Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

[Ricochet]

It doesn't matter if my case is absurd or not worthwhile, as long as I catch the baddies. I know it's tough to accept, but sometimes it can happen. Better luck next time, it wasn't to be.

Your jimmies also appeared to have been rustled, judging by the second paragraph.

What's for me to address about what I'm doing. It should be obvious. I'm catching sum baddies. Flawlessly, so far.

[a2thezebra]

I get a rush of energy when I elaborate on what I believe to be opportunistic behavior. If you've seen me in any game ever for even a day, you know this. Doesn't mean I'm good, but it also doesn't mean you rustled anyone's jimmies. Get off your high horse. Nice continued lack of defense to a legitimate and shared suspicion by the way.

[MacDougall]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?

Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

[Ricochet]

Oh, and you said I put more effort in the early stages of THM? Let's take a look at my posts in Day 0 of THM. After all, it's only Night 0 here.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 3&sr=posts

SO MUCH EFFORT WHAT HAPPENED TO ME WHERE DID I GO WRONG

I don't know, I'm seeing more solid activity in there, as it is.

You questioned JJJ's low-activity claim.
You provided input on how the poll votes should develop.
You criticised a player for breaking a tie.
You lobbied yet again for players to vote a certain way.
You did rebuttal rounds with the abovementioned player whose low-activity claim you questioned.
You further oversaw how the poll options would be handled or turn out.

By contrast, here:

you posted the obligatory opening word
you buddied me (trying to buddy a top civ, ey? classic baddie movie)
you wailed about the quantity of N0 talk so far and your only dilemma was what the fuss about the options leading in the poll so far is

Oh, and you overreacted at me catching you.

[MacDougall]

I get a rush of energy when I elaborate on what I believe to be opportunistic behavior. If you've seen me in any game ever for even a day, you know this. Doesn't mean I'm good, but it also doesn't mean you rustled anyone's jimmies. Get off your high horse. Nice continued lack of defense to a legitimate and shared suspicion by the way.

Surely you wouldn't be this adversarial off the bat if there wasn't an underlying intention. You are posting like a parody of yourself right now.

[MacDougall]

you buddied me (trying to buddy a top civ, ey? classic baddie movie)

Sorry about the snip, but Ricochet, in your jokey rainbow list I'm pretty sure you have me as the only civ read and basically everybody else in the red. If for you this is a classic baddie move then what does it make it when you do it?

[a2thezebra]

Oh, and you said I put more effort in the early stages of THM? Let's take a look at my posts in Day 0 of THM. After all, it's only Night 0 here.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 3&sr=posts

SO MUCH EFFORT WHAT HAPPENED TO ME WHERE DID I GO WRONG

I don't know, I'm seeing more solid activity in there, as it is.

You questioned JJJ's low-activity claim.
You provided input on how the poll votes should develop.
You criticised a player for breaking a tie.
You lobbied yet again for players to vote a certain way.
You did rebuttal rounds with the abovementioned player whose low-activity claim you questioned.
You further oversaw how the poll options would be handled or turn out.

By contrast, here:

you posted the obligatory opening word
you buddied me (trying to buddy a top civ, ey? classic baddie movie)
you wailed about the quantity of N0 talk so far and your only dilemma was what the fuss about the options leading in the poll so far is

Oh, and you overreacted at me catching you.

I beg anyone to read my ISO both here and there and honestly tell me that they don't think Rico is twisting the crap out of both.

[Ricochet]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?

Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

I'm not faking anything. I asked you to explain, and you say I'm not bothering trying to understand. Que.

Tell me what your question "Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab?" addresses. Is it "should LoRab know that the Champies are designed by important roles from previous games"? Is it "should LoRab know that the five options in the polls are roles that five players have played in the past"? What is it?

Teeell meee.

[a2thezebra]

I get a rush of energy when I elaborate on what I believe to be opportunistic behavior. If you've seen me in any game ever for even a day, you know this. Doesn't mean I'm good, but it also doesn't mean you rustled anyone's jimmies. Get off your high horse. Nice continued lack of defense to a legitimate and shared suspicion by the way.

Surely you wouldn't be this adversarial off the bat if there wasn't an underlying intention. You are posting like a parody of yourself right now.

Dios mio, a warranted suspicion! You're still wrong however, quite often I am adversarial off the bat. In fact if I'm a parody of myself right now then I'm a parody of myself in every game I've ever played. Which might very well be the truth.

[Ricochet]

you buddied me (trying to buddy a top civ, ey? classic baddie movie)

Sorry about the snip, but Ricochet, in your jokey rainbow list I'm pretty sure you have me as the only civ read and basically everybody else in the red. If for you this is a classic baddie move then what does it make it when you do it?

I do it for the purpose of highlighting my green peek.

[Ricochet]

I get a rush of energy when I elaborate on what I believe to be opportunistic behavior. If you've seen me in any game ever for even a day, you know this. Doesn't mean I'm good, but it also doesn't mean you rustled anyone's jimmies. Get off your high horse. Nice continued lack of defense to a legitimate and shared suspicion by the way.

Surely you wouldn't be this adversarial off the bat if there wasn't an underlying intention. You are posting like a parody of yourself right now.

Dios mio, a warranted suspicion! You're still wrong however, quite often I am adversarial off the bat. In fact if I'm a parody of myself right now then I'm a parody of myself in every game I've ever played. Which might very well be the truth.

"Quite often I am adversarial off the bat".

First real post of the game:

"*buddies Ricochet*"

Heavy artilleries there, m8.

[MacDougall]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?

Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

I'm not faking anything. I asked you to explain, and you say I'm not bothering trying to understand. Que.

Tell me what your question "Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab?" addresses. Is it "should LoRab know that the Champies are designed by important roles from previous games"? Is it "should LoRab know that the five options in the polls are roles that five players have played in the past"? What is it?

Teeell meee.

I literally explained why I asked the question in the post you quoted Rico. I thought she was saying that she thought it possible that everyone was a role they were once before and by virtue of her having a role I'd assume she'd have the answer to that.

Do you even read posts before replying?

[a2thezebra]

I love how me outright saying that I'm buddying someone as a joke because I voted where they said would be a good place to vote is legitimate buddying.

Switching my vote to Watari, so it can go ahead in the polls to my benefit.

Although I wouldn't mind all of you voting Duncan, that would benefit me as well.

*buddies Ricochet*

[a2thezebra]

Everything else Rico mentioned in those in-depth ISO analyses is obvious bollocks even out of context.

[MacDougall]

Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.

[Ricochet]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?

Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

I'm not faking anything. I asked you to explain, and you say I'm not bothering trying to understand. Que.

Tell me what your question "Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab?" addresses. Is it "should LoRab know that the Champies are designed by important roles from previous games"? Is it "should LoRab know that the five options in the polls are roles that five players have played in the past"? What is it?

Teeell meee.

I literally explained why I asked the question in the post you quoted Rico. I thought she was saying that she thought it possible that everyone was a role they were once before and by virtue of her having a role I'd assume she'd have the answer to that.

Do you even read posts before replying?

I usually toss a coin whether I do or not.

Anyway, I don't think that's what she said. To me, and let me break it down:

-- she asked if the roles imported are winning roles from previous games
-- she wondered if the roles imported have other powers or alignments this time around
-- she asked if all the specific five roles in the poll were played by someone in this game, just like Boomslang rightfully claimed Watari and timmer rightfully claimed Xander

So judging from this, she can't have a priori knowledge of this herself, simply by the role she received. So I was right to not comprehend the meaning behind you questioning her if she has a role she did before, merely based on these points.

[a2thezebra]

The million-dollar question is...is it civ bullshitting or baddie bullshitting? Currently I'm very inclined towards the latter.

[Ricochet]

Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.

Speaking of which, you didn't answer if you are a role you've previously played before. 'cause that would mean either Duncan or, y'kno, that bad guy I caught bare-handed. I don't think Han Solo was implemented so quickly into these Champies. What were you in World Reborn?

My green light on you is losing its intensity, tbh.

[Ricochet]

I love how me outright saying that I'm buddying someone as a joke because I voted where they said would be a good place to vote is legitimate buddying.

Switching my vote to Watari, so it can go ahead in the polls to my benefit.

Although I wouldn't mind all of you voting Duncan, that would benefit me as well.

*buddies Ricochet*

I invited baddies to follow me in choosing an option with winning odds.

It's super effective, turns out.

[MacDougall]

I get a rush of energy when I elaborate on what I believe to be opportunistic behavior. If you've seen me in any game ever for even a day, you know this. Doesn't mean I'm good, but it also doesn't mean you rustled anyone's jimmies. Get off your high horse. Nice continued lack of defense to a legitimate and shared suspicion by the way.

Surely you wouldn't be this adversarial off the bat if there wasn't an underlying intention. You are posting like a parody of yourself right now.

Dios mio, a warranted suspicion! You're still wrong however, quite often I am adversarial off the bat. In fact if I'm a parody of myself right now then I'm a parody of myself in every game I've ever played. Which might very well be the truth.

You have not disputed my point. My question is whether you'd be so adversarial without having an underlying intention. My inference is that you and Rico are staging this debate.

I don't recall you being this immediately adversarial in Dune, or in Tree, or in West Wing. Where you waded into the game with a lot more jokes and a lot nicer outlook initially. Here you are down to business very fast. How far are we away from a Star Wars style Zebra ISO of every single player before half of them have made more than 1 post?

[Ricochet]

How far are we away from a Star Wars style Zebra ISO of every single player before half of them have made more than 1 post?

I should totally do this, to prove my civvieness.

[a2thezebra]

How far are we away from a Star Wars style Zebra ISO of every single player before half of them have made more than 1 post?

I should totally do this, to prove my civvieness.

[MacDougall]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?

Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

I'm not faking anything. I asked you to explain, and you say I'm not bothering trying to understand. Que.

Tell me what your question "Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab?" addresses. Is it "should LoRab know that the Champies are designed by important roles from previous games"? Is it "should LoRab know that the five options in the polls are roles that five players have played in the past"? What is it?

Teeell meee.

I literally explained why I asked the question in the post you quoted Rico. I thought she was saying that she thought it possible that everyone was a role they were once before and by virtue of her having a role I'd assume she'd have the answer to that.

Do you even read posts before replying?

I usually toss a coin whether I do or not.

Anyway, I don't think that's what she said. To me, and let me break it down:

-- she asked if the roles imported are winning roles from previous games
-- she wondered if the roles imported have other powers or alignments this time around
-- she asked if all the specific five roles in the poll were played by someone in this game, just like Boomslang rightfully claimed Watari and timmer rightfully claimed Xander

So judging from this, she can't have a priori knowledge of this herself, simply by the role she received. So I was right to not comprehend the meaning behind you questioning her if she has a role she did before, merely based on these points.

Holy shit you are digging yourself a hell of a hole Ricochet.

The simple fact of the matter is I read it the way I did, it's clear that she didn't mean it the way I read it. My question of her makes perfect sense when you read her post the way I read it, which if you read her post, is very very easy to read the way I read it. Now you are making a huge deal out of sweet fuck all.

Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.

Speaking of which, you didn't answer if you are a role you've previously played before. 'cause that would mean either Duncan or, y'kno, that bad guy I caught bare-handed. I don't think Han Solo was implemented so quickly into these Champies. What were you in World Reborn?

My green light on you is losing its intensity, tbh.

I am not a role I previously played before. I assumed that was obvious. My bad.

I was a self aligned survival, town jester, chaos cop fucking whackjob role named Smirk in World Reborn.

[a2thezebra]

I get a rush of energy when I elaborate on what I believe to be opportunistic behavior. If you've seen me in any game ever for even a day, you know this. Doesn't mean I'm good, but it also doesn't mean you rustled anyone's jimmies. Get off your high horse. Nice continued lack of defense to a legitimate and shared suspicion by the way.

Surely you wouldn't be this adversarial off the bat if there wasn't an underlying intention. You are posting like a parody of yourself right now.

Dios mio, a warranted suspicion! You're still wrong however, quite often I am adversarial off the bat. In fact if I'm a parody of myself right now then I'm a parody of myself in every game I've ever played. Which might very well be the truth.

You have not disputed my point. My question is whether you'd be so adversarial without having an underlying intention. My inference is that you and Rico are staging this debate.

I don't recall you being this immediately adversarial in Dune, or in Tree, or in West Wing. Where you waded into the game with a lot more jokes and a lot nicer outlook initially. Here you are down to business very fast. How far are we away from a Star Wars style Zebra ISO of every single player before half of them have made more than 1 post?

I kind of did dispute your point though, because if I'm this adversarial in every game where I have an underlying intention or not, then this game is no different. I see you still think this is unusual for me, so if your suspicion of me is strictly meta-based then my defense can only be meta-based as well. I'm nice until I see a reason not to be nice, that's it. It might not happen until Day 25, or in the more frequent cases, it happens before Day 2. In this case it's before Day 1.

[MacDougall]

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

[a2thezebra]

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

Would you like us to continue, master?

[Ricochet]

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

You must be blind (and I don't mean the character).

[MacDougall]

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

You must be blind (and I don't mean the character).

You literally stopped arguing as soon as I pointed out that I think your argument is contrived. So how am I blind?

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

Would you like us to continue, master?

So let me get this straight. You and Rico are in the throes of an epic war. I look at it cockeyed and call it contrived. You stop. I point out that you've stopped, which indicates that you really both aren't committed to your case, and you further that point by choosing to make a sarcastic swipe at me rather than continue what was moments ago a huge meat covered bone for you?

Lol you really are teammates.

[MacDougall]

Check out how both of their focuses have entirely shifted towards me since I started posting and off each other. Is that not a sign that their prior engagement was a load of baloni?

[MacDougall]

Now they're having along chat about this dilemma in their BTSC.

[Ricochet]

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

You must be blind (and I don't mean the character).

You literally stopped arguing as soon as I pointed out that I think your argument is contrived. So how am I blind?

That was like two minutes ago, so you're ignoring everything before that for your own convenience. I perfectly kept challenging zebra's activity, whilst he perfectly kept calling bullsuit on everything I say. Anyway, I can't focus on replying to different people with the same intensity.

linki: You're the one throwing darts incessantly, I've said my share with zebra in the meantime, whilst you were doing it. Man, it's like you're rusing someone and then shout at the crowd, "hey look, he's paying so much attention to me instead of doing anything else, hue".

I am not bad. Eye me all you want.

[Ricochet]

I usually toss a coin whether I do or not.

Anyway, I don't think that's what she said. To me, and let me break it down:

-- she asked if the roles imported are winning roles from previous games
-- she wondered if the roles imported have other powers or alignments this time around
-- she asked if all the specific five roles in the poll were played by someone in this game, just like Boomslang rightfully claimed Watari and timmer rightfully claimed Xander

So judging from this, she can't have a priori knowledge of this herself, simply by the role she received. So I was right to not comprehend the meaning behind you questioning her if she has a role she did before, merely based on these points.

Holy shit you are digging yourself a hell of a hole Ricochet.

The simple fact of the matter is I read it the way I did, it's clear that she didn't mean it the way I read it. My question of her makes perfect sense when you read her post the way I read it, which if you read her post, is very very easy to read the way I read it. Now you are making a huge deal out of sweet fuck all.

I'm honestly, genuinely confused by how you're spinning the perspective here. If it was clear to you what she meant, why did you ask her why she would say it?

[a2thezebra]

So let me get this straight.

Not when I'm involved, capiche?

You and Rico are in the throes of an epic war.

Yes.

I look at it cockeyed and call it contrived.

Yes.

You stop.

Yes.

I point out that you've stopped, which indicates that you really both aren't committed to your case, and you further that point by choosing to make a sarcastic swipe at me rather than continue what was moments ago a huge meat covered bone for you?

Fail fail fail fail fail. First of all, us stopping does not indicate that either of us aren't committed. I stopped because the last thing Ricochet responded to me with did not involve anything worth responding to. It wasn't even an accusation, it was just a comment about how he caught a baddie (me) by apparently getting me to vote for the option that will lead to my baddie downfall. Not exactly an epic war at that point. If Ricochet wants to give me something to actually respond to or at least dissect internally then I'll be happy to continue. My swipe at you was a point in its own, by the way. Not only do you not decide who should be fighting when, you also don't decide that the lack of a fight continuing is or isn't an indication that the fight was staged. Even if we were teammates, that's a weak reason to think so.

[a2thezebra]

I usually toss a coin whether I do or not.

Anyway, I don't think that's what she said. To me, and let me break it down:

-- she asked if the roles imported are winning roles from previous games
-- she wondered if the roles imported have other powers or alignments this time around
-- she asked if all the specific five roles in the poll were played by someone in this game, just like Boomslang rightfully claimed Watari and timmer rightfully claimed Xander

So judging from this, she can't have a priori knowledge of this herself, simply by the role she received. So I was right to not comprehend the meaning behind you questioning her if she has a role she did before, merely based on these points.

Holy shit you are digging yourself a hell of a hole Ricochet.

The simple fact of the matter is I read it the way I did, it's clear that she didn't mean it the way I read it. My question of her makes perfect sense when you read her post the way I read it, which if you read her post, is very very easy to read the way I read it. Now you are making a huge deal out of sweet fuck all.

I'm honestly, genuinely confused by how you're spinning the perspective here. If it was clear to you what she meant, why did you ask her why she would say it?

You're not a good liar, Rico. He said it's clear that she didn't mean it the way he read it. Meaning that at the time, it wasn't clear. Duh. Learn how to misrepresent people better please.

[MacDougall]

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

You must be blind (and I don't mean the character).

You literally stopped arguing as soon as I pointed out that I think your argument is contrived. So how am I blind?

That was like two minutes ago, so you're ignoring everything before that for your own convenience. I perfectly kept challenging zebra's activity, whilst he perfectly kept calling bullsuit on everything I say. Anyway, I can't focus on replying to different people with the same intensity.

linki: You're the one throwing darts incessantly, I've said my share with zebra in the meantime, whilst you were doing it. Man, it's like you're rusing someone and then shout at the crowd, "hey look, he's paying so much attention to me instead of doing anything else, hue".

I am not bad. Eye me all you want.

1. It was actually 20 minutes ago. That's more than enough time for you guys to have cast another stone or two at each other going by just how gee wilikers fired up at each other you dog gone were.

2. Everything before that is the reason I initially analysed your interactions as fake, so not in the slightest am I ignoring them.

3. Zebra is a she.

4. Really? You can't? Should I bother going to find examples to the contrary because I absolute bet I can. Probably from earlier in this thread even.

5. So now you say you WERE having an argument with her while I was doing it, you just said you can't, but now you're saying you did. You are so tied up you're a fucking eel, in the reeds man, an eel in the reads tied itself in a knot chasing the prawns. That's you you slippery eel.

[a2thezebra]

3. Zebra is a she.

Thanks Mac.

[Ricochet]

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

You must be blind (and I don't mean the character).

You literally stopped arguing as soon as I pointed out that I think your argument is contrived. So how am I blind?

That was like two minutes ago, so you're ignoring everything before that for your own convenience. I perfectly kept challenging zebra's activity, whilst he perfectly kept calling bullsuit on everything I say. Anyway, I can't focus on replying to different people with the same intensity.

linki: You're the one throwing darts incessantly, I've said my share with zebra in the meantime, whilst you were doing it. Man, it's like you're rusing someone and then shout at the crowd, "hey look, he's paying so much attention to me instead of doing anything else, hue".

I am not bad. Eye me all you want.

1. It was actually 20 minutes ago. That's more than enough time for you guys to have cast another stone or two at each other going by just how gee wilikers fired up at each other you dog gone were.

2. Everything before that is the reason I initially analysed your interactions as fake, so not in the slightest am I ignoring them.

3. Zebra is a she.

4. Really? You can't? Should I bother going to find examples to the contrary because I absolute bet I can. Probably from earlier in this thread even.

5. So now you say you WERE having an argument with her while I was doing it, you just said you can't, but now you're saying you did. You are so tied up you're a fucking eel, in the reeds man, an eel in the reads tied itself in a knot chasing the prawns. That's you you slippery eel.

1. Not if I'm busy in actual non-glued-to-the-laptop life. I was speaking metaphorically, anyway, we've been at it for an hour or so.

2. Well if you would have analysed them carefully, you would understand the reason why they went down in intensity. Zebra is confirmed caught, I have not much else to add.

3. Yeah, I was bound to mess that up sooner or later. My bad.

4. Go ahead.

5. I'm not an eel, I'm more of a raptor. Oh, wait, that's not your main point. I was having my intense argument with zebra back then, but I was having no real intense argument with you, except going over the issue with LoRab. That's not a hunt thing, the way I was hunting zebra down. Of course, I can multi-reply, I can't do case multi-rebuttals (I don't know the verb, or if there is one). Read some subtext, man.

[Ricochet]

What if...

!

What if Mac and Zebra are both bad, Zebra took the "I'll overreact the hell out of everything Rico accusses me off" out of self-preservation and Mac's taking the "oh look they're faking a fight" high-ground stance?

[MacDougall]

So let me get this straight.

Not when I'm involved, capiche?

You and Rico are in the throes of an epic war.

Yes.

I look at it cockeyed and call it contrived.

Yes.

You stop.

Yes.

I point out that you've stopped, which indicates that you really both aren't committed to your case, and you further that point by choosing to make a sarcastic swipe at me rather than continue what was moments ago a huge meat covered bone for you?

Fail fail fail fail fail. First of all, us stopping does not indicate that either of us aren't committed. I stopped because the last thing Ricochet responded to me with did not involve anything worth responding to. It wasn't even an accusation, it was just a comment about how he caught a baddie (me) by apparently getting me to vote for the option that will lead to my baddie downfall. Not exactly an epic war at that point. If Ricochet wants to give me something to actually respond to or at least dissect internally then I'll be happy to continue. My swipe at you was a point in its own, by the way. Not only do you not decide who should be fighting when, you also don't decide that the lack of a fight continuing is or isn't an indication that the fight was staged. Even if we were teammates, that's a weak reason to think so.

Why pink. You trying to make your points seem super important. This might as well be a day 1 ISO on every player, it's from the same cloth.

Zebra, I'm not deciding shit I am seeing what I believe to be a staged argument falling apart. What you have stated is exactly the same type of argument Dom has used in two games as scum to discredit me, misrepresenting me as trying to control the dialogue when I am expressing my read of the play.

I got a ping that your argument was contrived, based on your willingness to be nasty towards Ricochet who seemed to be playing the role of the sarcastic punching bag. It felt contrived. Once I get a ping like that, if I see other things that lend it credence I fucking pounce on them. You know that. You've seen it.

And even if I am wrong about it, I'm damn glad I'm rattling both your cages because you're both the kinds of players who need your damn cages rattled or you'll just coast your way to late game on the back of a huge post count.

And that sort of activity is definitely not beyond you. Don't think I've forgotten the fact that you bussed Enrique and Brian in Star Wars. You fuck with teammates hard.

[a2thezebra]

Zebra is confirmed caught, I have not much else to add.

I'm bad-reading you pretty damn hard right now and even I wouldn't go nearly as far as to call you "confirmed caught." Your feigned confidence is so transparent. Saying you already know Golden's role and all this gobbledy-gook here. I'm glad when I first called you out as faking it I put the word effort in seven quotation marks.

[Ricochet]

Zebra is confirmed caught, I have not much else to add.

I'm bad-reading you pretty damn hard right now and even I wouldn't go nearly as far as to call you "confirmed caught." Your feigned confidence is so transparent. Saying you already know Golden's role and all this gobbledy-gook here. I'm glad when I first called you out as faking it I put the word effort in seven quotation marks.

You should only confirm that I'm top civ and work on your concession speach instead, tbh.

[MacDougall]

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

You must be blind (and I don't mean the character).

You literally stopped arguing as soon as I pointed out that I think your argument is contrived. So how am I blind?

That was like two minutes ago, so you're ignoring everything before that for your own convenience. I perfectly kept challenging zebra's activity, whilst he perfectly kept calling bullsuit on everything I say. Anyway, I can't focus on replying to different people with the same intensity.

linki: You're the one throwing darts incessantly, I've said my share with zebra in the meantime, whilst you were doing it. Man, it's like you're rusing someone and then shout at the crowd, "hey look, he's paying so much attention to me instead of doing anything else, hue".

I am not bad. Eye me all you want.

1. It was actually 20 minutes ago. That's more than enough time for you guys to have cast another stone or two at each other going by just how gee wilikers fired up at each other you dog gone were.

2. Everything before that is the reason I initially analysed your interactions as fake, so not in the slightest am I ignoring them.

3. Zebra is a she.

4. Really? You can't? Should I bother going to find examples to the contrary because I absolute bet I can. Probably from earlier in this thread even.

5. So now you say you WERE having an argument with her while I was doing it, you just said you can't, but now you're saying you did. You are so tied up you're a fucking eel, in the reeds man, an eel in the reads tied itself in a knot chasing the prawns. That's you you slippery eel.

1. Not if I'm busy in actual non-glued-to-the-laptop life. I was speaking metaphorically, anyway, we've been at it for an hour or so.

2. Well if you would have analysed them carefully, you would understand the reason why they went down in intensity. Zebra is confirmed caught, I have not much else to add.

3. Yeah, I was bound to mess that up sooner or later. My bad.

4. Go ahead.

5. I'm not an eel, I'm more of a raptor. Oh, wait, that's not your main point. I was having my intense argument with zebra back then, but I was having no real intense argument with you, except going over the issue with LoRab. That's not a hunt thing, the way I was hunting zebra down. Of course, I can multi-reply, I can't do case multi-rebuttals (I don't know the verb, or if there is one). Read some subtext, man.

Mate if you're going to chip away at the ridiculous point about me misreading Lorab's post I'm going to call you out on every minor detail you slip up on. If you want to play that game with me you'll lose every time.

How exactly is Zebra confirmed caught, you'll need to refresh my memory on that?

Well thank you for sparing me having to do that by saying that yes in fact you can in the paragraph immediately beneath your attempt to call my bluff.

I actually checked it was literally exactly twenty minutes between you saying it was 2 and me saying your argument was contrived.

What if...

!

What if Mac and Zebra are both bad, Zebra took the "I'll overreact the hell out of everything Rico accusses me off" out of self-preservation and Mac's taking the "oh look they're faking a fight" high-ground stance?

The thing that makes me most certain that you are bad, is that you are so excellent and obvious when you are a civilian. Like, this is fucking just beyond weird. You must have starkly different quality scum games vs. civ games because I cannot see the civ that fucked with me so hard in TH here at all. I'm just seeing a floundering scum. How many times have you been scum before?

[Ricochet]

And even if I am wrong about it, I'm damn glad I'm rattling both your cages because you're both the kinds of players who need your damn cages rattled or you'll just coast your way to late game on the back of a huge post count.

Oh please, you exited THM with 500 posts and that was only halfway through the game. I had to survive a near lynch by then. Hardly coasting.

[MacDougall]

And even if I am wrong about it, I'm damn glad I'm rattling both your cages because you're both the kinds of players who need your damn cages rattled or you'll just coast your way to late game on the back of a huge post count.

Oh please, you exited THM with 500 posts and that was only halfway through the game. I had to survive a near lynch by then. Hardly coasting.

You also weren't scum in that game.

[a2thezebra]

So let me get this straight.

Not when I'm involved, capiche?

You and Rico are in the throes of an epic war.

Yes.

I look at it cockeyed and call it contrived.

Yes.

You stop.

Yes.

I point out that you've stopped, which indicates that you really both aren't committed to your case, and you further that point by choosing to make a sarcastic swipe at me rather than continue what was moments ago a huge meat covered bone for you?

Fail fail fail fail fail. First of all, us stopping does not indicate that either of us aren't committed. I stopped because the last thing Ricochet responded to me with did not involve anything worth responding to. It wasn't even an accusation, it was just a comment about how he caught a baddie (me) by apparently getting me to vote for the option that will lead to my baddie downfall. Not exactly an epic war at that point. If Ricochet wants to give me something to actually respond to or at least dissect internally then I'll be happy to continue. My swipe at you was a point in its own, by the way. Not only do you not decide who should be fighting when, you also don't decide that the lack of a fight continuing is or isn't an indication that the fight was staged. Even if we were teammates, that's a weak reason to think so.

Why pink. You trying to make your points seem super important.

What a bizarre thing to conclude. I decided to make my points pink because of the first point I made, and because I had to use SOME color to distinguish from your white text. Is that interpretation not over-thinkingy enough for you? Of course it isn't, and this is coming from someone who overthinks as well.

This might as well be a day 1 ISO on every player, it's from the same cloth.

???How???

Zebra, I'm not deciding shit I am seeing what I believe to be a staged argument falling apart. What you have stated is exactly the same type of argument Dom has used in two games as scum to discredit me, misrepresenting me as trying to control the dialogue when I am expressing my read of the play.

So I'm Dom now. Neat. How am I misrepresenting you? How am I controlling the dialogue? From my point of view I am seeing what I believe to be an unwarranted accusation and I'm calling it out for the meatless nonsense I believe it to be. Don't dish it if you can't take it.

I got a ping that your argument was contrived, based on your willingness to be nasty towards Ricochet who seemed to be playing the role of the sarcastic punching bag. It felt contrived. Once I get a ping like that, if I see other things that lend it credence I fucking pounce on them. You know that. You've seen it.

My willingness to be nasty pinged you? Have we met before?

And even if I am wrong about it, I'm damn glad I'm rattling both your cages because you're both the kinds of players who need your damn cages rattled or you'll just coast your way to late game on the back of a huge post count.

I have never "coasted" my way to late in the game as bad OR good. Not one game, ever. You know that. You've seen it.

And that sort of activity is definitely not beyond you. Don't think I've forgotten the fact that you bussed Enrique and Brian in Star Wars. You fuck with teammates hard.

That I do. So how do you explain to Rico that we're not teammates and I'm not fucking with you? When I'm bad I fuck with teammates, and I fuck with everyone else too. Don't start tunneling me based on your own misplaced observation please.

[a2thezebra]

Zebra is confirmed caught, I have not much else to add.

I'm bad-reading you pretty damn hard right now and even I wouldn't go nearly as far as to call you "confirmed caught." Your feigned confidence is so transparent. Saying you already know Golden's role and all this gobbledy-gook here. I'm glad when I first called you out as faking it I put the word effort in seven quotation marks.

You should only confirm that I'm top civ and work on your concession speach instead, tbh.

Did you mean confession or is this more dodging? Oh wait, it's dodging either way. Carry on.

[MacDougall]

I'm probably wrong about the staged fight because I feel like Zebra is quite legit aside from being strangely aggressive (I know... that's normal forher but it still seemed even too much for her at first glance) but her explanation for that and the other things I've mentioned has been thick, solid and tight.

Rico however.

[Ricochet]

Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.

You must be blind (and I don't mean the character).

You literally stopped arguing as soon as I pointed out that I think your argument is contrived. So how am I blind?

That was like two minutes ago, so you're ignoring everything before that for your own convenience. I perfectly kept challenging zebra's activity, whilst he perfectly kept calling bullsuit on everything I say. Anyway, I can't focus on replying to different people with the same intensity.

linki: You're the one throwing darts incessantly, I've said my share with zebra in the meantime, whilst you were doing it. Man, it's like you're rusing someone and then shout at the crowd, "hey look, he's paying so much attention to me instead of doing anything else, hue".

I am not bad. Eye me all you want.

1. It was actually 20 minutes ago. That's more than enough time for you guys to have cast another stone or two at each other going by just how gee wilikers fired up at each other you dog gone were.

2. Everything before that is the reason I initially analysed your interactions as fake, so not in the slightest am I ignoring them.

3. Zebra is a she.

4. Really? You can't? Should I bother going to find examples to the contrary because I absolute bet I can. Probably from earlier in this thread even.

5. So now you say you WERE having an argument with her while I was doing it, you just said you can't, but now you're saying you did. You are so tied up you're a fucking eel, in the reeds man, an eel in the reads tied itself in a knot chasing the prawns. That's you you slippery eel.

1. Not if I'm busy in actual non-glued-to-the-laptop life. I was speaking metaphorically, anyway, we've been at it for an hour or so.

2. Well if you would have analysed them carefully, you would understand the reason why they went down in intensity. Zebra is confirmed caught, I have not much else to add.

3. Yeah, I was bound to mess that up sooner or later. My bad.

4. Go ahead.

5. I'm not an eel, I'm more of a raptor. Oh, wait, that's not your main point. I was having my intense argument with zebra back then, but I was having no real intense argument with you, except going over the issue with LoRab. That's not a hunt thing, the way I was hunting zebra down. Of course, I can multi-reply, I can't do case multi-rebuttals (I don't know the verb, or if there is one). Read some subtext, man.

Mate if you're going to chip away at the ridiculous point about me misreading Lorab's post I'm going to call you out on every minor detail you slip up on. If you want to play that game with me you'll lose every time.

How exactly is Zebra confirmed caught, you'll need to refresh my memory on that?

Well thank you for sparing me having to do that by saying that yes in fact you can in the paragraph immediately beneath your attempt to call my bluff.

I actually checked it was literally exactly twenty minutes between you saying it was 2 and me saying your argument was contrived.

You did misread LoRab's post. You considered that she implied everyone is playing a role they've played before, and that she would know this by playing herself a role she played before, whereas she only asked if the five options on the poll are played by someone in here (the way Boomslang, Timmer AND YOURSELF confirmed, so far). Sounds like a misrepresentation to me.

Zebra is caught doing little to nothing, showing up with another slacker, in an effort to appear more engaged, and flipping the hell out at my astute observations of her baddieness.

What if...

!

What if Mac and Zebra are both bad, Zebra took the "I'll overreact the hell out of everything Rico accusses me off" out of self-preservation and Mac's taking the "oh look they're faking a fight" high-ground stance?

The thing that makes me most certain that you are bad, is that you are so excellent and obvious when you are a civilian. Like, this is fucking just beyond weird. You must have starkly different quality scum games vs. civ games because I cannot see the civ that fucked with me so hard in TH here at all. I'm just seeing a floundering scum. How many times have you been scum before?

Pure-blood mafia? 3 times, my record being 2-1.

Non-civvie anything, overall? 5 times, my record being 4-1.

You don't know what my meta baddie is, because you didn't join Syndicate yet.

[Ricochet]

Correction: five options on the poll were played by someone in here

[a2thezebra]

I'm strangely aggressive in this game yet 2 out of every 3 lengthy games, sometimes more than once in a single game, I've had to apologize for people taking what I say too seriously. Right. You should know Mac, I've apologized to you before with over three lengthy paragraphs, to which you didn't acknowledge.