The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:48 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:52 pm INH, what is your opinion on rabbit? Go.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:48 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:49 pm

Marmot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:00 pm

At the Sign of the Prancing Pony

The Black Riders arrived at the Prancing Pony, looking for the Hobbits. They ransacked the room that was rented to them, but found no sign of them.


No one has been nightkilled.


Day 5 has begun. You have 48 hours to lynch somebody.

Alrighty. Shit's getting dire.

Time to come clean.

I'm Mister Frodo. Before Night 4, I possessed The Ring. It made me invulnerable to NK's and lynches. Unfortunately, Sauron found me last night and took it. Luckily, the ring protected me from the kill his team directed at me.

Unfotunately, that means he can most likely do some quite nasty shit with it. There are nine players left. We have yet to kill a baddie, which is fairly shameful. Everybody's feeling a malaise. We need to wake the fuck up.

If we fail to lynch a baddie today, Day 6 is LYLO.

Let's get fucking going, why don't we?

INH posted this, and made three posts after that. In two of them, he issued a suspicion of Glorfindel. In the other he reiterated his claim and said he was going to be killed.

I don't get how quickly the enthusiasm dissipated.

His claim also suggests that the mafia was searching and killing the same targets each Night. My assumption was that the Ring protected its user from death since the Ring turns people invisible. If I were mafia, I would not be killing and searching the same person on the same Nights.

On the other hand, INH claimed Frodo, and if he was not Frodo, then the real Frodo would be crying for his head, and that isn't happening.

The only thing I can fathom is if INH is evil, he or his teammate searched rabbit, and figuring rabbit wasn't going to be around, claimed Frodo. He never said anything about rabbit, and I doubt he expected rabbit to get lynched today.

Long Con wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:35 am Maybe INH fakeclaimed. Is the game at that point where a fakeclaim would ensure a baddie win? Feels like a baddie win is all but unavoidable anyway. And INH wasn't on the chopping block at all, was he?

INH, can you give us all the details you know on your role? Do you know who Gandalf is?

Glorfindel wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:26 am

juliets wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:29 pm Glorfindel can you provide some context for your vote? Is it because of LC's case or is there something more that you noticed?

If Sauron has the One Ring, it’s game over so it hardly matters now does it?

Marmot wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:00 pm

At the Sign of the Prancing Pony

The Black Riders arrived at the Prancing Pony, looking for the Hobbits. They ransacked the room that was rented to them, but found no sign of them.


No one has been nightkilled.


Day 5 has begun. You have 48 hours to lynch somebody.

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:57 pm

Marmot wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:00 pm

Farewell to Lórien

The party spent time in Lórien, and the elves who dwell within. The members of the party were given many gifts to part with.

DrWilgy was given elvish bread. Or so he thought. Someone thought it would be funny to bake it with shards of steel.


DrWilgy has been lynched. He was...

Spoiler: show

Legolas

He was a vanilla civilian.

Night 4 has begun. You have until 20:00 EST on Monday to submit your night actions.

Lol, good prank bruh

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:20 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:47 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:24 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:01 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:58 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:55 pm Hmm. Interesting kill choice.

RIP Mac

Did you do it?

Nope. Did you?

No.

That's exactly what Mac's killer would say.

Do you have an alibi?

If I told you I was fucking the midget from Twin Peaks, would you believe me?

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:24 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:01 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:58 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:55 pm Hmm. Interesting kill choice.

RIP Mac

Did you do it?

Nope. Did you?

No.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:58 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:55 pm Hmm. Interesting kill choice.

RIP Mac

Did you do it?

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:29 pm what if we just locked Epi, Rabbit, Mac, and a mannequin with Speed's face on it in a storage locker and let them battle it all out? They all seem really sure of themselves to the point where they seemingly are willing to ignore everyone else in the game.

right now I have no friggin' idea who in that group (bar Speed, who's a townread) is genuine and who's posturing.

rabbit8 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:35 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:29 pm what if we just locked Epi, Rabbit, Mac, and a mannequin with Speed's face on it in a storage locker and let them battle it all out? They all seem really sure of themselves to the point where they seemingly are willing to ignore everyone else in the game.

right now I have no friggin' idea who in that group (bar Speed, who's a townread) is genuine and who's posturing.

I ignore you because you're related to that scum DH.

MacDougall wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:38 pm

rabbit8 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:37 pm

MacDougall wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:35 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:29 pm what if we just locked Epi, Rabbit, Mac, and a mannequin with Speed's face on it in a storage locker and let them battle it all out? They all seem really sure of themselves to the point where they seemingly are willing to ignore everyone else in the game.

right now I have no friggin' idea who in that group (bar Speed, who's a townread) is genuine and who's posturing.

Player salad. Lynch him in the name of Jimmy.

By accusing 4 players?

Yeah why not? He's like HERE ARE 4 NAMES NOT ME TO FOCUS EFFORTS ON *retreats back into the shadows to prepare his next wall post to make himself look good*.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:47 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:52 pm IN SUMMARY



Kyle has floated and waffled from weak suspicion to weak suspicion, mainly focusing on easy targets who weren't likely to go after him. He asks substanceless questions in attempt to seem semi-active and civilian-esque. He hasn't had one solid opinion, stance, or case this entire game.

Total scummeister.

*votes Kyle*

2 things... did you take time to photoshop my name on top of a waffle? cus that's amazing.

Yep. I figured that I needed a visual component to communicate my stance to people who just absent-mindedly scrolled past the words.

second thing... go back and read through *any* of the recent games I've played other ones. tell me the name of a single player I suspected and used accusatory language towards in the first two phases of any of those games. name one.

Fiddler doesn't count. In Fiddler I was pushed out of my comfort zone in the first few days by a Jay and Sloonei onslaught. I reacted emotionally but I did my best to identify things people did that might be scummy because I didn't want to die. like 90% of the players I accused were civs. identifying scumtells or whatever isn't in my wheelhouse. I wish it were but it isn't. I'm more a more effective player later-game phases.

that's why my gameplay style isn't to accuse people blindly and make them die so I can know if I'm right or not, that's ineffective. my style is to question people and analyze their responses to my questions as well as those posed by others in hopes of expanding the context of their behavior and understanding why they might have done or said what they did.

Maybe I don't fit into your cookie cutter view of how you think a civ should act but... I think that's a good thing. If every player only shouted about their own cases and didn't weigh in on each other's thoughts we wouldn't actually get anything done.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:07 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:49 pmKyle responded to these posts by explaining what "pressure votes" are, not realizing that my problem with him was that all of his "pressure votes" were directed at easy, low-posting targets which allowed him to float through the thread without having solid, objectionable opinions.

this is wrong. my pressure was placed where it could do something. glorfindel was pressured to gauge a reaction, sofi was pressured because I wanted to hear an explanation for her vote. I put pressure votes on players I wanted to verify things about, saying they were just quiet players is false.

Once again, you keep willfully ignoring the crux of my argument, continually making me out to not understand basic concepts that I'm actually accusing you of not using in a pro-civilian way. Yes, I know that you were ostensibly voting for these people in order for in-thread "pressure" reasons. I just think that the justification for these "pressure votes" is weaksauce and unfortunately your "pressure votes" have the consequence of counting as actual votes, meaning that you could have an easy-ass justification for a vote and eventual lynch of un-controversial players who won't publicly drag you through the mud.

Accused me of tunnelling.

you are.

nice attempt at discrediting me

He then went after Jack, who was targeting him earlier in the thread, ostensibly because he wasn't stopping posting in emojis.

you seem to think the only reason anyone should ever make negative comments about each other is to try and get the other person lynched. That's not how I play. The first step to any suspicion is questioning that player and trying to figure out their motivation for doing the things they've done. That's what I did with Jack and it's also why I started to feel better about him. None of that could have been accomplished without the push.

You called him your main scumread. I interpreted that as fact, and not some weird psy-op strategy that none of us, except Jack, was supposed to take seriously. You really seem to enjoy shirking culpability for your own opinions and stances.

My thoughts on people with self-imposed posting limitations are already well established:

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:02 pm Everyone say it with me.

"SELF-IMPOSED POSTING RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF ALIGNMENT."

Been down this road too many damn times.

that's irrelevant. obviously choosing to do a posting thing isn't necessarily alignment indicative. that doesn't mean any player who does a posting thing doesn't have an alignment and shouldn't ever be questioned.

your only argument was that CIV JACK WOULD HAVE DROPPED THE GIMMICK BY THIS POINT, which is nonsense. But I suppose that's irrelevant since when you say that you scumread someone, we're all supposed to realize that you don't really scumread them, and that this is an elite questioning strategy to extract...nothing from Jack. You got nothing from Jack. Literally all he did to get you to stop "worrying" about him was stopping posting in emojis.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:28 am so i guess what i want is.... cases. clear opinions. the real stuff. jack is a strong player so i want to see strong play, even if he's doing it via pictures of dogs and human faces.

...says the guy who hasn't given a single strong case or clear opinion.

I've been doing plenty of work, you've just been dismissing it all as opportunistic :/ I don't tend to make accusations and big cases in the early game, inh. that's not how i play. I ask questions and gauge responses cus it's what I'm good at. Other people do what they're good at and it creates a well functioning machine that mafias. jack is an actual good mafia player so ofc I expect more from him.

I'm not arguing with your patented method of question-asking and response-gauging. Sloonei did a shitton of that, and he was a townread for me. I think that I'm dealing with the evil, scummy version of Kyle that does the same amount of inquisitive behavior, but without really doing anything with it. I'm simply not happy with the results you've gotten from your methods, which makes me think you're using them nefariously.

After Jack breaks his emoji-posting pattern, and writes in, y'know, words, Kyle immediately posts this:

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:56 am i am no longer worried about jack

This continues Kyle's trend of backtracking on any original in-thread stances whenever he gets a whiff of backlash.

"kyle changes his mind about things sometimes when confronted with new data so obviously he's bad" :/

first of all that's overly simplified, I didn't say that about jack because he posted without emojis, I said it because I believed in his response. it made sense as an explanation and jived with something Jack had said previously

the entire point of questioning someone is to figure out where someone stands. you're acting like asking people questions and then ending up not wanting them dead is somehow wrong

You called him your top scumread because he posted in emojis, (and also happened to coincidentally suspect you, but let's ignore that) and then did a 180 when he broke the gimmick and posted in words. Oh wait, no, it's apparently because he mentioned the phrase "tone words," and his response just feels "really genuine."

Not really seeing the startlingly relevant data that causes you to make him a non-scumread, and that justifiied your extensive, advanced interrogation techniques.

Kyle's reaction to the Ambray Vs. Mac Day 2 kerfuffle was, predictably a bunch of waffling.

He sure did ask a bunch of questions, which I guess is supposedly civilian-type behavior.

It's absolutely average Kyle-typebehavior. Read any game I've played recently and you'll see the same thing. If I don't understand something I'm going to ask questions until I have the baseline of knowledge required to figure things out for myself. If you want a link to one I can provide but you can probably just click on any of the more recent games from the last 5 months and see what I mean.

The fact that you yourself identify this as your prototypical town behavior means that you'd consciously choose to do the same damn thing if you were scum, except less productive and genuine. I believe the following questions are examples of this malevolent, outwardly-inquisitive Kyle.

This may be what Kyle refers to as my prospensity for "tunnelling," but these questions all seem like Kyle looking for someone to tell him what to think, and who to vote for, instead of actual case-building.

kind of telling actually? is that how you believe mafia should be played? 20 players make cases on their own in 20 lonely vacuums without input and ignore cases made by the other players?

You weren't building any opinion of your own, or defining your own viewpoint in any way. You were just continually asking somewhat asinine questions in what looked like a facile attempt to seem active and invested, despite not really caring and knowing that a civ would be lynched either way.

It also feels like he's trying desperately to sell other players on Ambray and Mac being the two lynch leaders, forcing attention off of other possible candidates. Despite claiming to have ISO'd both candidates, and asking so many questions, Kyle doesn't actually post a clear stance or opinion against either of them until after the vote ended, and after he pulled a literal last minute vote against Ambray.

I didn't have a clear stance, that's why I was asking so many questions basically up until the end of the phase. I don't make rash decisions. If I don't feel properly informed on a topic then I work to fix that.

You never once vocalized your thought process or why you decided to vote Sofi outside of basic-sounding fluff like the below quote from after EOD. You claim to have been carefully assembling info to build an informed, cogent viewpoint, but instead your Sofi vote feels like a half-hearted excuse.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:45 pm I voted sofi. I think the case against her is good enough and I think she's more likely to flip bad than mac

For all the shit he gave Jack for posting emojis, Kyle's vote-justification is merely the text equivalent of this:

yeah? the only votes that mattered at that point were sofi and mac so i voted sofi, cus i thought Mac was more likely to be civ.

Missing in this last minute vote justification: any actual reasons why sofi is more likely to be scum and Mac is more likely to be civ.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:17 pm INH feel free to keep suspecting me but do you have any suspects other than me and sofi?

speedchuck wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:58 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:20 am Apologies for the Day 2 absense.

People I plan on ISO'ing:

Kylemii - was suspicious of him D1
Long Con - voted Ambray - don't have a cogent read of him
Epignosis - has a whole thing going with Mac, not 100% sure on my read of that dynamic
Mac - pretty much same reasoning as Epignosis
Wilgy - had a whole thing against Ambray
Novaseline - has left literally no impressions on me as a player, and went after Nutella D1

Wish me luck.

Why these six?

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:52 pm I didn't like his assumptions about the ways the mafia roles worked, nor did I like how he treated Glorf. His responses to Jack's accusations were kinda weaksauce, and his weird barbs against Sloonei for explaining Glorf's deal just come off really weird.

I also don't like the course of events that went: Kyle + Nutella go after Glorf -> Ambray follows Kyle and votes Glorf -> The thread defends Glorf, and public opinion turns against his accusers -> Kyle walks back/downplays what he said and turns on Ambray, claiming that her reasoning for voting Glorf is shadier than his own -> When Ambray shows up and responds, Kyle randomly switches to Faraday, possibly the most inactive player, who will probably not fight back against this lynch.

It's just all kinda spineless and contortion-y, with Kyle changing his stance and flipping on people quite a bit.

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:14 pm You can't just retroactively declare a vote completely unindicative of suspicion. Especially when you switched to Faraday less than two hours before the EOD. I'm not saying that you didn't use your vote to question them, but pretending like that's your sole reason for voting someone is damn silly.

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:26 pm Kyle, the person at the end of the day with the most votes is lynched. That's how the game works. Unfortunately, there's not a seperate "questioning" poll where you can vote for people you want to have answer your requests. A vote is a vote, and I take it seriously.

Saying that it's solely for questioning is a bit of a dodge and a bit of a scummy move IMO. In fact, literally all of your votes today, Kyle, have been directed at low-posting players (or at least they were when you voted for them) that you want to "pressure." Nevertheless, DFaraday might be pressured all the way to the noose.

I feel like specifically voting for under-the-radar players, ostensibly for "pressure" purposes, then moving to another mostly-silent player if they show up and complain, would be a hella attractive strategy for a scummeister.

You're appearing like an active player without actually going after anyone who'll fight back, and preserving plausible deniability.

It's like when one of those douchebag Youtubers punch someone and then claim it was a social experiment afterward.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:18 pm actually I feel like you've tunnelled me like you were doing earlier before, in a game many moons ago, it felt very familiar

Kylemii wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:33 am I want to elaborate on my jack read. He's been Wilgying, and that's fine. He's also expressed suspicions and that's good, but I haven't seen him trying to actually push any of his reads. every player that isn't Wilgy who starts out with a self-imposed limitation ends up dropping it as soon as it actually starts to inhibit their play.

if the language used in his one actual text post were accurate to the way he felt about me then why didn't he push for my lynch, specially when he said "eyeroll emoji" and "wolf emoji" about me

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:02 pm Everyone say it with me.

"SELF-IMPOSED POSTING RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF ALIGNMENT."

Been down this road too many damn times.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:28 am so i guess what i want is.... cases. clear opinions. the real stuff. jack is a strong player so i want to see strong play, even if he's doing it via pictures of dogs and human faces.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:56 am i am no longer worried about jack

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:20 pm mmmmmmmmm @Ambray @MacDougall

please tell me who you would lynch today if you weren't currently top vote getters, and neither of you could vote for the other

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:34 pm mac when did you begin suspecting ambray?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:40 pm differently why?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:56 pm @MacDougall i remember you referencing a difference between phone mac and computer mac before, what game was that in? was that Fiddler?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:05 pm I can't check rn cus I'm at dinner, did Sofi mention either of Sloonei or Nutella before this post?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:07 pm most specifically sloonei, did she mention sloon?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:29 pm @Sloonei do you have any input on sofi v mac?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:45 pm I voted sofi. I think the case against her is good enough and I think she's more likely to flip bad than mac

speedchuck wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:39 am I have not reread anything. I'm voting for Kylemii at the moment.

Before Buffy started, I was watching this game casually, and I didn't like his push toward Glorfindel. Specifically, how he went after people who took the opposite side, and how his reason for going after Glorf was "he didn't answer for himself."

Maybe this was a pity thing on my part, since Glorf clearly didn't want to talk about the subject. But I interpreted Kylemii's posts as him being frustrated, and it felt like scum frustration because of Glorf's truthfulness. If this has already been discussed to death, and I'm opening old wounds in the thread, please point me to a conclusion.

Since that time, from what I can tell in a quick ISO, Kylemii has asked a bunch of questions but not followed up on them much. I don't know where he stands, and that's not comfortable.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:18 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:12 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:21 pm I haven't played with INH since The Old Times, has he played a lot in recent history?

He's a fairly regular player around these parts lately, yeah. Why do you ask?

he just seems very familiar to how he was back then lol

it's like deja vu

Epignosis wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:37 pm INH, I think Kyle is a civilian.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:34 pm I also mentioned that I've been trying to vote earlier in the day instead if waiting til last minute, in order to improve my effectiveness and improve myself as a player.

Voting early doesn't mean deciding early. It means distributing pressure where i feel it needs to be distributed.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:29 pm "the player who has the most votes at the end of the day is lynched"

true

you're talking about a player i voted for at the start of the day. INH that's how pressure votes work. You vote a player with an accusation and see how they respond. If they respond favorably you move it.

this isn't a new concept. I didn't invent this

Kylemii wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:17 pm Sir, I made clear in my posts that I made that my reasoning for voting glorfindel was for pressure purposes.

If my vote for glorfindel wasn't for pressure/questioning then what do you think it was for?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:57 pm @insertnamehere you should review my posts my votes for sofi and glorfindel were for questioning purposes. I responded to Jack's accusations just fine. His words were an inaccurate accounting of what happened

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:16 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:12 pm Nope. Sue me.

who you gonna vote for?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:10 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:02 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:37 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:02 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:54 pm There's also Jackofhearts. What do we make of him restricting himself to emojis only?

Everyone say it with me.

"SELF-IMPOSED POSTING RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF ALIGNMENT."

Been down this road too many damn times.

what do you think of the content he's provided through that self-imposed restriction?

about as much content as anyone else in this game

I went through this exact song and dance in WTNV Mafia with Ricochet, where we were both potential civilian BTSC buddies who were at each others throats the entire game because of his emoji gimmick.

And saw this exact song and dance happen in Blue Velvet Mafia when Ricochet found out the entire mafia team on like Day 2, and no one paid attention because of his gimmick.

I have reached a point where I don't give a shit about gimmicks. Frankly, people who harp on about them draw both my attention and my suspicion.

If I have to go through another game where people make it a major issue, I'm gonna be quite cross.

I agree that it's unproductive to ignore or suspect a player purely for doing a thing like this. As a host, I watched wilgy get lynched for exactly this on Day 1 despite having the best reads in the game. But the gimmick is still a topic in the thread. It's something that can be talked about. If anything I am inclined to town read Jack off the bat because this sort of thing paints a huge target on any player who chooses to operate like this.

That said, I was explicitly not asking you about this here. Can you give a GTH read on Jack?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:37 pm

insertnamehere wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:02 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:54 pm There's also Jackofhearts. What do we make of him restricting himself to emojis only?

Everyone say it with me.

"SELF-IMPOSED POSTING RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF ALIGNMENT."

Been down this road too many damn times.

what do you think of the content he's provided through that self-imposed restriction?

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:15 pm

Ambray wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:17 pm So I suddenly am working non stop over the next couple days, quite literally so won't be likely around to vote tomorrow.

In all the games I ever played of mafia I only played 1 that allowed role claiming and I still find it hard to wrap my head around it being an ok thing to do nowadays and I really can't say that I like it as a an allowance, but thems the kicks.

I remember yesterday being pinged by somebody, but I honestly do not have the energy in me right now to go back and reread, even just 2 pages worth. xD

I am getting civvie vibes from Kyle so far and I agree with his assessment of the role claiming situation - I am surprised at the amount of people disagreeing with him and calling him mafia for it...
I'm going to follow his lead and vote glorfindel, just cause.

Sorry to be so useless so early in the game.

Ambray is baaaaaaaaaad. Sad day.

Glorfindel wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:02 pm Very well. I’m putting an end to this nonsense once and for all. If no one could’ve guessed, THIS game means a great deal to me (perhaps more than any other that I’ve played here at the Syndicate) and I am not going to let those disingenuous amongst you use my reputation and meta against me here. Yes, I AM TOWN! You can take that to the bank or wherever else you damn well want to - I’m not going to blissfully be mislynched by the forces of #*^%ing Mordor! I’d said it before, and this game has proven it to me now - my continued presence in these games has become truly untenable. Accordingly, please don’t expect that I’ll be returning for The Two Towers (as much as that pains me). I’ll have more to say on this matter once this game is ended.

In the meantime, I’m not buying Nutella’s twisted logic for voting me so here... have one of your own!

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:54 pm There's also Jackofhearts. What do we make of him restricting himself to emojis only?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:52 pm I'm not all that interested in probing into Glorfindel's honesty policy. He's said he wants to get away from it and I think it's a cheap ploy to go after him with that anyway. I'm much more interested in hearing his reads on people in this thread right now.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:41 pm Somebody say something so I can RicoWilgy at them.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:05 am

MacDougall wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:53 pmCould you just. Is that because you are Mafia and you are aware that she isn't your teammate?

no it's cus I read the roles. there's no role that gets a "red card" on other players. you were doing a jay gambit.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:05 am

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:53 pmWhat? If I see someone claim my role, I should keep quiet?

why would scum claim your role when they're apparently already set up with safeclaims