Re: [Day 0] Bullets Over Broadway Mafia
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:06 pm
Thanks epi.
Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
Is this Day 0 buddying?Gumshoe wrote:It's a decent theory. No one is ENTIRELY a unique little snowflake no matter what our mothers tell us. If one person thought of it then it's possible others have as well.MovingPictures07 wrote:So because it is line with your mafia meta to do something, you extrapolate to mean that it is likely within someone else's meta, whom you've never met, as well?Cobalt wrote:My eye is on Devin almost immediately because of that joking truce thing. Mafia Cobalt tries to jokingly buddy up to people to see if they'd be receptive to it or not.
I don't give a fuck, y'all can vote for me whenever you want, if you want. Just keep in mind that the most recent mafia game I played my day 3 scum reads list was 5/6 accurate and I got MVP. I don't know you guys as well as that crowd but I do have decent instincts.nutella wrote:Basically thisLong Con wrote: Here's the general rule I use with new players. If it comes down to a vote that's based on very little, I'll probably avoid going for them in the spirit of community friendliness. If there's a bigger or more stand-out suspicion on a new player, then I'll probably vote for them despite their newness.
Are you implying that we shouldn't vote for you because you have good instincts? What does that have to do with your alignment?
Mafia probably have better "instincts" than the rest of us anyway.
Which game was that? I don't remember doing those things.Scotty wrote:Weren't you mafia last game? I do remember you personally leading a preemptive charge against me Day 1 for my first mafia game, and then proceeding to night kill me Night 1. Which was slightly irritating for my first game, but hey, that's the game. Correct me if I'm wrong with my info tho.Long Con wrote:This all got very interesting. I see MP07 is going full-swing with the Question-Hammer, good to see! Gets people talking.
Here's the general rule I use with new players. If it comes down to a vote that's based on very little, I'll probably avoid going for them in the spirit of community friendliness. If there's a bigger or more stand-out suspicion on a new player, then I'll probably vote for them despite their newness.
I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.
Linki: I also suspect Gumshoe and Devin of being criminally fraternal in some subtle way.
Actually, the way I remember it, was you buddied up to MY reads, and I was like, "Hey, this is all right!" I didn't do it intentionally... more like the reads I put out there matched what yours were and you noted it and felt a certain Civvie kinship with me. And fingersplints was that godlike vigi/JOAT that rolechecked me and then killed me when she wasn't getting much traction on my lynch.Cobalt wrote:Long Con buddied up to my reads and he was my strongest civ read and he wound up being mafia. Thank fuck for a godlike vigi / JOAT. Won't be making that mistake again.
It's also why I'm coming for his weave this game.
Not really, no.S~V~S wrote:Gumshoe & I both used the word "Interesting" as well.
I can't speak for LC or Gumshoe, but I thought todays discussion WAS interesting. You did not find it so, Epi? Out of all that discussion the only thing that caught your eye was one word?
Oh here we are again. What am I distracting people from now? Not posting? Pizza Hut commercials?S~V~S wrote:This feels somewhat distractionary to me.
You've just named every possibility and then conceded there are other possibilities.S~V~S wrote:Either you don't want people to talk about the other discussion today, or maybe you're doing some rather fancy distancing with LC, since it is unlikely that he is going to get lynched over "interesting". Or maybe you are just doing some standard issue Epi mind games and intentionally enigmatic crap. Not sure which, maybe all, maybe none.
So I'm right, but it's okay when you do it?nutella wrote:Epi, I disagree with your criticisms. True, "interesting" is kind of a vacuous term but I and others use it all the time. And I also say things like "I don't know what to think about [whatever interaction has been going on in the thread]" because I feel like such interactions merit acknowledgment/I feel like I have to comment on them regardless of my alignment.
Epignosis wrote:Why? What changed your mind, that you should "very vocally oppose those who took this view" to "recently come around to this line of thinking?"MovingPictures07 wrote:***I would like to avoid voting a player completely new to The Syndicate on Day 1. I used to very vocally oppose those who took this view, but I have recently come around to this line of thinking. I do think it would suck to come to a new site and get lynched Day 1 your first game, so newbies will get a "free pass" from me, but only from my vote (not any suspicion I have), and if they are my top suspect going into Day 2, I will not hesitate to vote for a newbie.
MovingPictures07 wrote:What likelihood would you give to this being the case in this game?
Epignosis wrote:I'll answer that question as soon as you point me to a single instance when probability ever did anything for me.
MovingPictures07 wrote:How about a different question:
If you had to choose, instinctively, do you believe my set of statements is due to the fact that I am indeed mafia with a new player on my team or due to some other reason?
Epignosis wrote:Is there a reason you're not forthcoming about my initial question?
MovingPictures07 wrote:Perhaps.
Epignosis wrote:OK then.
MovingPictures07 wrote:Gun to head read (if you have to pick immediately), civilian or mafia, for Epignosis, me, and sig. Go.Devin the Omniscient wrote:Newbie to the site. And I agree with you there. But no more than Day 1 or 2. It should give us enough time to get to know the new player while giving us a chance to feel out everyone else.
Epignosis wrote:I'm telling you up front I ain't answering any of this GTH bullshit.
And I ain't doing any ISOs.
And I damn sure ain't doing no rainbows reads. I've got Reading Rainbow, and that's enough rainbow reading for me.
.... That's a shoving match if I ever saw one. Would you prefer pissing contest? I was never that fond of that one... and it's only chicks that say they're "going to go and get a ruler", so I didn't want to use those euphamisms. Shoving match.MovingPictures07 wrote:Fair enough, of course, you're free to play however you want.
"Interesting" is a somewhat empty term, I agree. It says little about what the speaker thinks about the content in question beyond not being bored by it. It is appropriate to use on the conversation between you, MP, and Devin though, because there was very little content, and yet it was compelling nonetheless to see you guys sink your teeth in. So yeah... "interesting".Epignosis wrote:As promised:
No it didn't. It's all Day 0 dicking around. Nothing has gotten interesting at all. "Interesting" is a stupid word. Stop using it Mafia.Long Con wrote:This all got very interesting.
According to LC, MP is getting people talking, and it's "good to see." Hold that in mind.Long Con wrote:I see MP07 is going full-swing with the Question-Hammer, good to see! Gets people talking.
If you "don't know what to think" about something, why in hell bring it up? Does anybody care that you don't know what to think about something? Why not keep quiet until you do know what you think?Long Con wrote:I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.
And why characterize my exchange with MP as a "shoving match?" That can't be genuine. In this same post, LC said MP was "swinging the question hammer," which is "good to see." Now he's not sure what to think about the Epi/MP "shoving match?"
This doesn't smell right to me.
I'm voting Long Con, except I can't because Hedgeowl hasn't voted 18 yet.
Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."
Nah.Long Con wrote:Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."
why not?Epignosis wrote:Nah.Long Con wrote:Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."
I don't buy that you were doing that.
I reread it, and I still find it interesting. I want to see where it goes, and tbh, I found you jumping on a word to be MORE interesting. Which was why that was what I chose to comment on.Epignosis wrote:Not really, no.S~V~S wrote:Gumshoe & I both used the word "Interesting" as well.
I can't speak for LC or Gumshoe, but I thought todays discussion WAS interesting. You did not find it so, Epi? Out of all that discussion the only thing that caught your eye was one word?
What of the discussion was interesting to you? You used the word, but you didn't say how. You said you looked forward to rereading it, but you haven't done so. Instead, you are focusing on me.
My issue is not that people use the word, but that they don't explain. If you call something interesting, then say why. Otherwise, you are talking and not saying anything. If I say "S~V~S is suspicious," what you are going to do?
You're going to ask "Why?"
This is no different.
You posted a picture of llama's avatar, and now you're questioning me. This tells me nothing about what you found interesting before 4pm EST today. It leads me to believe you didn't really find anything interesting at all.
Oh here we are again. What am I distracting people from now? Not posting? Pizza Hut commercials?S~V~S wrote:This feels somewhat distractionary to me.
You've just named every possibility and then conceded there are other possibilities.S~V~S wrote:Either you don't want people to talk about the other discussion today, or maybe you're doing some rather fancy distancing with LC, since it is unlikely that he is going to get lynched over "interesting". Or maybe you are just doing some standard issue Epi mind games and intentionally enigmatic crap. Not sure which, maybe all, maybe none.
You speak, yet say nothing.
You are on my suspect list.
++++
So I'm right, but it's okay when you do it?nutella wrote:Epi, I disagree with your criticisms. True, "interesting" is kind of a vacuous term but I and others use it all the time. And I also say things like "I don't know what to think about [whatever interaction has been going on in the thread]" because I feel like such interactions merit acknowledgment/I feel like I have to comment on them regardless of my alignment.
Long Con didn't focus on what he learned, as he implied. He focused on what I called him out on. That's why his style wasn't to garner reactions. It was to say something without saying anything. Now he's making up reasons.Sloonei wrote:why not?Epignosis wrote:Nah.Long Con wrote:Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."
I don't buy that you were doing that.
What did you find interesting prior to 4pm EST and why?S~V~S wrote:I reread it, and I still find it interesting. I want to see where it goes, and tbh, I found you jumping on a word to be MORE interesting. Which was why that was what I chose to comment on.
Which was perhaps your intention
And I am sure I will lay awake all night in fear at being on your suspect list.
maybe he responded to what you called him out on because you called him out on it. Why should he share everything that he might learn right away?Epignosis wrote:Long Con didn't focus on what he learned, as he implied. He focused on what I called him out on. That's why his style wasn't to garner reactions. It was to say something without saying anything. Now he's making up reasons.Sloonei wrote:why not?Epignosis wrote:Nah.Long Con wrote:Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."
I don't buy that you were doing that.
Your reaction is ongoing, and so is the learning. I thought you wanted me to stay silent until my opinions are formed, now you're attacking me for what I haven't said yet?Epignosis wrote:Long Con didn't focus on what he learned, as he implied. He focused on what I called him out on. That's why his style wasn't to garner reactions. It was to say something without saying anything. Now he's making up reasons.Sloonei wrote:why not?Epignosis wrote:Nah.Long Con wrote:Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."
I don't buy that you were doing that.
Because he didn't learn anything.Sloonei wrote:maybe he responded to what you called him out on because you called him out on it. Why should he share everything that he might learn right away?Epignosis wrote:Long Con didn't focus on what he learned, as he implied. He focused on what I called him out on. That's why his style wasn't to garner reactions. It was to say something without saying anything. Now he's making up reasons.Sloonei wrote:why not?Epignosis wrote:Nah.Long Con wrote:Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."
I don't buy that you were doing that.
Please run for office in America.Long Con wrote:Your reaction is ongoing, and so is the learning. I thought you wanted me to stay silent until my opinions are formed, now you're attacking me for what I haven't said yet?Epignosis wrote:Long Con didn't focus on what he learned, as he implied. He focused on what I called him out on. That's why his style wasn't to garner reactions. It was to say something without saying anything. Now he's making up reasons.Sloonei wrote:why not?Epignosis wrote:Nah.Long Con wrote:Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."
I don't buy that you were doing that.
It's not unlikely, though the the learning does not need to be immediate.Epignosis wrote:Because he didn't learn anything.Sloonei wrote:maybe he responded to what you called him out on because you called him out on it. Why should he share everything that he might learn right away?Epignosis wrote:Long Con didn't focus on what he learned, as he implied. He focused on what I called him out on. That's why his style wasn't to garner reactions. It was to say something without saying anything. Now he's making up reasons.Sloonei wrote:why not?Epignosis wrote:Nah.Long Con wrote:Yes, that's what happened. I'm glad that you can play your way and I can play my way. Makes for a richer, more fun game of Mafia. You can stay silent and form opinions and only speak when you have them, that's one way to do things. Another way to do things is to make a comment first and then observe the reactions of those who are commented about. You can learn a lot.Epignosis wrote:You said you didn't know what to think about it. Why say that? Useless. Form an opinion and then state it when you have one. You had other things to say, but you decided to drop that in there and call it a "shoving match."
I don't buy that you were doing that.
Do you think he learned anything?
If he has, then I need him to show me post game how this works. He is justifying why he was using vague terms.Long Con wrote:This all got very interesting. I see MP07 is going full-swing with the Question-Hammer, good to see! Gets people talking.
Here's the general rule I use with new players. If it comes down to a vote that's based on very little, I'll probably avoid going for them in the spirit of community friendliness. If there's a bigger or more stand-out suspicion on a new player, then I'll probably vote for them despite their newness.
I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.
Linki: I also suspect Gumshoe and Devin of being criminally fraternal in some subtle way.
Nothing was learned, Paprika.Sloonei wrote:you responded to the post, therefore it's possible that somethig was learned.
Epi it is. I don't like Rob while playing mafia because it's not in your username. I know if someone else said it I might be awfully confused. Out of mafia, I'll call you whatever you like.Epignosis wrote:Some say Epi, some say Epig. Or Rob.
Epignosis wrote:As promised:Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok I read the six post, but I would still like to know what you find suspicious.Epignosis wrote:It's Day 0. Long Con has six posts. I'm not posting a link for you. Read his posts and draw your own conclusion. Then tell me if you find anything suspicious.Bass_the_Clever wrote:Why? If you posted it already can you post a link.Epignosis wrote:I want to lynch Long Con. That's where my Day 1 vote will be going as of right now.
If you don't, then I'll gladly share what I found.
Is it because there are only six post, 3 of which are fluff posts?
Is it the MP/Epi shoving match post?
No it didn't. It's all Day 0 dicking around. Nothing has gotten interesting at all. "Interesting" is a stupid word. Stop using it Mafia.Long Con wrote:This all got very interesting.
According to LC, MP is getting people talking, and it's "good to see." Hold that in mind.Long Con wrote:I see MP07 is going full-swing with the Question-Hammer, good to see! Gets people talking.
If you "don't know what to think" about something, why in hell bring it up? Does anybody care that you don't know what to think about something? Why not keep quiet until you do know what you think?Long Con wrote:I'm not too pinged by this truce thing, and I don't know what to think about the shoving match between MP and Epig yet.
And why characterize my exchange with MP as a "shoving match?" That can't be genuine. In this same post, LC said MP was "swinging the question hammer," which is "good to see." Now he's not sure what to think about the Epi/MP "shoving match?"
This doesn't smell right to me.
I'm voting Long Con, except I can't because Hedgeowl hasn't voted 18 yet.
Epignosis wrote:HEDGEOWL!
Go vote 18.
Epignosis wrote:HOMEGIRL!
Oh I am not saying that. Did I say that? I was commenting on the earlier discussion about newbies, which SVS and LC are not. I am sympathetic to LC because of Epi's accusation around the word "interesting" but that's more because I am someone who overuses this word in life. I do find SVS' defense interesting (!) however. I would not say I am ready to vote based on any of this yet though. Mostly, I think there been a lot of huffing and puffing and MP's redonkulous rainbow list aside ( ), not much noteworthy in 5 pages that took me too long to read, so I agree with Epi there. I will say so far he reads like civ Epi to me, and I can never tell very well with LC.Golden wrote:Hedgeowl - if several people ended up voting for LC or SVS today, would you consider that there seemed to be good reasons for that, or are you saying that you find the reasons to suspect LC and SVS unconvincing?
I feel like I've seen a couple of people making fun of his list and I don't really understand why. Keeping a list rating how suspicious you are of each person in addition to your notes seems like a good idea. Is it just because his is color-coded?Hedgeowl wrote:MP's redonkulous rainbow list aside ( )
i'll also be using rainbow lists, just so everyone knows. get ready.Gumshoe wrote:I feel like I've seen a couple of people making fun of his list and I don't really understand why. Keeping a list rating how suspicious you are of each person in addition to your notes seems like a good idea. Is it just because his is color-coded?Hedgeowl wrote:MP's redonkulous rainbow list aside ( )
I found the specific one I wanted, plugged it in, and it said "nope, sorry, we hate you and wont let you have the avatar you want because you're not welcome here" ...something along those lines. So I threw in the towel like the bitter little quitter I am. But I suppose I could buckle up and give it one more shot.Scotty wrote:Gumshoe, get an avatar buddy. I keep scrolling through thinking your posts are continuations of the person before you.
Also, I like the way you talk, gum. Verbose. Like me. Can't wait to hear your soliloquy in the next scene.
I'm going to make my list in ever-so-slightly different shades of grey.Sloonei wrote:i'll also be using rainbow lists, just so everyone knows. get ready.Gumshoe wrote:I feel like I've seen a couple of people making fun of his list and I don't really understand why. Keeping a list rating how suspicious you are of each person in addition to your notes seems like a good idea. Is it just because his is color-coded?Hedgeowl wrote:MP's redonkulous rainbow list aside ( )