My thought process for you was more...In post 673, MattP wrote:"hm oversoul says something that I wanna pretend I thought of myself, so I'mma post the thing that Oversoul said acting like I didn't see he already said it for towncred"
It's ok I forgive uIn post 675, Oversoul wrote:I know I'm ridiculous but you have to get used to it.
Don't lie Matt, you know you have a friend helping you read the thread. It's OKAY. You can admit it. We're all friends here.In post 668, MattP wrote:It's a little bit mean that you don't think I could feel his post was fake and rationalize from there yo
On what? If it's Steam, I don't have computer access on the weekends due to work!!
I didn't search into your meta, that's based on the games we've played.In post 667, Oversoul wrote: Hmm...
That's interesting. I've never really had someone go deep into my meta.
Yeah, when you made that comment I thought it sounded like you were saying that you were unsure of my alignment.OS wrote: I'm not sure where you get the fact that I was very overtly suspicious of you? From my comment about you being more than likely town? I had a feeling that you were town but once you started having suspicions about me after calling me town is what sealed the deal, especially as no one has been chiming up about my alignment and you brought it up on your own volition.
As a somewhat emotional player, I get this. I followed along in Fortnight and all the reasons they brought up to suspect you was why I knew you were really obviously town in that game.os wrote: I really don't know how to tell that I am town because you read me through tone but yes I did change my playstyle.
I think you might be able to see the difference in Fortnight as that was the beginning of the change when DGB, Kuribo, and Tbone were just hammering it into the rail that I was scum because I was playing "weird". I mean.. you can look across everything (please don't make me explain this) to see if my play has changed overall or if it is different here. I would argue it has. It has changed because I'm not trying to get as emotionally invested into games as I used to since playing mafia seems much easier that way. I took things pretty personally before and saw shadows in the dark (if this game is still going on and certain events occur) I'll explain. I got bitter about being lynched, about getting accused of being scum, about being wrong with my scum reads. These things would carry over into real life where I would be agitated or angry if people started accusing me of things and the mood wouldn't go away until I forgot about things. I'm trying to make mafia less in-tune with my life and be less serious about it.
I don't know if it has really helped me in mafia but it has certainly helped me that I'm not distracted during the day by the emotions brought on by mafia.
^MeIn post 682, AngstyMatters wrote:I am "appealing" to you by doing what you ask, which is trying to be more even-tempered and less of a prick, but unfortunately I have no QT to be laughing in <3
In post 442, implosion wrote:today was an even lazier day than usual. I can probably be convinced to vote mattp later when i have the mental lack of laziness to read things.
The jump immediately from the first to second post, really regardless of my alignment, would be unlikely from scumplosionIn post 514, implosion wrote:I read Matt's recent posts. Matt is almost certainly town.
I read Zach's 182 in depth. I don't like it. Some of the points are legitimate rebuttals, but trying to defend the push on pjovek is a bit odd, and calling the difference between pushing for a full or a partial massclaim a "semantic difference" when it is in fact a rather large difference seems to be sidestepping the main point that's being made, which is that his push lacked context.
As i continue reading his iso, nothing sticks out as particularly townish. He made a specific point earlier that his reads are subject to change, implying that this is important. I feel like he's dismissing a lot of Mattp's posting as scummy when it's just bad play. I use the word dismissing here because I think a lot of his posting on matt feels like he's assuming that matt is scum and then deriving that Matt's play is bad scumplay. i.e., 493. Even not buying that argument does not make Matt scum. Even if his argument is completely wrong, that doesn't mean that Matt doesn't genuinely believe it. A bad argument can still be genuine.
HOORAY I DID THINGS
In post 688, Tammy wrote:Oh. I think I've had a meta discussion about implosion recently. Need to check my chat logs.
. We didnt really. Just in general discussion about implosion being obvious scum in mafia behind the maiden. In post 689, Tierce wrote:Tammy--I still want to go over things with you and Syryana, but apparently didn't sleep well tonight. Coffee + shaking myself awake means it will still be a few hours before I can read through attentively and get something useful out, so it probably won't work out in real time.
No. But sometimes a friend of mine I do hydra with will discuss players meta if following or discussing games.In post 692, enomis wrote:Wait. Tammy is a hydra?
It might be all the stress but did Antagon just softclaim "the role"?In post 579, Antagon wrote:But in a game where the death of one role makes it Night for the rest of the game...In post 576, Syryana wrote:So you're unkillable unless you target someone that targets you for death?In post 574, Antagon wrote:It will fail. I am protected from kills unless I target someone who tries to kill me.In post 573, Zachrulez wrote:What happens if someone who you don't target tries to kill you?
That's.... pretty fuckin OP.