Moderator: Community Team
I didn't either. It was a whole bunch of words that when I read them played carnival music in my head.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:So you thought nothing of his big post in which he assessed multiple players for their Day 1s relative to Scotty?a2thezebra wrote:Nothing of substance, no.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Do you still feel he's given nothing to the game beyond his Mac beefs?a2thezebra wrote:My overall position on Ricochet hasn't changed.
I do admit I like a game with less Rico than the average and I don't have the liberty of just 86ing you this time.Ricochet wrote:>actually get to work
>not enough, needs more cowbell
Oh how surprising, coming from the hounders who must desperately want to see me gone.
I'm just making sure you even know the post exists.a2thezebra wrote:A whole lot of nothing is still nothing. His assessments of both myself and Elohcin were hella weak.
A different spell but still a wand wave. We are to have taken some insight from it but unsure whether you even have. What did he say that was anything more than a prolonges fart noise?JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm just making sure you even know the post exists.a2thezebra wrote:A whole lot of nothing is still nothing. His assessments of both myself and Elohcin were hella weak.
I disagree, naturally. I think it looks like prototypical Ricochet. Whatever, we've debated it enough.
I don't necessarily think they are gold.MacDougall wrote:Tell me why they are gold?
This is a pretty damning post in my opinion.Ricochet wrote:You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.
If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.
But if we think the actual content of his posts that you claim to be good are lacking, then how do we know which posts you think we should talk about? We're not catering to anyone, we just see lack of substance with the main element sticking out being the Mac beef, so that has gotten and continues to get the most focus. If you don't like people talking about it then you should be blaming Rico for starting it, not us and others for calling it out.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I don't necessarily think they are gold.MacDougall wrote:Tell me why they are gold?
The importance of that post to me is that it flies in the face of the argument Zebra and you have presented against Ricochet. You've both written this narrative that he's done jack shit all game other than whine about MacDougall, and it's patently false. If you think the actual content of his post is lacking then fine, talk about that.
That's not what has happened.
Jimmy your scum is showing.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm frankly tired of all this confirmation bias. It has gotten very silly. I don't agree about Ricochet, and I think both of you have built cases that are crappy. The end. I'm done talking about this with both of you, the thread is already over-saturated with it.
What isn't, as far as you're concerned.a2thezebra wrote:This is a pretty damning post in my opinion.Ricochet wrote:You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.
If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.
Meta reasons.a2thezebra wrote:If Rico flips scum, then your pretending to not understand the case against him and then backtracking your stance while claiming it was only a difference in semantics is going to make you look really fucking bad Neil.
linki - Why is Glorfindel already bad? I haven't read a substantial on-topic post from him yet.
I don't give a shit. If he gets lynched I hope you're right and I'm wrong. It's happened before. I've done what I always do: make a read and then play to that read. Whatever happens from there is whatever happens from there.a2thezebra wrote:If Rico flips scum, then your pretending to not understand the case against him and then backtracking your stance while claiming it was only a difference in semantics is going to make you look really fucking bad Neil.
As far as I'm concerned what isn't a damning post are the types of posts I'm generally seeing from all of my town reads and most of my neutral reads.Ricochet wrote:What isn't, as far as you're concerned.a2thezebra wrote:This is a pretty damning post in my opinion.Ricochet wrote:You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.
If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.
"Articulated nervously"? Wow. That's near poetic.
Yep it's called bias.a2thezebra wrote:As far as I'm concerned what isn't a damning post are the types of posts I'm generally seeing from all of my town reads and most of my neutral reads.Ricochet wrote:What isn't, as far as you're concerned.a2thezebra wrote:This is a pretty damning post in my opinion.Ricochet wrote:You ain't getting from me more reads than I'll have managed yesterday and later this evening. But they'll be input nonetheless.
If you set the standards high up on Trump power, thats your problem. But I'll be doing what I can do nonetheless.
"Articulated nervously"? Wow. That's near poetic.
There's a slight disconnect between those types of posts and yours, and it's neither stylistic nor personal.
None strong enough to talk about. Pings here and there. But most folks are reading neutral or civ to me.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LoRab, do you have any suspects at the moment apart from INH?
MacDougall wrote:Bout time someone played that cars. No I haven't. I joked about it. And also my reason for it even though I never really did was logical and served the town. Rico's served himself exclusively.LoRab wrote:It's not like you've never done it.MacDougall wrote: Railroading the entire in thread content of the game to push a selfish agenda that was never going to work is just cockery. It is not even remotely similar. He can appeal to the thread to remove me just in case I am bad and he is good... but that is pants on head moronic.
So, it's ok when you do it to other people but not when it's done to you? Because, I seem to remember:MacDougall wrote: Ricochet annoyed me for trying to policy lynch me day 1. I ain't about that life. That it started to bleed into day 2 started to . My first post reflected that.
I don't actually think you're bad. But please stop acting as if policy lynching is so horrible, when it is something you yourself have done. And don't claim that it's so ridiculous when, again, you've done it.MacDougall wrote:It is my modus operandi as a mafia player on this website to tunnel MattF in every game until one of us are dead. You are officially forewarned of my intention in every game we both play in.
No, I'm not. Care to try to make a case? Because you're wrong.DrWilgy wrote:So... Lorab is bad. Shall we do something about this?
Please do focus on me.Ricochet wrote:Tru. I did some and will try some more later this evening. If nothing notable related to the victims, I'll focus on the other wagon or on requests, such as LoRab.
linkitis: EBWOP is Edit By Way of Post. What does being 30 have to do with anything?
The 30 thing was a joke about how old people don't get things you know. Self deprecation. Much like that meds joke you also didn't get in the last game. Starting to think you and me are a different species tbh.
Pretty sure you more than joked about it, and that it because a whole thing in that game. And I really don't see how there is a difference between you in that game and Rico in this game, with that particular behavior. If you're going to dish it out, you need to learn to take it.MacDougall wrote:Also it is fairly irrational to suggest that I am wrong for being annoyed by behaviour I myself have exhibited. That is a very common thing. I hate it when people do annoying things that I do.
Go for it. I mean, you suspect me every game already, so same dif.MacDougall wrote:I am going to call for a policy lynch of Lorab in every game from now on because she doesn't get my jokes.
I see. Normally I would agree but I think his lack of contribution in this case is more likely due to his current personal dilemmas.MacDougall wrote:Meta reasons.a2thezebra wrote:If Rico flips scum, then your pretending to not understand the case against him and then backtracking your stance while claiming it was only a difference in semantics is going to make you look really fucking bad Neil.
linki - Why is Glorfindel already bad? I haven't read a substantial on-topic post from him yet.
Scum Glorfindel struggles to contribute. His thought processes are usually astute as a civ. He is exhibiting tendencies I recall from Star Wars and looks very unlike the force of nature I had to kill in Romance.
You being wrong? It's happened before? And I used to think I was arrogant...JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I don't give a shit. If he gets lynched I hope you're right and I'm wrong. It's happened before.a2thezebra wrote:If Rico flips scum, then your pretending to not understand the case against him and then backtracking your stance while claiming it was only a difference in semantics is going to make you look really fucking bad Neil.
Would you care to at least name the weaker ones, even if they're strictly vibe-based?LoRab wrote:None strong enough to talk about. Pings here and there. But most folks are reading neutral or civ to me.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LoRab, do you have any suspects at the moment apart from INH?
Yes, granting that I am not infallible is the surest signal that I am arrogant.a2thezebra wrote:You being wrong? It's happened before? And I used to think I was arrogant...
Ironic that you are now so selfless and humble when you wanted the whole thread to lynch me before I posted because I killed you in one game. Come on man... you love the attention.Ricochet wrote:Bye now. Try not to make 10 pages of Rico this Rico that by the time I reappear.
It is arrogant, because it's not up to you to grant your own infallibility. It goes without saying that we're all infallible, so yes, someone feeling the need to say it is going to come off as hilariously arrogant.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Yes, granting that I am not infallible is the surest signal that I am arrogant.a2thezebra wrote:You being wrong? It's happened before? And I used to think I was arrogant...
Sure, whatever. Let me know when that becomes relevant to this game.a2thezebra wrote:It is arrogant, because it's not up to you to grant your own infallibility. It goes without saying that we're all infallible, so yes, someone feeling the need to say it is going to come off as hilariously arrogant.
It's relevant to this game because you buying into your own hype is hurting your ability to read players objectively. There's no other explanation for how stubbornly contrarian you are with your Rico read unless you're his teammate.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Sure, whatever. Let me know when that becomes relevant to this game.a2thezebra wrote:It is arrogant, because it's not up to you to grant your own infallibility. It goes without saying that we're all infallible, so yes, someone feeling the need to say it is going to come off as hilariously arrogant.
It gets very old very fast being perceived as this hyper arrogant dick when I frankly don't deserve that. I play Mafia with a great deal of effort, and I try to play with confidence, and I have this reputation that other people have assigned to me. I never claimed to be good at this game. I never claimed to be some kind of awesome analyst. I never claimed to have the best reads. All I do is try as hard as I can to help my team win. Your sig was literally a typo -- a funny one, but still a typo. I have played a bunch of terrible Mafia games. I have made a bunch of terrible reads. I shouldn't have to go on this rant to assure people that I am not in love with myself.MacDougall wrote:Jimmy... just own it. Look at my sig.
I didn't say it was once-in-a-blue-moon. That's YOUR interpretation. YOU made it that. I'm wrong quite frequently. No shit.a2thezebra wrote:Especially to say that you being wrong has happened before as if it's a once-in-a-blue-moon event. If you don't see how that's arrogant then you're just being disingenuous again.
I know man. I am just making funnies. I mean you owned it yourself not 45 minutes ago when you slipped into supertown Jimmy roleplay. So I figured you just were chill widdit.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It gets very old very fast being perceived as this hyper arrogant dick when I frankly don't deserve that. I play Mafia with a great deal of effort, and I try to play with confidence, and I have this reputation that other people have assigned to me. I never claimed to be good at this game. I never claimed to be some kind of awesome analyst. I never claimed to have the best reads. All I do is try as hard as I can to help my team win. Your sig was literally a typo -- a funny one, but still a typo. I have played a bunch of terrible Mafia games. I have made a bunch of terrible reads. I shouldn't have to go on this rant to assure people that I am not in love with myself.MacDougall wrote:Jimmy... just own it. Look at my sig.
Hey man. I was mad before too and you just played the game properly with me until I chilled out so thanks for that.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm stepping away from this. Getting mad.
For example of an arrogant-free ISO, take a look at any of your earlier games on RYM. That is if they weren't nuked by sharifi.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm telling you I think the case is so bad that I actually don't understand why it exists.
I have a weak ping from Dom for accusing MP of buttering up (I think Sloonei mentioned this before...someone did...I noticed it, as wel) because of his place on a rainbow list. It struck me as paranoid, and I think Dom's game is more paranoid as baddie than it is as civ.a2thezebra wrote:Would you care to at least name the weaker ones, even if they're strictly vibe-based?LoRab wrote:None strong enough to talk about. Pings here and there. But most folks are reading neutral or civ to me.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LoRab, do you have any suspects at the moment apart from INH?
Thank you, this is helpful.LoRab wrote:I have a weak ping from Dom for accusing MP of buttering up (I think Sloonei mentioned this before...someone did...I noticed it, as wel) because of his place on a rainbow list. It struck me as paranoid, and I think Dom's game is more paranoid as baddie than it is as civ.a2thezebra wrote:Would you care to at least name the weaker ones, even if they're strictly vibe-based?LoRab wrote:None strong enough to talk about. Pings here and there. But most folks are reading neutral or civ to me.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LoRab, do you have any suspects at the moment apart from INH?
Elo isn't sitting right. I don't have any good reason for this one, really just gut and tone.
Those are the 2 that keep popping up. There are also a bunch of players that I don't know well enough to know how to read their posts, so there are a lot of question marks on my imaginary spreadsheet.
[-Mass Effect Mafia banner-]
