but the language you use in those statements otherwise would indicate something illuminating to the highest degree ("alarming").

How on earth is "alarming" indicative of "something illuminating to the highest degree?" That's reaching to say the least. I never go out of my way to bring attention to myself and you know that. I have opinions and viewpoints, I state them, and for whatever reason that gets me systematically mislynched game after game. I know you're not implying that the way I play the game is the problem, so what are you implying?

Alarming is a strong word, to me, especially in a game of deception, so I don't understand why you think that's reaching.

But you're doing it right now, you're blowing something completely out of proportion when you could have simply stated your dislike for one option receiving so many votes in a much less explosive manner.

Explosive? Really? This would be explosive:

ANYONE WHO'S VOTING FOR ARKHAM ASYLUM IS SCUM AND I PLAN ON LYNCHING THEM ONE BY ONE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. IT'S THE SHADIEST DAY ZERO OPTION I THINK I'VE EVER SEEN AND ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS A SCALLIWAG. ARGGGGGHHH RAWWWRRRRR BARK BARK BARK

Perhaps "alarming" is a strong word, but I fail to see how the use of a strong word regarding a lynch option automatically implies that I think that anyone in particular that voted for that option is a baddie because I find the option itself alarming. I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

Typhoony wrote:

Nerolunar wrote: I still believe we should go to AA though. Im wondering if there is a mechanic that makes the Riddler place clues where he has been. He has been at Arkham, so it wouldn´t surprise me if there was one.

What is this based on?

Im not completely into the Batman universe, but from what I remember the Riddler places clues around wherever he has commited a crime. Its just speculation.

MovingPictures07 wrote:zebra, you get systematically mislynched game after game, yet you go out of your way to bring attention to yourself by making statements that have no bearing on any information about anyone, but the language you use in those statements otherwise would indicate something illuminating to the highest degree ("alarming").

This is a really inaccurate statement about what zebra is doing.

He finds how popular an option is, he thinks there are baddies on there.

Why should he have a read on specifically who those baddies are. Is it not enough to say 'I think some of those people are bad'? He doesn't need to know which people right now. It could have use later when reads are more established.

This seems to me, like it would be normal MP modus operandi. You are the kind of person who likes to get thoughts out there, even if they involve null reads.

S~V~S wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I'm alarmed at the poll option being so popular. I am not alarmed at anyone in particular who voted for it. Why is this impossible to understand?

Kinda.

It just seemed liek you said that for something to say, a throwaway comment. Then when asked about it, you tried to lulz it off with the *null* post.

Linki, OMG what?

I only lulz'd it off with Matt because I felt he wasn't asking me about it genuinely, for reasons I have extensively elaborated on (much to Dom's disliking) in a fairly recent post. When I feel someone is asking me about what I said genuinely - such as in the case of Nerolunar, yourself, and MP - I answer it as best I can. I can see how you think it was a throwaway comment but I assure you it is not.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:Because he joked about finding me suspicious in case he's wrong? So he can easily lynch me if the pendulum swings that way?

That's part of it. I've been finding his tone disingenuous. Hard to say if its MP trying to invest less.

I'm more than happy to own up to my suspicions and thoughts and take responsibility for my votes, so if you're concerned about that, your concern is misplaced. I was willing to throw a civilian read of Dom out there, however slight, and I'm still standing by it now. If I turn out to be wrong, then that's mafia, so be it, and I was willing to joke about my propensity to read Dom incorrectly due to thinking with absolute confidence he was bad when spectating GoC 2015 only to be proven incorrect again.

I am consciously trying to invest less. Finding it a bit difficult to at the moment, but I'm trying, because I always overinvest myself, especially in these large games for some reason. I really can't afford the emotional energy to do that even remotely right now.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: Nor is it meant to extract any information about anyone.

Then what was the point of saying it?

The answer to that question is the sentence right after the one you're quoting here. You had to have read it if you read that post.

I did read it.

My point is that you do this to yourself and the thread every game you play. It's like you can't help but bring attention to yourself by causing misunderstandings, then you get either mislynched or lynched, and during the latter people get vindicated because they think they caught you, when in reality you consistently get lynched because people fail to make the same connections that you are, or think that you're blowing something out of proportion. Look at the train that's forming now.

Now, knowing that, why do you continue to make statements containing language such as "alarming" if you really only want to express dislike for one option receiving so many votes, and then express outrage when people fail to see the point of your extensive language/posts?

Doesn't this also describe you, and me?

Zebra said: I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

What does this mean, exactly? I am being serious, I honestly do not understand this sentence

Linki @ Golden, but she DOESN'T think there are baddies on there.

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:zebra, you get systematically mislynched game after game, yet you go out of your way to bring attention to yourself by making statements that have no bearing on any information about anyone, but the language you use in those statements otherwise would indicate something illuminating to the highest degree ("alarming").

How on earth is "alarming" indicative of "something illuminating to the highest degree?" That's reaching to say the least. I never go out of my way to bring attention to myself and you know that. I have opinions and viewpoints, I state them, and for whatever reason that gets me systematically mislynched game after game. I know you're not implying that the way I play the game is the problem, so what are you implying?

Alarming is a strong word, to me, especially in a game of deception, so I don't understand why you think that's reaching.

But you're doing it right now, you're blowing something completely out of proportion when you could have simply stated your dislike for one option receiving so many votes in a much less explosive manner.

Explosive? Really? This would be explosive:

ANYONE WHO'S VOTING FOR ARKHAM ASYLUM IS SCUM AND I PLAN ON LYNCHING THEM ONE BY ONE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. IT'S THE SHADIEST DAY ZERO OPTION I THINK I'VE EVER SEEN AND ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT IS A SCALLIWAG. ARGGGGGHHH RAWWWRRRRR BARK BARK BARK

Perhaps "alarming" is a strong word, but I fail to see how the use of a strong word regarding a lynch option automatically implies that I think that anyone in particular that voted for that option is a baddie because I find the option itself alarming. I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:This is the same reason I thought zebra was bad last game u played with her. She just says shit to make it seems like she cares.

And the last game you played with me, the reasons why you suspected me were incorrect. Even when I am bad I am more genuine than not with how I express myself and I never just say shit, thank you very much.

Haha how were they incorrect I felt you were picking on low posters to seem like you were trying to find scum among them. You were bad and I was right.

Oh boy, I am not game for arguing about a game that is long over, but I also cannot let you think you're right when you think that I was picking on anyone, let alone low posters. That's fucked and I don't do that, so you were wrong for reading me as scum because of that, even if you were right for reading me as scum in general. Again, I never just say shit.

I'm not arguing about a game that's over but I think it's important to look at people's past actions in games and your interactions with that person. I'm just saying from my experience with you it seems like you sling bull shit when you are bad.

I agree that that is important, and you're correct to an extent in that I do sling shit, both as civ and as a baddie. But I assure you it is human shit, not bull shit. Meaning it isn't disingenuous. Most importantly, I do not pick on anyone.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I'm alarmed at the poll option being so popular. I am not alarmed at anyone in particular who voted for it. Why is this impossible to understand?

It isn't.

Thank you.

S~V~S wrote:

Zebra said: I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

What does this mean, exactly? I am being serious, I honestly do not understand this sentence

Linki @ Golden, but she DOESN'T think there are baddies on there.

No, thats not what she said. She said she didn't have specific baddie reads on individuals. If I'm wrong, then I take it back, zebra is suspicious, because your understanding of it would be suspicious. But I think you've understood her wrong.

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: Nor is it meant to extract any information about anyone.

Then what was the point of saying it?

The answer to that question is the sentence right after the one you're quoting here. You had to have read it if you read that post.

I did read it.

My point is that you do this to yourself and the thread every game you play. It's like you can't help but bring attention to yourself by causing misunderstandings, then you get either mislynched or lynched, and during the latter people get vindicated because they think they caught you, when in reality you consistently get lynched because people fail to make the same connections that you are, or think that you're blowing something out of proportion. Look at the train that's forming now.

Now, knowing that, why do you continue to make statements containing language such as "alarming" if you really only want to express dislike for one option receiving so many votes, and then express outrage when people fail to see the point of your extensive language/posts?

Doesn't this also describe you, and me?

YES, EXACTLY, and it's exactly why I'm trying to get zebra to see why she gets consistently misunderstood and mislynched. I am not allowing zebra to mislynch herself in the first few Days this game. We have much more productive avenues to fill, and I do not want to stand here and see the thread progress through the same old crap: Players find Player X suspicious because he/she talks a lot, Player X inevitably gets lynched for consistent misunderstandings over those suspicions.

My thought process was, if even I am having trouble equating zebra's lack of reads to her original language, in this case, then I'm sure that many others will find this perplexing, and we all know how suspicions form in Day 1 due to misunderstandings.

The game hasn't even started and I can't even begin to consume the 5 pages that were made just today. Like damn.

It's like if I even tried to start poking at someone, it'd be lost in the sea of arguments and finger pointing.

I mean that and the 4 quotes deep quote boxes (which are giant on my phone mind you)

By "hasn't even started" I mean no actions have actually happened yet. (Lynching, night actions, etc)

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote: Nor is it meant to extract any information about anyone.

Then what was the point of saying it?

The answer to that question is the sentence right after the one you're quoting here. You had to have read it if you read that post.

I did read it.

My point is that you do this to yourself and the thread every game you play. It's like you can't help but bring attention to yourself by causing misunderstandings, then you get either mislynched or lynched, and during the latter people get vindicated because they think they caught you, when in reality you consistently get lynched because people fail to make the same connections that you are, or think that you're blowing something out of proportion. Look at the train that's forming now.

Now, knowing that, why do you continue to make statements containing language such as "alarming" if you really only want to express dislike for one option receiving so many votes, and then express outrage when people fail to see the point of your extensive language/posts?

Because I outline the point extensively, over and over again, and people still don't get it. Do you think I intend to cause the misunderstandings that surround me? How is "alarming" anything more than expressing my dislike? How would you rather I expressed it? How do you think I should express so as not to cause any misunderstandings? I find it alarming so I said that I find it alarming.

So I still don't get your point. It would be disingenuous for me to use language that doesn't reflect how I feel, so why would I use any language but the language that I use?

Saying "5 = 5 x 1" over and over again won't help if the person cannot make that connection; instead, sometimes starting from the beginning and succinctly rewording something you've said will assist much more, and if someone is able to make the connection to what you're saying by coming about it via "5 = 4 + 1" then so be it.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to tell you how to play, so I hope you don't take it that way. I just know that I'm already having trouble connecting together what you're saying and it seems others are as well.

I agree, which is why I've continued to make an effort even for Matt to reword my previous statements to make them more easily translated to those that don't share my (apparently) kooky sensibility. If you think I've only clarified my statements by repeating them word-for-word then you either haven't been reading my posts or you're lying.

I understand that you're not telling me how to play and I would never suspect you of doing that, I'm just saying that I am putting in an effort to make everything I say seem as understandable as possible. It only took Nerolunar a single response from me to understand where I'm coming from and Golden seems to understand as well, so I don't blame anyone who doesn't understand me even now but I also feel as if some of you are only pretending that you don't because I'm an easy target for being misunderstood and taken advantage of because of this. However, Matt is the only one so far who I most certainly suspect of doing this.

S~V~S wrote:

Zebra said: I've yet to hear anyone that has expressed concern about my statements regarding the AA option explain how such an implication would be automatic.

What does this mean, exactly? I am being serious, I honestly do not understand this sentence
.

Maybe it got lost in all the linki, but Zebra, what does this mean? I am far from stupid, but this sentence is too convoluted for me.

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I'm alarmed at the poll option being so popular. I am not alarmed at anyone in particular who voted for it. Why is this impossible to understand?

Kinda.

It just seemed liek you said that for something to say, a throwaway comment. Then when asked about it, you tried to lulz it off with the *null* post.

Linki, OMG what?

I only lulz'd it off with Matt because I felt he wasn't asking me about it genuinely, for reasons I have extensively elaborated on (much to Dom's disliking) in a fairly recent post. When I feel someone is asking me about what I said genuinely - such as in the case of Nerolunar, yourself, and MP - I answer it as best I can. I can see how you think it was a throwaway comment but I assure you it is not.

I didn't hate your post, I just linki'd it.

On this subject, I think zebra made a rather vapid observation.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:Because he joked about finding me suspicious in case he's wrong? So he can easily lynch me if the pendulum swings that way?

That's part of it. I've been finding his tone disingenuous. Hard to say if its MP trying to invest less.

I'm more than happy to own up to my suspicions and thoughts and take responsibility for my votes, so if you're concerned about that, your concern is misplaced. I was willing to throw a civilian read of Dom out there, however slight, and I'm still standing by it now. If I turn out to be wrong, then that's mafia, so be it, and I was willing to joke about my propensity to read Dom incorrectly due to thinking with absolute confidence he was bad when spectating GoC 2015 only to be proven incorrect again.

I am consciously trying to invest less. Finding it a bit difficult to at the moment, but I'm trying, because I always overinvest myself, especially in these large games for some reason. I really can't afford the emotional energy to do that even remotely right now.

If I'm a slight civ read, why set me up for an easy vote later like that?

sprityo wrote:The game hasn't even started and I can't even begin to consume the 5 pages that were made just today. Like damn.

It's like if I even tried to start poking at someone, it'd be lost in the sea of arguments and finger pointing.

I mean that and the 4 quotes deep quote boxes (which are giant on my phone mind you)

And this is why I always fall behind in games and can never fully catch up.