The Syndicate

And, for the record, I asked my team to throw me under the bus. They wouldn't. But whoever said that I would never let my team throw me under the bus was completely wrong. I am a big believer in bus throwing, when a teammate is obviously going to be lynched. But none of them got tied to me in the long run, so it was all good.

I did enjoy our team.

Go baddies!!!

S~V~S wrote:

Finn McMissile peeped around a corner. And another. And another.

Finn was trying to find a killer. But each person Finn researched, they all seemed to do nothing. Or to do innocent things. No murders, nothing. Lots of corner peeping, lots of NOTHING.

But Finn never gave up hope. Every dawn, Finn waited patiently for the response message. Sometimes a monkey brought it. It always came on time on those days. Other days a bear who seemed kind of tipsy brought it. It was almost never on time those days.

Sitting in the driveway, waiting, the silhouette of a bear appeared in teh early morning light, the sun behind her. Early today, Finn thought. REALLY early.

The Bear handed Finn a message.

"Finn McMissile/Night 7", the envelope said on the outside.

She opened it, and the name was unexpected. Two seconds later, a piano fell on Finns hood, oil squirted out of her grille, and Finn was dead.

nijuukyugou has been killed. She was:

Spoiler: show

Finn MicMissile - Cars CIVVIE
Chooses one player each Night to watch over. Finn McMissile will be told who else targeted that player that Night.

It is Day 8. Can you lynch a baddie?

Is that a piano?

Ah.....mafia memories.....thanks for that.

In related news, the teens I work with recently were showing each other this video because they just discovered it and as I watched them watching it, I had a nice little mafia nostalgia moment.

bea wrote:

I miss DD.

Black Rock wrote:I have put my vote on LoRab. Not to sound like a broken record or anything. I thought I might vote for JJJ but I found some of his more recent posts to be compelling and I am less sure he's a baddie. I work tomorrow before and during the deadline so I want to make sure I have a vote in just in case.

You continue to be wrong about me.

bea wrote:

LoRab wrote:What the absolute fuck?

I've caught up and holy bandwagon, batman!! Seriously, people.

There is more than one person who voted for me who either hasn't mentioned me at all and should know better (Tranq) or who has never played with me before and can't even give me the benefit to answer votes (motel room). A few others who are somewhere in the middle, but that was the most obvious late lynch bandwagon I have ever seen.

And I agree with others that it was a clear attempt to save a teammate. And noting that he didn't act like a civ who had a save to use during the lynch.

*votes JJJ*

Hi lorab. NIce to see you again. (been waiting for this post in my catsup since I read you missed the vote. All I could think is....well...she's in for a surprise..... )


Pretty clear what you think of JJ - what do you think of the rest that voted you? Who's most likely scum? Who's most likely mislead civ?

Most suspish: JJJ (though not for voting me...mainly because of the bandwagon against me which looked like it was to save him), motel room, Tranq....Golden sort of started the bandwagon, so that concerns me and bumps him up. Although maybe llama, too, for being the next to vote going by the first follower theory.

The others I either have no idea on at the moment or am middle of the road about.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Yeah I didn't think I was allowed to outright tell people I'm immune to lynches. Otherwise I probably would have.

If you would have outright told people, then why wouldn't you have subtly hinted?

HamburgerBoy wrote:Question to Syndicaters: is it normal for a seemer role to change both alignment and role? E.g. could someone be out there with a "JaggedJimmyJay. Towniest town. Immune to a single death of any kind" write-up?

I'm going to switch to Tranq temporarily until I sort things out and know where to go next. If JJJ is lying, it will come to bite him eventually. If there are multiple anti-town factions out there, no matter his alignment he should eventually come under fire. I think staying on him would be a waste of a lynch.

To me, what makes him suspicious is not that he had a save but that he had teammates who could bandwagon for him, so that he could avoid using the save. And why would it be a waste of a lynch?

HamburgerBoy wrote:Also, a seemer is usually required to declare a target at a specific time, right? That way, if anyone knocks off Jimmy on a random night, there will be a higher chance the flip was genuine.

When I was the first seemer, I could pick my role when I needed to pick my role, if I recall. So, when I was lynched, I got to choose my role. I believe that I could have chosen what role to appear if I had been checked, but that never happened. LC can correct me if I'm wrong. I've also seen the role work with various tweaks and variations over the years--I'm not sure there's a standard of how a seemer works.

Ricochet wrote:Wait, what if LoRab is a seemer, because of all the "seem" wording Epig picked up on?

Why would I hint at being a baddie role? That doesn't even make sense. Really, it's just a word I use a lot.

Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.

I don't have BTSC with Dom. We are not on a baddie team together. If he is civ, then we are on the same team.

I will say that suspish is a word that was used a lot on LP and TP, which is where Dom learned to mafia. So it doesn't strike me as odd language from Dom. He also could have picked it up from me during our BTSC time in the last game.

All that said, it's not a word I'd expect to hear from Llama...so...an interesting note to keep in mind.

Turnip Head wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Turnip Head even sat with them, and while blowing the petals off a daisy...

Blowing the petals off a daisy? That's not a thing.

Please tell me which flower I'm thinking of. It's it a daffodil? I wrote the post in like 5 minutes, no time for fact checking!

Dandelion.

Daisies are plucked in a loves me, loves me not sort of way.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:So, I may have not focused on 1 sentence within one post on one page of the game. Sorry about that. And, uh, yeah--upon seeing it now, how would I know that was directed at me? And, really, in reading a dozen pages of posts, I miss a sentence or 2 here and there. It's a fact of life. I'm sorry I don't hang on every single word that you write.

You don't hang on every single word I write? Shocker.

"How would I know that was directed at me?"

and

"And, really, in reading a dozen pages of posts, I miss a sentence or 2 here and there?"

Pick an excuse. You either saw it and thought it was meant for someone else (HamburgerBoy didn't post a number either), so if you saw my ruse, why didn't you call him on it?

Or you "miss a sentence here and there." And you happened to miss my sentence as one of those here or there? Lies.

You are bad and I hope you hang.

You missed the "upon seeing it now" part of the "How would I know" section of your selective quoting. I didn't see it. But even if I had, and in rereading it in retrospect, its intent isn't clear.

Selective quoting to pick a post apart doesn't work if you totally miss a relevant point of the post. Please don't try to twist my words. It's inelegant.

I'm not bad. You're trying to make me look that way. I get you suspect me--and I don't mind that. You've suspected me in every game we've played together (which is more than just a couple of games as you claimed earlier). And I think now, no matter what I say, you're going to twist my posts to make them fit your theory.

You are wrong. Stuboorn, but wrong.

But, really, if you're going to respond directly to a post of mine, at least read it fully and accurately.

So, I may have not focused on 1 sentence within one post on one page of the game. Sorry about that. And, uh, yeah--upon seeing it now, how would I know that was directed at me? And, really, in reading a dozen pages of posts, I miss a sentence or 2 here and there. It's a fact of life. I'm sorry I don't hang on every single word that you write.

Oh, wait...did you mean why don't I suspect a specific number of people who voted for me? OF the 8 who voted for me, I'm not sure which are bad. I don't particularly suspect you or Sorsha because your suspicion of me is well documented. The other 6 I'm iffy on.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:And I agree with others that it was a clear attempt to save a teammate. And noting that he didn't act like a civ who had a save to use during the lynch.

*votes JJJ*

Who are these others? Uzzers

Who are 3J's teammates who voted against you?

Why would he have to act like a civilian who had a save to use during a lynch?

What does it mean to act like a civilian who has a save to use during a lynch (I had two of them in Harry Potter Mafia- I never let anyone know).

If he did act like a civilian who had a save to use during the lynch (if), would you still be voting for him?

Why didn't you post a number?

A few people mentioned the obvious lynch wagon in various ways and that it looked like JJJ was looking to have been saved. I don't specifically remember who, off hand. I will look tomorrow.

I named a couple that I'm eyeballing. I'm not sure who that jumped on the lynch train is most suspicious. I need to reread when I'm not quite as livid as I am now.

I find that there are patterns of behavior that tend to be extant with civies who have lynch saves vs baddies who have lynch saves. That's not to say that every civie does the same thing. But I don't think JJJ seemed like a civ with a save. Especially because a bunch of people popped up to vote for another player in order that he be saved. It's a combination of factors that makes me think that he isn't civ.

I don't think I played that game of HP Mafia (as opposed to a much earlier game of HP mafia, in 2 parts, actually). So I'm not sure how you behaved as a civ with lynch saves.

How he responds when he comes back will further inform my thoughts and may convince me differently. If I thought he were civ, yes, I would think differently. Not sure I understand your question.

And post a number? I have no idea what you're talking about.

What the absolute fuck?

I've caught up and holy bandwagon, batman!! Seriously, people.

There is more than one person who voted for me who either hasn't mentioned me at all and should know better (Tranq) or who has never played with me before and can't even give me the benefit to answer votes (motel room). A few others who are somewhere in the middle, but that was the most obvious late lynch bandwagon I have ever seen.

And I agree with others that it was a clear attempt to save a teammate. And noting that he didn't act like a civ who had a save to use during the lynch.

*votes JJJ*

Crapweasel. I missed the vote. I had to do a funeral/memorial service tonight and completely brain farted that the poll was closing before I'd likely be back. So sorry everyone! Going to read back now.

Sorsha wrote:@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?

I was simply answering BR. And noting that I don't suspect her for suspecting me. I guess that you could see that as buttering up, but that wasn't my intent. I was just responding. And, really, my buttering up is much more overt--ask LC. He's often been the recipient of it (enough times that it stopped being effective, lol).

And I can't speak for HB, but I know I'm not on a baddie team. I suspect him, but on a low level--it's more what you say. I don't trust his intentions and think something is up with his posts about me. I can't speak to the motivations on kills, as I'm not on a baddie team and I don't have a kill.

FZ. wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Black Rock wrote:A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?

Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.

Can't help the way you read my posts, but my response was honest. I generally read posts of one player saying, more than once, that another player is civ as being suspish. When it is about me, even more so.

And I disagree with your analysis of his posts about me. He said, several times and in several ways, that he thought I was civ--at times softening that, but keeping to that general theme. His posts focus too close to comfort for me to think that they are innocuous.

Also, curious how you would imagine a civie would respond to that direct question, since you say that's how you'd expect a baddie to respond. Since I was responding as a civie and honestly, I'm curious what you would have expected.

MacDougall wrote:

FZ. wrote:I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts.

This is such a far fetched astronomical theory. You think that the mods would intentionally unbalance their own championship game? It's so crazy it makes me think you're trying too hard to consider the kills weird.

I fully agree with this statement.

Sorsha wrote:

FZ. wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Black Rock wrote:A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?

Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.

I agree. I don't like this post by LoRab either.

LoRab- why would HB need to "suck up" to you? Have you guys played together so much that he would see you as an influence that he'd want to get on your good side in this game? I thought the only other game you've been in together was a world reborn.

What this post sounds like to me is you sucking up to BR in hopes that she will change her mind and stop suspecting you.

In other news.. I'm not going to quote it because it was really big, but I like the case that LC made on jjj. I've been shit at keeping up with the game but I remember agreeing with it when LC brought it up after zebra was killed and I'm not sure if I said anything at the time about it.

I'm not really sure I'm seeing civvie golden here either but I need to go back over his posts before I'm solid on that suspicion. His signature has that quote about civvie golden being a hurricane of self assurance and that is not what I'm seeing from him.

I don't know why he'd want to suck up to me. I haven't played with him a lot. But I also can't figure out why he'd have several posts about his civ read of me for civ reasons--sucking up to me is one reason (it's something I defintiely do with people I read as civ). Putting a target on my back is another. But there were enough posts that it felt more like buttering me up in my read.

thellama73 wrote:Okay, I read Lorab, and while I'm not sold on her being bad, the thing that stuck out to me in her posts was the way she quickly got defensive, and then suddenly switched to "suspect me all you like, I don't care! I'm civ and have nothing to hide!" It's a course correction worth noting.

I was trying to move away from my twirling, as ws discussed in the thread. But old habits are hard to break, lol.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I said earlier that I agreed with FZ's commentary about LoRab. I'll expand.

FZ. wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Black Rock wrote:A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?

Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

Unlike BR, this post actually makes me trust you less than I did before. This is exactly the kind of answer I'd expect a baddie to give when asked such a question. I've strongly defended players I believed were good, so many times, that I don't know why it should make you feel bad about him. I don't even think he's defending you that strongly. He's just asking questions and trying to look elsewhere. But your reaction just feels like you thought what would look best in the eyes of others and that's what you came up with. Does not feel genuine to me.

I think LoRab's comments about HamburgerBoy's defenses are not truly representative of his posts -- he has encouraged people to broaden their voting horizons beyond just her, but he hasn't abjectly defended her or "been too nice" by my observation. This does not look like a genuine read of Burger, and I agree with FZ that she appears to be appealing to BR's mindset more than developing an honest response. This looks like forced suspicion generated by a player who feels it's what she's supposed to do.

Epignosis: I might be willing to join your LoRab crusade. I'd also like to know what you think of other matters in the game though, your read on her is the only one of yours that I could state without checking.

Maybe I read his posts differently because they're about me, but that's how I read them. And I was answering a question that BR asked, so yes it was addressed to her. I don't suspect people because I'm supposed to--not as a civie and not as a baddie. I suspect people because I suspect them. I can't really explain any better than I already have why...I can try to reword to better explain myself, but I'm not sure how.

DharmaHelper wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:What's with the hesitation on Lorab? I suspect her because of her wording regarding Ricochet, and her response was too measured, too kind. Black Rock claims to read Lorab well and says she's bad (and I believe her, because Lorab's tone is a mystery to me and I've only played a handful of times with her). Is that not a one-two punch? What's the deal? Lynch her already and be done. Then see where we stand.

That's my position. Still.

Even her very first post regarding LoRab is actually one of suspicion built on agreeing with Rico's case on her, and as you have said yourself, Rico was spewing bullshit. BR's next post was basically (if indirectly) agreeing with your case on LoRab. She then said a couple things about wanting to see LoRab address points to her, and then ignored that LoRab actually did later. After that, she then proceeded to agree with Sorsha's post against LoRab. Sorry, not a one-two punch to me, it looks like for the better part of day 1, her only concern was agreeing with people that found LoRab suspicious.

In fact, in light of the Rico-LoRab thing I had overlooked before, what do you think of the possibility that Black Rock was bussing? I don't find BR's case on LoRab to be coming from anywhere genuine.

This ain't the first time ol' HB took up the fight for the Not Too Shabbi Rabbi. Is that offensive to say? LoRab. I'm referring to LoRab. Whom I adore.

For my part, I'm not sold on a case that in the course of Night 0 to Day 3 has not evolved past "I got the heebies"

Not too shabbi rabbi...I kind of like it.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

LoRab wrote:HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

People call me defensive of other players as both scum and town. I defended sig and pretty heavily the previous two games I played with him, for example; A World Reborn I was scum and he was civ, the other (RYM #91) I was civ and he was scum (this was more of a brief defense admittedly, but I totally dismissed a legit scumslip he had made and told everyone it was just a mistake and normal for him).

Do you agree with llama that people shouldn't have defended/stated the towniness of Fuzz, that it put a target on him?

I generally believe that unless someone is under heavy suspicion, and an opinion of civ-ness will be helpful to prevent a false lynch, that stating that someone is a civ and proclaiming a likely civ-hood/trustedness is not a great idea. there are exceptions to the rule. Fuzz was not one of those exceptions.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Black Rock wrote:A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?

Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

So you're completely caught up?

I've been caught up throughout the game--whether I've had time to fully respond has been my challenge. I know I have things to respond to from the past RL day (as I said). I will get to that tomorrow. Am not nearly awake enough at the moment.

<3 Bea!!!! Hugs to you.

Black Rock wrote:A question for LoRab before I go back and do what I said I would do... What do you think of HB defending you?

Just finished reading up. Will answer this before I go off to sleep. Will answer other things tomorrow. But this is a direct question and came at the end (I may have cut and copied a bunch of quotes to paste into a window to respond to during my read, and then forgot I did, and cut and pasted something else and lost that entire thing).

Quite honestly, I find it suspicious. I think your suspicion of me is misguided but honest. I believe that you honestly think that I'm bad--it's not like you to make that up. And you wouldn't do that against me. I think those points are BS. I know that you're wrong. But I think that it's coming from the right place. You may be bad, but your suspicion of me isn't evidence of that.

HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

crapweasel! Need to vote. And definitely don't have time to read up before the vote. But don't want to miss. Voting Matt, because of the ping I got mentioned in my last post about ignoring things in the process of coming up with doubt around a second curser. It just seems off. I apologize if Matt came up with a good response to that. And I don't have time before the lynch ends to look at other cases.

I'm back home now, so should have more time to really play now.

Matt wrote:Boomslang, I find it unlikely that there are two curse roles in a game where there were up to 60 roles (and I'm assuming, role powers) originally but was cut to 30. No doubt our hosts have all kinds of cool shit planned for this game, so why would they keep two roles, one that curses in smilies and the other that curses in questions? Overkill for a champions game, I think.

As for positions, I dunno. I didn't play Recruitment and my role has nothing to do with positions, but I suppose it's possible given Zebra's flip.

Why are so many against looking at Draconus?

juliets, were you faking your confusion earlier or was it legit?

This whole post seems to overlook a lot of options. Like a role that can use/borrow/steal other roles, as an easy example. Maybe he was faking it, or maybe there actually are more than one spell roles (perhaps on different teams), or maybe there is a role that can use other powers. I think it is short-sighted to assume that 2 people cursed means that there are 2 identical roles.

I also think it's suspish to raise this question and perhaps try to draw attention away from the curser that we know existed and from speculation about how someone else appeared to be cursed.

Epignosis wrote:I'm voting Lorab again. For now.

Thanks 3J for that...whatever it was.

If you would like to elaborate on your suspicion, that would be great.

Black Rock wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:AAAAAHHHHH WHOOOOO DEEEEEEEEEY

Now I feel bad for voting you.

Actually no I don't.

I just voted for LoRab... because she is bad. I see you have switched your vote to yourself. I hope in my future reads I see a damn good reason.

No, she is not. If you could make a case on me, so that I can explain my actions and defend myself, please do. If you think you have info on me, it isn't accurate. I'm not bad, and I'd like to be able to defend.

As for the Zebra gender question, I think it is kind of bull that someone's questions about another's gender is making them suspicious (this is a greater question than the particular question, so I'm not naming names--it's not important. It's a relevant discussion, though, so I'm not making it green. We are on a forum in which people have names that are not always typically connected to gender We all have certain assumptions about what behaviors appear to be connected to a gender. As one whose gender is frequently mislabeled, I'm attuned to that. When someone refers to me on here as he, it doesn't bother me. But I know that it can be more bothersome for others.

But why is someone's gender at all important to this game in the first place? And why do we need to be so tied to a gender binary as to think that someone has to be male or female...or to tease people for misgendering another or for being misgendered...or suspect people for not knowing the gender identity of another player.

Matters like that, in my experience, aren't often discussed in BTSC. So, a player making a false assumption about another, or using the wrong pronoun, or whatever...that doesn't make me question if they are making up a confusion that they feel. Or that they are making it purposefully seem like they don't have a connection to another player. They're just using the wrong pronoun. (which could be problematic in terms of assumptions and other matters, but has nothing to do with mafia and suspicion).

This is not to defend or suspect anyone. It's just something I've noticed that has utzed me at the moment. Maybe it's because I've spent my weekend on a seminar with 400 teenagers, preparing them to lobby on capitol hill tomorrow and be advocates for social justice, so I'm particularly noticing things. But, yeah, just wanted to say that I'm not sure why this is even a conversation.

And yes, this could have probably been green, but because it relates to a non-green conversation, I've kept it white.

So, I may or may not have written this last night and then forgot to hit submit.

Looking at the night post, unless there was a redirect, it seems more than likely that there is more than 1 baddie team (the slight possibility of a redirect or some such allowing for a mafia team to kill its own), which I think warrants noting. Need to go back and read zebra's posts to see if there are any connections there. In all my lack of free time this weekend. I may need to do it Monday.

Golden wrote:Anyone play a game where paper rock scissors was relevant? It's not ringing bells with me.

About a million years ago, Seals and Bigs used Rock Paper Scissors in LOST Mafia on LP to decide ties. Late/end game, there was a tense tie between 2 players which ended with RPS. A short time later, when Illy and I were hosting Angel mafia on TP, those same 2 players ended the game in a tied lynch, which we had them break by playing rock paper scissors. TH played both those games and might remember. I don't believe SVS played either (don't see it on my spreadsheet from hosting and checked LP for LOST).

That is the only RPS connection with mafia in my mind.

sig wrote:So zebra was mafia, that most likely means JJJ wasn't on her team. I did see the idea that she picked him, but this makes little sense for day 1. I think it is worth looking into the players who after Rico flipped made comments, like saying how they hope he isn't as spammy or it would be better to have lynched a baddie. I find the first group to almost be trying to weaken Rico's credit thus giving him less of an opinion and basically neutering him, and the second group to just be scummy.

I think a few mafia members were on the Rico wagon, however I also think there is a good chance that either LoRab or Llama are scum.

I don't have many civ or scum reads right know, but I do think Long Con is a civilian, and I'm leaning scum on Llama. Know here is my question do you think the early snipping that Llama and Zebra did was fabricated? It was only a little bit, but I'm curious what people think of it.

I think with Zebra's lynch it also makes it less likely that Mac is on her team.

One last thing, if Roger Rabbit was a civ role last game wouldn't it be odd for it to be a scum role this game? Could this be some sort of seemer/prankster thing? Remember Night 0 scum was able to do actions in theory they could have targeted Zebra and then killed her today. This could be a seemer role where it replaces the scum who used it, just switched the alignment, or let the seemer pick a role.
I think the chances of this are low, but then again the chances of hitting a mafia night 1 is also small.

It is possible that Llama is mafia--I am not.

Epignosis wrote:I'm still on Lorab. I said she cracked under pressure. I applied pressure. She disappeared. When she came back, she was sweet as sugar. I think her twirly behind got the jitters when I called her out so early.

I'm not really sure what you mean (or meant) by my cracking under pressure. And I didn't disappear--I simply did not have time to play mafia that day. I didn't get any jitters--just a mild air of frustration of being suspected once again for things that don't mean that I'm bad and that cause false conclusions that I am. Just like I wasn't a baddie when you first suspected me, I'm still not a baddie.

Good job getting lynched Rico.

Voted brown bear because I like that book and bears are almost cute.

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Matt wrote:
Btw, everyone going after Lorab for her twirl is awkward. Lorab's twirl is fun, IMO, whether she's good or bad. I've never once thought she was good or bad because of it, but it's fun, you meanies!

Good luck making a case on her, then. I'd literally pay money to watch.

She is building the case herself. As far as I'm concerned she is making excuses and avoiding answering anyone's questions or concerns. That sounds like baddie LoRab to me.

Although I enjoyed your twirlaholic funs, LoRab. I'm not impressed that you didn't address anything last night. It's been a long time since I have had such strong baddie vibes from you.

I fell asleep last night. Did I miss questions in my post a little while ago? What haven't I addressed? Seriously, please let me know so I can answer. I answered the posts I saw that had specific things to say about me. I didn't see any other posts that raised anything else. What else can I address?

Your vibes about me are wrong.

linkitis: Fair enough. I was a bit confused that you said I didn't answer anything.

Ricochet wrote:HIIIIIIIIIIIIIII so few posts in the past seven hours? Disappoint.

LoRab wrote: You deny it in a way that doesn't sound like yo'ure not fully denying it. As if you are saying well, XY isn't true, when you are leaving open the possibility that Z is true. Like you're keeping to truth so that you can't be caught by a lie detector, but that something similar is true and you leave open that possibility. In short, your denial doesn't seem fully honest.

And my point about your coin flip post was the same point as the rainbow posts. So, not entirely my own reason, no. And how do you know you've caught any baddies?

And I will enjoy the reread. Also, cute to negate everything I say by poking at and teasing me by mocking an aspect of the way I defend. It truly is witty. And a great way to deflect accusations by hinting that they are not valid due to my using that line on accusations of me that are inaccurate assessments of my posts. It also doesn't feel like an honest rebuttal as a result. And, yeah, that one is an original thought.

Well, I can't be blamed for not covering every possible extension of the accusation in this universe of concepts. I work with what material I have. Epignosis brought up my "sad, poor attempts" at getting a high post count, I dismissed it. JJJ (and Golden?) brought up the mention count side of things, I dismissed it. I haven't left any opening. Furthermore, I wrote nothing in the style of evading any lie detection; I don't even worry about such a thing, when I post/play Mafia. In short, your suspicion here is a bit extreme, unfounded and not my problem, since I'm not bad.

I know I caught them baddies, because my cases are out of the box, yet 100% solid and I trust my judgement the most.

I don't get what I'm poking at or mocking, it's certainly not my intention. At the very best, I'm paraphrasing or, better yet, adopting a sound defending strategy (which I'm sure you regard it to be, since you're doing it so often, btw). Why shouldn't it work when somebody else is doing, if it's such a solid strategy for you? As for structure, I didn't find my posts as lacking as you did. I assessed every line of your posts, followed by reassuring you that I am not bad and you can feel free to suss me further, at your own expense of time. Because I'm not bad.

Moving backwards:

Mocking is perhaps too strong a word, but you're putting back to me what I always do. I don't take it as mean or anything, but it is throwing my own defense back at me. It seems like it's deflecting. And I do think you're bad.

And you don't know tht you caught anyone. There is no such thing as 100% solid. And I've seen you be wrong before, so trusting your judgement to the point that you are certain is a flawed theory.

It's not so much about post count to me, so much as many of your posts don't contribute to the conversation while appearing to contribute to the conversation. It's about content to me, not numbers. And that you've answered others when they have said why some of your posts are suspicious, and have given reasons for behavior, doesn't mean that the suspicion or the reasons are invalid. You claim that you don't think about lie detectors--I can't know that, and also wifom. It's not unfounded or extreme--it's just suspicion.

linkitis: He keeps saying he's caught confirmed baddies. He has not.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:Also, unsurprisingly, I'm voting Rico. Voting now because I'm not certain I'll be on later. I'm taking a group of teens to DC. Which also means my schedule will be even quirkier than usual this weekend. Should be able to get on later today, but not certain I'll be on before the end of vote, and I don't want to miss it.

*checks the last time LoRab suspected Rico*
*Rico replied back*
*no further mentions from LoRab*

Oh. Ok. Tunneling a civvie it is, then.

You do you. I'm not bad. Vote me to your heart's content.

Dammit. I thought I had gotten all the posts I intended to respond to. Please hold.

Ricochet wrote:Also, she didn't answer to juliets. I wonder what baddie juliets will do now.

Did Juliets have a specific question for me?

linkitis: Confirmed: I don't think this word means what you think this word means.

Also, unsurprisingly, I'm voting Rico. Voting now because I'm not certain I'll be on later. I'm taking a group of teens to DC. Which also means my schedule will be even quirkier than usual this weekend. Should be able to get on later today, but not certain I'll be on before the end of vote, and I don't want to miss it.

Sorsha wrote:Ok I snuck a little time in here for my LoRab posts.

LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

So this is the post that started my suspicion of you LoRab. I did have to read through it more than once to actually understand what you meant here. I think your posts are usually well thought out, easy to follow and I can pretty much see what you mean or how you came to your conclusions. This post isn't so much like that. After reading it a second time I could figure out what I think you meant, but its not really as clear as I'd expect some theory from you to be.

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?

Sorry what? You postulated that the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won. I thought you meant that people literally were those roles. Be clearer about what you mean if you don't want to be misconstrued.

I think I was clear, dispite your misreading of what I said.

Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.

m

I'm not even sure what that means.

Epignosis wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.

I should clarify on this. A lot of people are saying "yep, she's like her, sounding like her, doing her twirly thing."

She cracks under pressure.

So somebody apply pressure. Now.

I do? I guess I get annoyed by repeated suspicions. But please, apply pressure. Eye me all you want. Ask me to twirl. All that. I have nothing to hide.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

In case you really don't remember the Champies mechanics in previous years (which I doubt, but whatever), then it is near certain the roles (characters) in this game are a mashup of roles (characters) that appeared in the games played throughout 2015.

Just like you, I don't believe that means every role will necessarily have exactly the same power they were designed with in their original game. I'm less sure about alignments, because I don't remember roles being converted to an opposite alignment compared to their original one in previous Champies. Then again, it all depends on how wicked our Hosts this year can be in design- oh wait so that's like 200% possible. Heh.

One other thing you asked above and I want to answer to is that the roles imported in this game are not necessarily the roles with which players have won in previous game. For instance, Ezekiel, Xander Crews and Watari were civilian roles in games in which the civilians did not win. So while we are champions fighting it off based on having won games, the roles don't necessarily follow the same rule.

As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

Ricochet wrote:Ah, ok. And no worries, I figured out who you are already.

I don't remember a theory on "all the roles in the game originally being from players who played the game", I remember one on all the roles in the game originally being winning roles. I agree about the theory (or both, in fact) being flawed. It should normally be just "roles that comes from games played before throughout the year", simple as that. Everyone can check Champies 2013 and 2014, if they're unfamiliar with this mashup format.

It was more speculation than theory. And seems to have not worked out as I thought it might. But I do appreciate the clarification and insight about other games.

MacDougall wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?

Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

I don't actually need your writing advice, or your advice on how to post in mafia, but thanks. I actually think the sentence that you wrote is less clear than mine. And I've been playing this game long enough to know how to say things.

When you're misunderstood you're usually pretty pleasant about clearing it up. This post has a tone that I don't remember seeing from you... I can't remember the last time I played with you when you were bad but I know this isn't how you are as a civ. I don't really expect to see you completely denying that something in your post might have been misunderstood.

So some of my suspicion is what you've said and some is just a tone thing. I also agree with the point about you sounding disingenuous that Epi presented.

It wasn't so much that I was clearing up a misunderstanding about my post (which probably could have been clearer, since a few people misunderstood it. Sometimes my thoughts don't make as much sense coming out of my head than they did inside my brain, lol. Even if I am mostly clear most of the time), it was how he said it and that he didn't just say, "Oh, I misunderstood you," But instead told me how I should have been writing. Someone telling me how to write or how to play doesn't sit well. He and I had similar back and forth in the last game. My reaction was to being told I didn't know how to write, not to the fact that I could have said it differently, if that makes sense. The tone was frustration, which I tend to have at some point in many games.

Yes, I could have been clearer in my speculation earlier--but when I speculate, I sometimes spew thoughts and they don't come out as clear as my more thought out theories. I think we all have moments where we aren't as clear as other times. But that doesn't make me bad. It just means I didn't make my speculation more clear.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?

Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.

Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.

You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.

Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.

You seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.

And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.

Lorab says "seem," which is a strange word choice.

For example, this sentence:

"Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing."

I would have phrased it this way:

"Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post are bullshit, and aren't contributing anything. Please stop cluttering the thread that everyone is expected to read in order to be informed."

There's nothing "seeming" about it. Ricochet is flooding the thread with bullshit.

But Lorab's phrasing is hedging her stance, which is ordinarily something Mafia do. Like here:

LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

What is it about Ricochet that others have pointed out that Lorab "definitely" sees? With Ricochet being the author of almost a quarter (!) of the thread's posts, this is as unspecific as it gets.

Lorab has interacted more with Ricochet than any other person so far, so why does the possibility of her vote hinge on what others have pointed out? Her stance is disingenuous. That's why.

My vote doesn't hinge on what others think, but what others think got me thinking about suspicion of him. Semantics, maybe, but in my mind there is a huge difference. And yes, I said seem. I often say seem. Because I'm not sure. I don't have info, so anything I say about him is how I'm reading his posts and how those posts seem to me.

Saying his posts are bullshit is, first of all, not my style. And, second of all, isn't entirely what I meant. I described my own thoughts. I recognize that I read things really differently than you do and think about the game extremely differently. We've established that many times. But that just makes me different, not bad.

My stance isn't disingenuous--it's my honest thoughts. If I felt more sure than I would sound more sure. But, at this point, I'm not--it's only day 1. And no one has slipped in a way that tweaks my eyebrow to notice something that makes me highly suspect them (and go after them for days). So, yeah, it's all based on what I read--and some of that is others' thoughts and some of that is how posts seem. It's just where my thinking is this game.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Long Con wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh. Just got home from a long day at work during which I had no time to mafia--so just read through everything since last night. Waiting for dinner to get here and will then answer the points made about me. In short, I'll say I'm not bad. I have nothing to hide. Eye me all you want. *twirls*

But, yeah, I'll go back and quote posts and make an actual defense when I'm on a full stomach.

Oh good, I've been waiting on you all day. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, the twirl stopped meaning anything to me years ago.

Fell asleep on the couch about 5 minutes into the episode I started of Making of a Murderer. Now I'm up and groggy and cranky. Sorry you have to wait until morning.

And I know my twirling means nothing to you. Although I do believe that you were the person that called me out one time for not twirling, which is more or less why I always do it now. Can't remember what game and if I was bad or not then.

Dom wrote:I'm voting Rico for today. I am travelling tomorrow an dmight check in. NYC for the weekend. SEeing Hamilton and Spring Awakening (again).

So envious!! I need to get Hamilton tickets. Did you hear they broke the internet the other day, kind of like Star Wars did when those tickets went on sale? And I'm bummed I didn't get to this production of Spring Awakening. I saw Deaf West Productions do Big River years back and they were amazing--I was hoping to see what they'd do with SA, a show I love. Alas. No time before they close. Have a great trip!!!

I think it's time to retire the twirl. It just feels so hollow to me now, and makes my gut want to START suspecting you for saying it.

I would love to. Seriously.

I'm going to write this in OT, because it's meta talk and I don't consider it to have any impact on the ongoing game.

If what you told BR is serious, it's a very silly reason to keep using your catchphrases. As I've alluded in some discussion, early during N0 or so, any meta read I'd have on you, in theory, would tell me nothing about you being civ or bad, really, because the style in which you do can easily be either genuine or a smokescreen behind a baddie alignment. So your claims and twirls are basically blank, implacable and, at work, slighty vexating input in all discussions/debates carried out.

Then again, I'm not sure changing skin between games is the better tactic, either. I mean, look at what's happening to me, finding my best rhythm and finest instincts in catching baddies out of the tiniest details, only to be put down by everyone.

It's a longer conversation, and not appropriate for in game. Happy to discuss in post-game.

But, for good measure. Eye me all you want, y'all. *twirls* Seriously, though, read my posts--I have nothing to hide. I'm civ. I haven't had a whole lot of time to play this week, so I've been doing large catch ups after work at night. Which means that there are large chunks of skimming and thoughts that develop over the course of an hour of reading lots and lots, and not thoughts that get said over time.

Matt wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Matt wrote:
Btw, everyone going after Lorab for her twirl is awkward. Lorab's twirl is fun, IMO, whether she's good or bad. I've never once thought she was good or bad because of it, but it's fun, you meanies!

Good luck making a case on her, then. I'd literally pay money to watch.

I don't get it. You'd pay money to watch me make a case on Lorab?

I'm cheap, tell me how much and depending on the price, I'll tunnel Lorab until endgame. Twirl be damned!

Thanks for the twirl love. I don't like the idea of tunnelling me, though. That would be frustrating for me and not a very good use of civ resources (if you are civ)--better to find a baddie to tunnel.

Hi. My name is LoRab. And I'm a twirlaholic.

Long Con wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh. Just got home from a long day at work during which I had no time to mafia--so just read through everything since last night. Waiting for dinner to get here and will then answer the points made about me. In short, I'll say I'm not bad. I have nothing to hide. Eye me all you want. *twirls*

But, yeah, I'll go back and quote posts and make an actual defense when I'm on a full stomach.

Oh good, I've been waiting on you all day. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, the twirl stopped meaning anything to me years ago.

Fell asleep on the couch about 5 minutes into the episode I started of Making of a Murderer. Now I'm up and groggy and cranky. Sorry you have to wait until morning.

And I know my twirling means nothing to you. Although I do believe that you were the person that called me out one time for not twirling, which is more or less why I always do it now. Can't remember what game and if I was bad or not then.

Dom wrote:I'm voting Rico for today. I am travelling tomorrow an dmight check in. NYC for the weekend. SEeing Hamilton and Spring Awakening (again).

So envious!! I need to get Hamilton tickets. Did you hear they broke the internet the other day, kind of like Star Wars did when those tickets went on sale? And I'm bummed I didn't get to this production of Spring Awakening. I saw Deaf West Productions do Big River years back and they were amazing--I was hoping to see what they'd do with SA, a show I love. Alas. No time before they close. Have a great trip!!!

I think it's time to retire the twirl. It just feels so hollow to me now, and makes my gut want to START suspecting you for saying it.

I would love to. Seriously.

Black Rock wrote:

LoRab wrote:Ugh. Just got home from a long day at work during which I had no time to mafia--so just read through everything since last night. Waiting for dinner to get here and will then answer the points made about me. In short, I'll say I'm not bad. I have nothing to hide. Eye me all you want. *twirls*

But, yeah, I'll go back and quote posts and make an actual defense when I'm on a full stomach.

Oh good, I've been waiting on you all day. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, the twirl stopped meaning anything to me years ago.

Fell asleep on the couch about 5 minutes into the episode I started of Making of a Murderer. Now I'm up and groggy and cranky. Sorry you have to wait until morning.

And I know my twirling means nothing to you. Although I do believe that you were the person that called me out one time for not twirling, which is more or less why I always do it now. Can't remember what game and if I was bad or not then.

Dom wrote:I'm voting Rico for today. I am travelling tomorrow an dmight check in. NYC for the weekend. SEeing Hamilton and Spring Awakening (again).

So envious!! I need to get Hamilton tickets. Did you hear they broke the internet the other day, kind of like Star Wars did when those tickets went on sale? And I'm bummed I didn't get to this production of Spring Awakening. I saw Deaf West Productions do Big River years back and they were amazing--I was hoping to see what they'd do with SA, a show I love. Alas. No time before they close. Have a great trip!!!

Ugh. Just got home from a long day at work during which I had no time to mafia--so just read through everything since last night. Waiting for dinner to get here and will then answer the points made about me. In short, I'll say I'm not bad. I have nothing to hide. Eye me all you want. *twirls*

But, yeah, I'll go back and quote posts and make an actual defense when I'm on a full stomach.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?

Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.

Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.

You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.

Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.

You seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.

And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.

How can I deny and accept something at the same time? Doesn't make much sense. I have never done anything except deny there being anything to the idea of people mentioning me. It can't be waffly if I'm, in fact, very adamant about it. Eye me all you want.

Nobody said anything about my coin flip post. Is this, therefore, your own reason for suspecting me? Yet you previously said you don't have reasons of your own. And I am contributing, I caught four baddies. How many baddies do you have? Eye me all you want.

No idea what you mean. Eye me all you want.

Sounds good, but you'll find nothing in your re-read. I'm not bad and I've proven it.

You deny it in a way that doesn't sound like yo'ure not fully denying it. As if you are saying well, XY isn't true, when you are leaving open the possibility that Z is true. Like you're keeping to truth so that you can't be caught by a lie detector, but that something similar is true and you leave open that possibility. In short, your denial doesn't seem fully honest.

And my point about your coin flip post was the same point as the rainbow posts. So, not entirely my own reason, no. And how do you know you've caught any baddies?

And I will enjoy the reread. Also, cute to negate everything I say by poking at and teasing me by mocking an aspect of the way I defend. It truly is witty. And a great way to deflect accusations by hinting that they are not valid due to my using that line on accusations of me that are inaccurate assessments of my posts. It also doesn't feel like an honest rebuttal as a result. And, yeah, that one is an original thought.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?

Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.

Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.

You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.

Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.

You seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.

And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?

I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).

I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.

And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

You are free to speculate whatever you like, especially given the closed setup, but based on two previous years of Championship Games over here, not to mention my role which I'm aware of (oh, and Golden's)*, I feel inclined to say this Championship game is no different from the previous two in mashing up multiple roles from games played here throughout the year. Not sure what you mean by your second sentence.

Also, your first sentence is factually not true, but if you don't remember, I suppose that's what it is.

* in fact, shouldn't you also have a basic idea of this setup I'm talking about (role mashup), based on the role you received, whatever it is? Or are you implying your role is that of a cupcake?

I know what game my role is from, but I didn't go back to check to see if it was one of the players in this game, or if it was from the winning team. At any rate, the theory has now been shown to be false (which is why I asked the question--one cannot extrapolate much from a sample of one), so it's on to new speculatoin.

What's wrong with the theory that roles are imported from different previous games, regardless of being roles with which players won or not said previous games?

LoRab wrote: As I said in my first post in htis game, it's entirely possible that I played a previous champions game and don't remember. I don't remember a lot of games that I played. And most the ones I do remember all sort of blend together at this point. Which one did I play in?

I forgot.

I looked. It was the game last year--I had all of 3 posts, one woot game post and 2 I forgot I was playing posts. So, uh, don't think I was all that invested in the game, much less remember what the set up was.

And there's nothing wrong with what you say above. My speculation had been, more specifically (as Golden correctly understood) that the list of roles in this game came from the list of roles that the players had in the games they won. That aspect has been shown to be not the case. but, yeah, the roles do, I agree, come from other games--it's just a matter of figuring out which roles are there or not. Mainly because I like figuring things out.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

You are free to speculate whatever you like, especially given the closed setup, but based on two previous years of Championship Games over here, not to mention my role which I'm aware of (oh, and Golden's)*, I feel inclined to say this Championship game is no different from the previous two in mashing up multiple roles from games played here throughout the year. Not sure what you mean by your second sentence.

Also, your first sentence is factually not true, but if you don't remember, I suppose that's what it is.

* in fact, shouldn't you also have a basic idea of this setup I'm talking about (role mashup), based on the role you received, whatever it is? Or are you implying your role is that of a cupcake?

I know what game my role is from, but I didn't go back to check to see if it was one of the players in this game, or if it was from the winning team. At any rate, the theory has now been shown to be false (which is why I asked the question--one cannot extrapolate much from a sample of one), so it's on to new speculatoin.

As I said in my first post in htis game, it's entirely possible that I played a previous champions game and don't remember. I don't remember a lot of games that I played. And most the ones I do remember all sort of blend together at this point. Which one did I play in?

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:LoRab and llama have not butted heads over who is the better writer and poster.

confirmed fishy

I don't to butt heads. The market has determined that I am the better writer, since I get paid for it.

I get paid for it, as well. So the market hasn't determined anything.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?

Sorry what? You postulated that the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won. I thought you meant that people literally were those roles. Be clearer about what you mean if you don't want to be misconstrued.

I think I was clear, dispite your misreading of what I said.

Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.

m

I'm not even sure what that means.

Epignosis wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.

I should clarify on this. A lot of people are saying "yep, she's like her, sounding like her, doing her twirly thing."

She cracks under pressure.

So somebody apply pressure. Now.

I do? I guess I get annoyed by repeated suspicions. But please, apply pressure. Eye me all you want. Ask me to twirl. All that. I have nothing to hide.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

In case you really don't remember the Champies mechanics in previous years (which I doubt, but whatever), then it is near certain the roles (characters) in this game are a mashup of roles (characters) that appeared in the games played throughout 2015.

Just like you, I don't believe that means every role will necessarily have exactly the same power they were designed with in their original game. I'm less sure about alignments, because I don't remember roles being converted to an opposite alignment compared to their original one in previous Champies. Then again, it all depends on how wicked our Hosts this year can be in design- oh wait so that's like 200% possible. Heh.

One other thing you asked above and I want to answer to is that the roles imported in this game are not necessarily the roles with which players have won in previous game. For instance, Ezekiel, Xander Crews and Watari were civilian roles in games in which the civilians did not win. So while we are champions fighting it off based on having won games, the roles don't necessarily follow the same rule.

As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.

Ricochet wrote:Ah, ok. And no worries, I figured out who you are already.

I don't remember a theory on "all the roles in the game originally being from players who played the game", I remember one on all the roles in the game originally being winning roles. I agree about the theory (or both, in fact) being flawed. It should normally be just "roles that comes from games played before throughout the year", simple as that. Everyone can check Champies 2013 and 2014, if they're unfamiliar with this mashup format.

It was more speculation than theory. And seems to have not worked out as I thought it might. But I do appreciate the clarification and insight about other games.

MacDougall wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?

Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...

"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."

At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.

I don't actually need your writing advice, or your advice on how to post in mafia, but thanks. I actually think the sentence that you wrote is less clear than mine. And I've been playing this game long enough to know how to say things.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I like MacDougall. Some thoughts about LoRab.

Quotes referenced:

Spoiler: show

Quote 1:

LoRab wrote:I need to wrap my brain around this game. I don't think I've played a champions game before--although I did co-host one. Cupcakes FTW!! Just got back from vacation...way too tired to think through what roles are included and how that decision may have been made. Will ponder after sleep. To do so earlier would be scandalous.

Quote 2:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:The trick to day 1 is... don't read the posts, read the tone. Lorab especially reads tone bad. I can feel the backspaces she wrote as she second guessed her way into a fumbly first post. She bad, def bad.

Linki: I also analysed those options in Star Wars. I got no beef with you analysing the options, but you dived in so dramatically and are taking it so seriously. It's hard to say where my magical day 1 pings come from, but they are definitely magical.

I not, def not. That was painful to type.

You've never played a game with me bad--how do you know how to read my tone? Oh, and wait, you thought I was bad last game, too. And were wrong. Just saying.

Quote 3:

LoRab wrote:Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.

I enjoyed the format, but see the points against it. And, relatedly, can't remember what I was going to say in response to this because I can't look back at the quote. But, in general, I'll say that I write for a living--about 3/4 of my job is writing. I'm generally careful with language, or at least I try to be. This has come up a few times now, but it doesn't make me bad. It's just how I write. Like in every game I play, the suspicions against me are incorrectly reading my posts. But, eye me all you want. *twirls* (oh, and I think the green things are scarves)

DFaraday wrote:All these posts are making me hate the word "scandalous." :P

LoRab wrote:Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.

The Old Testament is closer to 2/3 of the Bible in terms of books/pages. I just wanted an excuse to use Pedantic Pink.

I tend not to over think these polls, but I think the point LoRab made that the role included would likely not be a Mafia role is a good one, unless this poll has no reward attached, in which case it wouldn't matter if the baddies knew about the role.

I don't think I've ever played with RadicalFuzz before, but he is definitely acting weird here.

Also I voted for Finn because that was the only one of these games I played.

But the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament are not identical; there are books that are included in OT that are not in a Hebrew Bible (that's the actual definition of apocrypha...I won't even get started on pseudepigrapha.

Long Con wrote:Oh. Well, that is pretty crappy for those of us whose speakers are currently dead... or for people on phones with no headphones... or for people playing in church... or about a thousand other reasons why listening to audio can complicate things for people.

I'm now going to start imagining that all of my congregants are checking mafia during services. Thanks./orange

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.

You are very bad. Enrique in Star Wars bad.

No, I'm not.

Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.

MacDougall wrote:The trick to day 1 is... don't read the posts, read the tone. Lorab especially reads tone bad. I can feel the backspaces she wrote as she second guessed her way into a fumbly first post. She bad, def bad.

Linki: I also analysed those options in Star Wars. I got no beef with you analysing the options, but you dived in so dramatically and are taking it so seriously. It's hard to say where my magical day 1 pings come from, but they are definitely magical.

I not, def not. That was painful to type.

You've never played a game with me bad--how do you know how to read my tone? Oh, and wait, you thought I was bad last game, too. And were wrong. Just saying.

Tranq wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I am seeing a woeful lack of rules reading

That's quite scandalous.

These are the roles mentioned in the poll:

Ezekiel - Biblical Mafia - Civvie
Xander Crews - Frisky Dingo - Civvie
Finn McMissile - Disney Cars - Mafia
Watari - Death Note - Civvie
Duncan Idaho - Dune - Civvie

I'm not familiar with any of these roles. Where's the War Monger?

Not that roles are necessarily the same team than in the original game, but I doubt the role that is included that is the poll choice is not a mafia role, just because that would give unfair advantage to the team that knew that. Similarly, I'm not sure a mafia role would be included because the mafia would know if it was still a mafia role (or one mafia would know if there is more than one baddie team). Just some thoughts.

Ricochet wrote:Ah, the "role" (chara) / "role" (power) term differences (for me, it usually stands for character, fwiw). What makes you so sure, Golden, that the characters in this game will be imported with their original power?

This.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:I need to wrap my brain around this game. I don't think I've played a champions game before--although I did co-host one. Cupcakes FTW!! Just got back from vacation...way too tired to think through what roles are included and how that decision may have been made. Will ponder after sleep. To do so earlier would be scandalous.

Um, have I? Entirely possible that I have and forgot.