The Syndicate

I won't support a Dom lynch. At least not right now. Maybe later. Not today.

Elohcin wrote:If Dom were on the poll, I would vote him. But alas...

Sir Epi, are the boys almost done with their pokemon battle?

They damn well better be.

Nachomamma8 wrote:
Elohcin wrote:I honestly feel good about several of the players we have the option to vote for. The ones I am unsure of are Marco, MP, and Snow Dog. I won't place my vote yet, but I am up to voting one of those.

Sir, I bet we are the only losers sitting at home drinking on this wonderful occasion.
My girlfriend and I are also sitting at home drinking; I do hope that you don't think that we're losers as well

I sit at home and drink everyday. It's a pastime of sorts.

Elohcin wrote:I honestly feel good about several of the players we have the option to vote for. The ones I am unsure of are Marco, MP, and Snow Dog. I won't place my vote yet, but I am up to voting one of those.

Sir, I bet we are the only losers sitting at home drinking on this wonderful occasion.

I am perfectly happy being a loser at HOME.

I won't be voting Marcodom. I want to see some activity first.

I feel like people are waiting for me to cast the first stone.

Well I'm not.

This Day phase is unfortunate.

Put your drinks down a minute and come give opinions. Do it, or I'll have Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga do a duet at your funeral.

Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Answer: Given the mechanics in play, voting for LC could expose more members of the troupe, especially since the only logical thing for sprityo to do would be to vote in self-defense...
Sorry to be dense, but which mechanics are you referring to?

The ones covered in powder.

Roll call.

I don't suspect Daisy.

I don't think DDL is a teammate of Glorfindel's.

I have some suspicion of Eloh, but she's been cursed (however mildly), and I don't care for the way some here have tried to force me into staying suspicious of her when there is some evidence in her favor.

Marcodom I have no opinion on, but people I don't suspect say not to lynch him, and I'd rather hear from Dom anyway.

MP I have no opinion on, but Spacedaisy says she thinks he's independent. The trouble here is that if there aren't any Mafia on the poll, an independent lynch may be the best available option.

I don't suspect Nacho.

I don't think Soneji is a teammate of Glorfindel's.

I don't suspect sig.

I don't think zebra was a teammate of Glorfindel's.

That brings me to Snow Dog.

Glorfindel didn't comment at all about Snow Dog saying he didn't read his PM, nor did he have any interaction with Snow Dog at all.

Snow Dog wrote:
sig wrote:
sprityo wrote:Let me go over what glorf had said yesterday to see what youre talking about sig, cause i dont remember much outside of he was having a bad_time.jpg
It's more of a lack of reads and his meta, and my opinion won't be changed on it, since your a better scum player. This vote is all meta based and it would have happened if Glorf was alive. I suggest people follow me, but like I said it is meta based.

linki: Yeah that is my point he didn't do anything, that is a clear scum tell for Glorf. If he was a civ he'd have been reading people and doing things. He also would have voted or at least said he wasn't going to vote.
I am tempted to follow your lead and put my trust in you as I know nothing of the elf.

Snow Dog wrote:
Soneji wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:My only problem with, well one of the problems with lynching spirtyo is that the poor chap has already been lynched once and lynching him again appears unduly harsh.
There is no such thing as harsh in mafia. If you find a person suspicious, nothing in their personal life or game situation should stop you from voting them. The whole purpose of the replacement "tactic" is to play on emotion fueled leniency like you are displaying here.
So shoot me.

That isn't good. Snow Dog said he knows "nothing of the elf," but backed away on the basis that a recently lynched person is stepping in. A replacement has no bearing on the role in question, and sig was clear that he was voting sprityo based completely on his predecessor's activity.

Snow Dog wrote:Sprityo, what is your opinion of Glorfindel. Good or bad?

I don't see the merit in asking this question. What is sprityo supposed to say here?

Rather than consider other avenues of suspicion, Snow Dog basically spent the Day talking about the initials SD, finding out who soup is, complimenting DDL's English and noting that DDL wouldn't get his vote again, and then getting full of the Christmas "spirit."

Snow Dog wrote:ok i need to bed so i need to vote,

Snow Dog wrote:I do think LC might be bad.

Snow Dog wrote:fuck knows where

Snow Dog wrote:Ok Im not voting

Snow Dog wrote:Anyway I am not votging good night tossers!

Question: Why would someone late in the Day say "I do think LC might be bad," but then abstain from voting?

Answer: Given the mechanics in play, voting for LC could expose more members of the troupe, especially since the only logical thing for sprityo to do would be to vote in self-defense. It looks to me like Snow Dog tried to fan the flames toward Long Con but didn't want to get his own hands dirty in the process.

Snow Dog wrote:Ok I am back refreshed and sober. Sorry for not voting but I wasn't responsible enough. Good call sig. I possibly would have voted for Spit or whatever if I had been clear and lucid.
I will try to be more involved and do some real baddie hunting.

Glorfindel wrote:And there you go... vindicated again!

This tells me DDL is not on Glorfindel's team. DDL was the other leading wagon, and Glorfindel condemned both simultaneously.

However, MM's later interactions with Glorfindel give me pause.

Glorfindel wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:Am I allowed to vote 'We Didn't Start The Fire'? I'm really not liking the look of those leading wagons...
Why?
Who would you like to vote for, grand elf?
I don't think I've seen sufficient genuine content so far to make a judgement to be honest, my friend - and yes, I know I bear some responsibility for that... Of the current wagons, MM's looks the most pure but from my recollection, the poor guy gets lynched early every game I play with him
How is my wagon pure? Zebra didn't read my posts properly and I don't even know why Daisy is voting for me (aside from gut).

If you joined it, it would be pure. But I don't want that.
I mean that I feel very confident in Daisy and Zebs being Town. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them however. I'm not voting for you right now.

Glorfindel wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I voted sprityo to break the tie between him and DDL. I didn't get a chance to look at sprityo, nor DDL for that matter. But y'all left me to break a tie, so

Here's a list of players who missed the vote (including sprityo).

Dom
DrWilgy
Elohcin
Epignosis
Glorfindel
LoRab
Marco
Nachomamma8
soup
sprityo
I would like to point out (for the record) my friend that I did not 'miss' the vote. I deliberately withheld mine. I was faced with a choice between two players of which I was unwilling to support either.

Glorfindel wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:Am I allowed to vote 'We Didn't Start The Fire'? I'm really not liking the look of those leading wagons...
Why?
Who would you like to vote for, grand elf?
I don't think I've seen sufficient genuine content so far to make a judgement to be honest, my friend - and yes, I know I bear some responsibility for that... Of the current wagons, MM's looks the most pure but from my recollection, the poor guy gets lynched early every game I play with him

Glorfindel included MM as one of the wagons and commented that it looked "the most pure." However, Glorfindel's reluctance to vote there stemmed from his memory about MM getting lynched early.

For my own sense of completeness:

Star Wars- MM was killed by the second mafia team Night 4.
Pikmin- MM survived to the end and won as mafia.
Arkham- MM was killed by the second mafia Night 6.
Battlestar Galactica- MM was killed Night 6.
Romance of the Three Kingdoms- MM was mafia and was lynched Day 2.

These are all the instances in which Glorfindel and MetalMarsh89 played together. MM got lynched only once, and he was bad. In every other instance, MM was killed Night 4 or later or survived.

I currently believe MM and Glorfindel are on the same team.

Glorfindel wrote:Am I allowed to vote 'We Didn't Start The Fire'? I'm really not liking the look of those leading wagons...

Who were the leading wagons Day 1?

DDL and sprityo the first. The latter was a civilian.

If this were anybody else I was examining, I would say that's a mark against DDL. But it isn't anybody else.

Glorfindel's pushing this leads me to believe that zebra is not on his team. It would have been superfluous were they teammates.

Glorfindel wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:I'll be defending Glorfindel too unless I catch him unwilling to lie about something.
I'm sorry, my dear friend... I'm probably a little slow at the moment (in the frantic lead up to the holiday season) but could you please explain for me what you meant by your remark above? I assure you that I've taken no offence at it and I trust you will take none for me asking - I just want to be certain I understood what you meant

Glorfindel wrote:Unfinished business:
Glorfindel wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:I'll be defending Glorfindel too unless I catch him unwilling to lie about something.
I'm sorry, my dear friend... I'm probably a little slow at the moment (in the frantic lead up to the holiday season) but could you please explain for me what you meant by your remark above? I assure you that I've taken no offence at it and I trust you will take none for me asking - I just want to be certain I understood what you meant

Glorfindel wrote:Aaahh, welcome back my friends to the 'Glorfindel Hour'

I've read the recent posts in this game and refuse any longer to be exploited as a potential distraction any further this game by certain players for their own ends. I will deal with this matter right here, right now!

By way of background (for those of you who were not involved) in my last game here (Mad Max) I was asked by Jay to directly and explicitly respond to a series of questions that he put to me that amounted to a declaration of my alignment in that game. His questions were prompted by statements that I'd made in previous games to the effect that I would not lie if asked a direct question as to my alignment in any Mafia game. I have included both his questions and my response to them here for your information.

Spoiler: show
Glorfindel wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel, I still need answers to these questions:

1. Are you bad?

2. Are you a member of a team that killed anyone in this group: MovingPictures07, MacDougall, motel room?
I'm going to adjust the first question.

1. Are you a member of the team in this Mafia game called the Skags?

Please still answer both.
Thank you Jay for your patience in awaiting my reply to your questions. I now ask your indulgence one more time - to grant me the courtesy of reading my response carefully and thoughtfully before jumping to any conclusions. I thank you sincerely in advance for your courtesy in this regard.

It's been six days and nights now and things look grim for us and it's in this context that you ask me these questions. Though you may deny it, the truth is that these questions are NOT about my role in this game, they speak directly and unequivocally to my personal character.

In posts I've made in earlier games on this site (and others) I have (somewhat naively) traded on my personal integrity and honesty in never having lied about my alignment in any Mafia game I've ever played. My protestations however have been to no avail and have gone almost completely unheeded. And now, as this game draws to a bitter end, you (someone whose respect I genuinely cherish) come to me asking me to confirm my alignment.

If I recall correctly, my approach (as referred to above) was a topic of discussion between the two of us and Epi in the Town BTSC Chat last game (The Garden of Peaches). In our conversation, you or Epi (I can't recall now who) asked me to consider what that might mean in future games I play for the other members of a non-Town team (and specifically Mafia teams I suppose) of which I may find myself a part. The two of you challenged me to consider the price of my approach with respect to the enjoyment of others who play these games and whose experience of them may be seriously diminished by the selfishness of my approach. I did consider your points carefully and find myself left in a dilemma in respect of my playing Mafia games in the future.

It is for this reason, that I am not going to avoid or dance around your questions. I simply categorically refuse to answer them because to do so, would continue to perpetuate what I now fear is a bad approach to these games on my behalf. When I say that I refuse to answer them, let me be absolutely explicit here, I mean not now and not ever again. I trust you will understand what I've tried to explain here in all sincerity. I accept that some more cynical minds will question why I've taken this stance right now, in this game and whether it wouldn't be easier for me to simply answer your questions and adopt my new approach next game. To me, this is a moral question. If I am unable to stand by my principles in a time when (it appears) it counts the most, then when can I?

As for this game, I'd ask you, my friend to apply the same measure to me that you would to everyone else. Consider my actions and my comments throughout this game and if you find them wanting, then by all means, you should vote for me. If however you find they are reasonable under what you believe to have been my circumstances and ability, then you should look elsewhere.
Whilst (as I indicated in the post above) my decision to adopt this approach was made independent of my alignment in that game, I'm pretty sure only Jay actually understood what I meant there and every other player interpreted my response as simply a feeble and expedient means of dodging Jay's questions for that game.

As I said in the coloured section of that post, I will no longer declare my alignment in any game I play on this site irrespective of my alignment then, now or in the future. Let me be crystal clear about this - if you are uncomfortable with me taking this approach or unwilling to accept my adopting it, then you should vote to remove me from this game, AND the next game AND the one after that because this is a matter of deeply held principle to me upon which I will not compromise.

That doesn't mean zebra isn't on the other team, of course, but I feel like I can rule him out of that one on the basis of the above.

In case I'm not clear, I have no reason to suspect Marcodom either.

Spacedaisy wrote:Yes but do you have a reason to believe he is mafia. Because that is why you would vote for him. Personally I think a Marco/Dom vote is baseless and lazy.

All I am saying is that, out of the people I can vote for today, I have no reason to refrain from lynching him. If I find excellent reasons not to vote for anybody else on the list, Marcodom it is. That's all.

Has anybody talked about this, or was there something terribly obvious that I missed?

Golden wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:
Golden wrote:
Dom wrote:I don't see the merit in the discussion.
I agree. It's arguing policy again. Let glorf be glorf.
Your eloquence has been rewarded, my friend
Ooooh, I see what you mean.

Marco had ten posts. The only thing noteworthy he said was this:

Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:I didn't do much anyway, but now I'll definitely be phone posting while we do Christmas things.

I voted for DDL. I think he's bad.

Spoiler: show
Snow Dog wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:And with that, I'm gonna vote LC in order to attempt to put another option in the table.
Despite voting for you first time round I have good feelings about you. I won't be voting for you this time.

Spoiler: show
Snow Dog wrote:
Golden wrote:
Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's the advantage of random voting at all?

If you're not the determiner, you might as well not vote.

If you are the determiner....you want to determine who should die randomly?
Not voting as any kind of deliberate choice is very much frowned upon in our history.

Having said that, I generally agree that any slight read is better than randomising.

I'm not convinced it was entirely random, though. Perhaps random within a pool, or perhaps not random at all.

linki - what kind of cookie?
It wasn't entirely random i confess. It was a straight choice between DDL and Jack. The two guys who wanted me lynched. I chose DDL because I read somewhere that he was more likely bad.
I was tired, I needed to go to bed and I had to vote. Plus I wanted to give a nod to Vompatti's playstyle as I had done DrWilgy earlier.
And if he's bad, Snow Dog is his teammate.
This business is too obvious for Quin's sophistication.
I don't know what this means.

Marco wrote:It means we vote for you, I think.

The tone suggests this is a joke, though, and Marco didn't vote Quin Day 2 (he didn't vote at all). His replacement hasn't posted anything at all.

I have no reason at this moment to believe Marcodom is a civilian.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Wants a reason to not vote Eloh.

That's true. I would like a reason not to vote her. If I can find a good one, then I don't vote for her, and mafia squirms a little more.

That's how this works with anybody.

Elohcin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Spacedaisy, I don't understand your confidence on MP.
I think players are having a hard time understanding your confidence on me, Sir. I really think you ought to take a step back and humble yourself a bit. I know you used to be able to read me really well the first couple years we were playing Mafia together. But I think I have gotten better and have proven several times that I can fool you whether that be that I am bad and you think I am civ, or that I am civ and you think I am bad. And...I think others are realizing that you might not be able to discern my alignment so easily anymore. I am just waiting for you to realize it.

It is precisely because I don't have confidence that I am doing what I can to make up my mind one way or the other. At no point have I asserted that you are the open book that you used to be. In fact, I have already implied just the opposite.

Spacedaisy, I don't understand your confidence on MP.

If I'm good (or independent), and good people accuse me of being bad, I would like the courtesy of them at least attempting to put a civilian context around my actions and reactions.

That's what I'm doing for Eloh.

That isn't backpedaling. That's called thinking.

Sorsha wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Sorsha wrote:Epi you are confusing me.
I don't see why.
Because it looks like you're calling Eloh bad but then giving reasons for her not to be on either of the teams.

Am I supposed to be married to the idea that she's bad? You don't think I should consider other scenarios?

Sorsha wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Sorsha wrote:You think Eloh is bad.
Yes, with a few asterisks now.

Sorsha wrote:You don't think she is in the Troupe because of her sprityo vote.
Had that lynch played out any other way, I would consider a defeated teammate taking one for the team. Maybe that still happened. But given the precise nature of that role, it seems unlikely. Long Con is very easy to make up a reason to vote for him.

Sorsha wrote:But you don't think the Guardians self targeted one of their own?
I never said that. It's an operational assumption.
I don't know why you would assume that a mafia team wouldn't target themselves with a curse like this. Seems like more of an opinion of yours that you think it's a bad decision. And whether they did or whether they didn't just leads to the whole wifom situation.

[/quote]

Hence the word "operational." It isn't something I'm actually assuming. The assumptions are things that would have to lead to the conclusion stated.

How about you give us your opinion about Eloh?

Nachomamma8 wrote:Post restrictions seem like they're being used for amusement's sake, not sure anything rules out mafia targeting mafia with them since they aren't of the silencing or hard inconveniencing type anymore unless VP doesn't know what he's doing.

I'm not trying to rule that out. I'm assuming that to see what must be true if that is in fact the case.

Sorsha wrote:Epi you are confusing me.

I don't see why.

Sorsha wrote:You think Eloh is bad.

Yes, with a few asterisks now.

Sorsha wrote:You don't think she is in the Troupe because of her sprityo vote.

Had that lynch played out any other way, I would consider a defeated teammate taking one for the team. Maybe that still happened. But given the precise nature of that role, it seems unlikely. Long Con is very easy to make up a reason to vote for him.

Sorsha wrote:But you don't think the Guardians self targeted one of their own?

I never said that. It's an operational assumption.

Nachomamma8 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Nachomamma8 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Nachomamma8 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Assuming three things:

First, Eloh is bad.

Second, Mafias aren't self-targeting.

Third, the VP curses someone.

This would mean that Eloh would have had to be with the troupe and would have had to have thrown sprityo2 under the bus when she could have saved him. I'm not especially comfortable believing that.
Why wouldn't Mafias self-target?
That's why I listed that as an assumption. It isn't a fact.
Better question: why would we assume that?
You don't have to assume that. I'm not asking you to assume that. But that assumption has to be false if Eloh is bad and not with the troupe.

If the Mafia did target one of their own with a curse, then what mileage are they getting out of it? She can still post normally- she just apparently has to be super respectful to me refer to me as a certain role.
The Mafia doesn't get a particular amount of mileage with the punishments in the first place; they can minorly inconvenience someone for a day, but not more than that. Why not target one of their own to make it look like they aren't on the same team?

Because that almost never works.

Nachomamma8 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Nachomamma8 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Assuming three things:

First, Eloh is bad.

Second, Mafias aren't self-targeting.

Third, the VP curses someone.

This would mean that Eloh would have had to be with the troupe and would have had to have thrown sprityo2 under the bus when she could have saved him. I'm not especially comfortable believing that.
Why wouldn't Mafias self-target?
That's why I listed that as an assumption. It isn't a fact.
Better question: why would we assume that?

You don't have to assume that. I'm not asking you to assume that. But that assumption has to be false if Eloh is bad and not with the troupe.

If the Mafia did target one of their own with a curse, then what mileage are they getting out of it? She can still post normally- she just apparently has to be super respectful to me refer to me as a certain role.

Nachomamma8 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Assuming three things:

First, Eloh is bad.

Second, Mafias aren't self-targeting.

Third, the VP curses someone.

This would mean that Eloh would have had to be with the troupe and would have had to have thrown sprityo2 under the bus when she could have saved him. I'm not especially comfortable believing that.
Why wouldn't Mafias self-target?

That's why I listed that as an assumption. It isn't a fact.

Assuming three things:

First, Eloh is bad.

Second, Mafias aren't self-targeting.

Third, the VP curses someone.

This would mean that Eloh would have had to be with the troupe and would have had to have thrown sprityo2 under the bus when she could have saved him. I'm not especially comfortable believing that.

Elohcin wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:Elo...

A couple things stand out to me regarding Elo. She seems to be sheeping a lot. And she seems to be buddying up to Epi. I don't mean the Sir thing either. I mean she is specifically asking him in particular for opinions and stuff. I don't recall seeing her doing that in the past. But she does try to pocket him when she is bad, and who could blame her. I've done the same to my husband. People tend to put more stock in a spouse/SO read of you.

Another thing I found concerning was her flip flop, before Dom flipped she was gunning for me and Quin. Then Dom flipped and she was all, "oh I should look at who started this train." Just such an easy flip flop, it makes me uncomfortable with her. Most votes are not that clear cut to sort out who on them was good and bad, and it feels like an attempt to pin something onto an easy lynch that doesn't affect her.

Leaning bad on Elo. Possibly Indy though.
I guess I could start talking to Sir about things unrelated to the game instead.

Sir, your chili tonight was wonderful. I looked forward to it all day.

It was.

Elohcin wrote:Sir, would you like to watch a tv show together later after the kids go to bed?

That's fine.

Elohcin wrote:Sir, you sure have a whole bunch of yellow shirts. Ever notice that?

I have three.

Elohcin wrote:Does this make you less suspicious of me, Daisy? I just figured when I call him Sir, it should be game related. I could check with our host, if you'd like. But I'm pretty sure that the baddies had game-related "Sir"s in mind too.

There are two Mafia teams.

Nachomamma8 wrote:Hi Epi!
Can you talk about why you think your wife is trying to kill you while I'm trying to catch up? It might make fighting the good fight go a bit smoother!

I will try.

The previous narrative has always been that Eloh likes BTSC. She still does- but she got caught a time or two when bad being too involved in the thread. Moving and family notwithstanding, all of this feels like a deliberate attempt to circumvent that narrative.

I don't want to get in trouble for saying that her clueless posts look contrived.

Quin wrote:@Daisy and Golden

You're definitely misinterpreting my intentions when I continued to question people to find a lie detectable post in my ISO. I'm not trying to suggest that I'm making sure that I'm not making statements that can be checked, what I'm trying to do is refute bad cases founded on poor logic. I'm pushing people to find a post that supports the the idea that Dom checked me so that a bunch of people don't just say 'Well, he could have checked him' and pile on votes for me without putting in the effort. There won't be anything to read into once I'm dead otherwise.

I have my own reasons to think you are bad, but you aren't on the poll today, and that gives me time to go through every statement you made. I agree that people should not vote you on the basis of lie detector business without finding something that could have been checked and returned as evidence of your guilt. So there's that.

I want to be very clear on this:

Just because you made no detectable statement does not exonerate you. It merely eliminates a piece of evidence. Bear in mind that regardless of his ability, Dom Senior was a civilian, and he expressed no unclear opinion about you.

Long Con wrote:Epi, if you suspect Quin based on thinking he is Snow Dog or DDL's teammate, please make that clear, and I will admit I am wrong about your point of view.

My suspicion of Quin has nothing to do with anybody from Wales or Brazil.

Hey Dom, what do you think of Quin?

Maybe Dom subbed in for someone on Quin's team.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Jackofhearts2005 wrote:@Epi

Let's simplify this.

Do you think hunk Quin is scum buddies with DDL and/Snow Dog or not?

Cause both the distancing and the lie detect argument point to that conclusion if you buy into them.

I have not commented on who is bad with Quin. That was not the purpose of the exercise regarding lie detectors.
I'm asking you to comment on it.

What was the purpose of the excercise regarding lie detectors, then?

I don't have any comment about it- it wasn't my opinion.

My purpose was to explore the fact that, with his dying breath, the lie detector called out Quin. I dug through Quin's posts to find items that might qualify for Dom's ability. That's one I found. Quin argued that items prefaced with "I think" couldn't be checked, and I disagreed with him by providing a counterexample. That's all. The thread is a canvas for my musings.

Golden wrote:I think the right question for epi is - do you disagree with jacks assessment about how that statement is able to be checkable, and that it could only be checked if ddl or snow was Quinn teammate?

That's kind of the point I was making.

But none of this is important for today.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:@Epi

Let's simplify this.

Do you think hunk Quin is scum buddies with DDL and/Snow Dog or not?

Cause both the distancing and the lie detect argument point to that conclusion if you buy into them.

I have not commented on who is bad with Quin. That was not the purpose of the exercise regarding lie detectors.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Jackofhearts2005 wrote:@LC

Nah, man. The lie detectors and OMGUS is the entirety of Epi's stated case against Quin.

Relevant posts:
Spoiler: show
Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:That post was phrased from my own perspective, so unless Dom has the ability peer into my mind and read my thoughts, he couldn't check that. And even if he could, it'd come back as the truth considering there's nobody who doesn't have a reason to scum-hunt in this game.
Not true. That statement had antecedents. If one of the authors of those posts had no teammates, and the other was yours, then boom. You're caught, because that couldn't have been a thing you "just so happen" to think.

Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:Frankly, I think the whole thing stands. If I took anything from the kerfuffle in The Office its that lie detectors can only check things phrased as a statement, rather than a thought or assumption. I'm assuming it follows the same thing here.

Want to chime in, DF?
In a one mafia game:

"I think (not-my-teammate) is bad."

That's a lie.

Because you don't really think that.
Explain how that logic applies here.
I think xxx and yyy are teammates.

If xxx is YOUR teammate, then the lie detector can know you are lying, because you don't really think that.

Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:
linki: I'd support it. Both her previous votes have lacked any actual reasoning or suspicion.
Well of course you would. The lie detector just called you bad. I wasn't really asking you, slick.
It's all about the lie detection, particularly about Quin presumably lying about DDL/Snow being teammates cause one is teammates with Quin.

I'd be hugely surprised if Dom submitted an action at all after being gone for days and the specific lie Epi is accusing Quin of, he's refused to follow up on after being pressed several times. If Epi wants to actually argue that Quin is scumbuddies with DDL or Snow, he can have at it but you can't say that post was a lie unless Quin is buddies with one of them. That's the stool's only leg. Sit on a stool without a weak leg and you fall on your butt, which is appropriate when intoxicated.
That isn't true.

Epignosis wrote:I think Quin is bad.
-Me, Day 2
K.

Care to share why you said that?

Sure.

Epignosis wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Quin wrote:I don't know what this means.
Yeah, I was hoping he'd clarify right away.

Gun to Head, I think he's saying you're too simple to come up with those ideas on your own, and implying that you have BTSC.

I'd really rather Epi explain further.
Quite the opposite.

Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:I didn't do much anyway, but now I'll definitely be phone posting while we do Christmas things.

I voted for DDL. I think he's bad.

Spoiler: show
Snow Dog wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:And with that, I'm gonna vote LC in order to attempt to put another option in the table.
Despite voting for you first time round I have good feelings about you. I won't be voting for you this time.

Spoiler: show
Snow Dog wrote:
Golden wrote:
Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's the advantage of random voting at all?

If you're not the determiner, you might as well not vote.

If you are the determiner....you want to determine who should die randomly?
Not voting as any kind of deliberate choice is very much frowned upon in our history.

Having said that, I generally agree that any slight read is better than randomising.

I'm not convinced it was entirely random, though. Perhaps random within a pool, or perhaps not random at all.

linki - what kind of cookie?
It wasn't entirely random i confess. It was a straight choice between DDL and Jack. The two guys who wanted me lynched. I chose DDL because I read somewhere that he was more likely bad.
I was tired, I needed to go to bed and I had to vote. Plus I wanted to give a nod to Vompatti's playstyle as I had done DrWilgy earlier.
And if he's bad, Snow Dog is his teammate.
This business is too obvious for Quin's sophistication.

I don't know what this means.
It means those two posts you pulled linking Snow Dog to DDL are what we might expect from two people who are brand new to mafia, tried to distance Day 1, and really suck at it (i.e., obvious). I would not call Snow Dog bad just because DDL is or vice versa.

I think a civilian Quin would be looking deeper than that.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:@LC

Nah, man. The lie detectors and OMGUS is the entirety of Epi's stated case against Quin.

Relevant posts:
Spoiler: show
Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:That post was phrased from my own perspective, so unless Dom has the ability peer into my mind and read my thoughts, he couldn't check that. And even if he could, it'd come back as the truth considering there's nobody who doesn't have a reason to scum-hunt in this game.
Not true. That statement had antecedents. If one of the authors of those posts had no teammates, and the other was yours, then boom. You're caught, because that couldn't have been a thing you "just so happen" to think.

Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:Frankly, I think the whole thing stands. If I took anything from the kerfuffle in The Office its that lie detectors can only check things phrased as a statement, rather than a thought or assumption. I'm assuming it follows the same thing here.

Want to chime in, DF?
In a one mafia game:

"I think (not-my-teammate) is bad."

That's a lie.

Because you don't really think that.
Explain how that logic applies here.
I think xxx and yyy are teammates.

If xxx is YOUR teammate, then the lie detector can know you are lying, because you don't really think that.

Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:
linki: I'd support it. Both her previous votes have lacked any actual reasoning or suspicion.
Well of course you would. The lie detector just called you bad. I wasn't really asking you, slick.
It's all about the lie detection, particularly about Quin presumably lying about DDL/Snow being teammates cause one is teammates with Quin.

I'd be hugely surprised if Dom submitted an action at all after being gone for days and the specific lie Epi is accusing Quin of, he's refused to follow up on after being pressed several times. If Epi wants to actually argue that Quin is scumbuddies with DDL or Snow, he can have at it but you can't say that post was a lie unless Quin is buddies with one of them. That's the stool's only leg. Sit on a stool without a weak leg and you fall on your butt, which is appropriate when intoxicated.

That isn't true.

Epignosis wrote:I think Quin is bad.

-Me, Day 2

Snow Dog wrote:I agree that Eloh has not said much and followd votes. Is that not because she is busy in RL, Rob?

How busy someone is has nothing to do with how bad someone is.

Snow Dog wrote:Can you tell me Quin, why do you think Epi thinks we may be team mates?

I gave an example of a statement a lie detector could have reasonably checked. That was all.

DFaraday wrote:
Quin wrote:Frankly, I think the whole thing stands. If I took anything from the kerfuffle in The Office its that lie detectors can only check things phrased as a statement, rather than a thought or assumption. I'm assuming it follows the same thing here.

Want to chime in, DF?
I generally wouldn't LD "I think" statements because I can't say with absolute certainty what a player thinks.

Untrue.

Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:QUIN IS BAD
ELOH IS BAD
GOLDEN IS BAD

I'm calling you clowns out.
Fine with me. Here's my number, call me a clown maybe.

You're third on the list. Relax a minute.

If anybody else thinks I'm being irrational, please speak up.

QUIN IS BAD
ELOH IS BAD
GOLDEN IS BAD

I'm calling you clowns out.

Quin wrote:I literally just did like 5 posts back.

It wouldn't kill you to quote it.

Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:You're not doing a very good job of it right now.
What am I not doing a good job of?
If you're civ, winning.

Well, uh.

Quin wrote:Putting down Epi as a soft Indy. I don't think he's bad, but he's being too irrational to be civ.

You have me down as an independent.

Tell me how exactly I am not being rational with you specifically. Lay it out for me.

Quin wrote:You're not doing a very good job of it right now.

What am I not doing a good job of?

I don't care what irrational behavior you accuse me of. I don't care what's rational. I do what wins.

Quin wrote:If I was gonna throw a role at you now, I'd say you're the recruiter and that you've taken Long Con for the ride.

"Epi, you're irrational. Oh hey, I'm going to make up something about you now."

Fuck outta here with that (which here means the phrase you just said is unwanted, unwarranted, and unwise).

Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:Putting down Epi as a soft Indy. I don't think he's bad, but he's being too irrational to be civ.
A soft indy. Get the fuck out of here.

No, you're gauging my reaction to this to see if your team ought to kill me tonight.

You're bad at this, Quin.
No, I just don't see a situation where you could be behaving this irrationally if you were a civ. And your baddie game is better than this. Your argument against me doesn't make sense, you're using crappy examples to back it up, you still haven't addressed my counter to your case, and this is just one occurrence of this behaviour. Your interaction with Spacedaisy about your unfounded trust of Long Con is yet another example of this.

"This irrationally?" What have I said that was irrational? Everything I've said is based in the thread.

3J said the same thing about me in the last game we were in.

He was the serial killer.

Keep going.

Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:Thanks for the catch up epi. Any other things you want to catch me up on?
Not really.

If you genuinely hadn't caught up, why do you have to blast people who suspect you?

Why not say, "Hey, I haven't read anything. I intend to, and will when I am able."

Instead you lose your shit. Why?

Nobody is lynching you Day 4. Everybody is lynching Quin.
Why shouldn't I blast people? It might wake them up.

I don't think I'm being lynched. I do think putting people on blast soon sorts out those who are thinking from those that aren't.
Whom are you waking up? You're only bitching at DDL. Don't give me that nonsense. You're not "putting people on blast" either. That's not the same thing as what I said.

My point was you could have explained why you were out (like I did). You didn't do that. You got pissy. Then you tried to turn things around on ME without even reading the thread. Shame on you if you are a civilian, and I hope you get killed if you're bad.
Bollocks. I never tried to turn it on you. I was just pointing out how little thought ddl put into it.

WHAT ABOUT EPI? WHAT ABOUT EPI?

Golden wrote:And if you can tell me the difference between 'blasting people' and 'putting them on blast' id like to know.

My intended meaning, as you can see from the context, is that you don't act rudely toward someone coming at you for not being around. Putting someone "on blast" is a stupid teenager phase that means to ridicule someone in front of others. You didn't ridicule others.

Golden wrote:Ddl gave 6 names he believed should be killed by the vig... not because they were bad, but just because they didn't contribute during a single particular day. Explain to me why that doesn't deserve firm scrutiny?

I'm not 'pissy'. I'm pursuing what I saw as a bullshit attempt to appear contributory without actually being. I'd have no issue lynchind ddl, and if he is bad I'm willing to bet not one of those 6 are on his team.

You can do better than that.

Search found 408 matches