In post 376, JacksonVirgo wrote: In post 375, Greeting wrote: In post 359, Malakittens wrote:Ok you don’t know me greeting and I can promise you I don’t use mental health to toy with peoples feeling. I have lost s/o due to spiraling into depression. I have also lost friends and a job due to it as well.
So please let me know when you walk a week in my shoes and then tell me I shit on mental health when majorly of people in my field suffer mental health issues secondary to try to help others.
Either way im done with this conversation.
I'm sorry, you brought it up?
The moment you bring up your real life insecurities and issues they become part of the game. If you don't want people to use them against you then keep them to yourself. I'm not sorry for playing towards my winning goal, and in case you're wondering what it is, that's looking for liars and manipulators, which also includes emotional blackmailers.
Its more complicated than just keeping it to yourself. As keeping it to yourself can also lead to it being used against you
That's one interpretation of what happened. Another interpretation that I believe is that someone uses this as a pre-emptive argument to excuse themselves out of suspicion.
If someone speaks of their newfound confidence and then does stuff that contradicts this confidence, the most logical conclusion is that have been manufacturing content and lying. And, you know, when you claim that someone is 100% scum and then vote someone else to
supposedly
make a point that just doesn't prove one's confidence in my eyes. It starts making sense from a scum point of view: miseliminating a townie and doing it paving the way for oneself to miseliminate another townie Day 2. The
momo
wagon was, in my opinion, a pressure wagon gone very wrong towards the end with the specific aim of targeting me for it later. Twilight of Day 1 was when my suspicion of
Malakittens
started to enhance when they got super erratic with their behavior and went on to hammer a townie (I know that it was
MathBlade
who did this, but
Malakittens
paved the way for him to do it).
Malakittens
claims that they had their first suspicion on me far earlier than when the first vote was cast. While it isn't immediately clear when it was, the first post where they indicated some sort of displeasure with my content was
215. They present my case as an OMGUS vote which it isn't. While their case on me is obviously wrong, I did not suspect them for having doubts about my alignment, which were crumbed (but not glaringly obvious to me) up until
287. The case did have
some
merit in the fact that I did not post a lot of content for most of Day 1. I have certainly hinted why and that was because I thought the majority of Day 1 was uneventful and boring. People went after
MathBlade
most of the time, whom I was townreading at the time. Nothing else was happening, many players weren't posting at all. That's it.
What matters in this game is behavior and not one's character. I have made points relating to behavior and received a counterattack in which I have been blamed for attacking one's character with
Malakittens
providing very personal reasoning. That's inexcusable and, objectively speaking, scum indicative. In the context of a mafia game, I am actually reading this as a poor attempt to stop me from reading the slot. It's not even "oh my god, you suck for this post", but "how DARE you attack my mental health" (referencing both
349 and
359). Town wants to solve the game. Scum wants to manipulate town against solving the game. Emotionally blackmailing another player into
not
investigating a potential scum slip, giving a real-life based reasoning, is a very anti-town thing to do.
Playstyles vary, but scum interests are always the same. And
Malakittens
' behavior does not indicate a game-solving mindset.
And that is why, in my opinion, the kitty needs to go. Not because they had some issues. But because what they claim doesn't align with their behavior and when pressed about it they get aggressive and manipulative.
