The Syndicate

Roxy wrote:Also Epi why did you ruin the tie? Does not make any sense since you claim to want to figure out who Killface is.

Epignosis wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

sig wrote:If Saberfish flips civ I'm going to look really foolish, but I think we should lynch Saber tomorrow.

Epi who do you think the last two mafia people are?

Also stupid.

No u. Whats with the name calling?

Wanna Walnetto?

Epignosis wrote:

sig wrote:If Saberfish flips civ I'm going to look really foolish, but I think we should lynch Saber tomorrow.

Epi who do you think the last two mafia people are?

Also stupid.

S~V~S wrote:Roxy, do you really think I would go this long and this hard after someone I thought was a civ? At endgame, knowing I would get lynched for it? I can't say 100%, I have no info, but I am as sure as I can be short of that.

Linki, what are you talking about? I said I was not going to vote right away, I voted less than 6 hours before the poll ended. What facts are facts?

Epignosis wrote:I was just hoping we'd get to talk about this rather than folks come in and vote. No one has been around (me included- bowling and sushi today). I'd like to get the job done.

Epignosis wrote:Saberfish has votes from sig and Russ.

Given that no failed lynches or deaths have occurred, I feel confident that Saberfish is Phil, and that true ties don't result in a no-lynch.

With that in mind, I would like to manufacture a tie between Saberfish and Russ. If Old Spice isn't in play, that should narrow down Killface. If my dad's cologne is still in play, he (and the hooker) should be able to determine what happened there.

That's my thinking right now over this cocktail of rum, lime juice, and triple sec I just made.

As they say on the Internet:

Discuss.

sig wrote:I want to lynch Saber today I'm very certain he is mafia.

Either he is Phil or Killer, if he isn't Phil or Killer then SVS is killer. Those are the only reasons why the lynch didn't go through.

Epignosis wrote:Look, I get it. You and Roxy are Hooker and Old Spice. You have info. I understand.

Jesus.

Voting Russ. Whatever.

Made wrote:Fun game tho, probably my last for a while, because college and ish. Pce out everyone!

Made wrote:Voting Roxy

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Roxy wrote: MP - yeah I dropped Burger Boy quick the other night bc I had Cookie to tend to. I still think he could be KF but no one else seems to agree with me. I hate the use of spoiler tags bc now I have to click on each one to see wtf you are talking about. I do not see a difference than your long posts without the tags. Only now i have to work more when I am playing. :P Yes I am *that* lazy.
Also upon reading Saberfish again maybe it is not a r/c. Iunno. It does not really read like a r/c but I do see what Epi was pointing to. Would you like me to quote it?
Yes I am only suspicius of you bc Daisy is. You must admit she can read you quite well. So when she points it out I listen. You should read posts in context bc when I said I was suspicious of you for different reasons I meant they were different than DH. Sorry you are finding me suspicious hope this response will help you. It does however feel a bit no u'y. Also damn straight my progression is notable bc I actually have progression unlike some who voted for Cookie.

Thanks for addressing all of my questions!

I'm a bit confused about what you say re: BurgerBoy. So you suspect him the same amount, regardless of his response? Because based on the way your interaction with him reads, it seems as though you back off of him, as if you read what he had to say a second time and thought it sounded reasonable. Is that incorrect?

Yes that is incorrect.

Well, noted re: spoiler tags, but people would often complain when I had gigantic posts with tons of quotes without spoiler tags, so I'm probably going to get complainers either way. :P It's why I try to bold and underline everyone if I'm talking to them. Nonetheless, noted.

If you (or anyone else doesn't, for that matter) don't mind quoting the Saberfish thing, that'd be great, since it seems I'm not the only one confused about it, and wondering where the role hint is.

Here it is http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 96#p163696

I didn't understand what you meant re: suspicions different than DH, thanks for clarifying that. Makes more sense now.

I understand you finding me suspicious because Daisy can read me well. I'll admit that any day. However, I think I addressed what she had to say, but she has not been able to address my responses to her, and reassess. If you feel that I've inadequately addressed anything she's said and you think I'm suspicious as a result, I'd be happy to clear anything up. Otherwise, not sure what else to do with regards to that.

I'm really beginning to hate the term "NO U". It's an easy way for someone to brush off someone else's suspicions of them because they suspected you first and mafia, time after time, take advantage of it. So I'm disregarding NO U's, personally. You'll have to take my word for the fact that I don't suspect you because you suspect me at all, and I thought I made it clear here and here that I believe it's because your behavior/D2 vote/post history makes it seem as though you are Cookie's teammate. If you still doubt my conviction in finding you suspicious, let me know if I can clarify further. Otherwise, I am not sure why my suspicion should be branded NO U, even in the slightest, since it's arising of absolutely no circumstance of the fact that you've found me suspicious (based on someone else's suspicions of me).
Sorry you do not like no u's but it is what it is.

You did cast an extremely wide net, then zeroed right in on Cookie, so I understand why you are arguing a civilian mindset for that. I just don't see it as likely. It seemed like a very sudden focus on Cookie to me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:See, this is why I think Roxy's bad on top of everything. She assumes I'm ignoring her questions. Maybe I'm busy and didn't see them.

I am quite busy. So I'm just ignoring her, right?

Yet she can't be assed to repeat those same questions, and instead tells me to go look for them.

I have waited over 10 minutes to hear what questions I "ignored." I have looked over Roxy's posts to see if I have ignored any questions. I have not. If anyone sees a question from Roxy directed at me that I missed, then please repeat it. I'll answer it.

In the meantime, vote Roxy. That's a Cookie teammate.

This gives me an opportunity to say something that I've noticed and that I think is affecting our disjointed town efforts here. I think players on this site, but especially civilians, should make more of an effort to try to understand each other, instead shifting that responsibility to the people that are asking questions.

I'm not pointing fingers at you or Roxy, but it's something I've noticed, especially in comparison to RYM and other sites. A lot of players here have a tendency to not care to explain themselves to their accusers. I understand a healthy skepticism at everyone else's alignment. I realize that literally anyone should be mafia and should never be trusted. But that shouldn't mean that a civilian should not go out of their way as much as possible to address their accusers' concerns, regardless of what that civilian thinks of their motives.

This is my opinion, but I feel strongly enough about it to say it here, because I've seen this happen way too many times, where civilians view themselves as lone rangers, disconnected from all of town, and put the responsibility for their actions on everyone else. We all have done it, myself included, which is why I've recently been trying to revamp my approach to the game in that regard.

Town has nothing to lose by trying to understand each other as much as possible, since the most often cause of civilian mislynchings is due to lack of seeing another person's perspective. I'm confident in that assessment, especially with the variety of awesome folks we have playing here.

I had read Made along with everyone else and had already stated I found him suspicious and why. He came back and said that he was joking so I double checked and made my post saying I did not read it as joking. Are you just looking at what you want to instead of the whole picture? Why?

Roxy wrote:Epi - How is it empty rhetoric when it is how I play?
You think my reasoning stinks, fine. At least I had reasoning better than she was a burnt cookie. LOL Your stinks also. A fox always smells his own hole first.

Roxy wrote:Why are you only responding to certain portions of my responses?

I asked you questions you have ignored.

Linky why would I vote for you?

Roxy wrote:Also how can they not pertain to you when it is your quote post I responded to?

And yep I am defensive bc I am civ

Epignosis wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Roxy wrote:You think my reasoning stinks, fine. At least I had reasoning better than she was a burnt cookie. LOL Your stinks also. A fox always smells his own hole first.

My reasoning wasn't that she was a burnt cookie.

A fox always smells his own hole first because he presumably lives there.

I don't know why I bother.

Why are you only responding to certain portions of my responses?

...because those certain portions I didn't respond to didn't pertain to me.

Epignosis wrote:

Roxy wrote:You think my reasoning stinks, fine. At least I had reasoning better than she was a burnt cookie. LOL Your stinks also. A fox always smells his own hole first.

My reasoning wasn't that she was a burnt cookie.

A fox always smells his own hole first because he presumably lives there.

I don't know why I bother.

also thanks LC I am glad the googly eyes made the difference

Made wrote:Also since we have two days, I have no reason to feel bad for asking for thoughts on xanders reveal? No secrets in his or Wendell's role descriptions

Made wrote:

Roxy wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Roxy, your attitude is the least suspect thing about your play, IMO.

That makes me feel better. it is why I have been avoiding games here and playing on 2+2

Now that dh's arugment has been clarified, anything else you want to say about how weird your vote looked? I mean it's quite normal ffor you not to vote newbies, but for me personally, the switch to voting cookie seemed a little too quick. Especially considering there was still an hour or so left in the poll, it's as if you wanted to vote cookie early because you knew she was going to flip bad.

Epignosis wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Roxy.

She likes new players and I think Cookie would appeal to her.

The "I will vote for anyone voting new players" angle (which Roxy does take regularly) turned into voting MetalMarsh89 for 3 votes when Cookie had 2 ("I broke the tie!"). She could have broken the Cookie Day 1. She didn't because of dogma.

The refusal to vote new players despite evidence is dogma, Roxy. Dogma.

She cast a wide net Day 2 ("I could vote any of these people") and ended up voting Cookie after I tipped the scales.

I feel confident Roxy is bad.

You cast a pretty wide net yourself. There is more than one baddie this game I try not to limit my suspicion to one player.
Tough shit about Day 1. Its how I play. It is who I am as a person. I will not change. The evidence you provided Day 1 just did not prick my interest. It was her flip floppy-ness on Timmer that I found so strange. I questioned her beginning with my "wide net" post you are referring to bc I linky'd with her while making it.

That isn't a wide net. Those are my opinions on new people, publicly relayed. Notice that I did not say "Here's a list of people I could vote for," as you did. After posting my thinking, I concluded that Saberfish was the most suspicious of the group (followed by Cookie and TinyBubbles). I elected not to vote for Saberfish, and then voted Cookie again.

Regardless of how wide my net was, I caught a fishy.

I too gave opinions on the people on my list of who I would vote for. After posting that and getting caught in linky with Cookie I questioned her more and made my feelings known in my posts. After much discussion and thinking I went with my strongest suspicion.

Irregardless of how wide my vote net was, I caught a fishy

Roxy wrote:After my questioning my list narrowed here:

Roxy wrote:For me it is Made or Cookie.

Your post six minutes after that is this:

Roxy wrote:just read Mades posts and it really does not read like joking. so iunno

This implies that you hadn't read Made's posts before narrowing it between Cookie and Made.

I had read Made along with everyone else and had already stated I found him suspicious and why. He came back and said that he was joking so I double checked and made my post saying I did not read it as joking. Are you just looking at what you want to instead of the whole picture? Why?

Before that, you don't really mention Made at all, except to say that you won't vote for him (Day 1), that his vote for timmer is "quite odd."

Of note is that both Made and Cookie were turning points based on their timmer takes. Cookie you went after for backing off, Made for voting.

Yes it was a turning point for inre: their Timmer votes. Both were acting fishy about their votes and reasoning. To be fair I said a bit more than it was odd- I actually explained why -

Made - his vote for Timmer is quite odd. He started off by saying he was in a voting Blooper kind of mood but then instead of following his own suspicion he follows who he is suspicious of and votes with Blooper against Timmer - like what? It all felt very fishy upon re-read.

Considering how Timmer flipped I feel pretty fucking good about my suspicions this game. I now find Made even more suspicious then I did before.

Roxy wrote:Epi - you knew she hated being mafia. I could see you bus her but I do agree it is more likely you would have helped her.
I guess you think I am a shitty player that could offer her no advice or help her in anyway if I had bts with her. That I would have let her flop around without help while helping to drive her lynch.

The implication of the underlined is this: Cookie's teammates, whoever they may be, are shitty players because they "could offer her no advice or help her in" any way. I realize that you don't mean that, but that is what you imply here. At worst, it's emotional manipulation.

Not emotional manipulation at all. I meant what I said - YOU must think *I* am a shitty player since you are acting like you alone led the Cookie lynch. You may have found her suspicious Day 1 but you really did not provide any thing more than she was "uncomfortable" being mafia where as I found her flip-floppy-ness more suspicious. You were not alone in bringing that lynch to fruition others helped.

No. I don't think you are a shitty player.

Thanks I don't think you are either.

What you did do is save her Day 1 by voting Metalmarsh89, and then vote Cookie late on Day 2. If you're on a team, you tried to help her. Day 2, you realized there was a good chance she was going down and, due to her loud, personal defeatism in BTSC I suspect, realized there was no chance helping her more than you had.

So no, I would see you as a teammate who tried her best and it just wasn't good enough.

I did not save anyone by voting MM. I followed my own suspicion Day 1. He never even acknowledged my posts. He ignored them completely - when you ignore me I find it suspicious hence my vote. Sorry you disagree with how I play on Day 1 and if you want to lycnh bc I would and will not vote certain people Day 1 then so be it please led the charge. But also be prepared to lead the same charge every game I play with you.
Cookie was not my teammate. If she was her game would have looked very different than it did - that much I guarantee.

DharmaHelper wrote:Roxy, your attitude is the least suspect thing about your play, IMO.

DharmaHelper wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Roxy.

She likes new players and I think Cookie would appeal to her.

The "I will vote for anyone voting new players" angle (which Roxy does take regularly) turned into voting MetalMarsh89 for 3 votes when Cookie had 2 ("I broke the tie!"). She could have broken the Cookie Day 1. She didn't because of dogma.

The refusal to vote new players despite evidence is dogma, Roxy. Dogma.

She cast a wide net Day 2 ("I could vote any of these people") and ended up voting Cookie after I tipped the scales.

I feel confident Roxy is bad.

While I would love it if she were since she won't drop the thing I am really embarrassed and don't want to talk about, I honestly don;t think she is. She has a certain waspishness about her when she is bad that I am not seeing here.

You're not seeing how waspish Roxy has been?

Epignosis wrote:Roxy.

She likes new players and I think Cookie would appeal to her.

The "I will vote for anyone voting new players" angle (which Roxy does take regularly) turned into voting MetalMarsh89 for 3 votes when Cookie had 2 ("I broke the tie!"). She could have broken the Cookie Day 1. She didn't because of dogma.

The refusal to vote new players despite evidence is dogma, Roxy. Dogma.

She cast a wide net Day 2 ("I could vote any of these people") and ended up voting Cookie after I tipped the scales.

I feel confident Roxy is bad.

Roxy wrote:For me it is Made or Cookie.

Roxy wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:So many choices. I thought there would be more votes up given that several have announced their vote in the thread, but there are only 5 total so far? Huh.

Feeling slightly, slightly better about Made regarding tone, but that could be just him fixin' it up for me Thoughts on timmer haven't changed since I last spoke of him. Then this happens:

Roxy wrote:I have so many that I am willing to vote for today: Saberfish, MP, Cookie, Burger Boy, Made, Bubbles or DP if he does not answer my question

Linky - oooooo Now you are suspicious of Timmer------again after you said after reading back you did not find him suspicious?

Yes, this caught my eye as well. Trying to look more contributory, Cookie McNasty? I pointed out these same exactly things (minus the most recent quotes) when I voted him last and you made no comment on them then.]

Thats bc it was Day 1 and even though Cookie was not on my list I realized I had no prior experience with her. Day 2 I give no breaks to anyone