The Syndicate

Enrique wrote:"She acted differently in a game where the circumstances were different." Well... okay. That leaves me with nothing.

What was it supposed to leave you with?

The point of the post was to disagree with TH giving a reason why SVS was civ. I disagree with that reason. There is no other point to the post but to say 'no, I don't agree that the self-vote means she is civ'.

Golden wrote: I don't see a self-vote as a baddie tell, but she was also fighting for the win of a team full of people who really care about winning, like tranq and Typh, in a team that had every chance of winning till the very end. She was always going to do everything in her power there. What if sabie says 'don't worry about it' and the third person is an absentee or something?

I do take your point, I hadn't seen SVS self-voted, but for me that isn't enough to say 'she definitely isn't bad'.

Eh. I don't think we ever had a realistic chance of winning after the juliets lynch followed by my kill backfiring. You guys came this close to finishing the game with a nearly complete team. We definitely tried to win, and we came closer than I expected, but we always knew the odds were stacked heavily against us. Hell, I remember us talking about trying to make a deal with Dom so that the civvies (mostly you) would not win the game. I'm glad we didn't do that because that would have made us look like gigantic fools

I also think you're overestimating how much I care about winning, but that's a different discussion.

In the end game phase, SVS' motivation had more to do with getting revenge on the people that killed MM. That just happened to be the other bad team.

That being said, I don't see baddie SVS here.

Turnip Head wrote:What I see is you making 12 on-topic posts yesterday, only one of which discusses who you are suspicious of, and you vote on the basis of post. Do you consider that to be thoughtful, considered and deliberate? I don't. You didn't wait to see other opinions on your case, you didn't wait for a response from your subject. You put the thought out there 4 hours before deadline and you voted on it. As town it behooves us to discuss our cases together and I don't see you partaking in those discussions. So your approach, to me, does not resemble the townie mindset - it looks like someone who wants to have an excuse to vote and who wants to get it over and done with as economically as possible. I don't think it is imprudent or unreasonable for me to find that approach suspicious.

I explained in my original post but I will do s again here for the sake of clarity. I am experiencing a high degree of frustration with this game and at one point had considered simply walking away. I was encouraged though by bea's comment about standing back and looking at things anew and that in so doing, it would give me a unique perspective on this game. Her post was subsequently endorsed by another player (can't remember who it was but I thought at the time it was someone whose opinions I respected). I spent a few hours that night looking things over and doing some analysis of MM's posts (that average of approximately 15 words/post was not a guess or a work of fiction). I was tired and thought I'd sleep on it and posted it the next morning in the first opportunity that I had. Granted, it would've been preferable to have posted it earlier but contrary to your assertion, the timing was NOT deliberate - it was simply a matter of circumstance. Which brings me to my next point:

Turnip Head wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:Let me tell you, your credibility with me (as an individual, unrelated to this game) has taken a serious blow as a consequence of this. Let me tell you what this says to me. It says that like other players here, you're always going to support the more experienced players here over someone newer like me. The fact is, it's easier to dismiss the arguments of a newer player over those to whom you've had a lot of game exposure.

I know this was directed at Golden but you allude to it being directed at other players as well, and it saddens me. I don't think Golden is on a witch-hunt against newer players and I don't think anyone else is either. On Day 3 I led a lynch against a player I've played with on-and-off for 8 years. On Day 4, 16 players voted to lynch the creator and administrator of the site. If people are finding you suspicious, it is not because you are a newer player, and suspicions toward you are not indicative of suspicions against all new players. I hope you don't truly feel this way.

You have (to a degree) misrepresented what I said in that post. I am NOT suggesting for a second that Golden or anyone else has a list of players in TS career order from lowest to highest and is methodically working their way down that list. What I am saying is that the more experienced group of players are always going to support the opinions of your fellows over the contributions of those who are new to this site. Don't bother denying it - it is demonstrably true! Look at my post from the last Day phase for example - the ONLY remark or comment that I recall having been made in relation to that was Golden's comment that he'd forgotten that MM was even playing (which incidentally was precisely my point). A night phase and half a day later, there's not been a single reference made to the content of my post other than to use the timing of it as an excuse to suspect me. If you find that my holding this view saddens you TH, know that it saddens me too. I understand why it is that way and I'm not saying it is deliberate but it IS frustrating and annoying.

I was intending to spend my Friday night revisiting my case and doing some analysis to refute the argument that my performance this game is similar to my Star Wars performance (and I'm confident that the facts would bear out the fact that it is not) but I have come to the conclusion that it would be a monumental waste of my time and the effort it would take. The truth is you guys are not listening. I feel like I'm screaming up against a waterfall of ego (and in some cases malice) and I simply don't have the energy.

... well it's not my fault you didn't correct yourself earlier.

Your post makes more sense with that in mind, but I still don't feel good about this.

Let me poke into SVS's headspace and see if I can sort out what she's doing.

I think what SVS wants to do at this point is stop playing a game she's not enjoying while also proving people wrong about her. Voting for herself and having her role revealed, if she's bad, only proves that people are right about her. This is not something I see SVS doing lightly, she's a competitive player, even moreso as a baddie.

Voting for herself and having her role revealed, if she's good, gets her out of the game and proves that people are wrong about her. This works to her benefit in future games where people can't use the same arguments against her, she can just point back to this game.

That's how I'm seeing it.

Enrique wrote:I actually don't think that's a terrible idea... I mean, at least it's more sensible than arbitrarily choosing what to share. They both went to Arkham and GCPD, so all Mafia know those. I'd be willing to share Arkham if it's fine by everyone.

Opinions on this, btw?

Glorfindel wrote:What I am saying is that the more experienced group of players are always going to support the opinions of your fellows over the contributions of those who are new to this site. Don't bother denying it - it is demonstrably true!

Well I will deny it, because it's not true. I support the things I agree with and I don't support the things I disagree with, and I encourage you to view my contributions in that light.

Glorfindel wrote:Look at my post from the last Day phase for example - the ONLY remark or comment that I recall having been made in relation to that was Golden's comment that he'd forgotten that MM was even playing (which incidentally was precisely my point). A night phase and half a day later, there's not been a single reference made to the content of my post other than to use the timing of it as an excuse to suspect me.

Could this be because of the point I made - that you didn't bring up this case until 4 hours before deadline, and you voted on it straightaway? That behavior, IMO, discourages people from discussing the content of your case. If you had brought it forward earlier or waited for input from others before voting, I might have responded to the content rather than the timing. The way you presented it affected how I treated it.

Enrique wrote:

Enrique wrote:I actually don't think that's a terrible idea... I mean, at least it's more sensible than arbitrarily choosing what to share. They both went to Arkham and GCPD, so all Mafia know those. I'd be willing to share Arkham if it's fine by everyone.

Opinions on this, btw?

I've already been to both of those places so I'm pretty apathetic about making it public.

Glorfindel wrote:the ONLY remark or comment that I recall having been made in relation to that was Golden's comment that he'd forgotten that MM was even playing (which incidentally was precisely my point).

It wasn't incidental, I think your point is well made, and MM warrants a good look.

sprityo wrote:I'm done talking to Dom, this is just getting me flustered and nowhere

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't think my points were all that.... personal? I guess?

Golden wrote:I just went and saw Dom's points. No, I don't think SVS reaction to Mac was manipulative. I think it was her being genuinely saddened at a role hint.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive events. I don't think SVS was maniacally manipulating the thread, but I think her more... out there reaction may be disappointment from a baddie point of view. I could also be wrong.

Dom wrote:

sprityo wrote:I'm done talking to Dom, this is just getting me flustered and nowhere

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't think my points were all that.... personal? I guess?

Golden wrote:I just went and saw Dom's points. No, I don't think SVS reaction to Mac was manipulative. I think it was her being genuinely saddened at a role hint.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive events. I don't think SVS was maniacally manipulating the thread, but I think her more... out there reaction may be disappointment from a baddie point of view. I could also be wrong.

I can understand that dom. She can be disappointed either way while her wording might look different or you might sense something different if it is disappointed AND baddie.

I've felt something is off about SVS all game. But, I'm also notoriously not great at reading her. Right now I think the argument she is sabies teammate just based on voting patterns is a good one. Typh, why do you feel you aren't seeing SVS baddie game?

Enrique wrote:

Enrique wrote:I actually don't think that's a terrible idea... I mean, at least it's more sensible than arbitrarily choosing what to share. They both went to Arkham and GCPD, so all Mafia know those. I'd be willing to share Arkham if it's fine by everyone.

Opinions on this, btw?

If Epi stated in the rules 'it was not in our best interests to share' and then he allowed all the mafia teams to share them amongst themselves and so have an advantage, I'd be disappointed, because it would obviously have been in the civilians best interests to share.

So, for now, I'm going with Epi wasn't trying to disadvantage the civs.

Hosts - can mafia share their findings from night polls amongst themselves?

Turnip Head wrote:Let me poke into SVS's headspace and see if I can sort out what she's doing.

I think what SVS wants to do at this point is stop playing a game she's not enjoying while also proving people wrong about her. Voting for herself and having her role revealed, if she's bad, only proves that people are right about her. This is not something I see SVS doing lightly, she's a competitive player, even moreso as a baddie.

Voting for herself and having her role revealed, if she's good, gets her out of the game and proves that people are wrong about her. This works to her benefit in future games where people can't use the same arguments against her, she can just point back to this game.

That's how I'm seeing it.

I came very close to doing that when she voted for me but instead I dumped my role hint and voted for sabie. Because I am a civ, and allowing myself to be lynched is letting down a whole bunch of people. Especially when there are alternatives. I think SVS wants you to think of it the way you are.

Golden wrote:

Enrique wrote:

Enrique wrote:I actually don't think that's a terrible idea... I mean, at least it's more sensible than arbitrarily choosing what to share. They both went to Arkham and GCPD, so all Mafia know those. I'd be willing to share Arkham if it's fine by everyone.

Opinions on this, btw?

If Epi stated in the rules 'it was not in our best interests to share' and then he allowed all the mafia teams to share them amongst themselves and so have an advantage, I'd be disappointed, because it would obviously have been in the civilians best interests to share.

So, for now, I'm going with Epi wasn't trying to disadvantage the civs.

Hosts - can mafia share their findings from night polls amongst themselves?

I think that's a crazy assumption to make. Why wouldn't they be able to talk about it amongst themselves? Having access to more information than the civilians is the raison d'être of the mafia.

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:

Enrique wrote:

Enrique wrote:I actually don't think that's a terrible idea... I mean, at least it's more sensible than arbitrarily choosing what to share. They both went to Arkham and GCPD, so all Mafia know those. I'd be willing to share Arkham if it's fine by everyone.

Opinions on this, btw?

If Epi stated in the rules 'it was not in our best interests to share' and then he allowed all the mafia teams to share them amongst themselves and so have an advantage, I'd be disappointed, because it would obviously have been in the civilians best interests to share.

So, for now, I'm going with Epi wasn't trying to disadvantage the civs.

Hosts - can mafia share their findings from night polls amongst themselves?

I think that's a crazy assumption to make. Why wouldn't they be able to talk about it amongst themselves? Having access to more information than the civilians is the raison d'être of the mafia.

Well, thats why I asked. I'm not really making that assumption, but I'd be disappointed if there is a rule of the game which favours particular factions, it doesn't really seem like epi to do that.

@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

Typhoony wrote:@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

You mean, like, the venting at Mac's role hint?

I will admit, TH's 'getting into SVS headspace' does ring true for SVS's view of the world.

Typhoony wrote:@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

So she wouldn't, but she would.

And who's to say she didn't?

Golden wrote:

Typhoony wrote:@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

You mean, like, the venting at Mac's role hint?

She vented earlier in the game about something as wel iirc.

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

So she wouldn't, but she would.

And who's to say she didn't?

Hello I'm Mac and I'm not gonna listen to people who know what they are talking about

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Let me poke into SVS's headspace and see if I can sort out what she's doing.

I think what SVS wants to do at this point is stop playing a game she's not enjoying while also proving people wrong about her. Voting for herself and having her role revealed, if she's bad, only proves that people are right about her. This is not something I see SVS doing lightly, she's a competitive player, even moreso as a baddie.

Voting for herself and having her role revealed, if she's good, gets her out of the game and proves that people are wrong about her. This works to her benefit in future games where people can't use the same arguments against her, she can just point back to this game.

That's how I'm seeing it.

I came very close to doing that when she voted for me but instead I dumped my role hint and voted for sabie. Because I am a civ, and allowing myself to be lynched is letting down a whole bunch of people. Especially when there are alternatives. I think SVS wants you to think of it the way you are.

I never said she acted rationally :P Civs make selfish decisions sometimes. But I doubt she'd leave it up to WIFOM, specifically I doubt she'd rely on me making that argument on her behalf, if she were bad.

Typhoony wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

So she wouldn't, but she would.

And who's to say she didn't?

Hello I'm Mac and I'm not gonna listen to people who know what they are talking about

Fuck I am so sick of this narrative. Oh you all know better because you have played together for years. Guess I better just not try. How did that work out for the ts players when LC was scum in Talking Heads. Meta knowledge is weakness because it can be exploited. If you just roll the fucking arm over and play with assumptions what's the point. All it takes is for a vet to play off meta in a scum role to win. Idiocy.

Also how is your response at all relevent to my point?

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

So she wouldn't, but she would.

And who's to say she didn't?

Hello I'm Mac and I'm not gonna listen to people who know what they are talking about

Fuck I am so sick of this narrative. Oh you all know better because you have played together for years. Guess I better just not try. How did that work out for the ts players when LC was scum in Talking Heads. Meta knowledge is weakness because it can be exploited. If you just roll the fucking arm over and play with assumptions what's the point. All it takes is for a vet to play off meta in a scum role to win. Idiocy.

Also how is your response at all relevent to my point?

Also known as how I won lots as scum in 2015.

Turnip Head wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Let me poke into SVS's headspace and see if I can sort out what she's doing.

I think what SVS wants to do at this point is stop playing a game she's not enjoying while also proving people wrong about her. Voting for herself and having her role revealed, if she's bad, only proves that people are right about her. This is not something I see SVS doing lightly, she's a competitive player, even moreso as a baddie.

Voting for herself and having her role revealed, if she's good, gets her out of the game and proves that people are wrong about her. This works to her benefit in future games where people can't use the same arguments against her, she can just point back to this game.

That's how I'm seeing it.

I came very close to doing that when she voted for me but instead I dumped my role hint and voted for sabie. Because I am a civ, and allowing myself to be lynched is letting down a whole bunch of people. Especially when there are alternatives. I think SVS wants you to think of it the way you are.

I never said she acted rationally :P Civs make selfish decisions sometimes. But I doubt she'd leave it up to WIFOM, specifically I doubt she'd rely on me making that argument on her behalf, if she were bad.

I didn't mean to infer you specifically. It seems to me that sharply off meta moves as Mafia encourages syndicate vets to pull the 'lol would never' defence.

I think you are right Mac.

Although when SVS pulls the 'I would never' defence... I mean I think she is pretty straight up and down with it and has proven to be so over a very long period of time. I think probably the same is true of me, because I'm more personally invested in people trusting me as civ than I am in people trusting me when bad.

But, with SVS, what I can think of in terms of her "I would nevers" transcend affiliation. I'm not sure I buy into "SVS would never [blank] when bad".

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

So she wouldn't, but she would.

And who's to say she didn't?

Hello I'm Mac and I'm not gonna listen to people who know what they are talking about

Fuck I am so sick of this narrative. Oh you all know better because you have played together for years. Guess I better just not try. How did that work out for the ts players when LC was scum in Talking Heads. Meta knowledge is weakness because it can be exploited. If you just roll the fucking arm over and play with assumptions what's the point. All it takes is for a vet to play off meta in a scum role to win. Idiocy.

Also how is your response at all relevent to my point?

OK...I feel like crap and I'm a bit drugged, so I'm just going to say what I'm thinking.

Dude--yes, you have a way of playing, but so do others. You are not better at the game than everyone else. Neither is anyone else. You do not have the corner on knowledge. Neither do we. But there is no reason to insult others for the way that they play. Or for relying on the information that they know. Stop being so condescending towards everyone else every time you don't agree with someone. Just say you disagree. It's not that hard.

You don't have to insult people or tell them that their way of thinking is wrong. It doesn't work that way. And it makes the game less fun.

Look she hasn't even been the one to say it, others are saying it for her. That's just making it easy if she is you know. Make her lie about it if she is. See if there's a tell in her explanations.

At any rate like, Typhoony's point of "maybe a little but mostly in the BTSC" doesn't even exclude the possibility of that being the case. It's not like her reaction revealed all in the thread. It was like 3 or 4 posts.

And what if she has no btsc partners left? Who's she gonna vent to then? Air?

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

So she wouldn't, but she would.

And who's to say she didn't?

Hello I'm Mac and I'm not gonna listen to people who know what they are talking about

Fuck I am so sick of this narrative. Oh you all know better because you have played together for years. Guess I better just not try. How did that work out for the ts players when LC was scum in Talking Heads. Meta knowledge is weakness because it can be exploited. If you just roll the fucking arm over and play with assumptions what's the point. All it takes is for a vet to play off meta in a scum role to win. Idiocy.

Also how is your response at all relevent to my point?

OK...I feel like crap and I'm a bit drugged, so I'm just going to say what I'm thinking.

Dude--yes, you have a way of playing, but so do others. You are not better at the game than everyone else. Neither is anyone else. You do not have the corner on knowledge. Neither do we. But there is no reason to insult others for the way that they play. Or for relying on the information that they know. Stop being so condescending towards everyone else every time you don't agree with someone. Just say you disagree. It's not that hard.

You don't have to insult people or tell them that their way of thinking is wrong. It doesn't work that way. And it makes the game less fun.

Am I taking crazy pills or are you criticising me for what Typhoony just did to me.

Point out where I said:

1. I am better than others at the game.
2. I have the corner on knowledge.
3. I insulted others for the way they play.

Then I'll be happy to apologise for it. You cannot begin to understand how frustrating it is when so many arguments I make get argued by OTHER people "nah that's not how they plan when Mafia"...

Okay then if that's the case I'll just sit here and let you guys find the bad guys. What's the point of me even playing?

Mac, please don't do that.

juliets wrote:Mac, please don't do that.

Do what? Be a sarcastic jerk?

MacDougall wrote:

juliets wrote:Mac, please don't do that.

Do what? Be a sarcastic jerk?

She means stop trying to find baddies, jerk!

It's one thing to refute it with... just so you know svs plays like this but 'my name is mac and i am a doo doo head' is just irritating.

Why don't we do GTH? Seems a good time for it.

MacDougall wrote:

juliets wrote:Mac, please don't do that.

Do what? Be a sarcastic jerk?

No, please don't just sit back and not play.

To be fair, I think people get caught up in Mac's tone (I do too, sometimes). It can come across as condescending at times. But Mac is right that he is being criticised for not taking on board meta, but he is giving a good reason for why meta shouldn't be seen as the holy grail. And I think he is right. And I think he has the best of intentions. Best to read and think about what he is saying before making tone-based judgments.

@Mac - I'm in for GTH. I've been thinking of doing a rainbow list too.

Who wants to do GTH with us? I am on my phone though if someone else can manage it.

Damn, where is that slacker MP when you need him

juliets wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

juliets wrote:Mac, please don't do that.

Do what? Be a sarcastic jerk?

No, please don't just sit back and not play.

Lol ok.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

So she wouldn't, but she would.

And who's to say she didn't?

Hello I'm Mac and I'm not gonna listen to people who know what they are talking about

Fuck I am so sick of this narrative. Oh you all know better because you have played together for years. Guess I better just not try. How did that work out for the ts players when LC was scum in Talking Heads. Meta knowledge is weakness because it can be exploited. If you just roll the fucking arm over and play with assumptions what's the point. All it takes is for a vet to play off meta in a scum role to win. Idiocy.

Also how is your response at all relevent to my point?

OK...I feel like crap and I'm a bit drugged, so I'm just going to say what I'm thinking.

Dude--yes, you have a way of playing, but so do others. You are not better at the game than everyone else. Neither is anyone else. You do not have the corner on knowledge. Neither do we. But there is no reason to insult others for the way that they play. Or for relying on the information that they know. Stop being so condescending towards everyone else every time you don't agree with someone. Just say you disagree. It's not that hard.

You don't have to insult people or tell them that their way of thinking is wrong. It doesn't work that way. And it makes the game less fun.

Am I taking crazy pills or are you criticising me for what Typhoony just did to me.

Point out where I said:

1. I am better than others at the game.
2. I have the corner on knowledge.
3. I insulted others for the way they play.

Then I'll be happy to apologise for it. You cannot begin to understand how frustrating it is when so many arguments I make get argued by OTHER people "nah that's not how they plan when Mafia"...

Okay then if that's the case I'll just sit here and let you guys find the bad guys. What's the point of me even playing?

In this post alone, by calling others' comments idocy, number 3.

1 and 2 are implied by "meta knowledge is weakness."

I don't have the energy to go through other of your posts to find other examples. But they are rampant.

No, it's not. It's just a different category of knoweldge.

We can know about people we've been playing with for years because we know about their ethics--which is larger than game style. I know that there are some things that some players just won't do. Not because it's not their style, but because it's a personal rule that their integrity won't allow to be broken. By scoffing at that knowledge, you insult the way that others play.

And the point of playing is to put ideas out there and see what others think of the and come to conclusions. We all come up with ideas that are refuted. And sometimes we think things different from others. I don't see people insulting the way you play the game--just disagreeing with points at times. If theories that have holes in them based on other pieces of knowledge aren't refuted, then don't we all lose out because of incomplete information?

I'm not saying to not come up with ideas. I'm just saying to stop insulting other people and having an air of condescension in your posts. It makes it harder to want to read what you have to say.

linkitis: I'm not saying we shouldn't consider non-meta. But when someone brings up meta, it also shouldn't be thrown out and called idiocy.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

So she wouldn't, but she would.

And who's to say she didn't?

Hello I'm Mac and I'm not gonna listen to people who know what they are talking about

Fuck I am so sick of this narrative. Oh you all know better because you have played together for years. Guess I better just not try. How did that work out for the ts players when LC was scum in Talking Heads. Meta knowledge is weakness because it can be exploited. If you just roll the fucking arm over and play with assumptions what's the point. All it takes is for a vet to play off meta in a scum role to win. Idiocy.

Also how is your response at all relevent to my point?

OK...I feel like crap and I'm a bit drugged, so I'm just going to say what I'm thinking.

Dude--yes, you have a way of playing, but so do others. You are not better at the game than everyone else. Neither is anyone else. You do not have the corner on knowledge. Neither do we. But there is no reason to insult others for the way that they play. Or for relying on the information that they know. Stop being so condescending towards everyone else every time you don't agree with someone. Just say you disagree. It's not that hard.

You don't have to insult people or tell them that their way of thinking is wrong. It doesn't work that way. And it makes the game less fun.

Am I taking crazy pills or are you criticising me for what Typhoony just did to me.

Point out where I said:

1. I am better than others at the game.
2. I have the corner on knowledge.
3. I insulted others for the way they play.

Then I'll be happy to apologise for it. You cannot begin to understand how frustrating it is when so many arguments I make get argued by OTHER people "nah that's not how they plan when Mafia"...

Okay then if that's the case I'll just sit here and let you guys find the bad guys. What's the point of me even playing?

In this post alone, by calling others' comments idocy, number 3.

1 and 2 are implied by "meta knowledge is weakness."

I don't have the energy to go through other of your posts to find other examples. But they are rampant.

No, it's not. It's just a different category of knoweldge.

We can know about people we've been playing with for years because we know about their ethics--which is larger than game style. I know that there are some things that some players just won't do. Not because it's not their style, but because it's a personal rule that their integrity won't allow to be broken. By scoffing at that knowledge, you insult the way that others play.

And the point of playing is to put ideas out there and see what others think of the and come to conclusions. We all come up with ideas that are refuted. And sometimes we think things different from others. I don't see people insulting the way you play the game--just disagreeing with points at times. If theories that have holes in them based on other pieces of knowledge aren't refuted, then don't we all lose out because of incomplete information?

I'm not saying to not come up with ideas. I'm just saying to stop insulting other people and having an air of condescension in your posts. It makes it harder to want to read what you have to say.

linkitis: I'm not saying we shouldn't consider non-meta. But when someone brings up meta, it also shouldn't be thrown out and called idiocy.

At this moment, I would not vote for SVS. I made a claim in a recent game that SVS would get defensive and emotional as a baddie, but that turned out to be false. I realized then that she's more likely to do such a thing as a civilian.

Yeah, I agree with that, LoRab. With SVS, you can rely on many of her 'I will never' because they come from an ethical perspective. There is a difference between 'meta' and 'ethics'.

But I don't think things like how much SVS vents in the thread, or her self vote, fit in to the category of ethical standards. They are much more nebulous questions of meta.

MovingPictures07 wrote:All, just a warning, but my involvement going forward will be unpredictable, and I'll get to your questions as soon as I can. But I just had the most epic of meltdowns in Llama's Rocky game and the last thing I feel like doing in the remote future is playing forum mafia, and I have lots to accomplish today. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks in advance for understanding. I'll be sure to at least try to address everything asked of me before this lynch is over, even if very briefly.

Tally of people hugging MP = 2.

go go go!!!

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:@ Golden: baddie SVS does not vent in the thread. Maybe a little bit, but she would keep most if not all of it in the chat.

So she wouldn't, but she would.

And who's to say she didn't?

Hello I'm Mac and I'm not gonna listen to people who know what they are talking about

Fuck I am so sick of this narrative. Oh you all know better because you have played together for years. Guess I better just not try. How did that work out for the ts players when LC was scum in Talking Heads. Meta knowledge is weakness because it can be exploited. If you just roll the fucking arm over and play with assumptions what's the point. All it takes is for a vet to play off meta in a scum role to win. Idiocy.

Also how is your response at all relevent to my point?

OK...I feel like crap and I'm a bit drugged, so I'm just going to say what I'm thinking.

Dude--yes, you have a way of playing, but so do others. You are not better at the game than everyone else. Neither is anyone else. You do not have the corner on knowledge. Neither do we. But there is no reason to insult others for the way that they play. Or for relying on the information that they know. Stop being so condescending towards everyone else every time you don't agree with someone. Just say you disagree. It's not that hard.

You don't have to insult people or tell them that their way of thinking is wrong. It doesn't work that way. And it makes the game less fun.

Am I taking crazy pills or are you criticising me for what Typhoony just did to me.

Point out where I said:

1. I am better than others at the game.
2. I have the corner on knowledge.
3. I insulted others for the way they play.

Then I'll be happy to apologise for it. You cannot begin to understand how frustrating it is when so many arguments I make get argued by OTHER people "nah that's not how they plan when Mafia"...

Okay then if that's the case I'll just sit here and let you guys find the bad guys. What's the point of me even playing?

In this post alone, by calling others' comments idocy, number 3.

1 and 2 are implied by "meta knowledge is weakness."

I don't have the energy to go through other of your posts to find other examples. But they are rampant.

No, it's not. It's just a different category of knoweldge.

We can know about people we've been playing with for years because we know about their ethics--which is larger than game style. I know that there are some things that some players just won't do. Not because it's not their style, but because it's a personal rule that their integrity won't allow to be broken. By scoffing at that knowledge, you insult the way that others play.

And the point of playing is to put ideas out there and see what others think of the and come to conclusions. We all come up with ideas that are refuted. And sometimes we think things different from others. I don't see people insulting the way you play the game--just disagreeing with points at times. If theories that have holes in them based on other pieces of knowledge aren't refuted, then don't we all lose out because of incomplete information?

I'm not saying to not come up with ideas. I'm just saying to stop insulting other people and having an air of condescension in your posts. It makes it harder to want to read what you have to say.

linkitis: I'm not saying we shouldn't consider non-meta. But when someone brings up meta, it also shouldn't be thrown out and called idiocy.

Do you think I would have responded the way I did if Typhoony didn't speak to me the way he did? This is not the schoolyard. If someone wants to take a crack at me it's fair game. I haven't insulted you. Everyone I get snippy with deserves it, except Matt. I just do that because I am a heartless bully.

I'm not only considering SVS's meta when I make a read of her, I'm factoring in my perception of her tone as well. That's a much harder thing to quantify and it's easier to argue the meta factors that coincide with my overall read. I tried to do the same thing when I defended MP earlier but at the end of the day people went with their own judgments.

Suspect her if you want, Mac, I'm not saying that you can't. I simply don't agree and think she's a bad choice to lynch today.

Golden wrote:Tally of people hugging MP = 2.

go go go!!!

Here, have a hug.

What's the word on SVS/sabie being teammates? Golden, I saw you mention something about that.

I'm Typhoony and hoink doink ding dong hehehe