It seems you totally ignored very much a core part of my post, and instead, tended to put words into my mouth on specific topics which actually shifted them into a completely different light then what I was actually speaking of, turning them into more radical statements, while again, pretty much ignoring that core statement, and really, this your argument made no sense to me.
First, let us clearly look at what it appears to be your "core" argument from this entire debacle:
They are not "confirmed," rather, they are merely people whom YOU believe to not be Mafia as of this moment.
This is not facts, they are an opinion, for roles can only ever be fully "confirmed" when x-player is dead, and the games host reveals said role. All other times, we have to put the trust in BELIEVING they are not mafia.
This quote strikes me as odd, as I get THEIR ROLES when I investigate them. What, am I the insane cop? The optimistic cop? The pessimistic cop?
You're casting doubt on the people I HAVE CLEARED AND INVESTIGATED
as an attempt to undermine my actions.
Alpha, a question if you will: Whom, as cop, have you investigated?
Well, I can tell you, as you have already given them to us: Day 1, HarmakPaul, Day 2, Hockeyfan, and now Day 3, Myself, JKangaroo.
What are they're roles in which you found out during the night happen to be?: From what you told to us, you were not able to get Hockey's role as he happened to die that very same night, though he did turn out to be a civilian.
According to your investigations, both Harmak and myself also turned out to be "civilians."
However, should you go back to my previous post, I spent a large portion of a paragraph DIRECTLY REFERENCING doubt and AGREEING with such doubt that you noted to be a possibility.
What was this possibility?: That although Harmak and myself were investigated to be civilians, there is still the possibility that any civilian investigated during the night, in this case myself or Harmak, COULD still be possible Godfather material.
For comparison reference:
I hate to point this out dessern, but it IS (technically) possible for HarmakPaul or JKangaroo to be the godfather, as I investigated them and got the civilian role from them. Godfather turns up as civilian.
Plus, although at the moment I am fairly certain you can be trusted as the cop Alpha, I do, and I'm fairly certain the majority of people probably will always be wary of, that despite you investigating both me and Harmak as civilians, we can, as well as any other investigated "civilian," can still be considered a possible Godfather role.
These are essentially the only person I've essentially directly "undermined" as you have so specifically phrased it, yet, here I am seen AGREEING with this decision. If anything, may I ask would I be agreeing to this if it directly undermines myself as well?
The reason why was also a major part of my discussion when I was purely discussing why these people should not be believed to be purely as "confirmed."
I've been an advocate of this for a few seasons now, and thus, I repeated it here, because honestly, despite a claim that they are a specific role, one should always keep a "HEALTHY SKEPTICISM."
What is healthy skepticism?: In my eyes, at least having a small amount of doubt about something, yet, as this is Mafia, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. We do not know the outcomes, unless we BELIEVE something is truthful, then honestly, everything is merely a guess and events can occur at random.
This is seen here with my response to dessern:
This is why I like this:
I trust alpha more than I do JK at the moment although I still hold my doubts on him even after his claim. As they see keep your friends close but your enemies closer I guess.
Good!
Mafia is a game on trust and skepticism, and as we cannot necessarily determine many roles right away, and despite particular role-claims, we should always keep a healthy skepticism on the topic, because we can NEVER fully know until once again, said person is killed off from either a lynch, or during the night.
We should remain skeptical, we should not "confirm" people. So keep rocking that skepticism on me Dessern, because that'll make your rationale better in the end when it comes to votes during the day-cycle.
I'm not certain how I'm "undermining" anything you said.
IF however, you want to focus on digi...
I've already said this, but honestly, I already know by position with digi, and I've already stated that I already strongly believed, even back on day 1, that I do already believe that digi isn't anti-town or mafia or whatever. To me, she is most likely safe, and I'm not going to vote for her if such a case ever happens in the future of this season.
This doesn't show any undermining of YOU in any way, nor that of digi.
I PURELY spoke out of this notion of digi, because if you actually look at you reasoning...
As a player, I am actually extremely surprised you of all people would use such terrible evidence to try as a conviction.
Your response to my thing of Digi NOT being Mafia:
The mafia moved quickly and kicked in the door of the digitalmez's apartment
Again, I am EXTREMELY surprised and a bit displeased that you of anyone would actually being using text from the "intro stories" as actual evidence against, well, anything really.
Throughout these past Mafia Seasons, whether hosted by yourself, or road, or Prizyms with Mafia Lite, never have I seen an instance where these "Into the next day" stories have to be used as general evidence.
These stories have always been, and always will be in the file of "not-evidence," and "cannot be used in discussion," because really, Why are these stories here in the first place?
You know why?: they add personality to the game, makes the night-sequences interesting instead of merely saying "x-person died," or "x-person was saved," or anything along those lines.
These stories are nice and interesting, and give a break from the day-to-day discussions purely with a nice background story with lore to "give meaning" to the actual Mafia games.
This is a story element.
Unless the exact occurrences of the night are directly stated at the end of the story arch, which it normally does, then really, we do not know what happened that night besides the "X-person died" and whatnot.
Sometimes, I wish these "story" posts didn't entirely be created, because if such a thing occurred like the event in the past where we were essentially VERY confused as the story didn't seem to match the actual evidence given.
Basing any evidence just on what these stories say should NOT be the case.
If we want exact information to actually use, then it should obviously stated that THIS person was attacked but did not die.
This information should be presented EXACTLY at the beginning of the days, as otherwise, people can get confused, or we end up ASSUMING specific circumstances occurred, and really, it all just turns into this big mess of terrible ideas and logic.
NO. I did NOT undermine anything involving your choice to say "digi is totally not Mafia," nor undermining Digi's innocence, because I've pretty much already believed that since Day 1 because I pretty much did defend her heavily.
What I did was CONDONE the USAGE OF STORY-ELEMENTS, which really SHOULD NOT be used in these Mafia games.
They are for RECREATIONAL purposes purely, at least in my opinion.
Furthermore:
I am fairly certain you can be trusted as the cop Alpha
Wait. Just up there you cast doubt on all the people I have named, but then you backtrack and say you trust me as the cop? What happened to all the doubt on the roles I have cleared? Keep in mind you have a possibility of being godfather as well.
I thought this was an obvious thing, but I guess it wasn't seeing how I either written it, or how I personally was interpreting it at the time.
This was a statement I procured after the long drabble of how I disliked using "story" as evidence with the subject of digi, as well as agreeing though adding the healthy skepticism outlook on Harmak as well as myself.
Now, if you look back, you stated yourself a number of people you BELIEVED (note that was still your opinion; you did not search Defiant or digi, and there is still the chance of either me, harmak, or any other civilian to be the Godfather), however
My statement here was supposed to resonate that I TRUST IN YOUR JUDGEMENT alpha, in your statements, and in assuming that the majority of these players are not Mafia.
You cannot say I "backtracked" onto this sentence at all, for once again, that is purely putting words I never said into my mouth in order to cast this suspicion onto me.
I can say this, perfectly clearly.
I can agree with some things which you say Alpha, because some of them make sense in my opinion. Yet, of course, I can still disagree and feel you are wrong on many a decision.
Is that not life in which people disagree? Have different ideologies? Different personalities or outlooks on a situation due to their experience and mindset?
With that,
I don't believe Defiant did a good job explaining himself.
To me, none of it makes an reasonable sense, and thus, I cannot fully trust him.
That, of course, is my opinion, and I am entitled to such opinion.
I don't plan on removing my vote on Defiant.
Soo...
If you truly believe I'm the cop JKangaroo, you will take back that vote for Defiant. If not, then let's get serious.
No.
I am not going to be change my opinion just because I disagree on something based on this.....
What's essentially a threat.
Yes, I can believe you are the cop, yet not Defiant.
Just because in YOUR OPINION that YOU DON'T BELIEVE defiant to be Anti-town/Mafia doesn't mean I can't.
I believe my reasoning is fairly sound, and after continually reading over it numerous times both today and yesterday, I realy feel Defiant is a suspicious individual.
I don't think I can trust him.
If I'm going to essentially be THREATENED over an opinion, then I shouldn't have anything to prove to you, especially after you completely reword and ignore much of the core ideas of my post.
