The Syndicate

Am I first in the history of mafia??

Fuck yes I was first! In your face everybody else! My first first!

Oh dammit I knew it was too good to be true - feel free to delete these idiot first posts and penalise me, I deserve it, my bad.

*peeks into thread*

Is it ok to post now? *sheepish*

I tried watching the reboot of Dr Who a few years back. I got to the episode where aliens invade London, an episode I was looking forward to since I am a born and bred Londoner. But then the aliens just farted all the time and it was just, sorry to say, stupid. I stopped watching at that point. I may well pick it up at some point in the future, since I think my wife would enjoy the show.

So I only experienced the one doctor, and to be honest I wasn't that captivated by his performance, so I obviously have no idea which option to pick.

Having said all that, I feel compelled to pick the Doctor played by Matt Smith, which I believe is #11. *votes*

It's great to see players getting stuck in right from the get-go! I hate games where people are too afraid to post. Good to see some balls.

Two things I want to post on.

First, my two cents on the issue of speculating on role powers. IMO it's better to put all our cards on the table. Baddies will be trying to figure this stuff out regardless of anything posted here.

Second, while I agree that it's too soon to really judge anyone, it kinda seems like MP hit on a nerve. Do I detect a bit of Dana defending Zeek? Or is it Dana jumping the gun on what she identifies as an easy lynch? Hard to tell at this early stage, but very possibly. At any rate, I certainly don't suspect MP yet, whereas Dana has "pinged" my suspicio-meter.

Dana wrote:

keys56000000000 wrote:Or is it Dana jumping the gun on what she identifies as an easy lynch?

What do you mean by this? Who is the easy lynch?

MP? I didn't see you call anyone else fishy..

Dana wrote:

keys wrote:MP? I didn't see you call anyone else fishy..

I wasn't sure if you meant MP or zeek.

Cool. Coolcoolcool.

Just shaken' the bee hive, seein' what flies out. Fly my pretties!

fingersplints wrote: I think keys was saying Dana might be jumping on an easy target. And Dana said an easy target of who even though she only was discussing MP. So I pointed out that she said herself MP was lynched early. Someone who is always lynched early = easy target.

Splints knows what I was saying. @fs it's like we're like this *two fingers from my brain to yours*

If I saw anything in all of that, it was a baddie Dana overplaying what she saw as weakness in MP. *If* I saw anything. Tbh I was really just throwing out the mildest of pings to see what came back. Which wasn't much. But you can't blame a fella for trying!

@SVS~: why do you think clipping quotes is bad? Nobody wants to read all these quotes, get to the point, I say!

@Epi: what about that exchange seems false to you? I'm intrigued, can you put you finger on it?

@everyone: stop describing MP's play as "aggressive" or "intense", etc - he's just playing the game the way it's supposed to be played.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Seriously, people, answer me this: What is suspicious about pursuing something I detected to be possibly insincere?

I'm not saying I do find you suspicious yet, but I'll answer your question by playing devil's advocate.

It's pretty early in the game. Day 0, to be precise, so technically the game hasn't started yet. So it'd be pretty reasonable to say that there isn't much of anything to go on at the moment. Therefore, your early enthusiasm could very well be merely an attempt at appearing like an enthusiastic civvie.

TL;DR: you could be doing a wine-in-front-of-me thing.

At this stage I don't find anyone suspicious. I don't blame MP or Epi or indeed myself ( ) for trying, but I just don't see it yet.

@canuck: I'm sure somebody else can better answer your question, but I believe the answer is no, you don't need to have watched the original series, and that the reboot is labeled season 1 (2005).

Mafia on STV wasn't fun, at all. Lol. *shudders*

Oh god I hated those "HURR 100% CIVVIE DEERRP!" roll call days. I remember once I wrote "100% mafia" just to break the monotony. I figured it would work the same, the LD would check it and it'd come up false, so no harm done, but the rest of the players didn't see things that way, and I was promptly lynched.

Starting to remember why I stopped playing this game in the first place! Ha!

Anyway, looking forward to Day 1.

I'm laughing here. You guys crack me up. I feel like I'm at a casino.

Epi seems like a gambler to me. He's gambling on Enri coming back mafia, in which case he'll take the glory of catching a baddie. If he comes back civvies, as I suspect he would, Epi will shrug it off unapologetically. He's going all in.

MP seems to be throwing shit to see what sticks. If people go for it, great. If they don't, or if the target successfully deflects said shit, it was never his intention to begin with. Just gauging reactions. Hedging his bets, so to speak.

I'm not voting for Enrique. If anything, I'm more convinced of his civvieness than his mafianess after this exchange.

As for Epi and MP themselves, I'm not saying that they're bad. At present I lean towards them being crazy-brave civvies.

Can someone explain what supatown means?


-----

As Splints said, we're going to be away for couple of days visiting my boi Chris. Then I have a busy day saying goodbye to in-laws and enjoying my last day in the states. Then I have a gruelling trip back home across the Pond. So don't expect anything of substance from me till Tuesday, alright? Have a good one.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

keys56000000000 wrote:I'm laughing here. You guys crack me up. I feel like I'm at a casino.

Epi seems like a gambler to me. He's gambling on Enri coming back mafia, in which case he'll take the glory of catching a baddie. If he comes back civvies, as I suspect he would, Epi will shrug it off unapologetically. He's going all in.

MP seems to be throwing shit to see what sticks. If people go for it, great. If they don't, or if the target successfully deflects said shit, it was never his intention to begin with. Just gauging reactions. Hedging his bets, so to speak.

I'm not voting for Enrique. If anything, I'm more convinced of his civvieness than his mafianess after this exchange.

As for Epi and MP themselves, I'm not saying that they're bad. At present I lean towards them being crazy-brave civvies.

Can someone explain what supatown means?


-----

As Splints said, we're going to be away for couple of days visiting my boi Chris. Then I have a busy day saying goodbye to in-laws and enjoying my last day in the states. Then I have a gruelling trip back home across the Pond. So don't expect anything of substance from me till Tuesday, alright? Have a good one.

But in mafia, there is no happily ever after. Everyone can't be a civvie variation.

True, but it's not like we've even had everyone check in yet. Most players haven't posted anything of substance. This smacks of jumping the gun.

I would like to hear you expound on the bolded bit when you get the chance.

Ok, well,

A) I just don't see the suspicion in him as posited by others. Might be because I don't get this "supatown" thing, but I just don't buy it, at all. It really just seems like a wild gamble from wild players.
B) Enrique's defence had a frustrated tone to it, which is hard to fake.

He may well be faking it, hell, the suspicion on him may well be apt, I just heavily lean away from that viewpoint.

Oi oi guv'ners, back in merry olde England

Well cheerio mates, 40 pages to read

Darp sounds like Derp, so I say we take the Tard' there! Derpdy derp!

[quote="Epignosis"][quote="Dana"]Do you guys really think MP would start out immediately accusing people and making multiple paragraph long posts as a baddie during day 0 and 1?/quote]

Dana, I think you spilt that wine in front of you. All over the table and on our collective pants.

Fellow civvies, hear me! I have to stop here in my catch up to inform you all that Dana and MP are mafioso! That post by Dana is a defense of MP. Epignosis is right, the answer to Dana's question is obviously yes. Of course he'd want to appear like a civvie. Playing consistent with you previous civvie form is an obvious choice for any baddie. Dana surely knows that's how the game is played. She's bad, MP is bad, I practically guarantee it.

Back to the catch-up.

I messed up the quote there, didn't mean to chop out Epignosis's "Yes", his reply to Dana.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

keys56000000000 wrote:
Dana, I think you spilt that wine in front of you. All over the table and on our collective pants.

Fellow civvies, hear me! I have to stop here in my catch up to inform you all that Dana and MP are mafioso! That post by Dana is a defense of MP. Epignosis is right, the answer to Dana's question is obviously yes. Of course he'd want to appear like a civvie. Playing consistent with you previous civvie form is an obvious choice for any baddie. Dana surely knows that's how the game is played. She's bad, MP is bad, I practically guarantee it.

Back to the catch-up.

Lol, except that this is totally reaching and you're wrong about me. Could be right about Dana for all I know.[/quote]

It's not reaching. It's actually pretty standard WIFOM stuff. I think you were feigning frustration at the prospect of being lynched on day 1 again. I think you're drowning everyone in a sea of on-topic posts.

The beauty of having two baddie teams for a player such as yourself is you can still hunt mafioso if you are one. It's very easy to appear genuine, you just hunt the guys on the opposite baddie team. I think I see that in you. A very enthusiastic player, relishing his role as the baddie hiding in the spotlight, fooling everyone, maybe even catching a baddie on the other team. I don't think it's reaching at all.

MP, what did it for me is Dana's post, the one asking if you really would behave in such a way if you weren't a civvie. I remain unconvinced that anyone who has played multiple games with you would question the plausibility of you successfully feigning your civvie game. You're obviously a good enough player to do so.

Up until that point I thought you could have genuinely been just a very enthusiastic civvie. I definitely thought you were being liberal, sometimes quite wild, with your accusations, but that it was with good intentions. As I said, now I see you as more of someone relishing hiding in plain sight, in the spotlight, even. You're having fun playing the baddie-hunt game, like a good civvie would, but you're also having fun fooling everyone, like a good baddie would.

You keep telling me I don't know your style of play. That I should change my perspective. What are you expecting me to say to that? "Oh, my apologies MP, you cannot be bad, this is clearly just your civvie playstyle! I just had to change my perspective -- seeing you as a baddie to seeing you as a goodie -- to realise that! My bad."?

I don't buy your act. Your subsequent counter-attack is nothing but a lame switcheroo, and somewhat hypocritical of you if you want to dismiss my accusations of yourself as mere reaching.

I haven't caught up fully, but I intend to vote for MP.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Ha, I couldn't help but check the results before actually falling asleep. I had a strange feeling the Cybermen were going to try to kill me tonight. Nice try, suckers!

Dom, that's not true. I failed to mention it before, but I strongly believed juliets was bad and I followed that through hard until the very end.

Keys, so you're going to attempt to incriminate me based solely on the post made by someone else... and yet you're going to gun after me and not them? Right, because that's logical.

I said you were both bad, didn't I? It's only been what, a few hours since I posted that? You keep attempting to put negative spins on my accusation of you. That only convinces me further of your guilt. At the very least, you come off as a massive hypocrit.

I didn't shrug it off, I literally just explained why the change. To reiterate, again, I think I caught Dana defending you with an argument I find to be entirely unconvincing. I said I certainly don't suspect you yet, which I thought implied that I was giving you a chance. I would have probably gone on thinking you were just an over-zealous, verbose player had Dana not posted that.

You keep complaining about it being one post from someone else. What does it matter how many posts or from whom? I think everyone else will agree with me that it can only take one unfortunate post from a teammate to blow one's cover.

Again, ridiculing my suspicion of you. It's crazy, huh? I think the notion of you relishing hiding in the spotlight is perfectly reasonable, and I'm betting others will see it that way, too. You post A LOT. You accuse practically anyone you can get your hands on, for literally anything. You have people defending you out of the realms of reason.

I'll get to Dana. I thought I saw him/her defending Enrique in a similarly conspicuous fashion, who is coincidentally defending you, too. I can only take on so much, I'm still catching up and I have little sway against you veterans of this site, but I'll get there. Your come at me bro (btw 2011 called and they want their smack talk back) challenge has been accepted.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Okay, so apparently you guarantee I'm bad based on behavior that isn't even mine. It does matter how many posts or from whom; are you serious? If someone finds 10 posts of someone's own words that are suspicious versus 1 post of someone else's words... surely that's a difference, yes? I won't argue with a teammate sinking anyone; I just find it odd as fuck that you therefore try to argue I should go first. If you're basing the argument that I'm bad based off of the defense of someone else -- if Dana's post TRULY is the ONLY thing that convinced you that I'm bad -- then why make up all these other WIFOM related reasons that you mentioned earlier in the game? And why lynch me before lynching her if my baddieness is conditional upon her defending me? It's simple causation-based logic, yet you haven't given me an answer to that.

And yes, I firmly believe "guaranteeing" someone as bad based off of one post posted by someone else whose alignment you also don't know to be crazy, yes. I'm not insulting you or ridiculing you; I'm sorry if you took it that way because it's clearly not. But it's incredibly illogical to conclude with such confidence in such circumstances, especially when there are so many other players you haven't issued any opinions on whatsoever.

Le sigh! Forgive me for asking, but do you think everyone playing this game is stupid, MP? You appear to be hiding in the spotlight, basic WIFOM stuff, how many times do I have to say that? Dana's unreasonable, unconvincing defense of you corroborates that. Do I need to post a definition of the word "corroborate"? And yet you keep saying I'm basing this all on one post. Do you think the rest of the civvies here are dumb?

You also failed to address my two points about zeek twice now: (1) zeek has posted even more than I have, so clearly he's taking a similar strategy. No opinion of him?

I can only concentrate on so many people after a a 14 hour intercontinetal journey, especially considering I'm still catching up. Y'know, you keep throwing out other names. What about Dana? What about Zeek? It's like you're running away from me, throwing whatever you can find into my path to slow me down. I'll get to Zeek. At the moment I feel the strongest about you, so I'm concentrating on you.

And (2), here you said:

keys56000000000 wrote:It's great to see players getting stuck in right from the get-go! I hate games where people are too afraid to post. Good to see some balls.

Two things I want to post on.

First, my two cents on the issue of speculating on role powers. IMO it's better to put all our cards on the table. Baddies will be trying to figure this stuff out regardless of anything posted here.

Second, while I agree that it's too soon to really judge anyone, it kinda seems like MP hit on a nerve. Do I detect a bit of Dana defending Zeek? Or is it Dana jumping the gun on what she identifies as an easy lynch? Hard to tell at this early stage, but very possibly. At any rate, I certainly don't suspect MP yet, whereas Dana has "pinged" my suspicio-meter.

If Dana was defending zeek too, then surely he must be her baddie teammate too, right?

I wouldn't characterise Zeek's play as similar to yours, but you raise a good point. At the time I did feel like I might have caught something there, thanks for reminding me.

It appears your arguments are collapsing amid scrutiny, yet you fail to acknowledge that.

You talk a good talk, I have to hand it to you. You dismiss me and spin my arguments to fit your narrative quite expertly. I simply do not have the time nor the energy to counter your sheer volume of posts and their intensity, but I hope my fellow civvies will be able to identify it for what it really is: an attempt to white-wash opposition.

linkitis: lol @ MP's "I'm looking at all these people today, we'll see what sticks" post. And he calls me ridiculous and crazy.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Let's not forget that he survived a nightkill somehow and 'had a feeling' the Cybertron's were coming after him.

There are two baddie teams, so surviving a night kill doesn't put anyone in the clear.

What does MP saying he had a feeling he would be targeted prove?

MovingPictures07 wrote:LMAO I can't believe people actually think I'm bad after I just nearly got killed by the Cybermen. This is just astounding.

Again, there are two baddie teams. I can't believe you are using the fact that you were targeted by one as proof that you're good. It seems to me like you think we're all stupid.

Keys, I would NEVER throw around the words "dumb" or "stupid" in a mafia game, or outside on this site anywhere. So let's not go there.

I haven't called anyone dumb or stupid. I'm saying you are behaving as though the rest of us are. You are excellent at twisting people's words. Truly excellent. If my fellow civvies can't recognise you for the bullshitter you are, we are in trouble.

That's fine, I understand you're still catching up. But you still never explained to me why it makes more sense to focus on me if my baddieness is conditional upon Dana's baddieness. How can her defense corroborate anything when you don't even know her alignment? Do I need to post a definition of the word to you? Don't talk down to me, please. Let's keep this civil.

I feel like we are just going in circles here, me repeating myself over and over and over. See previous posts. I hope my fellow civvies aren't buying this bullplop from MP.

Stop throwing around stupid and other words like it. I would NEVER insinuate this. Ever. And I am not doing it right now. I treat everyone on this site with the utmost respect, sir.

Ffs. I'm saying you are playing us for fools, for chumps. I'm saying you are underestimating our intelligence. I'm not saying you have literally insulted someone in this game.

You LMAO at us with your assertion that you are good because you were targeted by one of two baddie teams, which is obviously no proof of your civvieness at all. It's not like you can be on both baddie teams.

You want to sig bet then? If you're THAT confident I'm bad, how about if you get me lynched and I flip civvie, I have to determine your sig; if I'm bad, you determine mine. Deal? Because you're wrong.

I've never heard of anyone betting on the results of a lynch, but sure, I accept. It seems like you are throwing the kitchen sink at me in defense, hardly dissuading me from suspecting you.

Enrique wrote:Where is this MP thing coming from? Honestly, at this point, I don't see him being a baddie. And I really can't behind keys' idea that we must lynch MP because Dana made a post defending him. Seriously, what? People in mafia defend people that they think are innocent. We're baddie-hunting, not player-hunting.

Yes, people defend people in mafia all the time, but it's not like her defense of MP was at all reasonable . What did she say again, something along the lines of asking if MP would play the way he was playing if he was bad? Essentially asking if someone would pretend to be a civvie if they were bad? The answer is obviously yes, and Dana must know that. So why did she post such a ridiculous defense of MP?

dana wrote: Okay guys can we be nice to each other? No one thinks anyone is stupid. Keys, the fact that he was targeted by a baddie team does not definitively mean he's good, but it does mean that he's statistically less likely to be bad, because that's 1/2 of the baddie teams that he's not on.

It actually does not mean that he is statistically less likely to be bad. That is not how probability works. He cannot be on both baddie teams.

And again, I wasn't saying anybody was literally calling anyone stupid, nor was I saying that anybody was stupid, but I'm sure everyone appreciates you coming to their rescue from me apparently being mean, insulting and disrespecting them.

I'm surprised MP keeps bringing up the failed night kill, if there are two baddie teams it obvious proves nothing. And yet, he keeps citing it. So absurd that anyone would suspect him after the failed NK.

Another thing, ATTENTION HOSTS

Could a player with a protection prize be targeted by his own team and have it foiled that way?

If the answer to that is yes, then the possibility remains that it was a self-target to throw people off. Great way to use an NK protection.

MP wrote:It doesn't prove "nothing", it just says I was almost killed by one of the teams.

Right, which proves nothing. You keep citing it like it makes you more likely to be a civ, which obviously isn't the case.

I'm not convinced you actually read my posts because I've said ad nauseum that people can think I'm a Dalek or The Master all they want, but it doesn't mean that I am. So why you think it means "nothing" is just incomprehensible to me.

I do read your posts. They are numerous, long and repetitive, but I read them.

Citing over and over that you escaped an NK doesn't prove that you are a civvie. How the fuck is that incomprehensible? I am not convinced for a second that you do not know what I am talking about. You have played this game long enough to understand the basics.

The fact is that I survived an NK from one team. I'm citing it ONLY for that reason.

I seem to recall you saying you found it absurd/astonishing that anyone would suspect you after escaping that NK. Which is ridiculous, for the reasons I keep repeating to you: that it proves nothing. You can put "nothing" in quotation marks if you believe that will put a negative spin on the argument, you can all it illogical or incomprehensible, but it obviously is logical.

Not for you to buy into the argument that I'm a confirmed civvie. Because I'm not. It just makes my possibilities of being bad seem less than anyone else alive right now.

That is simply not the case. The chance of you being a baddie is the same as it was at the start of the game.

I don't see why the answer to that couldn't be a yes, and something I didn't think of honestly, so you have a good point here. It's not true, and it would be a terrible baddie plan because there are two baddie teams, an independent, and secret roles though. Now if it were a single mafia game, it would be a much better counterpoint.

Let's not debate whether or not it would be a good idea. That's of no consequence. The fact is that it's been done in the past with varying levels of success, so I'm not discounting it. I don't think it's particularly likely in this case, but you seem like a good player so I would not put it past you to try something like that.


At this stage the reason why I keep coming at you, bro, is that you seem to be trying pretty much anything to defend yourself. You ask what about this person and that person, you make circular arguments, you paint my suspicion of you in all sorts of negative terms, like odd, weird, crazy, illogical, incomprehensible, etc. You LMAO, you find it absurd and astonishing that anyone would suspect you, you cite your failed NK attempt too much for my liking; you're just doing nothing to dissuade my suspicion, at all.

I'm still open to discussion but as things stand I'm comfortable with my vote for MP.

Splints, I haven't caught up yet, so re: Chris, idk.

I can say one thing from past experience playing with Chris, and that is I remember him being very enthusiastic as a civvie. He gets stuck in, enjoys a baddie hunt. I would expect him to be more reserved as a baddie. But it's been what, a year or two since we played together, so you never know, he might have switched up his style a bit over the years.

I gotta catch up and read more of his posts before I can truly comment.

Henry wrote: But this whole case against [MP] is just so... irrational.

I suspect MP is hiding in plain sight. Dana defended him by asking if anyone would play like that if they were bad, an argument I don't think she would make unless they were mafia together. MP's defense of himself has involved things mafioso do to defend themselves, such as twisting people's words, putting negative spins on every attack, etc.

What's irrational about those conclusions?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

keys56000000000 wrote: ATTENTION HOSTS

Could a player with a protection prize be targeted by his own team and have it foiled that way?

Hmmmmm.....technically, yes. I'd have to answer that question with 'yes'.

Considering the way our host has chosen to word that answer, I'm going to assume that MP didn't self-target, and indeed isn't a Cyberthingy.

SVS~ amd Dana: I didn't just pull a defense out at random. Dana's defense makes no sense. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a baddie will want to pretend to be a goodie. That's how this game works. So when she started questioning why MP would behave in such a way (his typical civvie playstyle, according to most of you, including himself) if he were bad, it sounds wholey fake. I don't think a civvie would question why a baddie would play like that, especially in regards to a player like MP.

SVS, I don't think anyone is suspecting him because he survived an NK attempt. They suspect that he is overplaying the "I survived!" card. And he has been, very much so. He said he was astonished that anyone would suspect him after surviving the NK, which is ridiculous, since, repeating myself a lot here, surviving an NK when there are two baddie teams doesn't prove innocent. Sheesh.

I'll tell you what, I'll change my vote to Dana, how about that? Then you can't use that defense anymore.

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:who suggested that MP is a cyberman who tried to kill himself knowing it would fail

That would be Keys.

That is very shady. .

Are you kidding me, Dom?

A) I suggested it was a possibility, not that MP actually did that.
B) You pretty much tagged along for the ride while I was engaged with MP. Now you're saying I'm very shady?

splints wrote:linki ~ I'm not even sure what a peak of interest means in mafia so let me know when its something I can respond to

I saw it too, I'm sure they meant to say that their interest was piqued, i.e. it arose curiosity.

Chris wrote: B. I thought I floated the idea that MP was a baddie who self targeted, but maybe I'm wrong.

It was, but MP said it was me, and I didn't find it so unreasonable as to correct it, since I talked about the possibility of a team targeting their own aswell. To add to that, Dom asked if I had stated that MP self-targeted. I only suggested it was a possibility, and as you point out, not before you did.

Dom: just seems silly for you to be calling me very shady for talking about all the potential scenarios in that foiled night kill. Especially since you suspect him, too.

How is going through the possibilities "very shady"?

I don't feel as comfortable voting Dana as I do MP, so I'm switching my vote back to MP.

Is LC's vote for Epig weird? I don't think so. But he's been quiet, which is weird.

Why did Dom say Epig was flying under the radar? I don't understand. Dom?

I really have no opinion on the other discussions. I don't know who to suspect, but I do suspect MP, so I'm just going to stick to that.

Snow Dog wrote: But have also been rereading keys case on MP. Sounds reasonable. I feel either a hedge or MP vote coming on.

THANK YOU! MP and Enrique have both called it illogical and irrational (I guess MP is going to say that regardless, since it's aimed at him), nobody else has really commented on it, so it's nice to read someone finds it reasoable. It totally is reasonable, logical and indeed, rational.

Made wrote:Do you know why you didn't die Eloh?

That seems to be what she's implying here:

elo wrote:Did you guys not reread the civ roles pertaining to surviving night kills?

linki: Elo's dropping serious hints here. I don't know what to make of it, but it'd be best to exercise caution here.

Et tu, Chrissy? I should have known, My bad braa

Dana wrote:It wasn't that no one was picking up on it, it was that no one was trying to dissuade the Made suspicion, or at least it seemed that way at the time (like it currently does with Hedge). It just makes me uncomfortable when everyone is ok with lynching someone, because then that means the baddies are too.

I agree with this. It's what I like to refer to as a "lynchtrain" - everyone's ok with voting that person, for practically nothing, and no one is coming to that person's aid. Makes me very uncomfortable, and I think one is forming against this Hedgey person.

Also, Dana, if that's how you feel, how do you feel about Enrique heavily defending MP? And going as far as calling my suspicion of MP irrational?

Hey SVS~ and other Daisy detractors, I'm feeling the Daisy suspicion. I'm used to reading a whole lot more from her. Maybe she's changed her style since we played last, admittedly a long time ago, but maybe she is afraid her fiance MP might easily catch her in the act of mafiaing, and is playing very carefully.

I don't know really, but I'm more supportive of the lynch going that way than this lynchtrain on Hedge.

I didn't know Daisy role hinted. I feel very uncomfortable with a last minute push for someone that's role hinted.

spacedaze wrote:I'm quieter because I am working like crazy at the moment and because I am not feeling well. Been having dizzy spells. Migraines, sinus congestion. Meh. And you could not be more wrong about me or my intentions with MP. She have not played together in quite some time Keys, I play a much less engaged game anymore. And as far as MP, I am not afraid of him figuring me out I would like him to because then he would know it is a bad idea to lynch me. In fact he seems to have backed off already, so yeah.

Fair enough, I was just speculating. You'll note I haven't voted for you, and I retract my support for your lynch.

Hope you feel better soon.

bea wrote:Carry on and HAVE MORE FUN!!

YOU GOT IT BEA! d(^_^)b WOOOO!

*hits refresh again*

Zeek, nice usage of futurama meme! <3 futurama!

Next time, why not Zoidberg? ;D

And anyone sending PMs tonight, why not keys?


RIP the civvie Snow Dog. I like dogs, and snow, so, yeah. I hardly knew ye ot'wise. Peace be wit' ye!

All this talk of tie-break lynches is ridiculous. If a civ is lynched in a civ+bad tie, it doesn't reveal the other to be a baddie, because how do you know it was civ+bad and not civ+civ? You don't.

The whole discussion smacks of mafioso trying to be helpful.

I'm looking at MP, Zeek and Enrique. They may well be civs, but if they're leading last-minute charges against civs like Snow Dog, who wasn't even around to defend him/herself, they're not exactly helping the civvie cause.

And Dom, the word "exactly" is an adverb used to confirm accuracy.

MP, what have you done to help the civvie cause?

You spam the game thread with multiple posts, drowning the rest of us. You throw suspicion at practically everyone in the game. How many of the civs lynched so far did you vote for and/or make cases on? 2? or all 3? Your record this game is awful. You've essentially hijacked the game with your volume of posting. I'm tired of reading post after post of wild speculation. You throw shit and see what sticks. You've done us no favours whatsoever.

MP, I'm tired of you leading the conversation. Yes, you're "helping", or you're pretending to help. That's the game. Whatever it is you're doing, it's not helping us, because we keep dying, and mostly, ironically, at your hands. You cannot say that I haven't been participating just because my main suspect is yourself. It is obviously inaccurate to characterise my suspicion of you as "MP IS BAD MP IS BAD". You sound like a fucking child. Quieten down some and let the rest of us play the game. Might be we'll catch a baddie without your incessant "helping".

linki: Jesus MP, can you please stop with the multiple consecutive posts so I can get a word in.

MP, I'm sorry if I offended you back there. I like that you are 100% involved in the game, in fact, I love it. I hate the quiet players that hide in silence. Posting the bare minumum and then sticking their winning banner in their signature with all the rest of the banners they didn't deserve.

But goddamn it, man, how about a little brevity? Less really can be more! If you're really a civvie, you need to realise that posting so much -- leading the conversations as you do -- is detrimental to our cause. You need to give other people a chance to get into the game. Because at the end of the day, who knows if you're really a civilian helping us out? That's the game we're playing. As for your question:

keys: I'm curious to your opinion on one item. Splints has had continued thoughts about you all game, so I'm curious if you have any read on her yet; if so, what is it?

I have no read on Splints really. I lean towards her being civ, but who knows. She's fully capable of pulling the wool over my eyes, and I've only played a handful of games with her.

And Splints: thanks for your vote of confidence, but you should never trust me in a mafia game! I play exactly the same as a mafioso as I do when I'm a civvie, the only difference being, I'm lying when I'm a mafioso.

MP, I agree with Jules. Don't be an all or nothing guy, just chillax for a bit. I still want to read your opinions, and I intend on voting for you in the next day phase so I don't want to hear any "I don't want to vote for MP while he isn't posting" crap! And on a serious off-topic note, don't let mafia ruin your PhD. Do what you gotta do.

Birdwithteeth said that technically, a team could target their own player and have it be foiled by a protection prize.

But the way he put it didn't fill me with confidence that it is at all likely to have happened.

Some of you seem really hung up on the Epig lynch. I don't know what to tell you guys, he seemed sketchy enough to get lynched to me. Why aren't you guys as hung up on Jules/Snow Dog's lynches? Other than the fact that you voted for those two?