Page 14 of 52
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:15 pm
by Golden
In this case, I don't think you are in the PoE any more personally, but lets say you were firmly in the PoE, and your death DID prove of great help, because the PoE included all baddies and you helped reduce the pool of potential people it could be, and so therefore in dying you helped the town win... isn't that the point of being town?
If I had been lynched in the champs finale I would have been perfectly fine with that, because I could see that I was in the PoE (although, by the end, I seemed to have worked my way out of it).
@rico - so you don't think there is any objective evidence that sloonei and epi are probably not bad?
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:19 pm
by Golden
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My definition of a "PoE" is perhaps less restrictive than yours. I don't believe these people are objectively cleared, but for the purposes of Day 2 investigation I am willing to focus elsewhere for mafia suspects.
It's not that they are objectively 100% cleared, but it is that the chances of them being bad are objectively substantially reduced through their interactions. I do think it is possible for people to rejoin the PoE later.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:21 pm
by Ricochet
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Rico, you have a right to disagree about any strategic mindset. If you can't, however, explain why my mindset makes me suspicious -- then who cares? What is your point? Your vote is on me, which suggests you suspect me. So great: show me why my this mindset I am conveying is a mafia-aligned mindset. If you think it's stupid that's meaningless. Maybe it is. But why is it suspicious?
Golden wrote:@rico - so you don't think there is any objective evidence that sloonei and epi are probably not bad?
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:23 pm
by Golden
Meh, I really can't be bothered pointing you to things that a) have already been said in the thread several times and that you are well aware of and b) that you only want to attack as 'not being objective' to try to prove your point and 'win the argument'. I've got enough to do with my time. You can take whatever view you want, I'm not going to change your mind through a whole lot of work.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:24 pm
by Golden
And besides, I'd rather catch baddies than get into semantic arguments with you, when Jay hit the nail on the head - the crux of this is about why you continue to find Jay suspicious for something that you've had several people tell you is a normal town viewpoint.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:25 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Ricochet wrote:
No, it didn't. I acknowledge that my ISO is not pristine. That's life, unfortunately. I answered to it as much as I could already.
Ricochet wrote:
Do I look like I'm hiding from
anything? If I want to "cover myself", I don't have to talk about this at all. It's my topic. I asked you the question. I am the interrogator, not the interrogated.
I don't think you're mafia so I'm going to shut this down now. If we eliminate three baddies and the game isn't over, maybe I'll return to it.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:25 pm
by Golden
I agree with Jay's PoE. I think the remainder of the baddies are probably in that pool of 5. I strongly think Quin is one.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:29 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
I am sitting on a Quin/INH dichotomy. I would like to see those two fight each other in a battle royale while I spectate and decide my perspective. Like Caesar.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:34 pm
by Golden
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am sitting on a Quin/INH dichotomy.
Sounds like a pain in the ass.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:35 pm
by Ricochet
Golden wrote:Meh, I really can't be bothered pointing you to things that a) have already been said in the thread several times and that you are well aware of and b) that you only want to attack as 'not being objective' to try to prove your point and 'win the argument'. I've got enough to do with my time. You can take whatever view you want, I'm not going to change your mind through a whole lot of work.
Golden wrote:I agree with Jay's PoE. I think the remainder of the baddies are probably in that pool of 5. I strongly think Quin is one.
Golden wrote: the crux of this is about why you continue to find Jay suspicious for something that you've had several people tell you is a normal town viewpoint.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:38 pm
by Golden
You are certainly role playing Trump very well.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Night 1
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:07 pm
by Quin
Sloonei wrote:@ Quin, I did vote for Scotty after you. I voted for yu, went to work, came home and changed my vote for Scotty. Then when I woke up in the morning INH had cast a vote for Scotty and tried to 100% of the responsibility for his vote on me and set me up to be a baddie if Scotty flipped town. That set off every alarm in my head, so I made a last-second push against him.
But the part of your former suspicion against me that I don't understand is why you think I would have been trying to set you up for a lynch as a scum tactic. That would require me to look at the thread as a bad guy and say "I need to focus all my energy on Quin." That's not a viable scim strategy. When I'm scum I want to leave myself open to all sorts of options. This means doing the opposite of what I did in this game.
I don't know what you would do when you're scum, because we haven't played together in a game where you were scum in a very long time. What I'm getting at here, is that obviously someone was going to get lynched come EoD, and from everything that I'd surmised up to that point that your strategy was:
1) Use Scotty's response to your goading as a trigger to vote for me
2) Fall back onto someone else when I opposed it
You say that you have preferences in your scum strategy, but it's not always going to work out that way, so it doesn't really mean a lot to me.
If you voted for Scotty, my points in favor of you being bad still apply (whether you understand them or not), but as I said, there is a very low chance of you two being teammates.
Out of curiousity, can you give me the post where you think he's trying to put blame on you prematurely? What does it mean for INH now knowing Scotty was bad?
This reminds me, I need to elaborate on my read for INH. I'll put that on the agenda.
---
I'm catching up, as you can see.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:09 pm
by Quin
Ricochet wrote:Golden wrote:Meh, I really can't be bothered pointing you to things that a) have already been said in the thread several times and that you are well aware of and b) that you only want to attack as 'not being objective' to try to prove your point and 'win the argument'. I've got enough to do with my time. You can take whatever view you want, I'm not going to change your mind through a whole lot of work.
Golden wrote:I agree with Jay's PoE. I think the remainder of the baddies are probably in that pool of 5. I strongly think Quin is one.
Golden wrote: the crux of this is about why you continue to find Jay suspicious for something that you've had several people tell you is a normal town viewpoint.
Ahuh.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:32 pm
by Ricochet
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:37 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Rico, your sarcasm doesn't help anyone. Vote according to your suspicions, and make your case. If you suspect someone that other people don't suspect, nobody said you're not allowed to promote that suspicion.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:38 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Ricochet wrote:
And this is quite indicative that you either don't understand what we're saying at all, or you're pretending not to.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Night 1
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:39 pm
by Sloonei
Quin wrote:Sloonei wrote:@ Quin, I did vote for Scotty after you. I voted for yu, went to work, came home and changed my vote for Scotty. Then when I woke up in the morning INH had cast a vote for Scotty and tried to 100% of the responsibility for his vote on me and set me up to be a baddie if Scotty flipped town. That set off every alarm in my head, so I made a last-second push against him.
But the part of your former suspicion against me that I don't understand is why you think I would have been trying to set you up for a lynch as a scum tactic. That would require me to look at the thread as a bad guy and say "I need to focus all my energy on Quin." That's not a viable scim strategy. When I'm scum I want to leave myself open to all sorts of options. This means doing the opposite of what I did in this game.
I don't know what you would do when you're scum, because we haven't played together in a game where you were scum in a very long time. What I'm getting at here, is that obviously someone was going to get lynched come EoD, and from everything that I'd surmised up to that point that your strategy was:
1) Use Scotty's response to your goading as a trigger to vote for me
2) Fall back onto someone else when I opposed it
You say that you have preferences in your scum strategy, but it's not always going to work out that way, so it doesn't really mean a lot to me.
If you voted for Scotty, my points in favor of you being bad still apply (whether you understand them or not), but as I said, there is a very low chance of you two being teammates.
Out of curiousity, can you give me the post where you think he's trying to put blame on you prematurely? What does it mean for INH now knowing Scotty was bad?
This reminds me, I need to elaborate on my read for INH. I'll put that on the agenda.
---
I'm catching up, as you can see.
You're in for doozy soon in your ketchup. I suppose I don't need to keep responding to your case against me since you no longer stand by it. I appreciate that explanations though.
And this is the INH post that prompted me to change my vote:
insertnamehere wrote:I'm going to throw my vote onto the Scotty bonfire. Him and Sloonei are probably my two most suspicious people at this point, and I'm willing to give Sloonei a chance to earn my trust here. Plus I really don't like the Leetic bandwagon, so helping to derail that is a nice bonus.
At the time it looked to me like he was anticipating a town flip on Scotty to then spin against me. Now that things have happened and I've settled down a bit it does not look quite as bad, though Scotty's delayed scum flip does leave some room for doubt. It's possible his role was supposed to remain concealed but something triggered the full reveal during the night, for instance. Or INH is just a townie and he truly suspected Scotty and me.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:40 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Sloonei, does this mean anything to you?
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:insertnamehere wrote:I side more with Epi and Rico than JJJ and Scotty, although I do agree with No True Scotsman that Sloonei has been pushing Quin a wee bit too hard for my liking.
insertnamehere wrote:I'm going to throw my vote onto the Scotty bonfire. Him and Sloonei are probably my two most suspicious people at this point, and I'm willing to give Sloonei a chance to earn my trust here. Plus I really don't like the Leetic bandwagon, so helping to derail that is a nice bonus.
I've already talked about the second post. The first post is questionable in that he generates two arbitrary pairs: Epignosis/Ricochet and Scotty/JJJ. Epi and Rico haven't operated with a great deal of overlap to my memory, in terms of what they've decided to talk about in this thread. Scotty and I weren't really on the same side of any particular argument either other than leetic. INH did feel it was specifically necessary to say something nice about Scotty though alongside the shade, which featured a gripe about Sloonei.
So this means he agreed with Scotty on a negative point about Sloonei. This is significant because in the second post, he sided with Sloonei against Scotty. That might be a red flag.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:41 pm
by Sloonei
I need to leave this thread for the night now. Other Game needs my attention. I feel like this thread has stagnated as the same handful of players dominate the discussion, and I've already got pretty solid reads on everyone here. I need to start hearing from the other folks soon. The more the merrier.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:48 pm
by Sloonei
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Sloonei, does this mean anything to you?
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:insertnamehere wrote:I side more with Epi and Rico than JJJ and Scotty, although I do agree with No True Scotsman that Sloonei has been pushing Quin a wee bit too hard for my liking.
insertnamehere wrote:I'm going to throw my vote onto the Scotty bonfire. Him and Sloonei are probably my two most suspicious people at this point, and I'm willing to give Sloonei a chance to earn my trust here. Plus I really don't like the Leetic bandwagon, so helping to derail that is a nice bonus.
I've already talked about the second post. The first post is questionable in that he generates two arbitrary pairs: Epignosis/Ricochet and Scotty/JJJ. Epi and Rico haven't operated with a great deal of overlap to my memory, in terms of what they've decided to talk about in this thread. Scotty and I weren't really on the same side of any particular argument either other than leetic. INH did feel it was specifically necessary to say something nice about Scotty though alongside the shade, which featured a gripe about Sloonei.
So this means he agreed with Scotty on a negative point about Sloonei. This is significant because in the second post, he sided with Sloonei against Scotty. That might be a red flag.
These posts came almost 24 hours apart, and I always advocate for townies being allowed to change their minds in light of new developments. The problem is when townies don't telegraph or demonstrate any changes of mind. That makes it more difficult to track their thought processes. Which is a long way of saying I don't know what to make of this. It's entirely possible things changed in INH's mind in that time, or it's possible he was just pouncing on the opportunity to bus a partner.
I did object to the first post when he first made it. I was unsure what he was referring to when he claim that Scotty said I was pushing too hard on Quin, and I'm still not sure where he got that from. I don't remember such a claim from Scotty.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Night 1
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:48 pm
by Quin
Sloonei wrote:Quin wrote:I'd like to know exactly what you don't understand, what I've mistaken, what we're miscommunicating, because writing this is giving me a headache and I'm not sure whether anything I've just said to you is even relevant.
This where you are losing me:
Quin wrote:His suspicion of a townie had nothing to do with it. It was how he approached his suspicion that I found hollow.
I get that something about the way I handled things with Scotty made you think I'm bad.
Here you suggest that I was basing my vote on you off of Scotty's actions, but I think I explained how that was not the case in
this post. I had started to form a scum read against you before any of the business with Scotty started, but I did not say anything about this because I wanted to see if he was able to substantiate his own read. He was not. I would not have pursued this angle in the first place if it were not for my pre-existing read on you.
But then in
this post your reason, or at least your wording of it changes:
Quin wrote:I'm leaving my vote where it is. I'm of the opinion that Sloonei was attempting to set me up as the Day 1 lynch with baddie intentions and fell back onto Scotty when I resisted it and he became the center of attention.
Whereas before I was suspicious for basing a vote for you off of Scotty's actions. Now it's a full-blown conspiracy of mine to turn the lynch on you. In spite of my attempt to debunk your theory, you've gone and escalated it to a more extreme level. This would be one thing if you had engaged in any sort of a discussion about my defense, but you did no such thing. You never acknowledged my response at all, and that is a bad look. It suggests to me that you were unwilling to engage in a true analysis of your case.
And then came
this chain of posts where your responses covered only the most basic elements of Mafia Strategy 101, and did nothing to further explain your suspicion (which, as it stood, was that I was trying to get you lynched by making Scotty look bad. If you remember, at some point yesterday I mentioned that I had not suspected you for a while. I brought this up because, at the time, it appeared your suspicion against me was still being based on the belief that I was trying to get you lynched.)
I understand you better
in your most recent post about the case. I do not necessarily think it matches the reality of events from my perspective. I left my vote on you at first because I was genuinely suspicious. It stayed on you longer than it should have, but only because I was at work the whole night. I changed it to Scotty as soon as I got home, because I was genuinely suspicious of him. It later changed to INH.
After going through all of this I am left feeling more like I understand where you were coming from, but I also think I have identified where the source of the confusion was for me; you never engaged with my side of the argument. You continued to express your theory that I was trying to set up a lynch against you without ever responding to my counter-arguments. And that is one reason why I am currently voting for you.
I spent about half an hour doing this and NOW you tell me you don't want it?!??
Take it anyway
I'm trying to cover my bases as much as I can. With that said, I want to put us on that wavelength that I think we should be on, so I want to appease you as much as you want to read me.
Let me respond in order of your hyperlinks:
1/2) While it's probably not a great look to use a baddies posts to argue my case, I agreed with Scotty when he said this:
By answering with "same as you" you are affirming that I am reading him bad because 'I can't remember what he said'. But then you come in backing it up after the fact, like you had a reason initially, you just lied about it.
It's Like me saying now that I'm suspicious of Quin because he killed my cat...I just chose not to mention that in my initial read.
Furthermore, I contested one of the posts that you suggested were suspicious, which you didn't respond to. The second was a fair cop, but what I was getting at in that post was that I was saying 'I understand why you would find that post suspicious, but here's why it probably isn't'. I have a dialogue with 3J about the second one, which you should read if you haven't already.
3) The course of the day changed. That's... how it is. 'before I was suspicious for basing a vote for you off of Scotty's actions. Now it's a full-blown conspiracy of mine to turn the lynch on you'. These mean the exact same thing in my argument. You already tried to turn the lynch on me when you based your vote for me on Scotty. Treating these like separate cases don't help your argument. Suggesting I didn't try to even to discuss your defence is also blatantly wrong. The problem is, half of your defence is 'I don't understand' 'Why does that make me bad'. Those are questions answered in the accusations themselves, so I don't know why you're asking them.
4) I still do not understand why you don't understand, and the only possible explanation I have for it is that you're feigning ignorance. The things you did and said are suspicious, and I have
explicitly stated why over and over again. You keep asking 'why' like it's not good enough for you. I didn't initiate the whole 'Mafia 101' thing, you did. I don't have anything else to say here.
5) I HAVE responded to every single element of your argument. You just keep asking 'why'.
This came out in a mix of 'what was' and 'what is' and I apologise for that. You keep stressing me out, Sloonei. I don't know what it is. I think you're playing a weird civ game, and I'm only saying civ because you're half the reason Scotty was lynched.
I don't mind continue this dialogue, Sloonei. As stressed and annoyed as I'm coming across, I want to make sure that you're understanding me.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:50 pm
by Quin
Ah yes, the certified PoE that is most definitely not infiltrated with baddies and independents.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:53 pm
by Ricochet
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Rico, your sarcasm doesn't help anyone. Vote according to your suspicions, and make your case. If you suspect someone that other people don't suspect, nobody said you're not allowed to promote that suspicion.
Golden wrote:I think the remainder of the baddies are probably in that pool of 5.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:56 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Ricochet wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
I'm just trying to follow your thoughts here: does this mean you suspect Golden? I honestly don't know precisely what you're saying. Did anyone say you're not allowed to develop your own PoE?
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 7:57 pm
by Ricochet
Quin wrote:
Ah yes, the certified PoE that is most definitely not infiltrated with baddies and independents.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:01 pm
by Ricochet
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
I'm just trying to follow your thoughts here: does this mean you suspect Golden? I honestly don't know precisely what you're saying. Did anyone say you're not allowed to develop your own PoE?
Beck
Epignosis
Golden
insertnamehere
JaggedJimmyJay
leetic
Metalmarsh89
Quin
reywaS
S~V~S
Sloonei
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:02 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Ricochet wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
I'm just trying to follow your thoughts here: does this mean you suspect Golden? I honestly don't know precisely what you're saying. Did anyone say you're not allowed to develop your own PoE?
Beck
Epignosis
Golden
insertnamehere
JaggedJimmyJay
leetic
Metalmarsh89
Quin
reywaS
S~V~S
Sloonei
Okay right, you still think everyone is a candidate. Do you think Golden is more suspicious than the average name on that list? I don't know if it's the tweets thing or what, but I'm struggling to follow everything you're saying. Just be patient with me and maybe we can figure each other out here.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Night 1
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:05 pm
by Quin
Golden wrote:Sloonei wrote:HEY! What do we all think of my initial claim that Scotty and Quin are teammates? This is something I should look at.
I think it was correct. I found Scotty's response to your inquiries about Quin to be something that indicted them both. I also really don't like this:
Quin wrote:Golden wrote:I could see either Epi or Scotty as bad, but probably not together.
I think an Epi/Rico team is still well possible.
I think a Scotty/Quin team is also well possible.
That's me for now.
I don't think you think either of the latter two at all.
I opposed the shit out of that whole ordeal. I do not see a situation where Scotty's flimsiness should overshadow that. The only thing I didn't do is vote for Scotty, instead I established my own wagon with what was a solid case.
I think pairing these teams as you did is the easy route.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:12 pm
by Quin
I did say this at one point, so I guess I deserve all the heat
Had he been lynched and flipped bad, you might have a reason to look at him as inspiration to vote me, but as it is, he has not
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:13 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Don't let me stop you from catching up Quin, but I'd really like to know what your read on Golden is. Whenever you have a chance.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:15 pm
by Ricochet
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Okay right, you still think everyone is a candidate. Do you think Golden is more suspicious than the average name on that list? I don't know if it's the tweets thing or what, but I'm struggling to follow everything you're saying. Just be patient with me and maybe we can figure each other out here.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:21 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Ricochet wrote:
Do whatever you want. You're you.
I can't tell whether you suspect people or you're just complaining about people, and the distinction is important. This isn't helping me, so whatever.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Night 1
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:22 pm
by Golden
Quin wrote:I think pairing these teams as you did is the easy route.
When you are town, you are looking for the truth. How easy or hard the truth is, entirely depends on what the baddies end up looking like.
Sloonei pulled out a reason why Scotty was bad - that reason was that his suspicion on you felt manufactured and like a read he felt obliged to take on a teammate. I entirely agreed with that read from sloonei, because that is
exactly what Scotty felt like. The whole reason I voted for Scotty wasn't merely because I thought Scotty was bad, it was because I felt like Scotty looked like he was your teammate.
Like, for me the two of you were inseparable in my mind, and still are. When I thought scotty was good, you looked better. Now that I know scotty is bad, I think sloonei nailed a hole in one.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:22 pm
by Golden
Also, at this point, it's clear rico's gimmick is not because he was targetted at night so... homage to G-Man then.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:28 pm
by Ricochet
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Do whatever you want. You're you.
I can't tell whether you suspect people or you're just complaining about people, and the distinction is important. This isn't helping me, so whatever.
Golden wrote:Also, at this point, it's clear rico's gimmick is not because he was targetted at night so... homage to G-Man then.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:30 pm
by Golden
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm just trying to follow your thoughts here: does this mean you suspect Golden? I honestly don't know precisely what you're saying. Did anyone say you're not allowed to develop your own PoE?
No. He's saying, as he's said in recent games, that he doesn't care for even trying to understand the approach, and he is going to oppose it through being a general ass to us about it.
I've explained the PoE in very clear terms and yet he still asks why 3/5 of the people in it I don't have a 'bad read on'.
If I put everything else aside and did it in a way rico could understand... rico, here is a rainbow for you.
Strong town
Jay
Sloonei
Epi
Rico
MM
leetic
Neutral
SVS
beck
inh
MP/rey
Baddie
quin
This is not hard at all to follow, but you seem to have great difficulty with it. PS, pretty sure I haven't leaned baddie on 4/5. Its a
PROCESS OF ELIMINATION. Once you exclude people who are town, the baddies must be amongst the rest. It's not really hard to understand, at all.
(Yep, that is what PoE stands for! Well done peeps!)
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:32 pm
by Golden
The six that I list as town all have interactions that make it very unlikely they are teammates of scotty.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:33 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Ricochet wrote:
I don't actively suspect Beck, MP/reywaS, or S~V~S and they're all in my PoE. Process of elimination isn't about suspicion, it's about absence of trust. I'm open to listen if you suspect Golden, but I need to see a more comprehensive case -- maybe even if it means breaking out of your tweet limitations.
Ricochet wrote:
I don't have issues with someone who is doing the same thing I am doing. I don't have issues with you not suspecting people. I don't know what you're talking about.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:34 pm
by Golden
And all this just because you are annoyed that some people can be ok with a hypothetical civ vig that we don't even know if it exists killing someone who hadn't demonstrated themselves to be town because in hindsight we know that they are...
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:44 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
INH has been under fire constantly since his vote for Scotty and it's still his most recent post.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:46 pm
by Ricochet
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm open to listen if you suspect Golden, but I need to see a more comprehensive case -- maybe even if it means breaking out of your tweet limitations.
"PoE is not about suspicion"
"I think the remainder of the baddies are probably in that pool of 5."
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:50 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Ricochet wrote:"PoE is not about suspicion"
"I think the remainder of the baddies are probably in that pool of 5."
Today Ricochet is the World Champion of Making JJJ
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:51 pm
by Golden
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:INH has been under fire constantly since his vote for Scotty and it's still his most recent post.
I have no idea if this is reactive or simply not checking in. He doesn't seem to have been very active recently even putting this game aside.
Also @rico - apologies for being a bit of an ass back. It just appears to me like you have absolutely no desire to consider or acknowledge other approaches to the game, and just wish everyone would play
your way, which... I'm not going to, because having come to see the benefits of the way I'm doing things I prefer it. And because I think it also accounts for a lot of the issues we have with town win rate on this site. Everyone wanting to pursue their own suspects instead of allowing others to give convincing arguments to take individuals out of the mix.
As I say - I don't think anyone would convince you (or Epi... or some others) of the merits of this approach, and that's fine. But I don't really like that you attack us for taking it to the extent that you are using emotional manipulation like asking to be vigged or voting for Quin in protest.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:53 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
I have one question, Golden. What has sold you on keeping me out of your own PoE?
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:55 pm
by Golden
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have one question, Golden. What has sold you on keeping me out of your own PoE?
The way you took leetic out of the PoE in particular, and also the fact you are wavering on Quin when Quin being bad was central to the case that scotty was bad. You'd be taking the easy bus by now if Quin was your teammate, and if Quin wasn't your teammate but you were bad I think you'd be more inclined to run with it rather than rock the boat and try to give INH a proper consideration when you could just let quin go and come back to it.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:58 pm
by Sloonei
Beck, Epi, insertnamehere, leetic, Metalmarsh, reywaS, and SVS: Got any thoughts?
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:27 pm
by Epignosis
Sloonei wrote:Beck, Epi, insertnamehere, leetic, Metalmarsh, reywaS, and SVS: Got any thoughts?
Yes. PoE needs that third letter to drop several places in the alphabet.
I've been in this thread off and on just trying to keep up since I left work today, and my mind is about to take a powder.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:31 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
If I ever need to build a torture chamber for Epignosis, I'll be an enclosed and windowless room where he is tied to a chair bolted to the floor. Just out of reach, a teenager will be running in circles repeatedly chanting sentences with numerous grammatical errors and Mafiaspeak terms like WIFOM, PoE, and scumspect.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:32 pm
by Epignosis
I see three straight on Quin. In one or two sentences, please explain your reasoning. You may use links to support your response. Make sure to put your name and date on your paper. No cheating.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:33 pm
by Epignosis
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If I ever need to build a torture chamber for Epignosis, I'll be an enclosed and windowless room where he is tied to a chair bolted to the floor. Just out of reach, a teenager will be running in circles repeatedly chanting sentences with numerous grammatical errors and Mafiaspeak terms like WIFOM, PoE, and scumspect.
You've described my job, only I'm forced to stand most of the day.
