The Syndicate

Hi, I'm here! One of those days at work. I'm in a really busy time, with a lot going on, so will likely be on the quiet side. Also, i'm really tired right now and clearly need to read over everything about 3 more times before i begin to understand it.

Hedgeowl wrote:Hellooooo new shiny game!!

There is no poll. I do not understand. What am I supposed to do?

Well you can't stop me voting. I have rights!! Just try and stop me!

Might I suggest staying away from Texas...stopping people voting is sort of a thing here.

I think the idea of being able to form a monopoly is similar to a union. It sounds, from the roles/rules that civ sets can win with other civ sets with whom they have formed a monopoly. Otherwise, the wording doesn't make sense, if civ sets can't join together. Am I missing something?

S~V~S wrote:At this point I am most leery of people implying that those who disagree with their strategy of not searching are bad. I think that keeping the civvies as unempowered vanillas with no earning ability plays right into the hands of the rails/utilities.

Even the implication that playing the game within its design is somehow "cheating" feels very off to me.

I also play mafia for fun as much as for wins, and actually playing seems mor fun to me

Similarly, I think that not really trying to search for each other is more beneficial to the baddies than to the civies, ultimately. We often underestimate the power of BTSC, especially for a civ role.

That said, I don't at all suspect Keys for being the main voice discussing that idea. I learned early on in Keys' mafia career that he often has ideas, especially as a civ, that do not seem to me to be civ ideas. Pretty sure I had an active hand in lynching him for this his first game (I was evil in that game, but at least in games with more than one mafia, I'm always honest about my suspicions, even when evil). It was a few games later that I learned that this was just his style. And to appreciate it. He brings ideas into games that I wouldn't consider--and I'm glad to see him playing.

I do find suspicious those who are jumping on the bandwagon of that idea. I need to reread a bit to see who those people are in particular (I know people were agreeing, but I don't remember who they were). It is to one of those folks that my vote will likely go.

And sometimes, baddies do slip. Nice catch, all! Let it never be said that there's no such thing as a baddie slip.

Forgot the lynch was ending. So sorry for missing the vote.

Elohcin wrote:
I'll tell you what I found to be a weird little conversation:

juliets wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

juliets wrote:Black Rock, speaking of hunting down baddies, do you have any suspicions at this point?

At this point? No.

Thanks BR. I don't either.

Sounds like severe distancing. I don't have much more time to catch up and I think this is a pretty good suspicion for a Day 1 vote, so... *votes Juliets*

limki: and now she is bandwagoning IMO

Sounds to me like 2 people who have played several games together over the years seeing where the other stands. And is it really jumping on a bandwagon if the person is actually bad and slipped up, fairly blatantly (I will make a chubbz/vanilly/smells like danhm reference here for the 5-ish players that might chuckle at that). I have no read on either of them, but I don't think this exchange makes them look bad.

Would have likely voted Made, btw. Especially after this post:

Made wrote:God damn it... Got home exhausted, caught up and said what I was thinking before hopping into homework. I didn't want to hint how many people were on my team so I chose a random number.

Day 1 lynch 3 games in a row. GG everyone

Civvie RA RAhasdl;kjsrg;lkerlk;dsfgsd etcetc

Voting Epig to save.

Hint how many people were on team pretty much admits you're bad. So. Yeah.

Following through on my thoughts in the post-lynch post. Didn't want to make overt accusations at the start of night. I think that elohcin is Made's teammate. Even if they didn't have BTSC yet, Made had clearly made a slip, and elo was trying to prevent the lynch on the chance that they would, indeed, gain BTSC and be teammates.

So, I think Elo was trying to deflect attention away from Made and towards others, and stopping the growing opinion against Made.

LoRab wrote:And sometimes, baddies do slip. Nice catch, all! Let it never be said that there's no such thing as a baddie slip.

Forgot the lynch was ending. So sorry for missing the vote.

Elohcin wrote:
I'll tell you what I found to be a weird little conversation:

juliets wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

juliets wrote:Black Rock, speaking of hunting down baddies, do you have any suspicions at this point?

At this point? No.

Thanks BR. I don't either.

Sounds like severe distancing. I don't have much more time to catch up and I think this is a pretty good suspicion for a Day 1 vote, so... *votes Juliets*

limki: and now she is bandwagoning IMO

Sounds to me like 2 people who have played several games together over the years seeing where the other stands. And is it really jumping on a bandwagon if the person is actually bad and slipped up, fairly blatantly (I will make a chubbz/vanilly/smells like danhm reference here for the 5-ish players that might chuckle at that). I have no read on either of them, but I don't think this exchange makes them look bad.

Would have likely voted Made, btw. Especially after this post:

Made wrote:God damn it... Got home exhausted, caught up and said what I was thinking before hopping into homework. I didn't want to hint how many people were on my team so I chose a random number.

Day 1 lynch 3 games in a row. GG everyone

Civvie RA RAhasdl;kjsrg;lkerlk;dsfgsd etcetc

Voting Epig to save.

Hint how many people were on team pretty much admits you're bad. So. Yeah.

By diverting attention to JC and BR, it seems she was trying to drop seeds of suspicion on them, hoping for a second bandwagon, and not have to actually defend Made. Which, by the way, she doesn't mention the slip at all in her post--which is odd. And to accuse JC of bandwagoning--when, in fact, there was clear reason to vote for Made, just doesn't make sense.

She makes a case out of 2 players who have played a lot together and have similar thought processes often, asking for each other's opinions early in the game. That doesn't seem odd to me at all. It seems even less reason for suspicion.

Right now, Elo is my biggest suspicion.

Long Con wrote:inb4 someone says "but Elochin wouldn't have had BTSC with Made or known he was a baddie!"... all she had to do in Lorab's scenario is believe the slip was real. Lorab linki'd me when I was posting, so the reat of this post is unrelated to her case.

* * * * *

In a recent game, I correctly called out Lorab and Canucklehead as baddies, because they trusted me and openly said they thought I was Civvie in the thread, multiple times. I found it suspicious, because I was a baddie, and I started to try to figure out why they thought I was Civvie. I came to the conclusion that they probably hoped I was Civvie, but that they were simply saying those things in order to placate me, or to make me feel more in sync with them in the thread. It was a way of acting that was, at its core, intended to make themselves seem more Civvie.

I'm not saying that Metalmarsh and Turnip Head are baddies. I am saying that their trust in Epignosis on Day One fits the basic points of what Lorab and Canucklehead were doing in that game, in that they don't have anything much to go on to say they trust him. It could be viewed as a way for baddies to set up a trust-warmed in-thread relationship with a player that they believe would be a better ally than enemy.

And, well, Epig is that sort of player.

For the record, I actually thought you were civ and was defending you because of it. One of the few times I've been dead wrong about you. Knuk was going with what I believed to be true. Just saying.

So that sort of colors my reading of your point. but it is something to keep in mind.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:Following through on my thoughts in the post-lynch post. Didn't want to make overt accusations at the start of night. I think that elohcin is Made's teammate. Even if they didn't have BTSC yet, Made had clearly made a slip, and elo was trying to prevent the lynch on the chance that they would, indeed, gain BTSC and be teammates.

That plan would be foolhardy, even among people who already could talk privately with one another.

LoRab wrote:So, I think Elo was trying to deflect attention away from Made and towards others, and stopping the growing opinion against Made.

By diverting attention to JC and BR, it seems she was trying to drop seeds of suspicion on them, hoping for a second bandwagon, and not have to actually defend Made. Which, by the way, she doesn't mention the slip at all in her post--which is odd. And to accuse JC of bandwagoning--when, in fact, there was clear reason to vote for Made, just doesn't make sense.

She makes a case out of 2 players who have played a lot together and have similar thought processes often, asking for each other's opinions early in the game. That doesn't seem odd to me at all. It seems even less reason for suspicion.

Right now, Elo is my biggest suspicion.

Do you really think that at that point a wave of people were going to go, "Aha, Eloh! Great point! I'm voting JC!" Lorab?

Eloh voted JC after Made took a heptavote. No...that theory cannot be a good one.

Shocking. You and I don't agree on something. And because you disagree and think about games differently, my theory is bad. I refuse to engage with you unless you learn how to disagree and not say or imply the other person that you disagree with is being ridiculous.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:Following through on my thoughts in the post-lynch post. Didn't want to make overt accusations at the start of night. I think that elohcin is Made's teammate. Even if they didn't have BTSC yet, Made had clearly made a slip, and elo was trying to prevent the lynch on the chance that they would, indeed, gain BTSC and be teammates.

That plan would be foolhardy, even among people who already could talk privately with one another.

LoRab wrote:So, I think Elo was trying to deflect attention away from Made and towards others, and stopping the growing opinion against Made.

By diverting attention to JC and BR, it seems she was trying to drop seeds of suspicion on them, hoping for a second bandwagon, and not have to actually defend Made. Which, by the way, she doesn't mention the slip at all in her post--which is odd. And to accuse JC of bandwagoning--when, in fact, there was clear reason to vote for Made, just doesn't make sense.

She makes a case out of 2 players who have played a lot together and have similar thought processes often, asking for each other's opinions early in the game. That doesn't seem odd to me at all. It seems even less reason for suspicion.

Right now, Elo is my biggest suspicion.

Do you really think that at that point a wave of people were going to go, "Aha, Eloh! Great point! I'm voting JC!" Lorab?

Eloh voted JC after Made took a heptavote. No...that theory cannot be a good one.

Shocking. You and I don't agree on something. And because you disagree and think about games differently, my theory is bad. I refuse to engage with you unless you learn how to disagree and not say or imply the other person that you disagree with is being ridiculous.

Overreaction. Bingo.

No. I'm just gotten to the point where I don't want to deal with your insulting attitude that you have towards me in every game we've been in. Including when we had BTSC. I'm just done responding to you and getting into it with you about my opinions. I'll still respond to personal attacks, though.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:Following through on my thoughts in the post-lynch post. Didn't want to make overt accusations at the start of night. I think that elohcin is Made's teammate. Even if they didn't have BTSC yet, Made had clearly made a slip, and elo was trying to prevent the lynch on the chance that they would, indeed, gain BTSC and be teammates.

That plan would be foolhardy, even among people who already could talk privately with one another.

LoRab wrote:So, I think Elo was trying to deflect attention away from Made and towards others, and stopping the growing opinion against Made.

By diverting attention to JC and BR, it seems she was trying to drop seeds of suspicion on them, hoping for a second bandwagon, and not have to actually defend Made. Which, by the way, she doesn't mention the slip at all in her post--which is odd. And to accuse JC of bandwagoning--when, in fact, there was clear reason to vote for Made, just doesn't make sense.

She makes a case out of 2 players who have played a lot together and have similar thought processes often, asking for each other's opinions early in the game. That doesn't seem odd to me at all. It seems even less reason for suspicion.

Right now, Elo is my biggest suspicion.

Do you really think that at that point a wave of people were going to go, "Aha, Eloh! Great point! I'm voting JC!" Lorab?

Eloh voted JC after Made took a heptavote. No...that theory cannot be a good one.

Shocking. You and I don't agree on something. And because you disagree and think about games differently, my theory is bad. I refuse to engage with you unless you learn how to disagree and not say or imply the other person that you disagree with is being ridiculous.

Overreaction. Bingo.

No. I'm just gotten to the point where I don't want to deal with your insulting attitude that you have towards me in every game we've been in. Including when we had BTSC. I'm just done responding to you and getting into it with you about my opinions. I'll still respond to personal attacks, though.

I would like to know how my belief that your theory can't be right = me thinking you are laughable or me being rude. My view implied nothing related to your intelligence.

Regarding the one time we were bad together, you were not around at a critical time: The girlfriend of Madmartigan and I had to figure out what we were going to do. We agreed to throw you under a large moving object, but that didn't happen anyway.

And I will get into it with anybody about any opinion I like. Nature of the game.

You can't be right, how could that possibly happen implies that the other person is not thinking things through. It's about tone. "That theory cannot be a good one," a direct quote in response to my idea, is completely shooting me down and telling me I cannot be correct. If I cannot be correct, then how can I be intelligent?

And I wasn't talking about throwing me under the bus (I thought that was a poor strategic decision from my point of view, and I didn't think it was very teamly of you, but that's besides the point--I managed to get my way out of being lynched despite you.)--I was talking about whenever I would have an idea in BTSC, you would shoot me down just like you do every time I have an idea in a thread. Including in that game when I theorized that someone had won a protection and how they had won it, you insisted that that was impossible and I was being ridiculous and, guess what, I was right. Maybe, just maybe, you are not always right. And that other people's ideas, however different they are than your own, are just that--different. We don't all play the same. If we did, this would be a boring game.

And yes, you can get into it. That doesn't mean that they need to respond the way you want them to.

Epignosis wrote:Lorab indicted me of being unkind toward her in every context. I have done my due diligence and I can find no place (other than when we were bad together in chat) of her being angry with me. If Lorab can identify where I have been rude or "attacking," I would like the opportunity to make that right.

Barring that, I think Lorab = bad.

You think I'm mad because I'm annoyed? That is just not true. I'm just sick of the way you always say I'm wrong. You're right, I haven't been angry, because I don't usually let my frustration out. But show me one time when I have had an opinion and you haven't told me that I'm wrong.

And why do you think I'm bad, exactly? Is it because I'm fighting back?

Anyway, I have my third 14 hour work day in a row tomorrow and I'm not sure how much I'll be around tomorrow.

Voting Elo. Because of the points I made earlier. And she hasn't defended, or even acknowledged. And I have no reason to think differently from my original thoughts (except for Epi saying that I can't possibly be right).

*bad not mad

Glad I had time to pop on.

zeek wrote:Hey MP, interested to hear your thoughts when you get back to the thread.

I'm not interested in the content of the Epi-Lorab argument, more the context. Personally see an overreaction on Lorab's part but that doesn't mean he's bad at all. Also:

LoRab wrote:<snip> If I cannot be correct, then how can I be intelligent?

You can be intelligent but wrong, and really dumb but right. Two aren't mutally exclusive.

More interesting is the TH-LC argument. Interesting developments. I was under the impression the cards of a NK'd player would be taken by the killer as well, but there you go.

Not sure how I'll vote, could both be civ on civ. Still mulling over FZ's plan of letting the most trusted player win the bid as well. Probably be voting for one of the people mentioned in this post however.

First of all, I'm female. Second of all, it's a tone thing. You can't possibly be correct and why would someone possibly do that have an implication that the person who came up with the idea is not thinking.

And if you only read this thread, I could see it as being seen as overreacting. But it's happened in MANY games and I reached my breaking point.

thellama73 wrote:Also, Lorab's argument amounts to:
"If you disagree with me, you think I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, I must be stupid. Therefore, disagreeing with me is tantamount to calling me stupid."

That way, madness lies. We have to be able to disagree with each other, or else mafia has no point. Lighten up.

Is this why you voted for me without posting about it?

And I'm not saying not to disagree. I'm saying that you can disagree by saying, "I don't see it that way," or "I don't think that's what's happening." You don't have to tell the other person that they have come up with a ridiculous idea that can't possibly be right.

Elohcin wrote:Lorab, please tell me where I defended Made in hopes that I could have BTSC with him? Where do you even get this kind of evidence that I am trying to get BTSC with him?

For the record, you are incorrect. I have no BTSC or connection to the baddies and have no desire for it.

I didn't say you had BTSC. I theorized that you believed Made to be your teammate and wanted to save him. You did not defend him--that's exactly my point. You didn't even mention him--which at that point in the conversation was odd. And a nice way for a baddie to distance from a teammate--by avoiding the conversation and mentioning someone else you find suspicious.

juliets wrote:I thought Lorab's point was we need to be able to disagree without implying the other is stupid?

Exactly.

Although I think this goes back to being an immigrant to this forum. And why I strongly consider leaving it every game. The friendly tone that exists on the other forums where I've played just isn't that same here. Attacks often seem personal and disagreements aren't done in a way that are disagreeing with the ideas. I think that my style just doesn't fit in here. but I like a lot of my friends here and I don't have anywhere else to play right now, so I keep sticking around. Maybe I should just learn my lesson and either accept that it's ok to tell others that they can't possibly be right and not understand that doing so is different from disagreeing with someone.

And that one can respect that another player, with a whole crap ton of experience, who happens to think differently than you, might just be right sometimes. Especially when you've seen it happen (and related to ideas that you called stupid).

Epignosis wrote:Lorab, I apologize if my direct approach in your prior experience with me had been off-putting. I mean that. However, you're rather direct too.

LoRab wrote: But show me one time when I have had an opinion and you haven't told me that I'm wrong.

All of here that I can tell, for one. I can pull up more if need be.

I'm not going to reread that whole game, and I don't remember specifically. I was perhaps exaggerating. And it's not so much your direct approach but the way you say things. And whatever. I'm not going to change you. You don't seem to have an interest in changing. I'll just ignore it. I just don't do well with people who are insulting to my intelligence and insight--and you often have insulted both through your reaction to my ideas.

And I'm not even sure how expressing anger after being told that an idea that I had can't possibly be correct (when, it can actually be correct...just like a night poll, in the game when we had BTSC, resulting in a protection that led to a failed kill was an idea you thought couldn't possibly be true--and was, in the end, true).

My brain works differently than yours. It doesn't make me smarter. It doesn't make you smarter. We are probably of equal intelligence--you seem to be about as smart as I am, at least. We just think through things entirely differently. It would be nice to appreciate the diversity instead of attacking it.

Anyway, if I die. You'll all know that my reaction has been emotionally honest and that it is not indicative of my being bad. Because I'm not bad. I'm civ. I'm just a lonely, lowly street trying to do my best and have fun.

And I need to get back to work now.

I'm tempted to change my vote for the sake of self-preservation, but I don't particularly suspect FZ at this point and I do suspect elo. So, I'm keeping my vote where it is and hoping no one else votes for me and that there isn't any pesky vote manipulation.

thellama73 wrote:

LoRab wrote: Is this why you voted for me without posting about it?

No, it's why I voted for you with posting about it.

Missed that. Thanks for clarifying and pointing out your post. I apologize. And I never said that people couldn't disagree. I said that we should disagree with people by disagreeing with them--not by putting them down. But fine. Vote away.

Elohcin wrote:

Long Con wrote:That's the point, not mentioning Made at all is telling in itself. I've been caught as a baddie for never talking about my teammate at all.

No offense, but I've been bad enough times with others who are really good baddies to know that you always interact/talk about your teammates a little. I honestly didn't see the suspicions on Made to be any good. I thought I was onto something with Juliets, so I went with that and didn't think mentioning Made was needed. But whatever, you don't believe me, lynch me and you will find out.

@ Juliets: I read all of Lorabs posts. I didn't find anything that set up a good case for me and Made being teammates.

I have an idea. Epi, what do you think of me this game? Since everyone always seems to believe that you can read me so well.

You talk about them at some point, but you avoid it if you can. Especially if you have hope that the lynch can go elsewhere. I've seen plenty of serious FEB's not mention their teammates over the years.

nijuukyugou wrote:I've been neglecting mafia all weekend. Apologies. I believe I've caught up somewhat.

I believe I will vote Lorab. I don't really buy the case against Eloh by her, and her reaction to Epi pointing out the flaws in her argument stuck out to me. I don't play with her much, but she does seem to be reacting to Epi rather vehemently. I've seen it go both ways, but most of the time it's a cornered baddie in my experience. (And if it's true Civvie frustration, I hope you don't leave, Lorab! We're not mean - just accusatory, like the game is meant to be played )

I am not a cornered baddie. I am not a baddie at all. And I wasn't even responding to an accusation, which is how cornered baddies tend to be responding to. I wasn't even responding to points made counter to my points. I was, ironically, not wanting to engage in a war of opinions with someone whose post cause me to feel insulted. And whose disagreement style, in general, often feels personal to me (and not just towards me).

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:

juliets wrote:I thought Lorab's point was we need to be able to disagree without implying the other is stupid?

Exactly.

Although I think this goes back to being an immigrant to this forum. And why I strongly consider leaving it every game. The friendly tone that exists on the other forums where I've played just isn't that same here. Attacks often seem personal and disagreements aren't done in a way that are disagreeing with the ideas. I think that my style just doesn't fit in here. but I like a lot of my friends here and I don't have anywhere else to play right now, so I keep sticking around. Maybe I should just learn my lesson and either accept that it's ok to tell others that they can't possibly be right and not understand that doing so is different from disagreeing with someone.

And that one can respect that another player, with a whole crap ton of experience, who happens to think differently than you, might just be right sometimes. Especially when you've seen it happen (and related to ideas that you called stupid).

Epignosis wrote:Lorab, I apologize if my direct approach in your prior experience with me had been off-putting. I mean that. However, you're rather direct too.

LoRab wrote: But show me one time when I have had an opinion and you haven't told me that I'm wrong.

All of here that I can tell, for one. I can pull up more if need be.

I'm not going to reread that whole game, and I don't remember specifically. I was perhaps exaggerating. And it's not so much your direct approach but the way you say things. And whatever. I'm not going to change you. You don't seem to have an interest in changing. I'll just ignore it. I just don't do well with people who are insulting to my intelligence and insight--and you often have insulted both through your reaction to my ideas.

And I'm not even sure how expressing anger after being told that an idea that I had can't possibly be correct (when, it can actually be correct...just like a night poll, in the game when we had BTSC, resulting in a protection that led to a failed kill was an idea you thought couldn't possibly be true--and was, in the end, true).

My brain works differently than yours. It doesn't make me smarter. It doesn't make you smarter. We are probably of equal intelligence--you seem to be about as smart as I am, at least. We just think through things entirely differently. It would be nice to appreciate the diversity instead of attacking it.

I did not agree with your theory. I think your theory can't be good given the point or three I made. I didn't imply that you are unintelligent, and I believe you are overreacting. I mentioned the following: 1) It would be foolhardy to do what you claimed Eloh did, 2) No one would follow Eloh, and 3) Eloh voted after Made had many.

I didn't imply or explicitly utter that you are unintelligent.

Regarding before, I apologized for coming off unfriendly, and I meant it. But I do not mince wording. I don't add "I think" when it won't be needed. That would be the writer in me coming out. The very fact that I uttered it = my thinking. You don't follow the practice you advocate either.

LoRab wrote:And I'm not saying not to disagree. I'm saying that you can disagree by saying, "I don't see it that way," or "I don't think that's what's happening." You don't have to tell the other person that they have come up with a ridiculous idea that can't possibly be right.

You don't like how I word what I'm thinking, fine, but you are direct and forceful too. And I think you ought to know that I cannot utter either of the underlined.

I don't deny being direct and forceful. But there's a difference, to me, between being assertive and saying, "Do you really think XYZ?" and "No...that theory cannot be a good one." there is a difference between disagreeing with a theory and saying it cannot be good.

Saying it cannot be good tells me that you think that I came up with an idiotic suggestion. And I think you outhg to know that I didn't mean to suggest exact wording, just examples of how one can say, "No, I don't think that happened that way" without being dismissive of another's thinking.

I really think more and more, though, that it's just a matter that the personal respect and tone that is expected on the other forums where I've played isn't the expectation here. And, even moreso, asking people to be friendlier or less personal is frowned upon, and apparently gains suspicion. And I'm not used to that. And I don't particularly like that. And after playing for 7 years, with many of these same people, it's really hard to get used to.

Elohcin wrote:maybe I should have gone after BR with my suspish instead of Juliets.

btw, I don't really think Epi can read me like a book, I just think it is silly that so many others do. asking Epi was more of a joke than anything, although I am interested in what he thinks I figured it was good as time as any to ask and why not I do it before everyone else begin to ask him.

linki...no one else finds this back and forth to be odd?

"Who do you find suspicious?"

"No one."

"Okay, me either."

what?! why ask that if you have no intentions of carrying on the conversation? I don't understand why NO ONE else finds this odd and like distancing. I really do!

linki - splints, even if we both checked each other, if we aren't the same color we wouldn't gain btsc. I don't get why you assume we would. And when did he defend me. I didn't see that. If I had, I wouldn't have asked what he thought of my affiliation.

more linki!

more linki!

I don't find it odd, no. And I said why it didn't strike me as odd earlier.

linki: I don't kill tonight. Because I don't have a kill. Because I'm not bad.

Epignosis wrote:LoRab, you don't like me or my method. I get it. And I apologized for our time before, even if I had my own grievance about you at the time.

However, I am not the only one here who found your theory wanting. And I will not change my wording to make people feel a certain way. I don't play Mafia to make people feel good.

I don't have a problem with your method. I don't know you at all personally, so I don't like you or not like you. It's a tone thing that I don't like, specifically in mafia posts.

And, as I said, I did not and do not have a problem that you disagreed. Nor that people don't read into things the same as me or not like my theory. I am all about disagreement. It's just that your tone makes me not want to engage in back and forth with you over theories. That was really all my initial post about this was trying to say.

You don't have to change the way you say things in order to make people feel anything. But that doesn't mean that those people need to engage with you.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:

juliets wrote:I thought Lorab's point was we need to be able to disagree without implying the other is stupid?

Exactly.

Although I think this goes back to being an immigrant to this forum. And why I strongly consider leaving it every game. The friendly tone that exists on the other forums where I've played just isn't that same here. Attacks often seem personal and disagreements aren't done in a way that are disagreeing with the ideas. I think that my style just doesn't fit in here. but I like a lot of my friends here and I don't have anywhere else to play right now, so I keep sticking around. Maybe I should just learn my lesson and either accept that it's ok to tell others that they can't possibly be right and not understand that doing so is different from disagreeing with someone.

I am going to continue with my thinking here:

Here, Lorab played in Avant-Garde 2, Monty Python, and now Monopoly.

LoRab wrote:Although I think this goes back to being an immigrant to this forum. And why I strongly consider leaving it every game.

Leaving after every game? Uh-huh.

No and no.

You're a lying liar fabricating fabricator hoping people buy emotion.

Or, if you prefer, I don't think you are telling the truth.

I am not lying. Whether I posted publicly about it or not, I had that thought during every game I've played here. I have mentioned it to others in BTSC or post-game or to hosts. But I like the game enough that I've stuck around. Especially with this being, really, the only active place these days, if I want to mafia in this extended community, there isn't so much choice of where to play.

I don't lie about things like that. Those that know me, I think know that. And are likely not surprised at my reaction and response here. I can see how those that don't know me might not realize that. But that's ok. I hope you'll get to know me and will learn about me.

Think I'm lying all you want. You're wrong. I'm not.

I don't like being insulted. I don't like personal attacks. I don't like that people don't understand that there's a distinction between disagreement and belittling.

But, whatever. I don't really care. Lynch me if you want. Night kill me if you want. I'm civ. Nothing to hide.

Although I'm seriously tempted to outbid you on the property just for fun.

I'll go with here:

Epignosis wrote:No...that theory cannot be a good one.

Cannot be good means that it has no redeeming qualities. Or possibility to be accurate. Or the possibility that someone could agree with it. That is belittling, not just disagreeing.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'll go with here:

Epignosis wrote:No...that theory cannot be a good one.

Cannot be good means that it has no redeeming qualities. Or possibility to be accurate. Or the possibility that someone could agree with it. That is belittling, not just disagreeing.

Or it could mean I can't utilize a certain letter.

Well, not that that seems to matter anymore, but you're smart. I know you can come up with a different way to say something, even if avoiding the letter essssssssss.

I do think there's a difference, yes. Calling something bullshit means that I think you're lying. Saying something can't be correct means that the other person had a bad idea.

I am sorry that my words hurt you. I will be more careful in the future.

And you didn't bring counterpoints that one could argue. You shot down the idea that it's possible players would behave that way. I obviously think they could. And, in my experience, have seen such things. You apparently haven't. And it's futile to try and convince you differently.

I'm not going to convince you about ideas of suspicion, so why bother trying. Others can see my initial post and draw their own conclusions. They can see yours and draw them as well. There will be folks who think I may be onto something. There will be those who don't. And that's ok.

keys56000000000 wrote:Boogz, are you.. are you a cat?

Normaly I would agree with you that a cat doesn't posess the necessary skills required to run major infrastructure, but here you are, playing a mafia game with us, presumably typing or at least using some sort of dictation software (which in a way would be even more impressive), so fuck it - maybe you can drive a train. Who am I to argue with a talking cat?

This is why I missed you.

Yeah....why not...Because, Epig: you're not the only player that can take risks and have fun and see what happens.

$501 on Atlantic Avenue

Long Con wrote:

LoRab wrote:Yeah....why not...Because, Epig: you're not the only player that can take risks and have fun and see what happens.

$501 on Atlantic Avenue

I think your move, though boldly cool, is too late?

I should really learn how to tell time.

And hoping the host will be a kindly and generous host.

Sorry Ihaven't had time to post! Been keeping up with reading. Voting BWT. Points against him make sense to me. And his defense post didn't convince me that he's civ--and seemed to have a guilty-trippy tone to it if people vote for him. So, that's where my vote shall go.

Heyyyyyyyyy....you......guyssssssss.......

Did I just date myself terribly? Please. Someone else have gotten that.

Nice catch. Need to reread to catch a possible connection.

$5 on electric company because why not.

S~V~S wrote: @LoRab~ I am older than you, and it flew right over my head. So

Yeah, I think someone would have to be within 5 years of me and probably american. Narrow window, I know.

Long Con wrote:

LoRab wrote:Heyyyyyyyyy....you......guyssssssss.......

Did I just date myself terribly? Please. Someone else have gotten that.

Never say die, Lorab!

Not where I was going, but I do love me a goonie.

I was going for:

bea wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Guys come on. Long Con isn't a baddie. I think if anyone can read him, I can. I know I voted for him yesterday, but his gameplay since then has not been baddie like in the slightest.

I'm super impressed by your confidence in being able to read LC. You know he was the inventor and cause of right?

Just for the sake of accurate history, LC did design , but I actually requested the creation of the smiley. Because, really, if an idea ever needed a smiley, it was FEB. He's actually modeled after Diamond Dog. I can't remember who was the first to be described as a FEB, or who was the first to use the term.

Sorry barely on today. Voted hedge. As has been said, reasons for surviving unlikely if not baddie.

Another good result!! Been at a retreat with a bunch of teenagers all weekend...back tomorrow and should be able to post more. Been keeping up on reading, but haven't been able to contribute much. Sorry about that to players and host! Whatever you think is best, Boo, for replacements.

Is it possible that after Hedge, Boo decided to not include target names on failed kills? In order to even things up a bit? I suppose I could just ask that question...

@Boo: Do the targets of failed kill attempts always appear in posts?

At the moment, I'm more swayed by the case on Boogs than I am by the case on TH. But I'll reread a bit and think more closely before votiing.

Black Rock wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Boogs, what do you think of juliets?

Lorab, what do you think of Black Rock?

She thinks I'm pretty of course.

Pretty quiet night, was it a missed PM or did someone get targeted that can't be killed?

Epig has done an excellent job on his case with Boogs, I believe it. I also don't trust Epig, he throws around money like someone who has money to burn.

I was going to say hawt, but pretty works.

Seriously, though. I don't really have a read of BR to answer Epig's question. She's been quiet since she's gotten back, and quiet BR tends to make me nervous, so I have an eye on her. But I've been giving her the benefit of the doubt for the moment to give her a chance to get back into the game.

Boogs wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Boogs, what do you think of juliets?

Lorab, what do you think of Black Rock?

She thinks I'm pretty of course.

Pretty quiet night, was it a missed PM or did someone get targeted that can't be killed?

Epig has done an excellent job on his case with Boogs, I believe it. I also don't trust Epig, he throws around money like someone who has money to burn.

He's wrong about me, and I am not bad. Whats he's doing is trying to pin me as a Utility and gain cred with you guys. I'm not on either bad team. I know I keep switching what I think, but every time I think something it's opposite and frustrating. I thought Maybe Epigosis was part of the LC team with those houses, but I honestly think he's the 3rd railroad trying to gain cred. The only problem is killing me today will show me as Civ and blow his plan out of the water. I'm okay voting Epignosis today assuming he's a Railroad as I do, or TH assuming he's Water Works, which I do. I think Epignosis honestly does think I am a Utility and is hoping he's right to also try to get his team to get more kills possibly. If that was your plan Epignosis, then vote TH who is the real Water Works.

As Epig said, if you're not actually a utility, then it doesn't make sense what you say about gaining cred.

On for a quick moment. Voting Boogs.

Turnip Head wrote:Lorab must have won the original bidding for Electric Company. It's odd, then, that she didn't step in and say something when Boogs and I were calling each other liars over this matter... I'm worried she's a railroad who was relishing the mayhem.

Nope. I figured one of the 2 of you got it and was watching to see what happened.

Which leads me to believe you're lying.

Especially since you accuse me of specifically being railroad--and not WW. Is that because you are WW and therefore know I'm not? But still want to make the accusation to get attention off yourself?

I think you just earned my vote.

Also: I'm not a railroad. Or Utility. Or any kind of baddie.

Also, I think Epi may have been one of the reds--it would make sense why they're auctioning houses off now. I agree he was an odd choice of kill.

@LC: Except that I'm not a railroad. I'm just a colored street. If TH knows my role, then he knows that. I think he's making a case against me for the sake of making a case against me. I always seem bad, so it's never that hard to do.

Other than that aspect, I agree with your case.

linkitis: your endgame was to be able to make the post that you just made.

You missed the kill so that it would seem like it wasn't you who had that power. You didn't actually care who was lynched as long as it wasn't you. So why not "defend" low posters (and really, you didn't defend them, just suggested that it wasn't worth trying to find them because they aren't really dangerous if they aren't really playing and because needle in haystack..that isn't actually defending).

I am not a railroad. Or a utility for that matter.

Interesting points about Keys. Need to consider that.

Sorry I missed the vote, y'all! One of those days. For 2 days. Hoping things calm down with the holiday.

I'm still not WW or a RR. I'm just a colored street. I didn't kill Epig, or anyone else. I don't really understand why people think I might have, other than the fact that I sometimes find myself frustrated with him in games, such as earlier in this one--not a reason to kill someone, tbh. Certainly not strategic. But I digress. I'm not a baddie.

linkitis: @MP: I timed out in trying to post this.

Crapweasel. I mathed wrong on time zones and though I was getting in before the poll closed. Sorry all!! Would have voted th and not sure who for second.

Crapweasel! I wasn't signed in and thought the default time zone was 1 hour ahead and not 2 and that I had another hour. Had just gotten to the end, too. Gah.

This ups the chances of TH being red, if he's telling the truth about RRs having one of the cards in his color....even if I was wrong he's WW, I don't think he's any good for anyone else.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

LoRab wrote:This ups the chances of TH being red, if he's telling the truth about RRs having one of the cards in his color....even if I was wrong he's WW, I don't think he's any good for anyone else.

I think you mean pink/fuschia/violet.

No, I meant red. He said RRs had one of his color properties. SVS apparently had Indiana Ave. Which is red.

Ugh! Sorry I've been MIA. Was away on work related stuff, and just got back. Had no time for, well, really, anything while gone--including mafia. Back now!!

Voting mm so I don't miss getting i later and miss another vote. Pretty clear at this point he (he?) is bad.

Sorry I keep being busy. Silly life gettingn in the way of playing mafia. Voting HannaK, as tha tseems like the best option right now and I dont wnt to miss anothe vote.

Black Rock wrote:

boo wrote:
Captain Planet: Allows the player who uses this power to choose for any other set in the game (meaning not their starting property set) that they or someone they BTSC with has a property of. Once chosen they can then search each night for and get BTSC with (any BTSC either the searcher has or the person they search and find has is also part of this BTSC, and they can all win together). Anyone who holds one of the properties at the time the power is used (even if that card wasn’t their starter) is considered to be part of the set (if traded after the power is used, the person who had the property at the time of use is still the person who if searched would result in getting BTSC with the searcher). Bids for this power are made privately via PM. If BTSC is gained as a result of using this card, any NK anyone in the BTSC has is lost. - Starts at $500

I have a proposal. Who may be interested in being my friend? LoRab? Fingersplints? Bea? I believe I know which colour group LoRab is, would FS or Bea be the same colour group or a different one? For this to work I would need to trade a property. I would love to win with any of you ladies.

I'm willing to consider friendship.

Didn't know where you stood mp and kind of like my holdings. I am mulling. And need to discuss with my partner.

Checking with my associate.

MovingPictures07 wrote:This is assuming LoRab and LoRab's partner agree to this arrangement. If not, well, things will get interesting.

We are in.

OK...so, MP, I'll accept your trade. I only have one property other than my own to trade, so I'll give you that. Then trade what you give me with BR?

Does that work for everyone?

After that, as a sign of good will, will you trade my property back to me, MP?

Well then, MP will have to trade back with me before I deal with BR, then. MP? Yes?!

Will do the second trade as soon as MP trades back.

Alternately, if he does not cooperate, are we allowed to trade money?

Long Con wrote:

Did you read Captain Planet? You're offering us money?

Not in any seriousness (offering you money, that is).

As soon as I have the PM from Boo that MP traded back my property, I will trade it with BR.

I PM'ed Boo to trade Atlantic with you when I get it back. Just to save time.

@Bass: I'll accept your trade as soon as I finish my transaction with BR.