If you don't want to get lynched today, I recommend answering this ASAP.
(I feel like I'm pressuring, and it feels so different from who I usually am. It's like I'm actually mad but just looking to get answers...)
Finished Mafia XXXV: Pokemon Card GB3: Team GR's Last Stand
- Thread starter PMJ
- Start date
- Status
(I feel like I'm pressuring, and it feels so different from who I usually am. It's like I'm actually mad but just looking to get answers...)
I just skimmed over it. I didn't feel like there was anything in your post that needed to be responded too. @Everyone, Celever and Jesi are buddying hard right now.
Also, just to put this into perspective, the primary reason to suspect Excal was that he dodged a question. Quaking's case now embodies the case on Excal and more, so no one on Excal has any reason to be now.
But no, you didn't fight back. You were being manipulative and you got caught, and you didn't want to confront the issue head on. That is why you're now in this difficult situation.
These theories have come about as a result of you not clarifying on why you voted TFP in the fashion which you did. As I mentioned in an above post, you're aggressive when you're sure of yourself, and only scum are sure of themselves on Day 1. They are the informed minorities, after all.
So respond to this post and respond to my case. Promptly.
I can see that you're still riding with the "I didn't want to respond to your case because I couldn't think of anything" excuse. I mean, this is totally different to what you were claiming just 5 minutes ago, so it's a nice change in story. I'll let others post about what they think to that. Regardless, here's what you could respond with:
Clarify why you presented your case when you did. Your timing has been thrown under suspicion, so you should respond to this.
Refute this argument. The fact that you took me at my word basically means you conceded that I was correct. After all, a townie with false allegations made towards them would want to fight back, right?
But no, you didn't fight back. You were being manipulative and you got caught, and you didn't want to confront the issue head on. That is why you're now in this difficult situation.
Clarify on your post about TFP. Explain why it was clear RVS. Or was it not clear RVS? So... maybe it was bait. Did Jesi take your bait?
These theories have come about as a result of you not clarifying on why you voted TFP in the fashion which you did. As I mentioned in an above post, you're aggressive when you're sure of yourself, and only scum are sure of themselves on Day 1. They are the informed minorities, after all.
Since you proposed the case, you need to defend the case too. This is a concession that your case is flawed, because you couldn't argue with my battering of it.
This is also a major point in my case against you. You claimed that Jesi was majorly lying because of what was said surrounding EM. But... she wasn't, was she? You were just saying any buzz word which came into your head to make her look scummy, because you had momentum and the crowd was with you.
I just called your entire case a reach. Defend it.
So respond to this post and respond to my case. Promptly.
And I'll take a page out of your book. @quakingpunch73, I've seen you click onto this thread. You're taking ages to reply oml, reply darn it!!!
You know, quaking does have a point about Excal. We can get a decent amount of info based on how many people wrote their opinion about the case on him.
@Celever I don't think quaking is less aggressive than past games. Or at least not to a great extant. Quaking's accusing Celever and Jesi for buddying is weird. Usually buddying is something people accuse someone because they defended someone else, not agreeing with a case.
@Celever I don't think quaking is less aggressive than past games. Or at least not to a great extant. Quaking's accusing Celever and Jesi for buddying is weird. Usually buddying is something people accuse someone because they defended someone else, not agreeing with a case.
I found the buddying accusation a little strange.
Also, Scattered, I think you might've misread this:
Also, Scattered, I think you might've misread this:
Based off your response, I think you misread it as "Quaking is less aggressive when sure of himself". If that isn't the case, I've officially become confused again.
I thought Jesi was suspicious, and I wanted everyone else to see why, it's as simple as that.
Remember Dimensional Shift? You basically lynched me because I was defending myself. What more do you want me to do other then spam "IM TOWN"?
[QUOTE}Clarify on your post about TFP. Explain why it was clear RVS. Or was it not clear RVS? So... maybe it was bait. Did Jesi take your bait?
These theories have come about as a result of you not clarifying on why you voted TFP in the fashion which you did. As I mentioned in an above post, you're aggressive when you're sure of yourself, and only scum are sure of themselves on Day 1. They are the informed minorities, after all.[/QUOTE]
You're becoming EM now. All I did was was participate in RVS. I saw someone was viewing the thread and wanted to gauge their reaction. I was agressive in Dimensional Shift day 1, and I was town.
My case on Jesi was that she said that RVS was over and lied that she had no idea how to scumhunt, but she had already said that she knew how to scumhunt. She backpedalled and lied on her statements, and recently, she has beenbuddying with you.
Case in point:
Possibly, but only in a way which makes quaking worse off. I had a look over his past games just now when I saw your post, and I came to the conclusion that quaking is much more aggressive when he's sure about himself. Day 1 townie? Not sure about anything. Day 1 scum? Very secure.
It's all fake. Tagging players who are viewing the thread is spammy, tedious and, most importantly, looks productive. Sometimes townies do it, but scum do it more, because sometimes townies do it.
Good townies get out of the habit.
This is a decent conspiracy theory.
Celever and Jesi, now that I've answered this, can you refute the claims of buddying that I bring up?
But that's because scum have thrown their weight behind the lynch, in my opinion. That's my theory right now, because the case was originally very weak. It's standard for a case on a new player to be the centre of attention early on because for scum it's an easy lynch and for town it's a path into Camo's good books, which I know some people value for self-preservation purposes. It was also a decent lead for very early Day 1, but this has now been upped by quaking.
I believe your vote is on Excal, so what do you think is better about his case than the one on quaking?
The aggressiveness isn't the main point, however. I'm being more aggressive with quaking than I normally am on Day 1 too, because I really think I've found scum with him. The point is the content of his posts, not the tone of them, and the content of his posts has been analysed plenty by me.
Although, thanks to Jesi requoting my post, I think I know what you're referring to now. His only other analysis with town vs mafia is in Fire Emblem and Dimensional Shift. In Fire Emblem he subbed in fairly late, so there was enough information for him to have sufficient security. In Dimensional Shift, he didn't become very aggressive until quite late in the game. Earlier on, he was more quiet and sheepy. In both of those games he was town.
In Splatoon, he was aggressive and assured from the start, because he was in an informed faction, or at least as much as everyone else (and a lot of information was given by me and Prof).
The issue isn't whether he's normally assured, it's in what circumstances is he the most aggressive in. When he's lost he curls up, and he should be lost on early Day 1 if he's a townie. But he's not doing that, he's trying to take the forefront as much as he can and he's pushing for lynches with little substance to back them up because the popular opinion is going that way. The latter is mafia play no matter what way you swing it, and the former is uncharacteristic for his town meta.
Because he's panicking, but just hiding it well. However, when people panic and don't want to lose face, they say something intelligible and on-topic so players can try and relate with them, the more complex the better. It's a natural defence mechanism in this game and one which quaking was guilty of.
I read it as : town quaking is a lot more aggressive in general. Now I read it again and yeah I misread it.
I am on my phone trying to read about the full case on quaking and to understand it.
So far this is what I understood:
Quaking twisted the things that Jesi had said about the fact that she is not sure how to start scumhunting, by saying that she had said she doesn't know how to scumhunt in general,thus lying about that.
Is that the core of the case on quaking?
Just a brief explanation about what I mean by core case-
The main thing that a case is made of, without other additional things, such as OMGUS AtE etc..(me just trying to create a new term)
I'm simply agreeing on the points Celever has brought up. I have no idea what alignment he has or anything, but I like the posts he's been making on your case and I think you are acting scummy.
Also, Celever, I wanted to like your wall-of-text case thing so badly... but then I would've gotten in trouble from PMJ.
While typing this, I saw your post, Scattered, and I think core case could be relevant later on in this game. I like the idea of it.
Also, Celever, I wanted to like your wall-of-text case thing so badly... but then I would've gotten in trouble from PMJ.
While typing this, I saw your post, Scattered, and I think core case could be relevant later on in this game. I like the idea of it.
Camo's vote had nothing to do with it? It's far better play to hold onto your case until you have enough substance. As is shown by my beating of your case, it didn't have substance and wasn't considered. Why didn't you hold onto it a bit longer? Were you that desperate to try and get out of RVS? That's not necessarily pro-town either.
I just reread that game and I still don't know what you're referring to.
Nono, this benefits no one. If you're town you should have defense. Truth always prevails. That's the policy with our law system and if that's what's used to lock up murderers, it applies to a party game.
Why did you word it like you did? Your other RVS votes weren't worded so definitively, so it could only have been a conscious decision.
You were not. Besides, aggressiveness isn't the focus so much as you would never put your neck out in that game like you did with Jesi here.
But I've already explained that she didn't. You can't refute English. You can claim a basic misunderstanding, but now that you haven't backed out, you've missed that opportunity. I've told you the truth of what happened and you stuck with your story because Jesi still had more votes on her than any other lynch. But... I know the truth. Jesi knows the truth. scattered knows the truth (judging by his post above). It's obvious what Jesi's thought process was if you use a little bit of perspective, and when building a case you have to look at it from all angles. It's the natural thing to do, so I don't believe that you didn't. And if you didn't, that's because you were a bloodthirsty mafian who was being opportunistic, so it still doesn't help!
You also lied on your statements. You said that you didn't read the post, but then you backpedalled and stated that actually you just didn't see anything in the post worth responding to, because I completely disproved your former statement. And then I disproved your latter statement, and you haven't been able to answer.
We're uh, not. Agreeing isn't buddying. I went to get the definition from the terminology thread, but that's due an overhaul so it'll be there eventually.
Regardless, buddying is only relevant when it becomes a motif. Two players agreeing on a case is inevitable in a game like this. Clearly everyone who agreed with your case on Jesi didn't buddy you.scattered, I'll respond to your post in a tiny sec bby, just gotta do a chore. xx
As I have said, at the time before getting into understanding the case on quaking, I thought that the case on Excal is the best case. I am now trying to understand the case on quaking better, and it takes time for me since it is a case made by you, and therefore, requires a bit of time to fully understand. Not because it is hard to understand your cases, but because your cases are very good and long. And I am on my phone.
Celever, if you want honesty, then do you propose I claim, because I'm being honest with you now. The only other thing I could do is claim at this point.
She says that she agrees with Celever's post. While that wouldn't inherently look bad the way she clarifies that she doesn't know what Celever's alignment is makes it look bad. Why in the world do you need the qualifier?
I'm trying to contribute, alright?
Because then quaking could've jumped on me and tried to say we were scumbuddies.
Now I want to like your post Camo
Why must I have such temptation to like these posts
But see why I made the statement that I didn't know anything about Celever's role? I didn't want to be attacked again. Therefore, I'm making all these measures in my posts to make sure that doesn't happen.
Why must I have such temptation to like these posts
But see why I made the statement that I didn't know anything about Celever's role? I didn't want to be attacked again. Therefore, I'm making all these measures in my posts to make sure that doesn't happen.
Jesi, Camo's being sarcastic.
- Status