The Syndicate

Dom beat me to it with Is that a piano.

Brain is a bit full so wrapping that brain around this game will take effort. But that isn't a bad thing.

Love seeing Willow as part of the story telling!!!

I assume the MacDougall stuff against Matt is from mafia-history? Is he always like this? Because bringing up stuff like that tends to be pingy to me (even if it's brought up as a joke) but if he's always like that, then that may be context.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:Dom beat me to it with Is that a piano.

Brain is a bit full so wrapping that brain around this game will take effort. But that isn't a bad thing.

Love seeing Willow as part of the story telling!!!

I assume the MacDougall stuff against Matt is from mafia-history? Is he always like this? Because bringing up stuff like that tends to be pingy to me (even if it's brought up as a joke) but if he's always like that, then that may be context.

I find looking for valid reasons to lynch someone tends to be pingy to me.

See, I find looking for valid reasons to lynch someone to be how the game is played.

And I find your answer made me more suspicious of you, so, yeah.

Also, eye me all you want.

Ricochet wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:Dom beat me to it with Is that a piano.

Brain is a bit full so wrapping that brain around this game will take effort. But that isn't a bad thing.

Love seeing Willow as part of the story telling!!!

I assume the MacDougall stuff against Matt is from mafia-history? Is he always like this? Because bringing up stuff like that tends to be pingy to me (even if it's brought up as a joke) but if he's always like that, then that may be context.

I find looking for valid reasons to lynch someone tends to be pingy to me.

whoa boy

Right? Enjoy the popcorn.

And I voted alternative because it seemed like a good alternative (bad pun, sorry).

DFaraday wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: What is a phylactery and what does it do?

A phylactery is a box with Hebrew scripture in it, worn during religious practice. I have no idea what it would do in the game though.

I find it kind of amusing that I'm not the one that answered this. Also, I believe that while it's generally used to refer to t'fillin (the box with hebrew scripture you wear on your head) it's actually, technically speaking, a thing that has something in it that you wear on the head.

It's just not a term that comes up much, for any purpose, outside of Jewish ritual.

S~V~S wrote:Just an FYI, for the duration of the World Series, I will be scarce during game times. As a lifelong Mets fan, this is a squeeeee moment for me.

Hopefully it is not rained out tonight

It being not 1986, I'm rooting for the Mets.

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I am not sure I would define that as sarcasm, but OK.

Do you plan on making sarcastic responses to serious questions for the remainder of the game?

Do you plan on feigning sincerity and building cases on joke posts made on day 0 for the remainder of the game? Rather opportunistic in my opinion.

And no I do not. Only until MattF gets lynched.

You have clearly never met SVS. I don't see her feigning sincerity at all here. And I've seen baddies caught day 1 due to joke posts. Baddie slips, actually I find, more often than not happen in less serious posts.

MacDougall wrote:It is my modus operandi as a mafia player on this website to tunnel MattF in every game until one of us are dead. You are officially forewarned of my intention in every game we both play in.

That's not very good strategy, and certainly isn't helpful in finding mafia.

MacDougall wrote:MattF is the perfect day 1 lynch in every game he plays. As a townie he distracts from genuine scum hunting with tunneling, a lack of focus and volumes upon volumes of posts trying to get people to ignore their genuine scum hunting efforts and follow his uninspired scumdar ... and of course there is as good a chance that he's scum as anybody else. He's a policy lynch for me in every game he plays. I make no apologies for this.

Oh, so now you're not joking?!

How many games have you played with him? And someone having a different strategy than yours in finding baddies doesn't mean that they are a distraction. Policy lynches don't really make sense strategically--just like random votes don't really make sense imho, or policy self votes. Find people you suspect and explain why you suspect them. It's what civies do.

I make no apologies for suspecting you.

The apology was simply replying to your not apologizing for policy voting Matt in every game.

I know that 2 baddies in LOST on The Piano were lynched for jokey posts (they were my teammates), but you can't exactly get to that. If you search chubbz on Lostpedia, I'm quite certain that you can find multiple games as examples. The first star wars game, I believe. And Harry Potter, I think, both come to mind.

And I suspect you of being bad, for the record.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:The apology was simply replying to your not apologizing for policy voting Matt in every game.

I know that 2 baddies in LOST on The Piano were lynched for jokey posts (they were my teammates), but you can't exactly get to that. If you search chubbz on Lostpedia, I'm quite certain that you can find multiple games as examples. The first star wars game, I believe. And Harry Potter, I think, both come to mind.

And I suspect you of being bad, for the record.

Hmm Mr. LoRab your examples aren't exactly convincing. I can show you endless examples of scum players saying "the" in a thread. That doesn't mean we should lynch players who say "the".

You suspect me of being bad? What roles do you consider bad in this particular design of game?

No, and I'm not suspecting you for making a jokey post--I'm suspecting you for the content of that post and your subsequent posts.

The roles not specifying which are bad and which are civ is irrelevant to the fact that the host has made it clear that players are bad are good. I think that the players who are on the 2 baddie teams are bad. And the darkness. And possibly the other indies (hard to know with indies). Or are you going to try to convince us that there aren't really baddies in this game because the roles don't specify them (even though we have been told multiple times that there are baddies).

Also, I'm female.

MacDougall wrote:Terribly sorry is it Mrs. Lorab?

Miss LoRab, Ms LoRab, Rabbi LoRab, Twirly LoRab....I'm not picky.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:The apology was simply replying to your not apologizing for policy voting Matt in every game.

I know that 2 baddies in LOST on The Piano were lynched for jokey posts (they were my teammates), but you can't exactly get to that. If you search chubbz on Lostpedia, I'm quite certain that you can find multiple games as examples. The first star wars game, I believe. And Harry Potter, I think, both come to mind.

And I suspect you of being bad, for the record.

Hmm Mr. LoRab your examples aren't exactly convincing. I can show you endless examples of scum players saying "the" in a thread. That doesn't mean we should lynch players who say "the".

You suspect me of being bad? What roles do you consider bad in this particular design of game?

No, and I'm not suspecting you for making a jokey post--I'm suspecting you for the content of that post and your subsequent posts.

The roles not specifying which are bad and which are civ is irrelevant to the fact that the host has made it clear that players are bad are good. I think that the players who are on the 2 baddie teams are bad. And the darkness. And possibly the other indies (hard to know with indies). Or are you going to try to convince us that there aren't really baddies in this game because the roles don't specify them (even though we have been told multiple times that there are baddies).

Also, I'm female.

I am very sorry about that. How embarrassing for me.

Let me clarify my question for you.

I wouldn't try to convince you of that. I simply would not be aware of which roles were in fact bad. Aside from the obvious one. And in the interest of encouraging discussion I thought I would ask for your opinion.

linki: Twirly LoRab. I like that.

is my smiley for a reason.

And it depends on if the roles were designed with teams, or if LC randomized which roles/players were on which team. I don't think he's clarified that and I can see him doing either. Also, knowing the host, if he did design it with certain roles being civ/bad/indy, then it's probably, at least in part, the ones that are least likely to be in any of those allignments.

I'd rather focus on which players are acting suspiciously, and worry less about particular role (which is how I generally play the game regardless). I think figuring out which roles we think are bad and which players we think have which roles is a dangerous path.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:The apology was simply replying to your not apologizing for policy voting Matt in every game.

I know that 2 baddies in LOST on The Piano were lynched for jokey posts (they were my teammates), but you can't exactly get to that. If you search chubbz on Lostpedia, I'm quite certain that you can find multiple games as examples. The first star wars game, I believe. And Harry Potter, I think, both come to mind.

And I suspect you of being bad, for the record.

Hmm Mr. LoRab your examples aren't exactly convincing. I can show you endless examples of scum players saying "the" in a thread. That doesn't mean we should lynch players who say "the".

You suspect me of being bad? What roles do you consider bad in this particular design of game?

No, and I'm not suspecting you for making a jokey post--I'm suspecting you for the content of that post and your subsequent posts.

The roles not specifying which are bad and which are civ is irrelevant to the fact that the host has made it clear that players are bad are good. I think that the players who are on the 2 baddie teams are bad. And the darkness. And possibly the other indies (hard to know with indies). Or are you going to try to convince us that there aren't really baddies in this game because the roles don't specify them (even though we have been told multiple times that there are baddies).

Also, I'm female.

I am very sorry about that. How embarrassing for me.

Let me clarify my question for you.

I wouldn't try to convince you of that. I simply would not be aware of which roles were in fact bad. Aside from the obvious one. And in the interest of encouraging discussion I thought I would ask for your opinion.

linki: Twirly LoRab. I like that.

is my smiley for a reason.

And it depends on if the roles were designed with teams, or if LC randomized which roles/players were on which team. I don't think he's clarified that and I can see him doing either. Also, knowing the host, if he did design it with certain roles being civ/bad/indy, then it's probably, at least in part, the ones that are least likely to be in any of those allignments.

I'd rather focus on which players are acting suspiciously, and worry less about particular role (which is how I generally play the game regardless). I think figuring out which roles we think are bad and which players we think have which roles is a dangerous path.

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. So you suspect me of being a role that is probably, at least in part, one of the ones that are least likely to be any of those alignments?

Interesting questions that poses to me.

I have no idea what role you are. I do suspect that you are a baddie.

Also, having nothing to do with this particular conversation, but before I forget, I'm out of town at a convention all next week (Monday to Monday). OK, I'm going to Harry Potter World, then the convention, then Disney World (because, Orlando). I will be around, but my timing may be wonky. Even more than usual.

In related news, I'll be shaving my head to raise money for childhood cancer while I'm there, to raise money for the St Baldricks Foundation, which directly funds childhood cancer research through grants. So, I will look like this as of next Thursday If any of you are interested in donating (and thanks to those of you that donated the first time I did this), lemme know and I'm happy to share the link to donate.

Meant to share all that in the sign up thread before roles went out, but then I completely forgot.

Sorsha wrote:Is there a copy of the poll? One baddie was told of the poll "prize" so I'd imagine they could share that with their team?

Since Mac posted the same Matt stuff in this game as in dune I'll just repeat what I said there too:
I'm still digesting the Matt f/ Mac thing. I was a civvie tunneled by Matt last game so it's tempting to vote him but I'd definitely be waiting to see if something else comes up before I place my vote. I'd rather go with a legit suspicion but those don't always come out on day one.

Can you clarify? Matt had tunnel vision in the last game (which game?)? Was he a baddie in that game? Was he right or wrong about the player he was set on suspecting?

And how does that relate to his behavior in this game? Or are you punishing him for an earlier game?

I get if Mac (can I call you Mac?) is set on policy voting for Matt always (although I suspect him for that and don't agree with the concept of policy votes), but I really, really don't understand why you'd follow along with that. Please explain?

Sorsha wrote:The talking heads game.

I was civ, he's still alive in the game so his role isn't known. He tunneled me from my day 0 vote for days. Adding pretty much everything I did to his list of "things that make Sorsha bad." he did the same thing to others. His thing is just coming up with completely outlandish theories that really only make sense to him and not letting go.

And I'm saying that if nothing else comes up as suspicious I could see myself possibly voting for Matt to spare us that in this game. It's entirely unpleasant and really ruins the game. I'm not sure how many other civvies were tunneled by Matt during that game (or others that he's done it in) can attest to that.

If he says he's not going to tunnel players and act like he did in the TH game then fine. I really have no problem with him. We'll see how this day goes.

I'm having trouble understanding the theory here. And having been a player that others vote for because I tend to focus on one player and become convinced they are bad for reasons that others don't get, I guess I'm having trouble with the concept of finding that suspicious. Also, if his allegience in that game is unknown, then it's certainly not necessarily suspicious to me.

I get that if he ruined your game earlier, then you don't want to play with him. But I'm having trouble with the suspicion, if that makes sense. If anything, it seems like those that suspect him are using his earlier play as an excuse to lynch a player.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Matt F

Why?

Sorsha wrote:Would a "policy vote" be along the lines of how some players would just have their fall back day one vote? I know rabbit and I used to just vote for one another on day one, mostly on RM. that seems to have kind of gone out of fashion, but that's what policy vote sounds like to me.

Mac's term, so perhaps he'll answer. From what I understood, he meant it as every game he plays, he will vote for Matt no matter what. Which does not seem like a civ-friendly concept to me.

I think you and Rabbi was more a friendly rivalry kind of thing (although I never really thought it was useful to strategy, personally, but didn't object to it, per se) as opposed to I will always vote this person until one of us is dead because I don't like how they play.

Also, the policy vote concept is really easy to hide behind.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Are votes changeable?

Votes are changeable in this poll.

Lorab, I just want to observe MacDougall.

Makes sense. Thanks for answering.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Would a "policy vote" be along the lines of how some players would just have their fall back day one vote? I know rabbit and I used to just vote for one another on day one, mostly on RM. that seems to have kind of gone out of fashion, but that's what policy vote sounds like to me.

That's one of the ways to describe it.

But here's another example. In a recent game on RYM, MP07 roleclaimed as cop and listed 2 (or maybe 3) players he had checked and their alignment. The one player he listed as mafia counter-claimed, saying he was the real cop. This other player (bcornett) pointed out the bread-crumb trail he had laid out for his checks, and gave a solid case for his candidacy. MP responded with this pretty believable story that he was quite certain about his read on the real cop, and so he fake-roleclaimed. Both were actually civilian, but we had to lynch one of them after these events. It would have been foolish to leave them both alive, especially since one was obviously lying, and potentially mafia. So MP was policy-lynched.

I don't think that is how Mac is using the term.

Golden wrote:Hey LoRab, you are twirling early. I assume that means you have nothing to hide?

I mean, it was relevant to discussion. But indeed, I have nothing to hide.

I think I get where you are coming from. So thank you for clarifying. Makes more sense. I'm still having trouble with Mac.

Matt F wrote:Sorry Zebra, vote stays. I was pretty caught off guard with this nonsense, but as Sorsha demonstrated, it's obviously not just Mac who feels this way. If I'm around after Day 1, legit scum hunting will begin. If not, good luck town!

For all you know they're just trying to rile you up. Self voting and giving up are not helpful--certainly not if you're civie.

I really don't understand the self vote.

NANANANANANA_BANANA wrote:Oh come on get a sense of humour!

Mafia iz srs bznss.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:I think I get where you are coming from. So thank you for clarifying. Makes more sense. I'm still having trouble with Mac.

Can you please do me a kindness?

I would like for you to try and put into a conversation starter your ping on me so we can hash this out.

I would also like you to do a quick scan of SVS and a brief summary of your feelings there.

That would be lovely.

Certainly, although I have not yet had enough coffee today to promise that I'll be entirely articulate.

I find you suspicious not so much entirely about your jokey post about Matt, although joke posts like that are often made by baddies in order to participate but not add content, but it's really more the explanations after. Having a "policy" vote is a really easy way for a baddie to vote for someone who isn't on their team, and a really good way to hide behind your vote. That you went between saying it was just a joke and saying that you really meant the vote and thought it was good for the town to vote for him seemed like you were waffling enough to be safe with either conclusion. That you've now completely backed off your pseudosuspicion of Matt hasn't helped my thoughts on you.

And SVS is right, I tend to see the best in her. I proved that pretty well last game (granted, I was neutral, throughout the game, but I did think that she was either unrecruited or civ and I was wrong). I can't read her worth crap and tend to give her the benefit of the doubt. I don't remember what role I was in the computer lab game, but I think I may have been bad. And I think the last time we were baddies together was Dexter (maybe--not certain of game), and you were on the other baddie team but got BTSC with our team, so we weren't actually on the same team). I have DD's old spreadsheet, but I guess he didn't play computer lab and the spreadsheet only goes up to World Apart (ironically). But, anyway, yeah, that's a really long way of saying I have no read on SVS.

You said earlier that either she or me is bad. I'm curious why you think that. I'm civ, so make of that what you will. You've given me nothing to defend, so I'll just go with eye me all you want, I have nothing to hide, and I don't mind being suspected.

MacDougall wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Golden wrote:Friends may stick together, but don't forget that you might be on different sides in this game.

And that there is no illegal BTSC. 'Cause them both coming in like that is a little suspicious.

Okay I apologise but this needs addressing.

Team Floyd pop in reacting to each others interactions and are only online at the same time.

I see three possibilities.

1. Illegal BTSC
2. Floyd is using alts
3. Flod was given a role by Long Con that involves him posting with two dummy accounts as part of role flavour

I would like to believe it's the third because that would be awesome.

Unfortunately none of the three possibilities indicate alignment. The only reason I am entertaining option 3 is because I have played a role just like it and happened to link the thread in the Talking Heads game to it which may or may not have given LC a last minute idea.

I cannot see how they could be coordinating post timing if they aren't communicating outside the thread.

1 Is possible, but likely inadvertent and not realizing what illegal BTSC is.
2 As in he signed up for the game with multiple accounts? I can't imagine someone doing that on a friendly forum--and if there was suspicion of such, I'm sure the mods will do something about that.
3 That does not seem likely, as LC asked who they were in the sign up thread.

And you miss the other possibility, that they have BTSC in the game. While Golden throws that out as not likely, I'm not so sure. Occam's Razor and all.

Fell asleep and almost missed the vote! Glad I woke in time.

Don't have an opinion on Dom, yet. And Epi is not always right, so I hesitate to go along with him just because he sounds sure. He always sounds sure.

Don't feel good about voting someone who is brand new to the site, because it doesn't seem friendly. And can't rembember who said Buga would play the newbie card if they had BTSC, it could also be the opposite (I tend to suspect people who play the newbie card). So, I suspect him and Bananana, but I'm not ready to vote them.

I'm going to go with Mac. My suspicion of him is fairly low level, but I don't have huge suspicion of anyone right now. And I have to vote somewhere. It's kind of a --hey, dude, I'm watching you kind of vote.

RIP Banana.

Still loving that Willow is in the story telling. (Having been Willow in Long Rock's Buffy game, and killed before my time (frigging Kadaj), I appreciate her spirit being kept alive throughout other games)

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Lorab is drunk?

Nah, just an old lady who falls asleep on the couch sometimes. I'm way more entertaining when drunk.

Voted Spock because, I mean, Spock.

Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Nanners.

LoRab wrote:Still loving that Dark Willow is in the story telling

ftfy

Dark Willow is still Willow. And don't even think about starting with any Angel/Spike bullshit.

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Nanners.

LoRab wrote:Still loving that Dark Willow is in the story telling

ftfy

Dark Willow is still Willow. And don't even think about starting with any Angel/Spike bullshit.

I'll just leave this here.

Harumph.

There are many things to write on other than paper...just saying.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Dom, SVS, Floyd, Bea ... no need to thank me.

You are so laughably inconsistent.

Bea isn't even playing this game

Thinking about Timmer's death...and RIPIYWG Timmer of course...two things dawn on me. One is that the mafia team was going for a low poster. Two is that it would seem like good strategy for someone to separate themselves from killing a low poster by talking about how against lynching low posters they are. Just a thought.

Not sure about Dom--the tells of his youth have dissipated, and I haven't figured out how to read him yet. I don't think SVS would defend a teammate on day 1, so they may both be bad, but I doubt they're on the same team. Still suspect Mac, and not sure what to make of what seems to be something of a role claim. I do find it eyebrow raising that Tiny Bubbles didn't say "I'm civ," but I also have sympathy for someone being suspected for not saying something they usually say. That said, it does strike me as somewhat pingy. I need to reread LA.

@bullz: I had the same thought about the phrasing of that post.

@matt: claiming a role says nothing about what team he is on, and as there is more than one role he could be referring to, it says nothing about if he is civ or not. He could be threatening us with wasting a lynch to get focus away from him.

Can we please keep personal insults out of the game? Thanks.

fingersplints wrote:RIP Banana and RIPIYWG Timmer. Sorry for missing the vote and general absence. Will try to be more around from here on out.

I like the points about sig, and am interested to hear his response. Lorab's post remarking about Timmer's low posting also bothers me.

LoRab wrote:Thinking about Timmer's death...and RIPIYWG Timmer of course...two things dawn on me. One is that the mafia team was going for a low poster. Two is that it would seem like good strategy for someone to separate themselves from killing a low poster by talking about how against lynching low posters they are. Just a thought.

Partially because the idea is similar to that of sig's (something discussed in btsc maybe) and this really just feels like trying to set up someone talking about lynching a low poster.

I made my point, as people were discussing Timmer as target, and wanted to share my thoughts and throw something out there. Also, I already suspect Mac, which I've said multiple times, and he's had comments about that, so....

Sig's point, I think, was different. Also, people often add commentary to an idea when an idea has been posted.

And I'm not trying to set anyone up at all. It could also be that the kill was done to set people up who have been talking about it. But the concept hadn't been mentioned, so I wanted to put it out there. I throw ideas out. You've played with me enough that I'd think you'd know that.

sig wrote:Just dropping this underlined is one of the times Bulls puts words in my mouth.

Bullzeye wrote:
Thank you, DictionaryBoy, for explaining what currently means :P It's still an odd way to phrase it. If there'd been a few kills in this game so far, it'd make more sense IMO. In my experience baddies often do make specific plans for how they're going to kill, by no means set in stone but as a "if we don't need to kill anyone in particular we may as well kill a low poster". Saying "the baddies are currently killing low posters so Timmer's death is unsurprising" doesn't make sense given that the baddies of this game weren't 'currently' doing anything until they killed Timmer. It was just something that caught my eye, but the fact that so many other people seem to agree with me makes me more confident. Especially when this is at least the second time I've noticed you defending Sig this game.

Linki - nice NO U there. I have other suspicions than you and wasn't necessarily going to vote for you today, but keep digging that hole.

While I actually said

Bullzeye wrote:

sig wrote:First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

The phrasing of this post bothers me... There's been one mafia kill all game, so how can you say what they're 'currently' doing? One point isn't even a line, let alone a pattern. It makes it sound to me like you know what the mafia's current plan is.

I don't like this at all, he jumps at me for a wording choice and then twist and even changes what I say to fit his view.

A paraphrase is not the same as twisting words or putting words in one's mouth. Having also found your post pingy, I'm not sure what your point even is. What he says is what your point was--and that seems like you knew how the baddies are strategizing.

Also, why is Hamburger Boy defending you? And with almost the same words?

Anyone know if HB is the kind of player to defend a teammate?

HamburgerBoy wrote:

LoRab wrote:Also, why is Hamburger Boy defending you? And with almost the same words?

Anyone know if HB is the kind of player to defend a teammate?

I defended him the exact same way during Talking Heads, and even put him at the top of my rainbow for good measure on the feeling that scum almost never gets hit by weak "scumslip" accusations. There have been plenty of cases on RYM where I defend players because I feel they are being targeted for minor things (scumslips, low post count, etc), in multiple games. And it's not altruistic, I think that scumslip arguments are lazy and distract players from trying to find real scum.

I'd rather have folks other than you tell me that you've done that. Some players defend teammates, others do not. And, come to think of it, you don't even answer the question here--you just say how you defended sig (and other players). My question was about defending a baddie teammate.

And I've seen many, many games where baddies were found based on a slip. Or (especially as host) where baddies slip and weren't called out and slided for a long time. I don't use the term scum in mafia games, so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie, instead. Slips have been happening for as long as I've played mafia--and I can think of many, many, more examples of when they have, indeed, been slips than when they have not.

sig wrote:Not finding the death strange means it wasn't strange I wasn't shocked as some pretend to be. However, when he says unsurprised it takes a new dimension to it imo. Finding it not strange as I said means it isn't weird being unsurprised means I have foreknowledge of the event. The wording while slight has very different implications.

They mean the same thing. You weren't shocked is literally the definition of you were unsurprised.

And, yes, the interpretation of your lack of shock is that it made you seem bad. I'm not sure that the reading was inaccurate. And that you still seem to insist that you didn't say what Bullz said you said...well, that's just not true.

sig wrote:I am seeing the difference . When people in the thread pretend to be so shocked by his death. This is more scummy then myself not being shocked by it and I still say there is a difference. it is very small wording but paraphrasing what I said in a way that appears to make what I said slightly more scummy is pingy.
"so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie" You seem to be acting slightly inmature here. baddie scum it is the same changing my words right after quoting me isn't. Especially when Bull's argument revolves around a SPECIFIC word, if Bulls argument is based on that which it is then yes it does matter when later in trying to get me lynched he says I said something I didn't say. That you fail to comprehend the importance when Bulls whole argument is based around my wording is strange.

There is no difference. I found the same think suspish as Bullz did and your subsequent posts have made it seem worse. His point was not based on word use, it was the gist of what you said. And people may have been surprised at the kill without "pretending." I disagree that there is a difference--and those who posted suprise may also be bad. But you seem more bad.

And I was making a joke with the word twisting. I'm likely older than you, so please don't call me immature, because that's just insulting.. My joke was making the point that baddie means the same thing as some people mean when they say scum (I will never like that term in mafia, but it's just how I was mafia raised)...just like unsurprised and not shocked mean the same thing. And I don't even get how you'd see that as immature. Or maybe you're defining immature difrerenly than my understanding of it.

MacDougall wrote:It's not a personal insult when he is playing a bad guy in a a game. I am sure he is lovely.

Your posts were more personal than that. "You play like an asshole," and, "[is he} this much of a douchebag in BTSC," are both personally insulting a player, not the player in that role. In the mafia world that I play in (and that I believe this forum is part of), personal insults aren't part of the game.

linkitis: I recall that Black Rock was once lynched based on an "us" thing--and she was bad. Pretty sure that was BR. Just saying.

I will likely vote Sig or Mac. Not sure which, yet. I find them both suspicious.

and I've taken a painkiller, so I should probably quit posting for the night.

Matt F wrote:

LoRab wrote:and I've taken a painkiller, so I should probably quit posting for the night.

I think LoRab posting on meds would be awesome.

I'm sure it's entertaining. I can't remember which games I played while quite medicated. But I'm sure there were loopy posts in several games.

Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Dom, AMA

You voted for Ama? But he hasn't been around in years!!

On topicly, voting Sig.

Travelling all day and y'all post a lot so keep not having time to finish reading.

I think people can say things are interesting and that be a statement in and of itself. It is not lame. It is saying, huh--that is interesting.

I'm finding myself frustrated with the tone of several posts here and people insulting others in a way that doesn't seem either productive or fun.

I'm also finding myself frustrated with people saying someone is bad, just because they know it and they are sure and we should all just follow them. That is not helpful to me. Or particularly interesting to read.

I think I'm perhaps a little cranky, but there seems to be an ongoing tone amongst several posts that are crank inducing. But maybe I'll feel better tomorrow.

Also, I have cats, but I prefer dogs.

And I meant to vote dogs but voted cats instead. Meh.

Sorry I haven't been around. Been caught up in travel and convention and by the time I got back to my room last night went right to sleep. Will try to sty caught up from here.

Crapweasel. Thought I had another day and no time to really catch up. Will read last few pages and vote in the next short while.

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

You're right. I don't know him. But I find his posts suspicious.

And I've been at a convention all week and hardly posted. But please feel free to examine me and my posts. I'll twirl all you want. I have nothing to hide. I'm civ. :Lorab:

Epignosis wrote:Also, I don't know why sig should have to "accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people."

Not only is that a loaded statement, that's not his responsibility. How is he supposed to "accurately describe his initial slip?" How should he "characterize what pinged several people?"

Bullshit vote right here.

Lorab

It is not a bs vote. I suspected him initially I continue to.

To clarify: he mischaracterized what he actually posted. He did not post that it appeared as if Nadia was killing low posters. He said that they were. There is a huge difference between those two statements. His posting revisionist history which changes his initial post in a way that is not as suspicious as his post was. That is what I find suspicious.

Eye me all you want.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Also, I don't know why sig should have to "accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people."

Not only is that a loaded statement, that's not his responsibility. How is he supposed to "accurately describe his initial slip?" How should he "characterize what pinged several people?"

Bullshit vote right here.

Lorab

It is not a bs vote. I suspected him initially I continue to.

To clarify: he mischaracterized what he actually posted. He did not post that it appeared as if Nadia was killing low posters. He said that they were. There is a huge difference between those two statements. His posting revisionist history which changes his initial post in a way that is not as suspicious as his post was. That is what I find suspicious.

Eye me all you want.

I'm going to do more than eye you.

Examine me all you want. I have nothing to hide.

Matt F wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Also, I don't know why sig should have to "accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people."

Not only is that a loaded statement, that's not his responsibility. How is he supposed to "accurately describe his initial slip?" How should he "characterize what pinged several people?"

Bullshit vote right here.

Lorab

It is not a bs vote. I suspected him initially I continue to.

To clarify: he mischaracterized what he actually posted. He did not post that it appeared as if Nadia was killing low posters. He said that they were. There is a huge difference between those two statements. His posting revisionist history which changes his initial post in a way that is not as suspicious as his post was. That is what I find suspicious.

Eye me all you want.

Who's Nadia? I just went over the host posts, and didn't see any mention of a Nadia.

Autocorrect of mafia. I should learn to proofread.

DrWilgy wrote:

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

Compare the initial slip vs his descriptions. Characterize those pings for me, and what exactly makes them more suspish?

I don't know any bit of the Sig case, but what I do know is that it's hard to lynch mafia. It was pretty easy for you to vote based on a defense, rather than discuss it and point out the exact flaws in the defense.

I voted for him for thto second time based on my ongoing suspicion of him. I had several posts last Kung outlining my reasons for suspecting him. Don't have time right now to make fuller case or explanation.

Dr w: Nice way to ask me a question, decide i'm suspicious, make a few assumptions, and vote for me before I have a chance to even answer your question.

When I'm done with this convention, in happy to further explain my suspicion of sig. Right now, I'm listening to Vice President Biden speak. That is somehow more important than worrying about having a vote.

Linkitis: you shouldn't vote for me because I'm not bad. Mac, you are wrong. And also bad. And I posted before I went away that I'd be away. So yeah, I'm busy. That doesn't mean I'm bad, it means I'm busy

Linkitis: I am fairly certain I had posts about sig the first time he came up, when I initially suspected him.

And to those saying I never explained, here's one post where I did. So, not true.

LoRab wrote:

sig wrote:I am seeing the difference . When people in the thread pretend to be so shocked by his death. This is more scummy then myself not being shocked by it and I still say there is a difference. it is very small wording but paraphrasing what I said in a way that appears to make what I said slightly more scummy is pingy.
"so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie" You seem to be acting slightly inmature here. baddie scum it is the same changing my words right after quoting me isn't. Especially when Bull's argument revolves around a SPECIFIC word, if Bulls argument is based on that which it is then yes it does matter when later in trying to get me lynched he says I said something I didn't say. That you fail to comprehend the importance when Bulls whole argument is based around my wording is strange.

There is no difference. I found the same think suspish as Bullz did and your subsequent posts have made it seem worse. His point was not based on word use, it was the gist of what you said. And people may have been surprised at the kill without "pretending." I disagree that there is a difference--and those who posted suprise may also be bad. But you seem more bad.

And I was making a joke with the word twisting. I'm likely older than you, so please don't call me immature, because that's just insulting.. My joke was making the point that baddie means the same thing as some people mean when they say scum (I will never like that term in mafia, but it's just how I was mafia raised)...just like unsurprised and not shocked mean the same thing. And I don't even get how you'd see that as immature. Or maybe you're defining immature difrerenly than my understanding of it.

MacDougall wrote:It's not a personal insult when he is playing a bad guy in a a game. I am sure he is lovely.

Your posts were more personal than that. "You play like an asshole," and, "[is he} this much of a douchebag in BTSC," are both personally insulting a player, not the player in that role. In the mafia world that I play in (and that I believe this forum is part of), personal insults aren't part of the game.

linkitis: I recall that Black Rock was once lynched based on an "us" thing--and she was bad. Pretty sure that was BR. Just saying.

RIH Luke.

Epignosis wrote:Hey Lorab,

What do you think of Luke?

HE'S DEAD.

I think he's bad, and I'm glad he's gone. I wasn't around for he main case against him, so I can't really speculate what I would have thought of it. When I catch up in full, I'm glad to elaborate on my theoretical, after the fact thoughts.

Mixed feelings on the poll. On the one hand, I believe in drawing out low posters. On the other, my main suspects are in the top posting half.

OK. I voted no. My bigger suspects are in the top posters. And I'd rather focus on those players at the moment about who there is reason to find suspciion. Other than suspcting people because they are low posting, which will be an undercrurrnt of focusing only on those posters. I'm a bit buzzed, so hoping that makes sense.

DrWilgy wrote:I voted yes, restricting the vote to include LoRab makes me happy. All my bonfire friends are in the top half as well. I will protect my bros!

Can you explain why you want me voted out? You have yet to say that except to pop in and say I'm bad, unless I missed an explanation somewhere.