Arkham Mafia [ENDGAME]

[Turnip Head]

Because I don't think you're trying to figure out if I'm bad, I think you've already made up your mind. And I don't think anything I say will change your mind. Do what you gotta do.

[MacDougall]

Because I don't think you're trying to figure out if I'm bad, I think you've already made up your mind. And I don't think anything I say will change your mind. Do what you gotta do.

That's not true. I'm fully capable of being convinced that I am wrong on reads. Go ahead and do so.

[Turnip Head]

Well that's fucking easier said than done. What do you think I've been trying to do all day?

[DharmaHelper]

"We're both done talking about it."

Five minutes later

"ONE MORE THING!"

[MacDougall]

Well that's fucking easier said than done. What do you think I've been trying to do all day?

There are better ways of convincing a player that you're in the game of finding mafia than spending all your time failing to explain why you aren't.

[Turnip Head]

"We're both done talking about it."

Five minutes later

"ONE MORE THING!"

Your sideline banter is very helpful.

[MacDougall]

"We're both done talking about it."

Five minutes later

"ONE MORE THING!"

For someone who has no time to/gives enough fucks to catch up and find some mafia you seem to give plenty of fucks and have heaps of time to read every post and make wisecracks.

[Turnip Head]

Well that's fucking easier said than done. What do you think I've been trying to do all day?

There are better ways of convincing a player that you're in the game of finding mafia than spending all your time failing to explain why you aren't.

I mean I literally said I don't want to waste my time on this anymore.

[DharmaHelper]

"We're both done talking about it."

Five minutes later

"ONE MORE THING!"

For someone who has no time to/gives enough fucks to catch up and find some mafia you seem to give plenty of fucks and have heaps of time to read every post and make wisecracks.

Interesting that you both responded with the same remarks.

[DharmaHelper]

It's also incredibly difficult to catch up when so many posts are devoted to something you're saying you no longer wish to discuss.

[Turnip Head]

I think the most suspicious thing to come out of this was Neru throwing shade at me and then backing down when I called him out on it.

[MacDougall]

I think the most suspicious thing to come out of this was Neru throwing shade at me and then backing down when I called him out on it.

Was weird huh.

[Dom]

TH, why did you frame Enrique's argument for him?

You've already asked me this and I've already answered it.

I'm looking for consistency-- which I'm receiving.

It's also incredibly difficult to catch up when so many posts are devoted to something you're saying you no longer wish to discuss.

Nice.

I think the most suspicious thing to come out of this was Neru throwing shade at me and then backing down when I called him out on it.

I do agree with this.


Zebra, why did you say Matt is digging his own grave? Would you like Matt to lynch himself?

[DharmaHelper]

Nice what?

[a2thezebra]

Zebra, why did you say Matt is digging his own grave? Would you like Matt to lynch himself?

I said he is because he's chosen to ignore what I have against him in the hopes that him pretending that I have nothing against him will be a lie that everyone will believe, and because that's not going to happen, he's digging his own grave.

I don't want anyone to lynch themselves and never do, regardless of their alignment or mine. If I want someone to be lynched I want it to be because their defenses aren't good enough, not because they're choosing to pretend like they don't have anything to defend against. So my answer to your second question is a very strong no.

Now regarding these recent developments, I still don't think Turnip Head didn't slip and I think he's come out of his back-and-forth with Mac looking good. I also think that Mac seems genuine as well. The only ones that I'm not sure handled the conflict genuinely would be Nerolunar and DH, especially DH.

[DharmaHelper]

Zebra, why did you say Matt is digging his own grave? Would you like Matt to lynch himself?

I said he is because he's chosen to ignore what I have against him in the hopes that him pretending that I have nothing against him will be a lie that everyone will believe, and because that's not going to happen, he's digging his own grave.

I don't want anyone to lynch themselves and never do, regardless of their alignment or mine. If I want someone to be lynched I want it to be because their defenses aren't good enough, not because they're choosing to pretend like they don't have anything to defend against. So my answer to your second question is a very strong no.

Now regarding these recent developments, I still don't think Turnip Head didn't slip and I think he's come out of his back-and-forth with Mac looking good. I also think that Mac seems genuine as well. The only ones that I'm not sure handled the conflict genuinely would be Nerolunar and DH, especially DH.

Especially me in what regard?

[a2thezebra]

Your criticism of Mac and TH continuing to go at it after they had both said that they wanted to be done with it just seems to me like you wanted something to criticize but not anything relevant enough that you could be criticized for what you said. Obviously that backfired.

[DharmaHelper]

Your criticism of Mac and TH continuing to go at it after they had both said that they wanted to be done with it just seems to me like you wanted something to criticize but not anything relevant enough that you could be criticized for what you said. Obviously that backfired.

Yo did you read anything you're talking about?

[a2thezebra]

And your response defending your content blaming your lack of substantial output on how much of the thread consists of people discussing about not wanting to discuss things that aren't going anywhere seems like a disingenuous excuse for your own lack of significant contributions.

linki - I did. What makes you think otherwise, what am I missing that will completely change my mind and never suspect you again?

[DharmaHelper]

And your response defending your content blaming your lack of substantial output on how much of the thread consists of people discussing about not wanting to discuss things that aren't going anywhere seems like a disingenuous excuse for your own lack of significant contributions.

linki - I did. What makes you think otherwise, what am I missing that will completely change my mind and never suspect you again?

I don't think you understand sarcasm.

[a2thezebra]

If this is how you're going to answer for yourself then I'm just going to be more tempted to tunnel you. You know this, right?

[Dom]

Nice what?

Instead of contributing you put the attention back on those two.

[DharmaHelper]

If this is how you're going to answer for yourself then I'm just going to be more tempted to tunnel you. You know this, right?

I've explained previously the reasons I've not been paying attention. It was Day 0, I hadn't seen anything I particularly gave a shit about yesterday, and today I was spontaneously invited to go see Deadpool. Unless you think that is disingenuous we've got nothing to talk about.

I ribbed Mac and TH for going back on their promise to move the fuck on because it's was funny to me.

Linki - No, I didn't.

[MacDougall]

Zebra you seem like you'd be happier without Mafia. Would you like us to lynch you out of pity?

[Dom]

Zebra you seem like you'd be happier without Mafia. Would you like us to lynch you out of pity?

[Golden]

I don't think your case is rubbish or based on nothing, Mac. I don't think it is a slam dunk either. I think it is somewhere in between the two - the kind of thing that sometimes is right on and entirely meaningful, and other times is picking on something that was genuinely nothing. I'm looking for more than just that.

Do you think Matt would be a bad choice of lynch?

Matt is a slight scum lean to me right now.

How do you propose to resolve the fact that Turnip Head said that he didn't go out of his way to use the word we instead of they, then had a big old explanation for why he did it that included that indicates that in fact, he did put quite a lot of thought into his use of that word. Focus less on the content and more on the fact that he was caught bullshitting his explanations. Who gets caught bullshitting their explanations for things? Why did he say "no I didn't" instead of "nah I thought about saying they but I didn't want to sound like a hypocrite", if that was in fact the truth.

From a civ minded mindset, the possible explanation that exists is the gap between doing something mindfully, and 'going out of your way' to do it. I wouldn't necessarily interpret those the same. As a civ responding to your original post, I would have thought of 'going out of my way' as writing it one way, then editing it to say it another way.... not merely carefully choosing the words I use the first time I wrote it. Also, if I was civ, I'd probably reject the accusation of 'going out of my way' out of hand - even if I had edited it - because I'd know my intent had never been to mask anything.

I'm less worried about TH's responses, I think the best point you've made overall is the use of the word 'we' in the first place.

[a2thezebra]

If this is how you're going to answer for yourself then I'm just going to be more tempted to tunnel you. You know this, right?

I've explained previously the reasons I've not been paying attention. It was Day 0, I hadn't seen anything I particularly gave a shit about yesterday, and today I was spontaneously invited to go see Deadpool. Unless you think that is disingenuous we've got nothing to talk about.

I ribbed Mac and TH for going back on their promise to move the fuck on because it's was funny to me.

Linki - No, I didn't.

But you see it's not that you haven't been paying attention, it's that you haven't been paying attention while at the same time trying to give off the impression that you're contributing as someone who has been paying attention, (and you admitting that you haven't payed attention doesn't change this) and that's what seems disingenuous to me. I can see how you may have said that to Mac and TH because it was funny to you, but you can understand how others might interpret it as saying something just to say something and not get accused of lurking too much.

Zebra you seem like you'd be happier without Mafia. Would you like us to lynch you out of pity?

If I wasn't against policy lynches than a part of me wouldn't oppose it. But another part of me is too addicted to the psychological mayhem that can only happen (with respect) in this game as well as you beautiful people that partake in it, so even if I didn't oppose policy lynches (let alone my own) I don't think I would like for you to do that. My only frustration comes from me not being able to convey to people what I mean and constantly, constantly, constantly, being misread, misinterpreted, and misrepresented, as well as deliberately ignored sometimes for whatever damn reason. That's something that happens outside of mafia so it would neither be logical nor honest of me to blame that on mafia or anyone playing it with me.

[DharmaHelper]

If this is how you're going to answer for yourself then I'm just going to be more tempted to tunnel you. You know this, right?

I've explained previously the reasons I've not been paying attention. It was Day 0, I hadn't seen anything I particularly gave a shit about yesterday, and today I was spontaneously invited to go see Deadpool. Unless you think that is disingenuous we've got nothing to talk about.

I ribbed Mac and TH for going back on their promise to move the fuck on because it's was funny to me.

Linki - No, I didn't.

But you see it's not that you haven't been paying attention, it's that you haven't been paying attention while at the same time trying to give off the impression that you're contributing as someone who has been paying attention, (and you admitting that you haven't payed attention doesn't change this) and that's what seems disingenuous to me. I can see how you may have said that to Mac and TH because it was funny to you, but you can understand how others might interpret it as saying something just to say something and not get accused of lurking too much.

Zebra you seem like you'd be happier without Mafia. Would you like us to lynch you out of pity?

If I wasn't against policy lynches than a part of me wouldn't oppose it. But another part of me is too addicted to the psychological mayhem that can only happen (with respect) in this game as well as you beautiful people that partake in it, so even if I didn't oppose policy lynches (let alone my own) I don't think I would like for you to do that. My only frustration comes from me not being able to convey to people what I mean and constantly, constantly, constantly, being misread, misinterpreted, and misrepresented, as well as deliberately ignored sometimes for whatever damn reason. That's something that happens outside of mafia so it would neither be logical nor honest of me to blame that on mafia or anyone playing it with me.

Uh sorry, my FULL ADMISSION that I've not been paying attention has no bearing on whether or not I want to be perceived as paying attention? Come the fuck on.

[MacDougall]

Zebra you seem like you'd be happier without Mafia. Would you like us to lynch you out of pity?

Oh jog on. Everything is or to you. I was joking.

[a2thezebra]

To me, no, it doesn't DH. If I was referring to how you're playing in general than it would, but because I'm talking about a particular instance then I don't see how it does.

[a2thezebra]

As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

[DharmaHelper]

I hope it was obvious I was kidding. I already admitted to not reading anything that's happened in Day 0. I don't even know the context or severity of the TH case.

He did say "they" though. Fuckin' gotem.

How does that look at all like someone attempting to pass as contributory?

[DharmaHelper]

As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

[a2thezebra]

A wise man once asked, "Yo did you read anything you're talking about?"

[DharmaHelper]

As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

As soon as you say "I could" you immediately miss the mark. I am not you.

[Dom]

Zebra you seem like you'd be happier without Mafia. Would you like us to lynch you out of pity?

Oh jog on. Everything is or to you. I was joking.

You didn't mind when it wasn't about you.

[a2thezebra]

As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

Bullshit. The point is to demonstrate a mindset that you could potentially be in possession of. Nobody knows who's bad so we guess who's bad based on the baddie mindsets we think others have. Obviously the people we suspect aren't going to agree, and we may be correct about the alignment itself without being correct about the mindset. But to say the point is useless couldn't be farther from the truth, because it dispels the idea that you have zero motive to appear as if you are contributing to an extent while simultaneously saying that you're not keeping up with the thread. This is one of countless hypothetical examples to demonstrate that that idea is false, it doesn't need to be me and it doesn't need to be that particular example to be right, because the point is entirely that you're claiming that your full admission has to have bearing on my accusation when it simply doesn't.

[a2thezebra]

As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

As soon as you say "I could" you immediately miss the mark. I am not you.

That's not the point and I would appreciate that you didn't pretend that you think it is.

[MacDougall]

Zebra you seem like you'd be happier without Mafia. Would you like us to lynch you out of pity?

Oh jog on. Everything is or to you. I was joking.

You didn't mind when it wasn't about you.

A fairly normal human behaviour you have observed. Kudos.

[DharmaHelper]

As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

Bullshit. The point is to demonstrate a mindset that you could potentially be in possession of. Nobody knows who's bad so we guess who's bad based on the baddie mindsets we think others have. Obviously the people we suspect aren't going to agree, and we may be correct about the alignment itself without being correct about the mindset. But to say the point is useless couldn't be farther from the truth, because it dispels the idea that you have zero motive to appear as if you are contributing to an extent while simultaneously saying that you're not keeping up with the thread. This is one of countless hypothetical examples to demonstrate that that idea is false, it doesn't need to be me and it doesn't need to be that particular example to be right, because the point is entirely that you're claiming that your full admission has to have bearing on my accusation when it simply doesn't.

OK, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. What posts of mine appear contributory and why? And what "motive" would I have to literally state in the thread that I have nothing yet to contribute and then "pretend" to contribute?

Answer those two questions and then I will address the fallacies in this post.

[a2thezebra]

As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

Bullshit. The point is to demonstrate a mindset that you could potentially be in possession of. Nobody knows who's bad so we guess who's bad based on the baddie mindsets we think others have. Obviously the people we suspect aren't going to agree, and we may be correct about the alignment itself without being correct about the mindset. But to say the point is useless couldn't be farther from the truth, because it dispels the idea that you have zero motive to appear as if you are contributing to an extent while simultaneously saying that you're not keeping up with the thread. This is one of countless hypothetical examples to demonstrate that that idea is false, it doesn't need to be me and it doesn't need to be that particular example to be right, because the point is entirely that you're claiming that your full admission has to have bearing on my accusation when it simply doesn't.

OK, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. What posts of mine appear contributory and why? And what "motive" would I have to literally state in the thread that I have nothing yet to contribute and then "pretend" to contribute?

Answer those two questions and then I will address the fallacies in this post.

I have already answered both of these questions but I guess I'm on a roll in this game for repeating myself for players that don't acknowledge what I've already taken the time to address and explain. Question 1:

Your criticism of Mac and TH continuing to go at it after they had both said that they wanted to be done with it just seems to me like you wanted something to criticize but not anything relevant enough that you could be criticized for what you said. Obviously that backfired.

Question 2...oh wait, it's answered with the same quote:

Your criticism of Mac and TH continuing to go at it after they had both said that they wanted to be done with it just seems to me like you wanted something to criticize but not anything relevant enough that you could be criticized for what you said. Obviously that backfired.

To which you responded with "Yo did you read anything you're talking about?" but now that you've inexplicably decided to take my ping of you seriously you're asking for the information that you previously rejected and dismissed because I apparently didn't read what I was talking about. When I asked you what it was you saw that prompted you to conclude that I don't know what I'm talking about, you dodged the question. It might be asking too much to actually get a serious response from you addressing the issues I have brought up even though you demand a serious response of me that doesn't concern anything I haven't already explained, meanwhile you're acting like I'm the one who's being unreasonable (this is becoming a trend it seems) and not you. Do tell me about my post's fallacies, I'm dying to hear them.

[DharmaHelper]

As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

Bullshit. The point is to demonstrate a mindset that you could potentially be in possession of. Nobody knows who's bad so we guess who's bad based on the baddie mindsets we think others have. Obviously the people we suspect aren't going to agree, and we may be correct about the alignment itself without being correct about the mindset. But to say the point is useless couldn't be farther from the truth, because it dispels the idea that you have zero motive to appear as if you are contributing to an extent while simultaneously saying that you're not keeping up with the thread. This is one of countless hypothetical examples to demonstrate that that idea is false, it doesn't need to be me and it doesn't need to be that particular example to be right, because the point is entirely that you're claiming that your full admission has to have bearing on my accusation when it simply doesn't.

OK, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. What posts of mine appear contributory and why? And what "motive" would I have to literally state in the thread that I have nothing yet to contribute and then "pretend" to contribute?

Answer those two questions and then I will address the fallacies in this post.

I have already answered both of these questions but I guess I'm on a roll in this game for repeating myself for players that don't acknowledge what I've already taken the time to address and explain. Question 1:

Your criticism of Mac and TH continuing to go at it after they had both said that they wanted to be done with it just seems to me like you wanted something to criticize but not anything relevant enough that you could be criticized for what you said. Obviously that backfired.

Question 2...oh wait, it's answered with the same quote:

Your criticism of Mac and TH continuing to go at it after they had both said that they wanted to be done with it just seems to me like you wanted something to criticize but not anything relevant enough that you could be criticized for what you said. Obviously that backfired.

To which you responded with "Yo did you read anything you're talking about?" but now that you've inexplicably decided to take my ping of you seriously you're asking for the information that you previously rejected and dismissed because I apparently didn't read what I was talking about. When I asked you what it was you saw that prompted you to conclude that I don't know what I'm talking about, you dodged the question. It might be asking too much to actually get a serious response from you addressing the issues I have brought up even though you demand a serious response of me that doesn't concern anything I haven't already explained, meanwhile you're acting like I'm the one who's being unreasonable (this is becoming a trend it seems) and not you. Do tell me about my post's fallacies, I'm dying to hear them.

Calling a joke post a criticism is a bit of a leap.

You suspect me enough to quote, "tunnel" me, so yeah I'm gonna try and dispel that.

No I didn't, I said you obviously missed that I wasn't being serious. Which you obviously did.

[a2thezebra]

What I'm saying is that it seems like you're only taking my suspicion of you seriously when it's convenient for you to do so. First you don't and respond only with jokes, then you take it seriously, and now I just asked you to address what I've already repeated myself to say and you still ignored it, instead focusing on a small fraction of my post that you think you can attempt to counter. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge cases? I don't even care if you ignore them and don't read them, but don't act like you don't have anything to work with if you wish to do so. I'm just tired of seeing that as a "defense" so often.

[a2thezebra]

Apparently I need a break.

[MacDougall]

What is it about Zebra that makes people want to have wall post battles with her...

[DharmaHelper]

As a baddie I could totally desire to come off as someone who isn't paying attention but is still contributing enough to not be accused of lurking or providing questionable content, which would be preferable to someone who isn't paying attention and isn't contributing all, or, worse yet, is making contributions that seem disingenuous and get called out for that instead. See what I mean DH?

You're not accusing yourself though so this point is useless.

Bullshit. The point is to demonstrate a mindset that you could potentially be in possession of. Nobody knows who's bad so we guess who's bad based on the baddie mindsets we think others have. Obviously the people we suspect aren't going to agree, and we may be correct about the alignment itself without being correct about the mindset. But to say the point is useless couldn't be farther from the truth, because it dispels the idea that you have zero motive to appear as if you are contributing to an extent while simultaneously saying that you're not keeping up with the thread. This is one of countless hypothetical examples to demonstrate that that idea is false, it doesn't need to be me and it doesn't need to be that particular example to be right, because the point is entirely that you're claiming that your full admission has to have bearing on my accusation when it simply doesn't.

OK, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. What posts of mine appear contributory and why? And what "motive" would I have to literally state in the thread that I have nothing yet to contribute and then "pretend" to contribute?

Answer those two questions and then I will address the fallacies in this post.

You're using things YOU would do to explain why you think *I* am doing what I'm doing. That's flawed from jump street. Especially when I already openly explained my actions.
This section here has no relevance. You're just saying things. Yes, baddies are bad. Yes, people suspect people for reasons. That has nothing to do with the incorrect assertion that I am pretending to contribute.
That establishes motive, but there's no evidence to suggest I am doing that, because I'm not, despite whether or not I would have a motive to do so.
Your entire accusation is that I am concealing my inactivity by pretending to contribute. Except, I have no such pretense. How is me completely removing the pretense NOT relevant to whether or not I am using the pretense?

[a2thezebra]

What is it about Zebra that makes people want to have wall post battles with her...

Fucking seriously.

[DharmaHelper]

What is it about Zebra that makes people want to have wall post battles with her...

Fucking seriously.

You started it.

[a2thezebra]

I came into this game with the plan that I would try to avoid that as much as possible, and yet it's happening more in this game than it has ever happened before. And so much of the wall post battles is repetition and things that have already been said two, three, twenty times. What is the fucking point? So, so little of what I've written for this game has been read and I can't blame anyone that's skimmed it or skipped over it altogether because so little of it is making any progress. It's a nightmare.

[a2thezebra]

What is it about Zebra that makes people want to have wall post battles with her...

Fucking seriously.

You started it.

Voicing suspicion of someone is starting a discussion, not a wall post battle where the priority isn't communication but gibberish.