The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote:I voted Dom to maintain the tie.

Wat.

I hope so :P

Well done.

I voted, though its more of a guess.

Made wrote:Damn, nice guys. Full transparency, If i would of got into thread before the lynch was over I would of voted Dom, so good thing i didn't.
Raised over $1000 at last night fundraiser!!!!

Going to do a more thorough read, but from the little i skimmed, caught this:
Is forcing a tie so a civvie(stanley) decided the lynch a good idea in close lynches.

Civvies can be wrong. And forcing a tie completely removes accountability.

Made wrote:Damn, nice guys. Full transparency, If i would of got into thread before the lynch was over I would of voted Dom, so good thing i didn't.
Raised over $1000 at last night fundraiser!!!!

Going to do a more thorough read, but from the little i skimmed, caught this:
Is forcing a tie so a civvie(stanley) decided the lynch a good idea in close lynches.

How do you know Dom is a civvie? If you had broken the tie and gone with Dom, we still had a possibility of lynching a baddie, just not the Warden.

Long Con wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Made wrote:Damn, nice guys. Full transparency, If i would of got into thread before the lynch was over I would of voted Dom, so good thing i didn't.
Raised over $1000 at last night fundraiser!!!!

Going to do a more thorough read, but from the little i skimmed, caught this:
Is forcing a tie so a civvie(stanley) decided the lynch a good idea in close lynches.

How do you know Dom is a civvie? If you had broken the tie and gone with Dom, we still had a possibility of lynching a baddie, just not the Warden.

So, if we find out Dom is a baddie, then you could easily come back to this statement and say, "Look, I was right about him!"

That would be good for your rep, wouldn't it?

You could go back further to when i advocated for a Dom lynch, put a case up, and voted for Dom. That would also look pretty good for my rep.

I'm glad you see how ridiculous your point was.

I'll address your post later MP, but I will say that your use of the phrase "carefully manipulative" was pretty ironic.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'll address your post later MP, but I will say that your use of the phrase "carefully manipulative" was pretty ironic.

Oh, and I'll address this too, since I forgot to include it in my last post.

Lol, how so?

Not gonna direclty quote MP's post (fat fucking chance). Here are my thoughts (RE: the chapter on myself) as I reread it in one window and type this in another:

1. Connection to DF/Me not defending - There is no connection to DF. I keep saying "you're wrong" because, you are. I wouldn't lie to you or LC.
2. Never bringing up Dom previously, shelving Bass suspicion - First off, yes, I'd not really focused on Dom previously. Being one of the only two options for a lynch however, understandably brought him to the forefront of my thought process. As for why I shelved Bass, the Gods honest truth, may he take me into heaven right now if I'm kidding, is that I did not want to lynch him when he wasn't here. I'm an O.G mafia player and I really feel uncomfortable and kind of slimey doing stuff like that. I brought up my post RE: my thoughts on Dom because bea had made some kind of comment asking for people to go through Dom's posts like she did with Bass. I wasn't in the mood to do a big ol post, but I figured I'd give my two cents.
3. The Daisy thing: she didn't ask just SVS and Dom. The way I read it she asked why *anyone* hadn't brought it up. I asked her why she hadn't brought it up, she said she didn't think it was true. I thought her answer to her own question could apply to many other people, which is why I brought it to her attention. She accused me outright of defending/deflecting attention, which is a little more "overblown" as you'd put it, than I was expecting.
4. My wording: I say that kind of shit all the time. As LC would probably point out, its my Theatrical way of saying I wasn't going to give Bass a pass. As for why I didn't mention anything about my suspcion of bass when I cast a vote for Dom, I will answer your question with a question: Why list the nutritional facts of peanut butter when you're trying to make a ham sandwich?
5. My comment to LC was, and I have no problem admitting this either, 100% to push his weak ass attempt at framing my comment up right back in his face. His post was, in my view, meant to make my post to Made look as though I'd been covering my ass in order to fit his theory that I am bad. I responded by telling him I'd (at least during the last lynch period) made several other posts regarding my suspicion of Dom, and would therefore not need to plant such a post to begin with.

In closing, I said it was ironic you'd accused me of being carefully manipulative, because a lot of what you've posted about me is very craftily stretched to fit your narrative (TAKE NOTES MADE) about me being bad. It sounds nice, but its just not true.

EBWOP: Think of it this way: The same way I might say "I don't exactly think Bass is a confirmed civvie" is how Epi might say "I ain't exactly a spring chicken."

Was a triple post really necessary to illustrate your point?

Look, SVS, I wouldn't have been able to sleep tonight if I didn't make that joke. <3

juliets wrote:SVS or TH who is Lily Potter and why should she not be believed?

Lily Potter is Harry Potters mother.

Also, since Dom is (likely) Bavmorda, I will vote Dom.

S~V~S wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

juliets wrote:SVS or TH who is Lily Potter and why should she not be believed?

Lily Potter is Harry Potters mother.

Also, since Dom is (likely) Bavmorda, I will vote Dom.

Can someone explain Dom=Bavmorda to me without using unverifiable claims like I am in k-garten? Did anyone else have need to silence MP? He was silence before the 2 person poll, was he not? Am I confused? Do I have to ask?

Linki :O

Perhaps explanations are not needed I ask?

MP claims he was silenced last phase by the Warden (who we know was Bass) and Bavmorda. Since Dom was the other lynch option, that means Dom is Bav.

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Is it interesting that TH tried to set up the whole "they're both bad" thing, isn't it?

How is that interesting? That I was right?

And didn't you say the same thing yourself?

No I didn't, I questioned you about it. That led to the "I was stoned" thing on your part. That was what i was talking about.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh you in trouble.

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I am not on any team. I have no BTS partners because I am a civ~ do you doubt this?

I don't know SVS. You seem to be backing Dom up right now. It's got me worried about you.

Setting aside I'm 100% certain SVS is a civvie, she would be the last person I expect to back up or defend a teammate in this or any dire situation.

S~V~S wrote:How fast can I throw people under the greyhound?

Long Con/MP don't get mad at me for doing this again but:

Remember in Misfits when Canucklehead "gave up" and you sold her down the river so fast she forgot to bring a paddle?

Lily Potter wrote:MP, did you not see where I emphatically said "I am a civvie" and have said so for every day? Do you not recall how seriously I take LD statements? A question; do you have BTS with your recruits??

Lmao.

You *think* you saw something, lol.

Long Con wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Why would asking if a mystery object could rezz a civvie be a baddie thing?

Especially a civvie I had a large part in lynching?

Am I really going to bed this time?

I really think we should rez BR. She was unfairly taken out on NIGHT ONE by DF, DH, Bass, and that other Suit. She deserves a chance too. And since I'm pretty sure about her role, I could see the remaining baddies leaving her alone, since they could actually benefit from her role.

Also, I finally saw your... thing that happened. LOL at you, too good.

You really need to expand your search bro. You're gonna end up embarrassing yourself.

LC, whats you're obsession with the Suits, btw? You do know there are two mafia teams, right?

Maybe you know that all too well

Long Con wrote:Well, if Dom says that Bass is likely to be a Civvie, then I guess that's that. Seems strange to me. If I was in a fight to the death with the Pope himself, you can bet your ass I would shank that mutha.

Dom, you had all the opportunity in the world to make a case that Bass is bad in order to save your life, and you did the opposite. So, from me, you get the opposite as well.

*votes Dom*

Aight so you vote Dom because he's not willing to throw Bass to the wolves.

Long Con wrote:

Dom wrote:Building a case against a player who isn't even here to respond to anything?
LC it sounds like you want me to commit suicide.

Clearly we have different expectations about what would have happened. I guess that's fine, but from my perspective, you made the wrong decision.

From a personal standpoint, I hope you don't get lynched, to be honest. Bass is a fine dude and I enjoy playing with him, but you out of all players have been one of the most engaging to play with/against. Maybe because you have driven me crazy to the point of laying out a case pixel by pixel and doing a paragraph discussion on each one... but the more involved and invested one gets in a Mafia game, the more fun it is.

If I didn't vote for you, would you bring that Dom to the table?

DharmaHelper wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:My question is why are we only just now hearing this defense of bass? Why did no one say this when he was brought up on Day 3 for being suspicious to Roxy for his lack of participation?

Well, if you're asking everyone, lets start with yourself. Why didn't you bring this up D3?

OH, ask me, ask me!

But you don't want him to be lynched. Why would you vote for someone you don't want lynched? Why would you continue to press on, interrogate, build a case on, someone you do not want lynched? Makes no sense.

Long Con wrote:

Dom wrote:If you hope I don't get lynched, then why are you voting for me?
Out of principle?
(Because that's what you're criticizing me for)

I would say there is a massive chasm of difference between your situation and mine, and any criticisms would have an equally vast difference. "Principle". That's so broad.

I voted for you because your actions made me suspicious that you're a baddie. I could easily be wrong about that. Was your targeting of Tyler benign, or offensive? Have you asked the host if you're allowed to reveal anything about Tyler's identity? Is that something you're interested in doing? There's an argument that knowing who Tyler is would a) keep this situation from happening again, b) show us someone we seemingly don't need to suspect, and c) pretty much ensure a Champions Win for Tyler Durden.

You think he's a baddie, but you don't want him to be lynched? That makes even more sense. A civvie would see a baddie lynch as a positive.

Long Con wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Made wrote:Damn, nice guys. Full transparency, If i would of got into thread before the lynch was over I would of voted Dom, so good thing i didn't.
Raised over $1000 at last night fundraiser!!!!

Going to do a more thorough read, but from the little i skimmed, caught this:
Is forcing a tie so a civvie(stanley) decided the lynch a good idea in close lynches.

How do you know Dom is a civvie? If you had broken the tie and gone with Dom, we still had a possibility of lynching a baddie, just not the Warden.

So, if we find out Dom is a baddie, then you could easily come back to this statement and say, "Look, I was right about him!"

That would be good for your rep, wouldn't it?

This is just a classic, textbook example of what I'm talking about. You *yourself* confess to thinking Dom is bad. But when I present my thoughts on it, I'm doing what? Covering my ass? Glass Houses. You're ignoring logic and reason to force the narrative that I am bad, and doing a poor job of it.

[quote="Long Con"]Congrats on the survival, Dom! I'm so happy to have taken out another one of those Suits jerks!

I'll vote later on the Doc, I'll vote for someone who has no votes yet when I do.[/quote]

Another one of your anti-suit statements. I'm sure if Boe checked that, it would come back true

Long Con wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm glad you see how ridiculous your point was.

Totally ridiculous, I now see how Dom is definitely not on your team.

I'm gonna assume this was meant as sarcastic as my comment was meant to come off. MP, you've been talking about failed/flawed logic all game. Can you see the flaw in LC's logic here? He's talking himself in a loop. Throwing anything that helps his "DH is bad" theory up onto the wall to see where it sticks. Am I a suit? Am I Dom's teammate? Which is it :P

God damn quotes.

Long Con wrote:My Dom lynching time was not entirely logical, but I think that was clear. I was of two minds - on one hand, I thought Dom's actions showed he was bad, so he got my vote. On the other hand, I like playing with Dom, and I felt bad that he got stuck in the two-man-lynch situation, so I hoped he'd survive and keep playing. I chose logic over emotion in my vote, but both sides were in play for me.

As for my DH-lynching activities... well, you seem to be right, you can't be on both baddie teams. You've got me there, it's true.

"Seem to be right". Mhm

So why did you peddle false logic like crack?

Turnip Head wrote:

Long Con wrote:My Dom lynching time was not entirely logical, but I think that was clear. I was of two minds - on one hand, I thought Dom's actions showed he was bad, so he got my vote. On the other hand, I like playing with Dom, and I felt bad that he got stuck in the two-man-lynch situation, so I hoped he'd survive and keep playing. I chose logic over emotion in my vote, but both sides were in play for me.

As for my DH-lynching activities... well, you seem to be right, you can't be on both baddie teams. You've got me there, it's true.

I think DH is a suit. He ignored the case on DF, DF voted to save him, and he went after Dom during the Bass lynch.

I ignored the majority of that phase of the game. I wasn't feeling well.

Long Con wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Long Con wrote:My Dom lynching time was not entirely logical, but I think that was clear. I was of two minds - on one hand, I thought Dom's actions showed he was bad, so he got my vote. On the other hand, I like playing with Dom, and I felt bad that he got stuck in the two-man-lynch situation, so I hoped he'd survive and keep playing. I chose logic over emotion in my vote, but both sides were in play for me.

As for my DH-lynching activities... well, you seem to be right, you can't be on both baddie teams. You've got me there, it's true.

"Seem to be right". Mhm

So why did you peddle false logic like crack?

I'm a whimsical fellow. I don't think that discrediting me will save you though.

My point being that if you were a civvie, and your suspicion of me genuine, you would have built a case around me being on one team rather than a case that simply broadly painted me as bad, which is what you did.

Therefore, you don't care if what you're saying is right, or even makes logical sense, you're just pushing it out there in order to get me lynched, and to make yourself look like a baddie hunter.

1. Connection to DF/Me not defending - There is no connection to DF. I keep saying "you're wrong" because, you are. I wouldn't lie to you or LC. Well, considering mafia is a game where you lie... What do you mean by there's no connection?

I mean that there is no connection between myself and DF. We are not/were not teammates, despite the assertions made by LC and whoever else keeps bringing up DF / me. I have no teammates.

As a side note, Mafia is a game where *baddies* lie, I'll grant you. But I'm no baddie, so I have been truthful.

Long Con wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I have no teammates.

I don't believe you. The Dom stuff I was just speculating on how you were commenting on him and what it could mean. It looked like baddie teammate talk to me, so I said something.

The DFaraday connection is too potent to be denied.

My top three suspects are Dom, DharmaHelper, and S~V~S, and I'm looking forward to a few days of baddie lynching.

I don't believe you. You have been careless and opportunistic in 100% of your suspicions. No civ would do that. You are bad, and your mountain of bullshit will collapse, burying you underneath.

Oh wow oh man what an incredibly unforeseeable result.

zeek wrote:You're being absurd. You're saying you should have less skeptism but your win conditions aren't known because you have secrets. We don't know if they affect the win conditions we know about.

It is our highest concern. We should decide, right now at night, whether to give you a pass or not. Fact is you're not civ and we all know it. We should decide whether to trust you at your word or not. Then when lynch time does approach we can focus on lynching a bad guy. Stop saying we shouldn't consider lynching you because we should, you may have no interest in helping us. You can be very influential because everybody knows and likes you but not considering lynching you is the truly absurd concept here, don't pretend it isn't. You don't get trust points because we know you're not on a team.

What concerns can I speak to? The ONLY person who has actually given ANY reason to suspect me is Roxy, which I have addressed. My voting record. I voted very early for Bass. None of my other votes have counted yet. What do you want me to say about that? Everybody else have only mentioned me in passing, like yourself, despite the fact I'm not on any suspect list. Suspecting me for suspecting's sake. You've given no reason yourself, just I should be looked at. I don't want to invite you to try to make a case against me, but what reason have I given you not to trust me? (Asking for an Indy's trust, priceless ) People should trust me because I'm a civ trying my best. I can't give you any evidence or out myself, sorry about that.

My top suspects are Snow Dog and DharmaHelper. Try looking at their voting records.

Did I say I demand you take the Ring? Don't be dramatic, ask for the Ring and actually help us out. I won't ever vote for you if you do.

You seem oddly obsessed with voting records.

S~V~S wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Just in case anyone is still confused.....
I think Epi was pretty clear. If YOU want the ring. You must PM him and tell him you want it. It's not a voting thing. We don't PM him and give him a name of a player we want the ring to go to. You can only ask for it for yourself. How he will decide who to give it to among those who want it, I don't know.

I pmed him a name other than my own and said I wanted to give that person the ring. He said, "OK but they have to ask for it". Paraphrased because we can't reproduce host PMs, but not by much.

So we can send in another name. If he told someone otherwise I am ultra confused.

Given that the ring is rather dangerous, could you walk me through your thought process in giving it to someone you think is civ, as opposed to just not sending a PM?

timmer wrote:Sorry I've been absent a bit. I would like the ring, if people need someone to choose. I will PM-ing the host now.

That's such a Boromir thing to say.

I got it Eloh.

Deep breaths.

Made I am surprised at you honestly I would have thought you would've picked up on what I'm getting at by now :/

RIP TH.

Am verr slheepy sory for lame pos but I will lbeeo looking at LC tofay to vote. Byt I habe r dash ry so I'll vote ;ater

Alright alright alright! Lets get cracking. Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls of all ages, sit back, relax, and prepare for a post that will rival the novelist MP! I promise, by the end of it you will be mesmerized, hypnotized, and most likely ostracized! Ours is a tale of hyperbole, hypocrisy, and obsession. Shall we begin?

**EDITORS NOTE** I've color coded several phrases, just to keep my own head on right when making this post. Hopefully, the color coding helps you understand as you read it too.

Long Con wrote:

reywaS wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Can I assume since you responded with this 7 minutes after I voted for metalmarsh that this is directed at me? If it was directed at me, I must ask what makes it a humorous tactic? Why is it a humorous tactic as opposed to any legitimate attempt at playing the game?

I didn't read DH as specifically targeting you with that statement. You seem to me to be jumping to the defensive pretty quickly... especially since I didn't find your vote for MM particularly humourous or... antical?

Anyways, that made you my best choice for a Day One vote. *votes reywaS*

LC's very early vote for Rey, giving a (wrong and IMO poorly thought out) reason for doing so. In and of itself, not too damning. But this vote is part of a much larger whole, one that will become clear very shortly.

Long Con wrote:

reywaS wrote:I don't understand that metaphor, DH.

Linki: Seriously? I got "up in arms"? So, in addition to fabricating a reason to vote for me, you are now going to use hyperbole to try to further justify your vote?

I just read your post again. Maybe something is lost/gained in translation because it's pure text, but I think the situation called for, at most, a "Was that at me, DH?"

You put a string of three increasingly defensive questions in one paragraph.

reywaS wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Humorous antics are an often effective way to deflect suspicion in the early days of mafia games.

Can I assume since you responded with this 7 minutes after I voted for metalmarsh that this is directed at me? If it was directed at me, I must ask what makes it a humorous tactic? Why is it a humorous tactic as opposed to any legitimate attempt at playing the game?

Don't you think it reads pretty defensively?

Linkitis: That's fine, rey. I am not planning on getting up in arms about this, it's a Day One vote, not a lynch train. Also, watch those shrugs. I got accused last game of too many shrugs, and that was a non-committal baddie tactic.

After a back and forth with Rey, LC posts the above. I will highlight a phrase that seems...familiar. Let's move further down this rabbit hole and see where it takes us.

Long Con wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

juliets wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Again I should say nothing I find overly suspicious at this moment in time, but I just thought the coincidence was funny. The same sort of scenario coming up in the game that I won to get to this game, now coming up in this game. Cosmically improbable, yet here we are.

As it stands I'm mulling over a vote for LC.

DH can you expand a little on why you are mulling over a vote for LC? What are you seeing?

I don't like his exchange with Rey. I'll let you go back and read it for yourself, but it just did not ring true to me. LC is a good enough player not to want to rush into things with such slapdash and paper-thin logic

Which logic exactly was paper-thin? I don't think it makes me not a good player to have cast that vote.

And re: reywaS' point about your S~V~S post... I didn't actually read the whole comparison word-for-word, because it was to block-of-texty, but I thought the gist of it was that you were drawing a deliberate connection to suggest that S~V~S was a baddie. I think you're playing a cavalier kind of game, this isn't the first time this game you've had to do several posts of explanation how you're not really accusing anyone with your "observations".

Highlighted two key phrases here. LC admits to not having actually read the post he is basing his suspicions of me off of. Ain't that some shit? I've also highlighted the first of several hypocritical statements regarding "mudslinging" as LC would put it. Recall if you will above, his exchange with Reywas.

Long Con wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Long Con wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

juliets wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Again I should say nothing I find overly suspicious at this moment in time, but I just thought the coincidence was funny. The same sort of scenario coming up in the game that I won to get to this game, now coming up in this game. Cosmically improbable, yet here we are.

As it stands I'm mulling over a vote for LC.

DH can you expand a little on why you are mulling over a vote for LC? What are you seeing?

I don't like his exchange with Rey. I'll let you go back and read it for yourself, but it just did not ring true to me. LC is a good enough player not to want to rush into things with such slapdash and paper-thin logic

Which logic exactly was paper-thin? I don't think it makes me not a good player to have cast that vote.

And re: reywaS' point about your S~V~S post... I didn't actually read the whole comparison word-for-word, because it was to block-of-texty, but I thought the gist of it was that you were drawing a deliberate connection to suggest that S~V~S was a baddie. I think you're playing a cavalier kind of game, this isn't the first time this game you've had to do several posts of explanation how you're not really accusing anyone with your "observations".

"You got a little defensive here in this one post" Is a wobbly, weak reason for such an early vote. I don't necessarily care if it is Day 1 or Day 8, a vote is a vote. And you can't honestly tell me it is a civvie thing to do or in the civvies best interest to vote that early for that reason.

Why not? Are you against generating discussion, and gauging reactions? You'd prefer if everyone voted low posters or random or for no reason?

I've highlighted this post for later. I've already addressed how overblown and defensive this post was, and I maintain that. This is not only a clear and blatantly intentional misread of my post, but also a highly defensive reaction. Remember when Long Con jumped on Rey for being "overly defensive"? This case LC has built, has been built inside a Glass House.

Speaking of defensive:
Taken from this post which won't allow me to quote it due to the quote limit. The post itself is rather large and filled with a very charged defensiveness on LC's part, but this snippet I have posted here should be pretty telling.

Long Con wrote:You're the one using "tactics" here, DH, not me, and it should be obvious to anyone reading your posts. You're just full of adverbs, aren't you? "Ravenously", that's a good one. That's my favourite. You should know by now to tone down the excessive colour commentary in your posts. What you are trying to do is put lipstick on a pig. I'm not a baddie, my vote for Rey was because of a Day One ping, nothing more. You, however, have been doing your damnedest to be subtly mudslinging, only to back off entirely if someone acknowledges it. More than once, and that's saying a lot for Day One.

Alright Mr. Mudslinger, Captain Adverb, Doctor Lipstick Von Pig, I'll tone down the commentary in *my* posts.

Long Con wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I won't be voting for MM or Rey, I found their early votes harmless and I believe MM when he says he did it to get a reaction. LC's vote by contrast I thought felt opportunistic and trying to make something out of nothing on Day 1. My vote might be headed there.

Much like Bea I have to be at work today. Normally I get chances to sneak some mafia'ing in at work but I likely won't be able to today so I'll probably be voting soon

I wasn't "making something out of nothing". I thought Rey's post was a lot more defensive than the situation called for, and that was suspicious to me. If you want to vote for someone who is making something out of nothing, then Dharmahelper is the one you should be going for. Not to mention he's mudslinging to see if he can get something to stick, then backing off when questioned about it.

It's funny that some people think they can read so much into one vote, and yet they completely close their eyes to a player that has several undeniable instances of suspicious activity already under their belt.

Linki: Well, that gives me some hope that your vote won't go my way.

This post is another interesting one. Note his mention of rey's defensiveness? His immediate campaign to actually get other players to vote for me by deflecting attention off of himself and on to me? He finishes it with another "mudslinging" accusation, which as I've established with his Rey suspicion is more than a tad ironic.

Long Con wrote:I don't think you're bad because you're after me. I think you're bad because you're mudslinging and backing off.

Finally, a small post to quote. His criteria for me being bad is essentially exactly what he himself did with Rey. Enough said.

Long Con wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:If I had been trying to build a case, I would have done so and done so in a way that took absolutely zero account for what anyone thought about it. I'm not the type of player to care at all if anyone agrees or disagrees with my suspicions. If I suspect someone, I'll make sure they know it.

That's all cool, I believe you. That's how you build your cases, I think that's most likely an accurate description. I can't say for sure, because, like I said, I don't really have a good memory for what people did and how they did it in past games.

The way someone builds a case and the way someone mudslings are different things, though. I was accusing you of mudslinging.

I hear your defenses about it, and I'm not trying to argue them. Smart players, when mudslinging, will have a way out of it if it comes back on them.

I'll just break it down slightly so we can avoid any unnecessary back-and-forth. It all comes down to whether or not people believe that you were hoping to start some suspicion or not, when you brought up the Federal Case, or the Misfits reference.

You went from "Twice in one game seems funky to me" to "Nothing I was gonna put a vote behind anyway" on the Federal Case. The first statement is a suggestion of suspicion. The second is wiping your hands clean of it. That one's pretty direct, and as a smart player, you have the way out with "I didn't know that expression but now I do, so never mind".

The Misfits thing you introduced with "deja vu is a bitch", which doesn't give any clear indication of how you feel about connecting this game situation to the Misfits one. I was unclear when I read it what your intentions were, but I assumed you were drawing a connection between games to argue S~V~S' possible baddieness in this game. You came in right away and said it's not something you find "overly suspicious", which isn't quite the same as "I don't find this suspicious".

And it's not really something I would usually say, but since I'm sampling DH-style here and there: Mudslinging is not what's generally conceived of as Civvie behaviour.

I realize this post is getting rather long. and I have MUCH more to say, so I'm gonna try and wrap this up and do a Part Two:

Once again, Long Con's double-standard and hypocritical suspicions shine through. Let me break THIS down for you, so YOU understand, bub

Remember that Reywas vote? Remember how he went from that to "Calm down Rey, its just a day one vote, nothing to I'm gonna get up in arms about"?

Ehem:
The first is a (very clear) statement of suspicion. The second is wiping his hands clean of it.

I think that's as good a place as any to end this Part I of my LC case before it gets too long. I'll have another post up soonish continuing what we've established here.

Long Con wrote:

I stand by everything I said. Your comparisons to denote hypocrisy are weak... are you trying to wipe your record clean of the accusations I put out there, so you can move forward in this lynch bereft of suspicion? Or are you trying to make me look like I'm a baddie because you can twist my words to look like they have something in common with your words... so I'm a baddie like you?

I think I laid out quite clearly the similarities between what I said and what you said.

My point being, you can't build a suspicion on hypocrisy. As I've been saying this whole time, your suspicion of me is a giant, illogical, poorly slapped together farce.

Long Con wrote:I don't see how proving "hypocrisy" equates with the suspicions against you being wrong.

Yeah you do.

You're case on me is wrong for a number of reasons. The fact that you have to dig deep enough by resorting to double-standards and hypocrisy being one of them. If it were genuine, if you yourself were genuine, you would not have to resort to such weak, easily disputed points. You're building a case to look civvie, not to hunt baddies. So you're doing exactly what you claim I was doing. Throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Nothing in your case follows the logic, merit, or validity of a civvie case.

Pot. Kettle.

To put it another way:

If you suspect I am bad for doing the things that you are doing, how do you explain doing the things that you suspect I am bad for doing?

Long Con wrote:

zeek wrote:I believe the last two Suits are either her, DH or Snowy. Your point about her suspecting LC (in theory a teammate) a little but not too hard, works if DH is her teammate as well, as he was in her Top 3 Suspects but saying she's just unsure about him.

If Daisy is a Suit, then DH is her teammate. Note that in all DH's grand interesting colourful post, he didn't touch on what I consider to be the most damning baddie indicator, the DFaraday connection.

Note that I said I wasn't finished, and also note that, I've addressed the DF thing in several other posts.

Note that Long Con seems to have ignored both of those notes

Noted.

"Indirectly"

Roxy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Rox and everyone else, think about my actions.

If I was playing an Indy game, why the hell would I have risked outing Dom? It makes NO sense whatsoever.

My posts aren't irritated indy, they're irritated indy who has played civ-friendly all game and now is finding that absolutely no one trusts him whatsoever.

All I was asking is that my opinion is considered, like anyone else's. I'm not saying I'm infallible. I'm not saying anything even remotely like that. But if no one is even going to consider my opinion as possibly valid, then that's fine, but I won't bother building cases. Would you? It's a waste of my time.

It's everyone's irrational fear of Indies that is causing me to stop building cases, not that I'm not playing a civ-friendly game.

What keeps pinging me is that you keep saying you outed dom - which is wrong - TH did. That and your not so veiled threats. I might feel better about you if it werenkt for those pesky secretsinyour role description.

Uhm, actually, in MP's defense, he did out Dom. Dom even had a fit about it specifically because it was MP that did it.

EBWOP: Is it fucked up that I started a sentence with "In his defense" and ended it with "He outed somebody."

FTR I could see MP picking SD as his narrator. Though I am disapointed that he didn't pick me I thought we were ride or die homies

Funny or Die 4 lyf

I have played an exceptionally transparent game, IMO.

My O as well.