The Syndicate

First impressions:

MovingPictures07 wrote:It seems this Day 0 poll may be quite meaningful, upon first glance. What do you all think?

Too concerned with being "first" to read the rules.

'Tis a good thing the rules did not say, "The first person to post will be modkilled."

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One day when I have nothing else to do I am going to do a lengthy study on adverb usage in mafia and prove once and for all that it's always meaningless.

This statement demonstrates that 3J doesn't understand the "adverb thing." It's far more nuanced than people using words that end in -ly.

And DH clearly doesn't get it either, though that comes as no surprise.

TinyBubbles wrote:yes, i'm evil. badder than you could ever suspect! better lynch me now, doo eet.
actually i thought the position 1 also had many protector - ish options, compared to some of the other positions.

First time TinyBubbles is admitting to being bad rather than being astounded at being good. Probably evil.

I'm taking the first position.

DharmaHelper wrote:Adverb theory is so dumb, anyone who takes it seriously should punch themselves in the face.

By calling it "adverb theory," you've demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the concept itself and also what a theory in general is.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Adverb theory is so dumb, anyone who takes it seriously should punch themselves in the face.

By calling it "adverb theory," you've demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the concept itself and also what a theory in general is.

By calling it a concept, You've demonstrated you know what the word concept means.

A concept is an abstract idea. "The adverb thing" is not an abstract idea with no objective or concrete rules.

Bitch.

*is an abstract idea

Got me all in a huff now.

DharmaHelper is perpetually beyond hope.

Death on Day 0. Good-bye my love.

Boomslang wrote:The whole adverb thing is ridiculous. I don't see why it would be relevant for the theme (in terms of being a requirement for a given role). I also think generalizing that baddies use adverbs as a form of distancing or overexplaining is spurious at best. Also, MP clearly has a few sentences that don't use adverbs, so he's not even completely consistent.

Another person who needs to be schooled in the ways of the Adverb-Hunter.

aapje wrote:Holy fucking spam. I'm tempted to vote for the next person who uses the word adverb

Adjectival modifier.

Boomslang wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

aapje wrote:Holy fucking spam. I'm tempted to vote for the next person who uses the word adverb

Adjectival modifier.

Actually, the part of speech to which you are referring can modify not only adjectives, but also verbs, determiners, noun phrases, clauses, or entire sentences. (Finally got to use pedantic pink appropriately!)

And I can modify your face.

reywaS wrote:Adverbs are weasel words. You bunch of weasels.

Usually they are.

Someone who gets it.

BWA HA HA these guys talking about adverbs smh

BWA HA HA these guys talking about "interesting" lol

BWA HA HA these guys looking at past games which don't mean nothing heh

"Hey man, who you voting for?"

I DON'T KNOW MAN. It's just been people talking about irrelevant stuff. You can't do nothing on Day 1.

My top suspect is Golden.

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

Read this. Golden asked someone about recruitment. That someone was S~V~S.

For me, S~V~S gave a straightforward, believable, and satisfactory answer to the question.

Then she asked Golden the same question.

I'll color it above. That's four different criteria. Why is Golden seeking advice for this? What is his purpose? Couldn't Golden use his own knowledge to determine the best recruits?

But why, when asked for his view on recruitment, did he name four different possibilities instead of being direct?

That is what I find suspicious about Golden.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

Read this. Golden asked someone about recruitment. That someone was S~V~S.

For me, S~V~S gave a straightforward, believable, and satisfactory answer to the question.

Then she asked Golden the same question.

I'll color it above. That's four different criteria. Why is Golden seeking advice for this? What is his purpose? Couldn't Golden use his own knowledge to determine the best recruits?

But why, when asked for his view on recruitment, did he name four different possibilities instead of being direct?

That is what I find suspicious about Golden.

She did not ask me the same question, at all. She asked me a different question.

She did not ask my view on recruitment. She asked me what my theory was, which is what I answered in the first paragraph. With one possibility, not two. Although I expounded it with two sub-categories.

Then, I also answered a question she didn't ask, which was my view on recruitment, where I did give two answers.

The "four (three) different criteria" across those two things are the point. It's why I've come to the conclusion that I can't use that method to find a recruit.

So - you have asked a whole lot of questions about be, but not actually given what your answers would be, thats a really nice way to throw shade at someone without having to commit.

So, I've answered why I named all those different possibilities. Now lets do the rest.

What bit of 'why am I seeking the advice' did you not understand? I think it was pretty clear I was looking for other perspectives. I had a theory, I wanted to test it.
Could I use 'my own knowledge' to determine the best recruits? Sure I could, but why is it bad to ask others? I believe you get the best results when you have as much input as possible.

And one more question for you - what bit of my response is in any way not direct? Because I think the whole post is direct and to the point.

I can't understand a word you're saying. Still think you're bad. And a terrible recruiter.

Fine, I'll get another drink and tear apart Golden's response, which also is bullshit.

Unless you don't want me to. I'm tired. Work tomorrow. Y'all let me know.

I'm going to bed myself. I want people to read Golden's answers a few times over. I think he's a naughty recruiter.

Dom wrote:You think Golden is a recruiter because he is asking SVS/the thread for advice?
Are you supposing he knew that SVS has been a recruiter before? (RM1 and 3, I believe?)

No on both counts. Please see below.

bea wrote:@ Epi - i don't think Golden asking how others have recruited makes him bad. I think if Golden were a recruiter he would shut the fuck up about it tbh. I'm not sure I buy the WIFOM that Golden would play dumb as a recruiter and ask for advice.

I don't think that either. I think naming the gamut of types of people he would recruit is suspect. He named four different types of people (he says two, but I don't agree): Under the radar people, wily people, people he'd probably have fun with, and people he had not had BTSC with. That's four categories- a broad answer that says nothing about his mindset right now, meaning, if he is a recruiter, and he gets lynched as such, finding his recruits will not be an easy task.

Does that make sense?

S~V~S wrote:I think Epi thinks you were trying to entrap me somewhat, ask me a leading question, then hoist me on my own petard; Lord knows (as does Epi) that it''s an easy thing to do sometimes. The only thing I found odd about the whole thing was the names you threw out there. I think your point was pretty clear without using examples.

But yeah, discussion works best when different perspectives are brought to the table. I think this is something that Epi does, he comes into the thread and throws a name down like a gauntlet for reasons of his own. Sometimes he is very right, sometimes not.

I didn't think that about entrapment, no- my suspicion of Golden is because of his broad answer when you posed the question back to him (see my reply to bea).

unfurl wrote:Golden-Epig back in forth, intersting (haha I noticed Epig hates the word intersting!!!! :P)

I don't hate the word "interesting." I don't know why you would mock something before trying to understand it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey everyone! Please tell us here in this very thread how you think you would go about choosing recruits in this setup if you were recruiters. What factors would be most important in your decision? Least important?

That's a poor question.

How I would recruit would depend upon what side I drew.

If I were good, I'd recruit 3J early because he tends not to take Night kills despite being a strong presence in the thread. I'd recruit G-Man after that because they would have fun together spreadshitting everywhere.

If I were bad, I'd recruit thellama73 early because we work well together and think alike. I'd recruit 3J later because I would want to observe his flip from non-bad to bad game.

Sorsha wrote:I was really hoping that all the adverb talk was not serious suspicion talk :/ It seemed like silly banter to me so I really just skimmed over it as I would OT. Should I be rereading it?

Most of the people talking about adverbs don't understand that it's a rather nuanced thing, and that just making dismissive jokes about it is doing them no favors. Cretins.

Roxy wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.

You arrived at that in 20 minutes?

Ricochet wrote:

Scotty wrote: What is the purpose of sign-ups with people that a) Have been leaders before and b) have not been followers? I feel like they would purposely give people that have been leaders before the reigns. I think Bass may be on to something.

Scotty, the second yes option in the sign ups was "Yes, I have followed a leader in the past", not "Yes, I have been a leader before". Probably a way to indicate they have prior experience with this type of game. Of course, some of the 19 who signed up that way have actually been leaders in the past, but I doubt all of them have.

This is nonsense. Black Rock and Long Con know who were leaders in their own games. They don't need a poll telling them so.

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:SVS - help me with a bit of theorycrafting. (For anyone who asks, I asked SVS specifically because I know her brain works a lot differently to mine and so I think her perspective can be very helpful to me, but I'm interested in anyones view). If you were a baddie leader, what would your preferred approach be on day one - try and recruit someone you know is a major FEB and could be a big asset to the team, or try and recruit someone no-one would suspect?

S~V~S wrote:I tend to judge people as individuals not as reputations. My best game of all time was Rabbits SOT, I was a ... civvie. We had a large civ BTS group, and we worked pretty well together. That team has been my gold standard of what a team should be. Not so much for the individuals (although they all were awesome and people in the Mafia community that I <3 maybe a bit more than most) but for the way we worked together. I would want cohesion more than anything, really. Team players, no Prima Donnas.

What was your theory?

I just want to be really clear here. I asked SVS to help me with a theory.

I (didn't quote this bit) said her response hadn't helped with my theory.

She then asked me what my theory was and I told her.

SVS did not ask what my motivation would be for recruiting.
I never implied that my theory was based on my own motivations for recruiting - which it was not. It was based on me trying to figure out what I thought might be common reasons for others to choose to recruit (and I thought SVS might be a good example of someone whose thought process would align with my theory).
The entire first paragraph you highlighted in green is not a response to a question about how I would go about recruiting, nor was it me talking about my thought process for recruiting.

AND EVEN IF IT WAS

Why would giving four different reasons be indirect? What about my post was indirect?
Why would giving four different reasons make me bad? What about my post was bad?

Questions YOU have avoided so far...

Who is YOU?

Golden wrote:Epi, I think you know that you are you.

Nope. I didn't. My name wasn't mentioned in that entire post, nor was I quoted, big boy.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:Epi, I think you know that you are you.

Nope. I didn't. My name wasn't mentioned in that entire post, nor was I quoted, big boy.

Epi, you continue to demonstrate with your posts that you are much more interested in getting pedantic with me than you actually are in going back and reading the posts that have been made or answering the questions I've asked you.

I'll say to you what I've said a couple of times in the past - from now on, you only get responses from me when you shoot straight. Otherwise, I'll ignore you.

When did honesty become pedantic? I'm calling it like I see. That's shooting straight. I think you're a bad recruiter.

How many times did I read your posts? You don't know, do you?

Your questions aren't actually questions. They either require me to explain your behavior for you or are rhetorical and the answer is implied.

But okay. Let's answer some.

Golden wrote:Why would giving four different reasons be indirect? What about my post was indirect?

I answered that to bea. If you are a recruiter, you gave us nothing to work with in case you are lynched. You listed FOUR categories of people you would recruit from. I think that makes you a recruiter. It wasn't direct, because, if I ask you, "May I take your order?" and you answer, "Everything without cheese, some things with cheese, anything that could have lettuce on it, and then whatever I feel like is fun," I would not call that a direct answer, no. That's what you gave.

Golden wrote:Why would giving four different reasons make me bad? What about my post was bad?

I answered this too. Not doing it again.

Golden wrote:linki @epi - ok. I'm not responding to you any more. I do not agree that you are shooting straight. It takes a special kind of cajones to have a lie as the fundamental basis of your accusation and call it shooting straight.

I will not be responding to any more of your posts until you acknowledge that you actually understand that 1) SVS never asked why I would recruit and 2) that is not the question I was answering.

Then you won't be responding to any more of my posts. I don't give a damn about S~V~S not asking you for reasons, and I don't give a damn about the question you were answering.

It's how you answered. That's all.

Golden wrote:linkie to everyone enjoying epi vs golden. Last time it happened, I was good and epi was bad. Then I get into it with LC. LC is bad, golden is good. When people get into it like this with me, anyone who still is pretending to genuinely believe they think I'm bad is worth lynching imo. Epi knows full well he is wrong. He is enjoying it as much as you.

Gambler's fallacy (last time this happened...).

I know I'm wrong, do I? Tell me how I know that.

Oops. You aren't talking to me.

Hey rey, ask Golden how he knows I'm wrong!

Like a cute little sitcom. Where's Bob Saget and Dave Coulier when you need them?

Golden wrote:That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

Golden wrote:I'm sorry, you don't give a damn about what question was asked? Then why was it the ENTIRE BACKBONE OF YOUR CASE!

No sir. This is the entire backbone of my case. It's not about what you asked, or S~V~S, or any of that. It's not about questions. It's that green and brown colored shit up there.

People can poo-poo it if they like. I think you are a recruiter based on THAT right there alone.

No I'm not. I already figured him out. Why are you speaking for me?

S~V~S wrote:But do you have reason to believe he is a BADDIE recruiter specifically? Becasue two of the four are benign at worst, good at best.

Yes- my analysis indicates guilt, not innocence.

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
Like a cute little sitcom. Where's Bob Saget and Dave Coulier when you need them?

You're John Stamos????

Right.

I can play the guitar, kill roaches, and say "Have Mercy" like the best of them.

Golden wrote:Lorab, I just don't give a shit at some point.

I want epi dead and god help me if I fall into a kill thats where I'm using it.

I don't like people who use lies to suspect me. I'm fine with those who will suspect me based on truthful interpretations.

I gave epi lots of chances to read back and see that he was wrong about his own factual statements. He wilfully chose to ignore them. He still claims his version of events is true. Anyone is free to read and see that what I have said is objectively true and what he has said is objectively, patently, false. I just don't think anyone should have to put up with constantly defending themselves against made up bullshit.

What lie did I use to suspect you? I pointed out exactly why I suspect you. It's in the colors man. The colors. Those aren't lies. Those are your own words.

That's it. There is NOTHING ELSE outside of that making me suspect you. So you asking me to read this or that or the other....no. It's that one post. That's it.

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
Like a cute little sitcom. Where's Bob Saget and Dave Coulier when you need them?

You're John Stamos????

Right.

I can play the guitar, kill roaches, and say "Have Mercy" like the best of them.

I think you're missing one very important piece of the John Stamos pie, there buddy-o.

It's the hair.

I'm a lay preacher. For realz.

G-Man wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

G-Man wrote:Printing checks here at the office at 10:00 pm.

Can you print one for me please

Sure, just give me your full name, address, social security number....

Epignosis wrote:I'm a lay preacher. For realz.

So you preach best after you get laid? :P

My wife preaches best during it OH GOD OH GOD OH

lemme stop right there y'all.

Golden already spiked one in my coffin, so I'm interested in other avenues.

Be back in a wee bit.

Roxy wrote:I seen bea post and just wanted to say hi <3

goodnight all play nice

also I disagree with Epi's "case" on Golden and ofc will not be voting for him.

So happy you won't be voting for me.

Question:

Is Day 1 about ridiculing others' reasons for finding suspicion?

OR

Is Day about articulating your own suspicions and following through?

Bingo.

I think it's lame when people come in and criticize other people's reasoning (especially those they don't understand).

Come in Day 1 with your own thoughts and ideas- not knocking down those already made.

reywaS wrote:or what

Or I will make you look bad.

bea wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Reywas / Roxy / Bea / any other original baddies from other RM games: Do you remember if you played differently than you normally would've when you were baddie leaders in RM 3?

When I was Jelly King Earl, Supreme Lord of Purpleosity (I think that was my role...but maybe I was just an early recruit to the jelly team? My memory is fucked..) my entire game plan was about fun maximization. I recruited solely based on how funny people's posts were. I don't think my in-thread play differed much (I'm always kind of a sarcastic/goofy asshole)...but I think I was definitely more engaged in the thread than was typical for me at the time

I don't know Typh. You were on my team. Do you think I played differently? I try to play the same from game to game. I do remember that Epi called out what happened with my role (I died early and was rezzed into a secret role.) And for awhlle I was able to brush it off but as more and more civ recruits were rezzed, it was more and more difficult to defend against the truth of Epi's argument. Killing him didn't help anything even though you and Tranq both though it was the right thing to do at the time (if I am remembering correctly). Eventually, I became as close to an outed baddie as I've ever been. So yea, my play was prolly pretty different when I realized there was nothing I could do to hide anymore.

still on like page 16...

I called out Roxy and S~V~S too.

bea wrote:likie - yes epi - when you are on you are a spitfire. Then there's harry potter.

Which you didn't win either.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

bea wrote:likie - yes epi - when you are on you are a spitfire. Then there's harry potter.

I saw Jane with the devil goddamit.

Still worth it.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:That a good choice for a first lynch might be someone who has a reputation for surviving deep and not getting caught when bad, since a baddie might try to recruit someone that gave them the best shot at winning. Someone like DF or DP, for example, who frequently fly under the radar. Or someone like Typhoony or llama who can often survive deep on their wily skills by not being too civvish to NK nor too baddie-looking to get lynched.

But if I look at my own psyche, I'd probably just pick people who I felt I could have fun with too. Or that I really wanted to have btsc with because I hadn't yet, or something.

Golden wrote:I'm sorry, you don't give a damn about what question was asked? Then why was it the ENTIRE BACKBONE OF YOUR CASE!

No sir. This is the entire backbone of my case. It's not about what you asked, or S~V~S, or any of that. It's not about questions. It's that green and brown colored shit up there.

People can poo-poo it if they like. I think you are a recruiter based on THAT right there alone.

Why? What about that?

Golden wrote:Before, you said it was because I gave four answers to SVS question.

Nope. Didn't say that.

Now you say the question doesn't matter. OK, but in doing so, you are saying the context of the statement is not part of why you think it is bad. So tell me what about it you DO think is bad?

If you say it's because I've given four answers to a question, well... you care about the question, and I will go straight back to asking why you are ignoring the fact that this is a lie, since I did not give four answers to any question.

You realize you already voted for me. So you must realize it is I that can safely ignore your questions.

But, since I am a gentleman:

I think you are bad because your answer to the question was too broad. So broad, it was useless. I've said this twice now.

You didn't give four answers to any question. You gave one shitty answer to one question. You answered poorly on one question and I am calling you out for that one answer. That is all.

I am voting Golden. This needs to end.

I reckon you're right.

Golden wrote:I agree it needs to end. I would plead with people, vote me or epi. I honestly don't care which. Either epi loses, or he is proven wrong. Both will be satisfactory.

Nah. Nice try.

Make people think it has to be me or your, and if I'm wrong, then I have to be bad.

False dilemma. Mafia strategy 101. Get out of here with that.

Y'all go on and vote the way your conscience leads.

Golden wrote:I am hoping to encourage behaviour change from epi through early death.

Good luck with that.

Scotty wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.

How does Epi know anything?

I feel like Epi just knows things, dude.

Like, he just sits around and knows all the live-long day.

Ya feel me?

I find that I am quite good at knowing.

It's the doing part that gets me in trouble.

Scotty wrote:Well, for one: Epignosis literally translates to "Toward Knowledge" in Ancient Greek.

Very good sir!

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I think it's lame when people come in and criticize other people's reasoning (especially those they don't understand).

Come in Day 1 with your own thoughts and ideas- not knocking down those already made.

As someone who works in theater sometimes, I hate it when a director, designer, or other person gives a note on a performance but makes it a general note when it clearly is not for everyone. "Some of us need to make sure we project more. Remember the people in the back!" they might say. "Can we make sure we find our light? It's hard to focus the lights properly if you're not trying," is something else they might quip. It's irritating because they obviously mean a few people who need to do a better job. If the entire cast/crew had the problem, it would warrant a response larger than a note at the end of a run. Instead of addressing the actors and crew members, the production staff member will simply make a general note-- which the vast majority of the people receiving notes will ignore-- it's not for them.

Now, I'm not implying you are the director, Epig (I would never give you such an ego boost), but the principle is similar. To make a long story short: Who the hell are you talking about?

There is a term for the phenomenon you have described. I have spent an hour searching for it, even though I know I read the Wikipedia page for it only a few months ago. If anyone can find the term I am looking for (a foggy memory indicates that it may be a Greek theatrical phrase), I will not vote for you for the next three Days.

By the way, I worked in several theaters, and I hate directing. I much prefer acting and letting the director and stage manager tell me what to do.

To answer your question, I was referring to several people. Unfurl is one that comes to mind immediately.

Golden wrote:I believe epi knows I am not bad. OK?

That amazes me. You believe something that can't possibly be true Day 1.

timmer wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

^THIS. While I believe Long Con and Black Rock have styled the four factions as Civ 1 &2, Baddie 1&2, namely by having limited BTSC in the civ team but larger numbers, going by things they've said, does it really behoove us to think that way? Are not all four sides ultimately trying to rule this realm? Why can't people embrace the LMS-hybrid quality of this game? Why wrap yourself in the civvie flag when there are 4 civs or so out of 30+ players right now?

I don't agree with this. I know how RM3 worked, and I think I can guess how this one does. There are civilians, and there are Mafia.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The exchange of votes between Golden and Epignosis looks to me like the literal definition of OMGUS (I think y'all call it "no u"). I doubt I'll support a lynch of either of them on Day 1.

That makes no sense, and if you really believe that, then I don't trust you to read things carefully.

Spacedaisy wrote: I tried posting three times in the last two days. Each time were long posts with multiple quotes in them and each time I lost them to the monster that is my iPad. It is out to crush my soul, I tell you. Each time, I ended up throwing my iPad away from me in rage and give up for the moment.

Maybe you should stop abusing your iPad?

And that was a fine big ass post you made. I agree with most everything you said, Mrs. Browne. Not everything, but most.

Spacedaisy wrote:One last thing I forgot, Epi in the past I have realized when you have a choice you like to have players on a team you have not worked with before because you think long term, you want to understand a player's baddie game so you can read them better down the road and the best way to do that is to be on a team with them. Don't think I didn't know what you were doing in guess who. Also, you will learn my baddie game better in a full game, I suck at speed games.So, I found your answer to the question interesting. I'm unconvinced you would choose llama.

I admitted that in my rationale to 3J: I do want to understand how a Mafia player's mind functions for future games. But such a person would NOT be my first pick. I would want a solid foundation, and then take a wild(er) card.

And I chose all three of you in Guess Who? because we had never had BTSC before. That was my primary reason.

Roxy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:I agree it needs to end. I would plead with people, vote me or epi. I honestly don't care which. Either epi loses, or he is proven wrong. Both will be satisfactory.

Nah. Nice try.

Make people think it has to be me or your, and if I'm wrong, then I have to be bad.

False dilemma. Mafia strategy 101. Get out of here with that.

Y'all go on and vote the way your conscience leads.

But he does not say if you are wrong you are bad - why include that bit in your reply?

He implies it in another post, which I'm too tired to locate.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden, what do you suppose might Epignosis's anti-town motives be if he is smearing you deliberately right now?

I suspect that if epi has no alignment, it is no skin off his nose to take out someone he does not want to end up on an opposing team to him. Not that I think he would necessarily specifically target me as that person, but, put it this way...

Where the rest of us might be inclined to vote a low poster because they might end up being a good target for baddies in case we end up fighting for the civs, I think epi is more likely to think of it from the opposite perspective and take out people he doesn't want opposing him should he end up fighting for the mafia.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The exchange of votes between Golden and Epignosis looks to me like the literal definition of OMGUS (I think y'all call it "no u"). I doubt I'll support a lynch of either of them on Day 1.

I did very literally no u epi.

And then you didn't, according to the poll.

Bullzeye wrote:He's good at Mafia (don't tell him I said that) but he's not psychic and he can get things hilariously wrong just like everyone else. See LMS for an example of Epi not knowing anything to the point I was actively mocking him in the thread for his wrongness until it got too annoying and I just wanted to shut him up. Here I don't think he or Golden are actually bad.

I didn't give two shits about LMS, so if you thought you were mocking me, you dun goofed.

Also, how was I "not knowing anything" in LMS? Isn't the point to be the last man standing?

I'm ten pages behind, so I'll post these in spurts.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I've honestly never used Old Bay Seasoning for anything. Is it worthwhile?

Blackened fish. Only seasoning you'll ever need.

Boomslang wrote:Although I'd like to pursue the points I've raised earlier throughout the game, I think the case on Bass is the most evidence-based at this point. A very suspicious post, built on spurious reasoning and not followed up, is not civ behavior. *votes Bass*

And not Bass behavior either.

Long Con wrote:If you wish to vote for Synonym, vote for Russtifinko. I ain't touchin' the poll in case I mess it up.

If you just change the name without altering the number of choices, the poll time should remain the same.

Ricochet wrote:Theses and camping. The natural enemies of playing mafia all day long around here.

For me it's getting killed.

Hi.

At this stage, I find the unrecruited claims bullshit. It's Night 10. Stop pretending that shit.

By Night 10 of RM3, recruitments were finished and no one was left unrecruited.

So get out of here with that, number one.

Number two, if you are unrecruited, you still have an allegiance.

Scotty wrote:

Epignosis wrote:At this stage, I find the unrecruited claims bullshit. It's Night 10. Stop pretending that shit.

By Night 10 of RM3, recruitments were finished and no one was left unrecruited.

So get out of here with that, number one.

Number two, if you are unrecruited, you still have an allegiance.

Are you recruited, Epi?

I'm not answering that.

Sorsha wrote:Recruitments in this game have been completely by choice and I haven't submitted to any of the recruitment calls so no epi, you're wrong.

They have?