The Syndicate

Boogs wrote:

Long Con wrote:

keys56000000000 wrote:LC, you seem to be saying that you wouldn't be as much of a threat as the mafia, but it doesn't matter to the civ if they land on a mafia-owned hotel or a non-mafia-owned hotel. Sure, mafia have the NK, but a player with a hotel is still a threat to the civs.

Do you see a hotel? I have one BTSC partner, that's it.

But you each have a chance to find teammate 3 tonight. We have a one chance.

Can you show me where you supported keys' ideas from Day Zero? No, because you didn't say a single word about it. Now you are 100% in support of his ideals, you want to lynch a Civvie for finding one BTSC partner. Why so quiet about the concept earlier on, and so vehement about it now? It doesn't make sense to me, you opinion changing so drastically. If that's the way you felt about success, then the time to say it was days ago, when it was the hot topic in the thread.

Is it really a Civvie thing to do to wait until it happens and then come out strong to rally the thread against it? Is it a stand-up thing to do as a player? If you had made your feelings known then, then I might have said "Geez, if I bid for the Autofind then Boogs will go all spaz on me!" but you said nothing. Nothing while the bidding was happening, nothing until after it was all over.

I found a partner. Guess what. I'm probably not the only one. I'm still a Civvie. I will never be a baddie, and I may become a Last Man Standing in the future. I may not, I may stay Civvie until the end of the game.

thellama73 wrote:

zeek wrote:Well, MP makes a decent case. I do think Mafia should be our priority because they have a kill. But there is legitimate concern that LC, llama and a possible third partner could be Mafia. I'll probably vote either way as well. llama is saying he didn't 180 on LC because of BTSC but is convinced LC is civ. Yeah... something ain't right in that.

I also find declarations like "I have not found a partner" to be a bit bullshitty. Why even say it?

This is a lazy post. You're just latching onto an existing theory (a bad one at that). Why would a baddie be so careless as to just vouch for a teammate without explanation? Come on, Zeek, you know me better than that.

As to why I said "I have not found a teammate," there are two reason why I said it.

1) It's true.
2) I was accused of having found a teammate.

Brief, not lazy, as I had limited time to post. I was stating I also find it suspicious you say you don't have BTSC but you're convinced LC is civ. You say you're not voting for him but it really looks like you might have to if it comes down to the two of you. How good can your reading of LC be, if it was so different the previous day?

I don't know you better than that, I've played four cycles with you in Zelda. What I do know of you is that you're pretty clever. Clever enough to subvert expected behaviours of you.

The last bit of my post wasn't directed at you. I understand why you would do it. Stuff like this, however, didn't seem like a response in keeping with the flow of conversation:

Boogs wrote:BWT or I am a Civ who has no teammates yet and it fighting to stay alive and stop mega powerful teams from getting me first.

I'm potentially looking at a MetalMarsh vote today and wondering how much support there would be behind that.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm potentially looking at a MetalMarsh vote today and wondering how much support there would be behind that.

My main suspect from before this day, and nothing has changed my opinion.

Long Con wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I'm potentially looking at a MetalMarsh vote today and wondering how much support there would be behind that.

My main suspect from before this day, and nothing has changed my opinion.

I would support a MM vote.

Okay, so I have four pages to read since the host post at 12:07am this morning. That's just a bit overwhelming.

I'll vote for MM if it means protecting my alleged partner, LC.

I'm not sure how I feel about this MM push. There are other players one could say are as equally contributing as MM.

Splints, can you tell me how you feel about keys at the moment, and vice versa?

What do players think of juliets?

I'm keeping my vote where it is.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm keeping my vote where it is.

Is that vote now changeable, poll-functionality-wise?

MovingPictures07 wrote: What do players think of juliets?

I think juliets is bad.

I've decided I'm not going to make cases this game. I'm just going to say things and see what happens.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about this MM push. There are other players one could say are as equally contributing as MM.

Splints, can you tell me how you feel about keys at the moment, and vice versa?

What do players think of juliets?

I'm keeping my vote where it is.

I agree MP. I don't like the sudden change to MM but I also don't like so many people being quiet also. I think LC is the way to go and if he flips Civ, we have more Cred now to trust Llama. FZ was like a random train and I can see MM being that way too for us wasting a Civ getting lynched.

Boogs wrote:I think LC is the way to go and if he flips Civ, we have more Cred now to trust Llama.

That doesn't make any sense. The allegation is that I am LC's teammate, who he found with his autofind. How would LC flipping civ refute that allegation? It wouldn't.

Boogs, what do you mean the sudden "change" to MM? I didn't "change" - I never said anything about anyone else today. I find him suspicious. I am after baddies.

And that also flies in the face of my whole theory that a baddie could put trust publicly in a Civ, Boogs. Don't trust Llama when I flip Civ, lynch him next!

Or just change your vote and play a better, more fun game where you don't just take someone out for winning a prize, and instead focus on baddies.

Long Con wrote:And that also flies in the face of my whole theory that a baddie could put trust publicly in a Civ, Boogs. Don't trust Llama when I flip Civ, lynch him next!

Or just change your vote and play a better, more fun game where you don't just take someone out for winning a prize, and instead focus on baddies.

I can't believe you are gunnning for me when I have your back.

I don't understand how people are misrepresenting my case. In it, LC and Llama can either be railroads or LMSers. No one has refuted either of those interpretations. Either Boogs doesn't understand my theory or he is still suspecting LC based on his own theory, which is fine, but I just want this to be made clear.

My theory is thus:

1) Llama's switch of opinion on LC, as incredibly radical as it is, occurred because they gained BTSC Night 1.
2) LC's pursuit of and subsequent use of the autofind means that they both have BTSC with a third person, after Night 2 -- meaning, either if they are railroads or properties, they have either established their railroad team of three or a monopoly, both of which are civvie threats.

I don't take Llama's defense of "give me more credit!" as having any merit because:
1) It is WIFOM.
2) I believe if Llama really felt LC's change in behavior warranted THAT strong of an opinion alteration, he would have elaborated upon it originally, instead of just saying "I can read LC, and he looks good to me now!" He even says "his behavior since" or something to that effect, meaning he didn't even think that his behavior D1 and before warranted reevaluation on its own merit. It's very sloppy, IMO, but I could see Llama doing this if he thought he could get away with his WIFOM defense and/or hoping no one noticed it and pursued his lynch because of it.

Long Con wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm keeping my vote where it is.

Is that vote now changeable, poll-functionality-wise?

Yes, it is.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: What do players think of juliets?

I think juliets is bad.

I've decided I'm not going to make cases this game. I'm just going to say things and see what happens.

I agree; juliets is looking bad to me too. She seems unwilling to consider all perspectives like she does when civvie.

If I were to vote anyone other than you or LC today, it'd be her.

LC, your assertion that no one has said you can be a railroad is false. I've said so ever since presenting my case. You have not refuted it.

I am also not arguing your lynch based off of your winning a prize.

In fact, I could be convinced to vote juliets today; that is really the only other player I MIGHT consider. Even then I'd rather vote LC or Llama still, I believe. I will not vote for MM.

Boogs wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about this MM push. There are other players one could say are as equally contributing as MM.

Splints, can you tell me how you feel about keys at the moment, and vice versa?

What do players think of juliets?

I'm keeping my vote where it is.

I agree MP. I don't like the sudden change to MM but I also don't like so many people being quiet also. I think LC is the way to go and if he flips Civ, we have more Cred now to trust Llama. FZ was like a random train and I can see MM being that way too for us wasting a Civ getting lynched.

Ummmmm...what?

If we lynch LC and he flips civ, that doesn't necessarily mean he isn't llama's teammate.

I mean, sure, a railroad would be fine with winning that bet. But your train of logic doesn't suggest either way whether or not llama and LC are teammates. First you think we should be lynching people who have bought powers and properties, and now this. Is your logic meter broken this game? Because I really don't understand where you're coming from at all.

Why would we rather lynch a hypothetical Indy than look for baddies? You know, the guys with the kills?

Voting Boogs for now.

YOu've been an opportunist and a sloppy one at that, Boogs! Down you go.

Since we can change our votes, I'm going to steer away from LC and go for a llama vote. If llama flips bad, then that tells us one of two things:

1) Llama was buddying up to LC in an attempt to gain civ cred.
2) LC is also a baddie teammate.

IMO, we gain more info from a llama lynch than an LC lynch. And if one of the two is bad, I think it's more likely to be llama.

Votes llama

Linki: Boogs' ideas are opportunistic, for sure. I could see voting for him, but I need more to go off of than two crazy theories/ideas.

Boogs is acting strange, but I'm not sure he's bad.

S~V~S wrote:Why would we rather lynch a hypothetical Indy than look for baddies? You know, the guys with the kills?

Interesting question, S~V~S.

1) I've already said there's a possibility LC and Llama are railroads. Care to address how you know that to not be true?
2) What baddie hunting have you done?

juliets and S~V~S are very firmly on my radar.

MovingPictures07 wrote:juliets and S~V~S are very firmly on my radar.

And why am I on your radar?

juliets wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:juliets and S~V~S are very firmly on my radar.

And why am I on your radar?

Have I not already said why on this very page?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: What do players think of juliets?

I think juliets is bad.

I've decided I'm not going to make cases this game. I'm just going to say things and see what happens.

I agree; juliets is looking bad to me too. She seems unwilling to consider all perspectives like she does when civvie.

If I were to vote anyone other than you or LC today, it'd be her.

You have said NOTHING about my LC and Llama theory. Absolutely nothing. Not even a "I'll consider it".

You also have a "gut" feeling about MM, but you don't really seem genuinely interested in baddie hunting.

Additionally, when you are a civvie, you always go overboard in addressing accusations made against you. I mentioned your name twice before this post, and Llama did as well, and you said nothing.

juliets wrote:Boogs, what do you mean the sudden "change" to MM? I didn't "change" - I never said anything about anyone else today. I find him suspicious. I am after baddies.

Yesterday, you said you did a reread of me and saw nothing that stuck out to you, so you changed your opinion on me. So yes, you have flipflopped multiple times now.

And anyone wondering about the oddities in my Day 1 & 2 posts, please keep in mind that I was posting without the letter S, which forced me to change things up. It ain't easy simple a picnic.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

juliets wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:juliets and S~V~S are very firmly on my radar.

And why am I on your radar?

Have I not already said why on this very page?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: What do players think of juliets?

I think juliets is bad.

I've decided I'm not going to make cases this game. I'm just going to say things and see what happens.

I agree; juliets is looking bad to me too. She seems unwilling to consider all perspectives like she does when civvie.

If I were to vote anyone other than you or LC today, it'd be her.

You have said NOTHING about my LC and Llama theory. Absolutely nothing. Not even a "I'll consider it".

You also have a "gut" feeling about MM, but you don't really seem genuinely interested in baddie hunting.

Additionally, when you are a civvie, you always go overboard in addressing accusations made against you. I mentioned your name twice before this post, and Llama did as well, and you said nothing.

First, I have not seen my name mentioned before this post but I will go back and look to see what you and llama said.

Secondly, who says I'm not willing to consider all perspectives?? I have been thinking about the LC accusation since it was made and my opinion right at this moment is I'd rather go after a baddie than a one-day-might-be an indy. Just because I don't vocalize does not mean I am not considering what is being said.

Thirdly, what is your evidence that I don't seem genuinely interested in baddie hunting? Did you some how read my mind? What are you seeing I said that leads you to say I am not "genuinely interested". As you know, and don't even try to claim that you don't know it because it was already discussed earlier in this thread, I ask a lot of questions throughout the game to process information. I don't do a lot of case building but when I do it's after we're into the game and I feel like I have good evidence on someone. I'm never the one out there throwing out lots of theories and generally causing confusion. You know my game well, we have played plenty of times together. Which makes me really wonder what you are up to here.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: What do players think of juliets?

I think juliets is bad.

I've decided I'm not going to make cases this game. I'm just going to say things and see what happens.

No wonder I missed this. So llama, what is it about me you think is bad?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

juliets wrote:Boogs, what do you mean the sudden "change" to MM? I didn't "change" - I never said anything about anyone else today. I find him suspicious. I am after baddies.

Yesterday, you said you did a reread of me and saw nothing that stuck out to you, so you changed your opinion on me. So yes, you have flipflopped multiple times now.

And anyone wondering about the oddities in my Day 1 & 2 posts, please keep in mind that I was posting without the letter S, which forced me to change things up. It ain't easy simple a picnic.

Yes, I have changed my opinion on you after thinking about your posts. I was looking for something that stood out and didnt find it but after thinking through it a little more I came to the conclusion I mentioned earlier. I don't think you're the only one thats been off topic or just jokey in most of your posts. I know there are people who have not posted as much. I'm not looking at the ones who are low posting though because that usually turns out to be a bad idea when done too early.

You say I've flip-flopped multiple times. To my knowledge this is the only time i've changed my mind though maybe I'm forgetting something. Please provide links to those other places (you cannot just throw out generalizations at me and expect I'm going to just leave it alone). And remember, you said "flipflopped multiple times now". Multiple times I would say equals about 4 or more.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't understand how people are misrepresenting my case. In it, LC and Llama can either be railroads or LMSers. No one has refuted either of those interpretations. Either Boogs doesn't understand my theory or he is still suspecting LC based on his own theory, which is fine, but I just want this to be made clear.

My theory is thus:

1) Llama's switch of opinion on LC, as incredibly radical as it is, occurred because they gained BTSC Night 1.
2) LC's pursuit of and subsequent use of the autofind means that they both have BTSC with a third person, after Night 2 -- meaning, either if they are railroads or properties, they have either established their railroad team of three or a monopoly, both of which are civvie threats.

I don't take Llama's defense of "give me more credit!" as having any merit because:
1) It is WIFOM.
2) I believe if Llama really felt LC's change in behavior warranted THAT strong of an opinion alteration, he would have elaborated upon it originally, instead of just saying "I can read LC, and he looks good to me now!" He even says "his behavior since" or something to that effect, meaning he didn't even think that his behavior D1 and before warranted reevaluation on its own merit. It's very sloppy, IMO, but I could see Llama doing this if he thought he could get away with his WIFOM defense and/or hoping no one noticed it and pursued his lynch because of it.

Nope. Suspect Llama all you like, I'm not connected to him in any way, he's just trying to mess with me or something with this trust crap.

I'm on my phone and it's hard to search, what is it that makes me any more likely to be a railroad than you?

juliets wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

juliets wrote:Boogs, what do you mean the sudden "change" to MM? I didn't "change" - I never said anything about anyone else today. I find him suspicious. I am after baddies.

Yesterday, you said you did a reread of me and saw nothing that stuck out to you, so you changed your opinion on me. So yes, you have flipflopped multiple times now.

And anyone wondering about the oddities in my Day 1 & 2 posts, please keep in mind that I was posting without the letter S, which forced me to change things up. It ain't easy simple a picnic.

Yes, I have changed my opinion on you after thinking about your posts. I was looking for something that stood out and didnt find it but after thinking through it a little more I came to the conclusion I mentioned earlier. I don't think you're the only one thats been off topic or just jokey in most of your posts. I know there are people who have not posted as much. I'm not looking at the ones who are low posting though because that usually turns out to be a bad idea when done too early.

You say I've flip-flopped multiple times. To my knowledge this is the only time i've changed my mind though maybe I'm forgetting something. Please provide links to those other places (you cannot just throw out generalizations at me and expect I'm going to just leave it alone). And remember, you said "flipflopped multiple times now". Multiple times I would say equals about 4 or more.

The jokey posts (which I've actually toned down this game) are how I settle into every game I play. I get accused for it every time, but sorry, that's not something I'm changing. I can guarantee you I'll be more attentive when the Zelda game is over. Multiple = more than one, but I agree it is often interpreted differently.

But I thought your recent suspicion of me was rather convenient for you. You suspected me at first, then backed off because you decided after a reread you might be mistaken. But then the suspicion returned not as a product of anything I did or said, but because other players had brought my name forth. What I want to know is, if nothing I said changed your mind, then what did?

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: What do players think of juliets?

I think juliets is bad.

I've decided I'm not going to make cases this game. I'm just going to say things and see what happens.

I'm voting llama to see how he responds.

What changed my mind was as I thought about it i thought about the nature of your posts. There werent just one or two off posts there were a bunch. Like for example, you posted a lot of posts about that silly S thing that wasn't even part of the game but not as many about anything really in the game. When I first read your posts i was looking for something that stood out because thats what I felt like my vibe was coming from. But after thinking about it and letting it sit overnight i realized it was more the entire nature of your posts that was giving me the bad feeling. Se see there was nothing you said between my feeling one way and then feeling another, it was a matter of the way I was considering your posts.

With that said though, I hear what you are saying about the jokey posts/off topic posts being the way you settle into the game. i have my own way of settling in so I can understand when someone else does too. I'm not voting for you yet, there are other people I will look at tonight or i this next day. I may go back and look at hte last game we played Dr. Who and see how you read there in the beginning.

Voting Metalmarsh for now.

So what exactly is the case on MM again? I think I must have missed it.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:So what exactly is the case on MM again? I think I must have missed it.

Did you miss everything I said leading up to the Day Two lynch, when I voted Metalmarsh? Nothing has changed my opinion much from then to now, and if people are willing to throw some votes his way, well, he's my main suspicion.

Just let me know if you need me to remind you of the case I made back then, otherwise I'll let some of the newer Metalmarsh suspecters fill you in on their version of the case.

Long Con wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:So what exactly is the case on MM again? I think I must have missed it.

Did you miss everything I said leading up to the Day Two lynch, when I voted Metalmarsh? Nothing has changed my opinion much from then to now, and if people are willing to throw some votes his way, well, he's my main suspicion.

Just let me know if you need me to remind you of the case I made back then, otherwise I'll let some of the newer Metalmarsh suspecters fill you in on their version of the case.

No, I get your case on him. I meant how it seems like more people are jumping on the idea of voting for him. And I want to know if they're just latching onto an easy case, or if something else has happened that has changed peoples' opinions on him. Because right now, I don't have a read on him.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:So what exactly is the case on MM again? I think I must have missed it.

Did you miss everything I said leading up to the Day Two lynch, when I voted Metalmarsh? Nothing has changed my opinion much from then to now, and if people are willing to throw some votes his way, well, he's my main suspicion.

Just let me know if you need me to remind you of the case I made back then, otherwise I'll let some of the newer Metalmarsh suspecters fill you in on their version of the case.

No, I get your case on him. I meant how it seems like more people are jumping on the idea of voting for him. And I want to know if they're just latching onto an easy case, or if something else has happened that has changed peoples' opinions on him. Because right now, I don't have a read on him.

I responded to what TH asked me today and I believe he asked me because I had mentioned MM before. I think I explained my suspicion in my posts today and also that I hear what he's saying about my suspicions. I'm not sure there was anyone else except TH.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about this MM push. There are other players one could say are as equally contributing as MM.

Splints, can you tell me how you feel about keys at the moment, and vice versa?

What do players think of juliets?

I'm keeping my vote where it is.

I think keys is likely a civvie. His unified civvie theory and his comment about FZ make me believe so. I really cannot see any benefit for him to bring up such a plan if he was a baddie. He always posts very carefully, and almost over thinks his posts. I read that comment as sarcastic and one I think he would not likely make if he were bad.

I am also feeling alright about juliets so far this game. I feel like her name was thrown around in the beginning by players who don't understand how she plays, and I haven't seen anything indicative of a baddie juliets. She is a tricky one, but her responses have read genuine and helpful to me.

I'm not understanding the case on LC. Boogs pushing it seems incredibly sketchy. His motivation and suspicion seems unclear. I haven't had much time to read your posts about it tbh. I've had little time outside of work though, and what I had was focused on the Zelda game. Since I am no longer in that hopefully I can get my head fully into this one and look at that some.

What about me, Splintsy-Splints? We could vote Boogs together and be Boogs-Murder-Best-Friends!

fingersplints wrote:I'm not understanding the case on LC. Boogs pushing it seems incredibly sketchy. His motivation and suspicion seems unclear. I haven't had much time to read your posts about it tbh. I've had little time outside of work though, and what I had was focused on the Zelda game. Since I am no longer in that hopefully I can get my head fully into this one and look at that some.

I'm also thinking that those supporting it could have shady motives. I mean, they're actively pushing a plan that specifically advocates going after prize winners and Civvies who have found BTSC partners over looking for baddies.

thellama73 wrote:What about me, Splintsy-Splints? We could vote Boogs together and be Boogs-Murder-Best-Friends!

I am considering a vote for Boogs. Since his reasons seem insincere to me.

I am actually not sure how I feel about you yet. I don't have any reason to trust or not trust you. But if I understand the suspicion correctly, I don't think defending/agreeing with LC makes you bad either since we don't even know what he is yet. I'm not sure that btsc pairs would be so obvious with their connection tbh.

juliets wrote:boo: since the last post was around 12:07 am I'm asking you to consider moving our next post back to that 10:00 pm time frame. A lot goes on at the last minute and the later the time gets on the posts the more of us that will not be there. If anyone objects to this please speak up.

It will happen at some point soon, I'm not sure if it will be this phase or not though. I'll let people know ahead of time though so they can prepare for bidding and what not accordingly.

Long Con wrote:

fingersplints wrote:I'm not understanding the case on LC. Boogs pushing it seems incredibly sketchy. His motivation and suspicion seems unclear. I haven't had much time to read your posts about it tbh. I've had little time outside of work though, and what I had was focused on the Zelda game. Since I am no longer in that hopefully I can get my head fully into this one and look at that some.

I'm also thinking that those supporting it could have shady motives. I mean, they're actively pushing a plan that specifically advocates going after prize winners and Civvies who have found BTSC partners over looking for baddies.

I don't think they are ALL shady.
Boogs stuck out the most to me. I've skimmed MP's and they have seemed pretty rational. He does seem to be suspecting those who disagree, which is kind of funny given that I thought I had seen the main accusation about juliets seems to be unwillingness to see all sides of the situation. I don't think this makes him bad. I think this just makes him really confident in his accusations. I'm not sure I agree with his sentiments, but I can appreciate where he is coming from at least.
keys, I have already said, I think is a civvie. You can't really be surprised by him LC. He clearly was against the finding of civvie teammates from the start. Getting rid of someone who he knows has found btsc makes perfect sense to me.
Am I missing anyone?

I feel like there was one more person in there, but I wasn't talking about anyone specific who I thought gave specifically baddie vibes, I was speaking more broadly about the fact that this is something that the baddies would love to get on board with: trying to lynch Civvies who have BTSC who may or may not end up going LMS.

Splints i am not being shady. I expressed my opinion on LC finding his teammate and possibly getting the third and start bankrupting us. A monopoly this early is just as dangerous as a mafia member. I am suggesting he could be bluffing also and is mafia. Its a win win for me and i stand by my decision regardless what other disagree with me on it. Im Civ and alone, and it makes most sense to cast my vote on LC. Not changing my mind.

Boogs wrote:Splints i am not being shady. I expressed my opinion on LC finding his teammate and possibly getting the third and start bankrupting us. A monopoly this early is just as dangerous as a mafia member. I am suggesting he could be bluffing also and is mafia. Its a win win for me and i stand by my decision regardless what other disagree with me on it. Im Civ and alone, and it makes most sense to cast my vote on LC. Not changing my mind.

Ebwop Others*

Boogs wrote:Splints i am not being shady. I expressed my opinion on LC finding his teammate and possibly getting the third and start bankrupting us. A monopoly this early is just as dangerous as a mafia member. I am suggesting he could be bluffing also and is mafia. Its a win win for me and i stand by my decision regardless what other disagree with me on it. Im Civ and alone, and it makes most sense to cast my vote on LC. Not changing my mind.

First of all, suggesting I could be Mafia is deceptive, because there's no case and no reason to think I'm any more Mafia than you or anyone else. It's just making it look like you want me out personally, whether I'm Civ, LMS, or baddie, and I don't know why you'd do that.

Why can't you just stick to your "case" (which is much less a case than a 'punish anyone who gets a prize' way of playing the game) and let it speak for itself? Why all the "also he could be Mafia so that's cool too" rhetoric?