The Syndicate

Your DF stuff isn't DF. It has it that he would've considered voting for himself.

DFaraday wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:58 pm What don't people like about G-Man? He's not a super high poster, but I'm getting a genuine attempt at helpfulness from him.

Boo, you said before you wanted to lynch LC. Is this still the case?

I want to see the NK before I answer that. I think LC and I will both survive it, but if that isn't the case, my thoughts for where we should take things d3 aren't helpful.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:32 pm
DrWilgy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:35 am

here's to hoping the hosts answer my question. I think I have a good idea.
If your question was serious, I have no idea what you're asking.

He was asking if the lynch was actually a tie or not.

The secret is to never stop. That way the hangover can never catch up with you.

Heads I win, tails you lose?

Oh, linki, interesting. Well, thanks for the chance at least then Fred.

Well that's ridiculous. A person who named Tink as someone she thinks she can trust will decide the lynch. Tink, with a whole three posts, of zero substance. What is there to trust there to make that judgement? Absurd.

sprityo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:05 pm DDL, can you tell me in short the single glaring issue of why timmer is the better lynch candidate?

He's the skatiest of skating by type of baddies. Granted, I haven't played in about a year, but that's always been his style in games I've played with him when he has been bad. He has a much greater thread presence when he's civ. Even. If he's busy, which I can accept is possible and or likely, he puts more explanation into votes. He's done this two days in a row now, so it's not a one off. That's baddie Timmer. I think the fact that la is willing to chance seeing if I'm right, when she and I haven't been seeing eye to eye, says enough about his game from someone else who is familiar with him.

Skating by, adding nothing Timmer is baddie Timmer. I'm going to put my vote there. For now anyways, see how things shake out if I get back before the lynch ends.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:17 pm
DrWilgy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:52 pm
G-Man wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:14 pm
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:10 pm I like Boo

Not sure if he is good or bad, but I like him. He plays the way I do.
Impressed by him am I as well.
To both of you, why and how?
He thinks like my civ meta.

He is aggressive and doesn't seen to care whether people are reading him bad or not. He just picked a target and wants to take her down. He seems to be showing confirmation bias, which is a sign of an error but not of bad alignment.

He saw the cooperation plan as suspicious and trying to find scum among the ones making it.

Mafia tends to have a sense of self-image imo, they don't pick fights that will make them look worse.

I'm not sure if I agree with his posts, but I think he is making them from a civ perspective.

I've never said I want to take down la. I want to lynch LC, not her. I just don't think she should be given a free pass to lie to everyone.

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:30 pm
nutella wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:02 pm
sprityo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:14 pm I like starting at "everyone is innocent until proven guilty"as opposed to the "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" that many others view
In general, I start with the former as well. It's just that in this case, with Boo having asked about repeat targeting for evo votes, I think it is more likely that he is bad and was asking because he wants to evolve a teammate. It makes less sense for a civilian to want to repeat target evo votes, at least at the beginning of the game when we're not sure who's good -- it's better to spread them around among the people we think we trust.
Here's the post boo is taking all of these assumptions from. "Spreading votes around among the people we think we trust" is exactly what I am doing for the next few nights. I am not piling votes on one player, because for one thing -- bear with me here as this might be hard for you to understand -- it's not allowed. If it were allowed, I suspect only baddies would do it; I don't trust anyone enough at this point to give them evo points two nights in a row. And as I have said multiple times, I don't know whether LC and Speed intended for the pact to last longer, but I personally have not committed to it for more than two nights, so if I end up targeting one of them a second time after that it would be because I strongly trusted them.

Votes are being spread around, but you're probably going to die because votes aren't being spread around.

Wut?

speedchuck wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:01 pm
boo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:58 pm
nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:37 pm
boo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:35 pm
nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:10 pm I personally am not particularly impressed with Boo right now. He's twisting everything into an interpretation that fits his preconceived notion that I must be bad, and he keeps twisting beyond recognition what I have said about what I think baddie motives would do, when I have clearly explained why everything I have done makes total sense with civ motives. I was going to give my votes to Speed or LC anyway since I have been getting strong civ vibes from them; they just decided to make it into some official thing that I'm benefitting from by getting two evo points tonight. I'm happy to agree to that, because I think my role could be a pretty helpful one when it evolves. I have made no explicit promises to stay in their exchange for more than two nights, but I might if I continue to trust them. Boo has been willfully misinterpreting everything I have said on this topic.
No, I've quoted you contradicting yourself multiple times. I haven't twisted anything you have said, you have said things and then taken actions that are in direct contradiction to what anyone reading what you have said should rationally expect.

...No, that's just simply not true.
Prove it.
Burden of proof is on the accuser. Which is you.

a) I have.
b) she's saying it simply isn't true. She can't prove it, because it is. She hasn't made any effort to prove that, instead her responses have been to shift her stances more and more, becoming more and more contradictory.
c) this isn't a common law court. There is no required burden of proof on anyone.

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:37 pm
boo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:35 pm
nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:10 pm I personally am not particularly impressed with Boo right now. He's twisting everything into an interpretation that fits his preconceived notion that I must be bad, and he keeps twisting beyond recognition what I have said about what I think baddie motives would do, when I have clearly explained why everything I have done makes total sense with civ motives. I was going to give my votes to Speed or LC anyway since I have been getting strong civ vibes from them; they just decided to make it into some official thing that I'm benefitting from by getting two evo points tonight. I'm happy to agree to that, because I think my role could be a pretty helpful one when it evolves. I have made no explicit promises to stay in their exchange for more than two nights, but I might if I continue to trust them. Boo has been willfully misinterpreting everything I have said on this topic.
No, I've quoted you contradicting yourself multiple times. I haven't twisted anything you have said, you have said things and then taken actions that are in direct contradiction to what anyone reading what you have said should rationally expect.

...No, that's just simply not true.

Prove it.

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:10 pm I personally am not particularly impressed with Boo right now. He's twisting everything into an interpretation that fits his preconceived notion that I must be bad, and he keeps twisting beyond recognition what I have said about what I think baddie motives would do, when I have clearly explained why everything I have done makes total sense with civ motives. I was going to give my votes to Speed or LC anyway since I have been getting strong civ vibes from them; they just decided to make it into some official thing that I'm benefitting from by getting two evo points tonight. I'm happy to agree to that, because I think my role could be a pretty helpful one when it evolves. I have made no explicit promises to stay in their exchange for more than two nights, but I might if I continue to trust them. Boo has been willfully misinterpreting everything I have said on this topic.

No, I've quoted you contradicting yourself multiple times. I haven't twisted anything you have said, you have said things and then taken actions that are in direct contradiction to what anyone reading what you have said should rationally expect.

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:30 pm
boo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:00 pm
nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:52 pm As I see it, (since I didn't vote for one of them on night 0) I am voting for three different people on the first three nights of the game, which is as much "spreading" as is possible up to that point. After night 2, I will re-evaluate whether I want to stay in the pact or not, and I may well vote for someone else anyway. Get off my case, I'm just playing the game.
Oh, so you're giving your word to be part of a long term plan, which by your own logic is something baddies would be looking to do, and you're already planning ahead to when you'll break it. Cool.
What about you boo? Do you think baddies plan long term?

Yes. Just like everyone else.

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:52 pm As I see it, (since I didn't vote for one of them on night 0) I am voting for three different people on the first three nights of the game, which is as much "spreading" as is possible up to that point. After night 2, I will re-evaluate whether I want to stay in the pact or not, and I may well vote for someone else anyway. Get off my case, I'm just playing the game.

Oh, so you're giving your word to be part of a long term plan, which by your own logic is something baddies would be looking to do, and you're already planning ahead to when you'll break it. Cool.

Going back and forth between two people is not "spreading".

nutella wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:09 am
boo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:48 pm
Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:46 pm
Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:38 pm If you can't read rules, you shouldn't be playing Mafia.

No double targeting. That goes for evolution points.
That is far from clear in the rules.

Who wants to be the third party who is participating in what I hope is an ongoing mutual assistance program that speed and I are members of? If speed agrees, you will qualify for two evolution points tonight. You just have to reciprocate.
Presumably not LA... :P
Poor presuming on your part. Speed and LC are the two players I trust most at this point (despite the fact that they missed the rule).

You're joining an ongoing voting group in this post, immediately after saying this about ongoing voting in your last post:

nutella wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:02 pm
sprityo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:14 pm I like starting at "everyone is innocent until proven guilty"as opposed to the "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" that many others view
In general, I start with the former as well. It's just that in this case, with Boo having asked about repeat targeting for evo votes, I think it is more likely that he is bad and was asking because he wants to evolve a teammate. It makes less sense for a civilian to want to repeat target evo votes, at least at the beginning of the game when we're not sure who's good -- it's better to spread them around among the people we think we trust.

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:46 pm
Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:38 pm If you can't read rules, you shouldn't be playing Mafia.

No double targeting. That goes for evolution points.
That is far from clear in the rules.

Who wants to be the third party who is participating in what I hope is an ongoing mutual assistance program that speed and I are members of? If speed agrees, you will qualify for two evolution points tonight. You just have to reciprocate.

Presumably not LA... :P

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:35 pm
boo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:29 pm
nutella wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:02 pm
sprityo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:14 pm I like starting at "everyone is innocent until proven guilty"as opposed to the "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" that many others view
In general, I start with the former as well. It's just that in this case, with Boo having asked about repeat targeting for evo votes, I think it is more likely that he is bad and was asking because he wants to evolve a teammate. It makes less sense for a civilian to want to repeat target evo votes, at least at the beginning of the game when we're not sure who's good -- it's better to spread them around among the people we think we trust.
Except for the part where that isn't at all what I said... I said the baddies would repeatedly target their teammates.

You are however basing your suspicion of me on the fact that you incorrectly think you agree with LC, when in fact it is LC who has already done exactly what it is you are incorrectly accusing me having only suggested, as speed voted for him D0, and he voted for speed, and then (ignoring the fact that I asked and episode answered, saying that you cannot double target an evo vote) they agreed to vote for each other again.
Oh, you can't? I missed the answer, I guess they'll let us know if our evo vote targets are not valid due to that rule.

That said... do you seriously think we would publicize our votes if we were baddies together? Why on earth would the baddies do that?? The votes are private, man! The baddies are boosting each other in secret!

Where did I say I think speed is bad? I went over your actions, and his. It's LAs logic that would speed bad along with you, not mine.

Yes, the baddies are boosting each other on secret. My pointing that out is why you voted for me...

Ebwop: epi. Shut up autocorrect.

nutella wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:02 pm
sprityo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:14 pm I like starting at "everyone is innocent until proven guilty"as opposed to the "everyone is guilty until proven innocent" that many others view
In general, I start with the former as well. It's just that in this case, with Boo having asked about repeat targeting for evo votes, I think it is more likely that he is bad and was asking because he wants to evolve a teammate. It makes less sense for a civilian to want to repeat target evo votes, at least at the beginning of the game when we're not sure who's good -- it's better to spread them around among the people we think we trust.

Except for the part where that isn't at all what I said... I said the baddies would repeatedly target their teammates.

You are however basing your suspicion of me on the fact that you incorrectly think you agree with LC, when in fact it is LC who has already done exactly what it is you are incorrectly accusing me having only suggested, as speed voted for him D0, and he voted for speed, and then (ignoring the fact that I asked and episode answered, saying that you cannot double target an evo vote) they agreed to vote for each other again.

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:31 pm
boo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:28 pmOn top the fact that of course civs look at things from a baddie mindset. How else would they catch them?
It's up to the reader to decide if they think it's a Civ putting their mind into a baddie frame, or a baddie thinking like a baddie.

Yes it is. This is also your example, because saying that supports my calling you a hypocrite when you voted for me because:

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:06 pm
Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:27 pm @Fred/LC

Can you explain why that is pingy?
Sure, boo thought about the baddies stacking their votes on each other, which, in some small way, makes me think that he's looking at it from a baddie mindset.

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:21 pm
boo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:09 pm
Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:06 pm
Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:27 pm @Fred/LC

Can you explain why that is pingy?
Sure, boo thought about the baddies stacking their votes on each other, which, in some small way, makes me think that he's looking at it from a baddie mindset.

That's a terrible excuse coming from you, seeing as you do the same thing.

On top the fact that of course civs look at things from a baddie mindset. How else would they catch them?
Your defensive OMGUS about it makes me way more suspicious of you, boo. You know what I do when I get a single, near-meaningless vote on Day 1, while others are in the lead? Nothing. I shut up about it. I realize it's not a big deal, and if it becomes a big deal, I take confidence in the fact that I could shut that weak crap down if it comes to it.

You are getting way too upset about it. And calling it a "terrible excuse" actually put you into a real suspicion for me. There is a difference between a "terrible excuse" and a "weak reason". Your use of the former is too forced.

There was a question you ignored. It wasn't rhetorical.

It isn't a weak reason, it is a terrible excuse. A weak reason isn't hypocritical, a terrible excuse is. What you did is hypocritical, and therefore labelling it a weak excuse would be dishonest.

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:06 pm
Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:27 pm @Fred/LC

Can you explain why that is pingy?
Sure, boo thought about the baddies stacking their votes on each other, which, in some small way, makes me think that he's looking at it from a baddie mindset.

That's a terrible excuse coming from you, seeing as you do the same thing.

On top the fact that of course civs look at things from a baddie mindset. How else would they catch them?

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:59 pm
Fredwood wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:58 pm
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:54 pm My opinion with the inactive issue is that if they don't come by day 2 the host should just kill them all.

Epi will probably not do it, but he will probably replace them, and statistically it's not that hard to get 2 people. When he does, everything goes to normal.

Lynching them now is rushing things. Heck, it's a easy way for mafia to get a vote without having to confront anyone, which they hate. They don't even have to justify this vote.
I've seen the opposite to be true, null town slots always stay around because of these built in arguments.
So you're arguing Epi will just choose not to replace them?

You're making replacing people sound way easier than it actually is. Especially in a speed game.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:56 pm
Fredwood wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:54 pm Isn't cute subjective? Is that really considered claiming? Not a lot of experience with no role claim games, so it's a legit question, not a lawyering question.
He literally named the pokemon. It's Gible. It evolves into this cute thing:

... Is that things back end a second pokemon that it consumed and is in the process of giving some terrifiying birth to? Yikes.

I'm voting LC for what amounts to a drive-by, since he hasn't been back to answer, and pulled something up i had said that he had had plenty of time to address before he cast his vote, and had not.

Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:13 pm
G-Man wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:36 pm In case this is helpful...

boo- posts
DFaraday- posts
Dragon D. Luffy- posts
Dyslexicon- posts
Dom- posts
DrWilgy- posts
Elohcin- posts
Fredwood- posts
G-Man- posts
Jackofhearts2005- posts
Long Con- posts
MacDougall- posts
Neverwhere- posts
nutella- posts
speedchuck- posts
sprityo- posts
timmer- posts
Tink- posts
TonyStarkPrime- posts
Thanks, G-Man!

boo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:05 am Seems to me openly saying who you vote to evolve is a bad plan. Team rocket can just stack their votes on each other while all three are alive.

@hosts: you can't vote for the same person to evolve in back to back nights, right? Id assume that's a double targeting. Will it be posted in thread when an evolve happens?
This gave me a slight suspicion of you, boo, so I'll vote for you now. Vote boo

Because?

I think the type will impact voting. If you vote for someone you're weak against, it isn't worth as much, and it's worth more if you're strong against them. Otherwise business as usual.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:33 am
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:15 am I have a question tho: how do we know mafia is keeping their side of the bargain? Are votes public?
If we want them to be.

If you me and Dizzy say we vote for Nutella and Nutella doesn't have a power, we know there is a baddie between the four of us.

No. There are roles that can't evolve. And why the four of you? LA not getting a power when three other people supposedly voted for her would say nothing about her alignment.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:11 am Mafias biggest power is the kill and that is usually a constant regardless of night powers.

While town's biggest power in terms of abilities are the cop and other info roles.

We probably cant stop mafia from killing by denying them evolution, but they can stop us from investigating.

Well seeing as the kill is a team power that's already listed, I'm not sure that qualifies as a "probably".

Seems to me openly saying who you vote to evolve is a bad plan. Team rocket can just stack their votes on each other while all three are alive.

@hosts: you can't vote for the same person to evolve in back to back nights, right? Id assume that's a double targeting. Will it be posted in thread when an evolve happens?

I have 151 of these, I think I won?

The Syndicate

Search found 84 matches

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 2]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 2]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 2]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 2]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 2]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 2]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 2]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 2]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 2]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Night 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Pokemon Mafia [Day 0]