The Syndicate

MacDougall wrote:Yeah I would play this whole setup again in a heart beat. Best game ever.

THIS, so I can get past friggin' Day 3.

MacDougall wrote:

same tbh

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I voted for Canada.

LoRab wrote:

Welcome to the party of the dead!

Draconus wrote:Also, it appears the dead have risen

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Mafia: A Rezz Reborn

It's a rezzvolution!

timmer wrote:Yay! Deadie party!

DrWilgy wrote:We rize... For the rezz will be ours... anybody?

The dead live on

TheFloyd73 wrote:Are there any replacements? I'm contemplating giving this game up.

I'd be down.

MacDougall wrote:Bam!

Good to know you can keep playing mafia. :P

sig wrote:Well what a way to go I survived three days of bandwagoning to be killed by some Japanese porn monster.
Rezz please

How about REZZ me peoplez

Matt F wrote:

Matt F wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Voted LoRab. His last post tipped the decision. He continues to not accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people. And his defenses in general continue to make him more suspish.

LoRab's a chica. Unless she's already had the operation.

Ummmmm Zebra, I just realized you might not think that was funny. Just so ya know, I support the LGBT community very much, and I was just being immature right there.

Linki - Okey dokey Luke was bad. Don't lynch me, town.

ROFL I've made way more offensive jokes than that, don't sweat it.

juliets wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I didn't say you never spoke to sig, and I didn't say you never asked any questions.

I said you have not asked sig a single question.

So you see I did ask sig a question. "Tell me why " is asking for information just like a statement with a ? at the end.

TURN BACK NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE :P

a2thezebra wrote:Elaborate on your reads or die, BUGLA.

Or me, that works too. :P

Elaborate on your reads or die, BUGLA.

I would wage that 4 out of 5 conflicts going on at the moment are 100% pointless. I agree with Bullz that even though I am going to vote for sig tomorrow, there's nothing new to say, and it could distract from other content. Mac is just being Mac and people aren't really used to it. To those suspicious of Mac simply for his play style I ask you this: Where is the deceit? A baddie would not be so carefree with their suspicions, accusations, defenses, etc. I have a town read on Mac.

As for Bubbles, I'm going to get a little controversial here. The one major ping on Bubbles is speculative: the lie detector theory. I think it's reaching at best. Even on the off chance that Bubbles can't claim civ because of lie detector roles, (this is the controversial part) that doesn't automatically make her anti-civ. Remember, we're playing a game where HALF of the players technically are not civilian-aligned, at least from the start, but (and this is consistent with what I said in TH for anyone who thinks I'm up to something here) I honestly do not think that independent roles are anti-civ by default. I'm not saying she's a town read for me, I'm just saying that there isn't nearly enough to go on at this point to lynch her, when the only major ping isn't even indicative (to me) that she's against us.

MacDougall wrote:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Dogs.

And is this what Mac does? Spends the last hour of every lynch going batshit?

Welcome Back Timmer:)

You are reducing all my awesome play down to the term batshit. That's not fair.

What's not fair is that there is a case against you and you choose to play the way you do and people just brush it aside.

Who's bad Mac?
All nine of the people listed previously? That's not even possible.

Lol go away

BUGLABUSH mode activated.

HINT HINT

In that case, I have no regrets about the pursuing of sig's lynch and if nothing changes my mind, I will vote for him as soon as Day 3 begins.

Looks like I'm going to be taking a closer look at the roles.

Dogs.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Five minutes left, and sig is going to be lynched Day 2?

Hopefully, yes.

We'll see.

Epignosis wrote:Five minutes left, and sig is going to be lynched Day 2?

Hopefully, yes.

Turnip Head wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Is it not baffling to anyone else that a player who is accused of scumslipping would claim to be humorously advocating the lynch of a player who they are leaning scum on anyway?

sig has absolutely lost me with his most recent posts. I thought the original case on him was silly, but now I have no idea what he's up to.

More of the same, only increasingly worse. If you originally thought the case was silly then I'm not sure how you will interpret his recent defenses.

But it's better than a juliets lynch regardless.

a2thezebra wrote:Is it not baffling to anyone else that a player who is accused of scumslipping would claim to be humorously advocating the lynch of a player who they are leaning scum on anyway?

TWICE, I should have added.

Is it not baffling to anyone else that a player who is accused of scumslipping would claim to be humorously advocating the lynch of a player who they are leaning scum on anyway?

sig wrote:I wasn't really trying to get zebra lynched in the last few posts, it was two things I was trying to ever so stealthy say something but it kinda flew over her head and I was messing around it doesn't seem we will be lynching someone today so I'm joking around slightly more then usually but most of even these posts have points to them.

Or maybe she knows what I was trying to say and is really scum right know I'm leaning scum on her but we will see soon enough if my hunches are correct.

There is a very slim possibility she could get lynched with fewer votes but if I was trying to change the lynch I would push Mac/juilets they are more likely to get last minute lynched then

You are correct in that I do know what you were trying to say, nothing flew over my head. It's the same thing you did earlier when you accused me of slipping with "us" and then backed out because you knew that mislynch wouldn't get any traction for an accusation that was so preposterous. The same thing happened again here, you're acting like you were being humorous with your comment that lynching me would reveal my alignment when really you were dead set on it. The fact that you do in fact lean scum on me but are being so careful tip-toeing around why, further illustrates that I've got you and you don't have any decent counter-argument.

MacDougall wrote:Are you just pretending not to see all of sigs scum posts?

This, to anyone not voting for sig.

Where in the world is this thread going?

Matt F wrote:

MacDougall wrote:If I had to guess the alignments of epi, Golden, Zebs and MattF I would say scum, scum, scum, cum.

You flatter me, sir.

lol

MacDougall wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:This is the last I will speak of this pointless conflict between Epi and I.

"That's not what I said" can be interpreted as both an accusation of misquotation as well an accusation of inappropriate extrapolation. Since you didn't specify, I think most people would default to misquotation as being what the accusation was. You didn't, because you are more civilized than the rest of us uneducated folk, but if you had given us (read: me) the courtesy of specifying what you meant initially, you could have saved some time and energy on both of our parts. I think communication is more about knowing who you're talking to than what the "proper" interpretation of a statement is, but that's just me.

linki @ Mac - I don't know, if I'm scum then you've caught me red-handed (based on the laziest scumslip accusation I've seen since probably not that long ago) so I'm not sure why you would want my advice.

linki @ sig - CAN WE LYNCH THIS PLEASE LMAO WTF

Becauss I want to spend time with you because I like you.

Check out my scum performance in Misfits. It's the only game I've won on this site to date.

linki @ Epi - k

sig wrote:I'm not sure on Zebra but if we could get a few lynches on her that might reveal some information about her alignment.

Seriously does no one else see this? This alone is lynch-worthy.

This is the last I will speak of this pointless conflict between Epi and I.

"That's not what I said" can be interpreted as both an accusation of misquotation as well an accusation of inappropriate extrapolation. Since you didn't specify, I think most people would default to misquotation as being what the accusation was. You didn't, because you are more civilized than the rest of us uneducated folk, but if you had given us (read: me) the courtesy of specifying what you meant initially, you could have saved some time and energy on both of our parts. I think communication is more about knowing who you're talking to than what the "proper" interpretation of a statement is, but that's just me.

linki @ Mac - I don't know, if I'm scum then you've caught me red-handed (based on the laziest scumslip accusation I've seen since probably not that long ago) so I'm not sure why you would want my advice.

linki @ sig - CAN WE LYNCH THIS PLEASE LMAO WTF

MacDougall wrote:

sig wrote:Could you point it out?

She knows I am civ. You can tell by the way she phrased the first sentence and also the defense of me when I was absent was confident because she knows my alignment.

I'm confident because I have a civ read of you, not because I KNOW you are civ.

linki - Yup, this is what I am talking about.

sig wrote:@Turnip what do you think about Zebra, and zebra what do you think about Turnip curious with how the day phase went what your views on each other are know opposed to last phase.

What exactly do you mean by this?

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki@Epi - So I see that you've seen what's wrong with your argument.

I'm not making an argument, genius. You are.

Wrong again. For someone who clearly is a superior rhetorician (and I am not being sarcastic), you sure are bad at communicating here. I'm referring to your initial argument that I misquoted you. Yes, misquoted you. Your ego is too big to admit being wrong so you pretend that the intentions of your original statement were different than what they actually were. It's a bit sad tbh.

sig wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Stop making non juliets related posts. She didn't even argue when I called her scum. She is definitely scum. I can tell because I am the Mac Daddy.

Are you being serious?

I think he is serious with the read itself but he knows he has no rational argument to back it up so he's just asking our vibes to parallel his. I can respect that.

linki@Epi - So I see that you've seen what's wrong with your argument.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:inb4 Epi tries to argue that the phrase "That's not what I said" is more commonly interpreted as an accusation of inappropriate extrapolation than misquotation.

Where you come from, is inb4 a proper rhetorical tool? It isn't. It only means you've already seen what's wrong with your argument.

It means that I can predict how out-of-touch you are with reality.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki@Epi - But it wouldn't be a proper defense, because it wouldn't change the fact that he did say what he claims he did not say. You sure have a talent for dodging the main point of an argument in favor of an insignificant detail. Sure it's technically a defense, but so is this:

"You're bad because X, Y, and Z."
"No I'm not because I'm not."

Yes, it's a proper defense:

"I like pie more than cake."
"CAFETERIA LADY, HE SAID HE WANTS PIE."
"That's not what I said."
"Dude, you said you like pies."
"You're full of shit. I don't like pie."

Similar sit.

Not a similar situation at all. Here would be the proper equivalent:

You: "I like pie more than cake."
Me: "Well, he did say he likes pie more than cake. And I do too. I want pie. CAFETERIA LADY GET ME SOME DAMN PIE"

I am not putting words in your mouth, I am using your words to cultivate my own argument.

inb4 Epi tries to argue that the phrase "That's not what I said" is more commonly interpreted as an accusation of inappropriate extrapolation than misquotation.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:linki@Epi - Just because I didn't use an example of what you said to your liking doesn't mean I misquoted you. Why play dumb?

I didn't accuse you of misquoting something I said. I accused you of inappropriately extrapolating something I said.

Wrong again. Please stop making claims that are so easy to disprove.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:This goes back to what Epi said earlier about thinking sig was scum even in BTSC; if your meta is so scummy that people are afraid to lynch you just because the constant scumtells are consistent with your style of play, then there's no way to get you lynched if you are in fact scum, which sig is here.

That's not what I said.

Tranq wrote: Floyd, i went through your posts, looks like you started playing mafia roughly 1 month ago. What do you mean when you say "a vague reason is always a suspicious reason"? The always part. This doesn't seem like something a relatively new player would say.

I'm feeling ok with a vote on Floyd today.

This is a lame reason for a vote. Even if he is lying about being new to Mafia, (which I've done tons of times) how does that indicate that he's scum?

linki@Epi - But it wouldn't be a proper defense, because it wouldn't change the fact that he did say what he claims he did not say. You sure have a talent for dodging the main point of an argument in favor of an insignificant detail. Sure it's technically a defense, but so is this:

"You're bad because X, Y, and Z."
"No I'm not because I'm not."