The Syndicate

nutella wrote:When did I ever defend him?

You leapt immediately after me once I decided to go after him.

nutella wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
nutella wrote:I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.
Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.
I am not on a team with Scotty. I cannot vouch for him. I have agreed with a lot of his posts in the game but I have no reason to defend him in terms of alignment.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
aapje wrote:What does ISO stand for?
"Isolation"

It refers to reviewing a player's posts in isolation -- their post history and nothing but.

BTW, happy birthday Black Rock.
I didn't actually know this, lol. I was familiar with its use as an acronym for "In Search Of" and I thought that use kiiind of made sense in this context since you're looking at the search results for a player's posts, but I was never clear on why this term is used and this makes more sense. Silly me.

linki @ JJJ: I think the problem that you are not quite articulating to him is that he's going from "Golden strongly believes Epi is bad" to "Golden knows for certain that Epi is bad." But I also think this logic argument is kind of a useless tangent.

You have no reason to defend him but you did anyway. Aight.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Scotty, I was under the impression that your review of DH's content would be the objective sort -- to determine how you feel about him. It seems though that each of your points about his posts is distinctly negative without caveat (as if an alternative perspective wasn't in your mindset). Do you see any non-baddie motives for DH to do what he's been doing?

Scotty wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
nutella wrote:I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.
Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.
I want to say you are bad, and it wouldn't surprise me if you were, but I want more input from others before making my decision on you over TinyBubbles, because I made the mistake of latching onto MetalMarsh in 2 separate games because he was shifty and unhelpful for all of the early game, when in reality that was apparently his normal civ play.

"Want to say"

"Wouldn't surprise"

Nice weasel words m8.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
nutella wrote:I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.
Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.
You caught two of them at once eh?

We'll see. Or we won't.

aapje wrote:Wow this is a pain to catch up to

nutella wrote:I am feeling better about Boomslang with his last two posts, and for now Scotty's ISO is enough for me to move my vote to DharmaHelper.

linki: Especially since he's not responding productively.

Is the reason you're suddenly up my ass is because I attacked your teammate? Because if so, You both should know I planned on moving my vote but now I won't.

Scotty wrote:.

DH I'm not saying you're bad, so you can take off your hat and have some ice tea or something brotha.

Anyone care to comment on DH? He seems very advantageous to me and overreactionary. Is this the normal DH we're seeing, or am I just stupidly missing the point

Linki:

Roxy wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Woah, Gosh *AND* Golly?

I was bummed I missed out on your hug extravaganza

Woah, Gosh *AND* Golly?

Scotty wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
nutella wrote:DH: I think he made a mistake, was corrected, and said he would look into you for other reasons. He didn't even explicitly state that he was still suspicious of you for the same reason. He said he would look into you and you overreacted.
He grouped me into a list of people he intended to look into, I corrected him, he said then that he would look into me regardless. I voted for him, he backed off.

Suspect.
Jesus dude. I'd be looking into your regardless. By backing off, do you mean not calling you bad? Because I never explicitly said that. I feel like you're just looking to pick a fight for the sake of picking a fight.

Overreact much?

So, in general when you look into people is that because you *dont* find them suspicious (i.e bad)?

nutella wrote:DH: I think he made a mistake, was corrected, and said he would look into you for other reasons. He didn't even explicitly state that he was still suspicious of you for the same reason. He said he would look into you and you overreacted.

He grouped me into a list of people he intended to look into, I corrected him, he said then that he would look into me regardless. I voted for him, he backed off.

Suspect.

nutella wrote:You did not give any reason to think Scotty was suspicious. You only criticized him for suspecting you. That is a no u.

Do you think it's suspicious of him to suspect me for two contradicting reasons? :P

nutella wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
nutella wrote:DH, you seem to refuse to take ANYTHING seriously. Why won't you respond to the people bringing up your name, and why have you not contributed a single original thought or any kind of substantial discussion for the entire game?
Who has brought me up that I haven't responded to?
Me, llama, certainly others, your name came up a few times during the last day I believe. Nice No U on Scotty btw. Who do you really suspect and why?

I see your behavior in this game as similar to (though maybe not quite to same extreme as) MM's. Speaking of which, MM owes me a few explanations. He's refused to contribute AT ALL to any thread discussions. MM, please give us something to work with here.

Did a search of your post. You mentioned me 2 times in 4 game days, once to point out correctly that I haven't contributed anything, and once to tell me not to eat granola.

Llama has the biggest hard on for me in every game, so I'm taking him about as seriously as I'm taking anything.

So, there you go.

nutella wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
nutella wrote:DH, you seem to refuse to take ANYTHING seriously. Why won't you respond to the people bringing up your name, and why have you not contributed a single original thought or any kind of substantial discussion for the entire game?
Who has brought me up that I haven't responded to?
Me, llama, certainly others, your name came up a few times during the last day I believe. Nice No U on Scotty btw. Who do you really suspect and why?

I see your behavior in this game as similar to (though maybe not quite to same extreme as) MM's. Speaking of which, MM owes me a few explanations. He's refused to contribute AT ALL to any thread discussions. MM, please give us something to work with here.

Nice and quick of you to run to Scotty's aid.

Scotty wrote:
nutella wrote:DH, you seem to refuse to take ANYTHING seriously. Why won't you respond to the people bringing up your name, and why have you not contributed a single original thought or any kind of substantial discussion for the entire game?
Actually I would argue that he's ALWAYS around when someone brings up his name, and tends to post about things that have a flair for the dramatic as such. I want to look through his posts later on to see exactly what original thoughts he has brought forth, because I thought I remember him doing so, but I could be wrong.

DH I'm not saying you're bad, so you can take off your hat and have some ice tea or something brotha.

I had some original thoughts RE: Golden, but I haven't said much of anything relevant.

Scotty wrote:I also don't like the non-chalance in Tiny Bubble's posts. They haven't been quantitative but more importantly they haven't been qualitative.

Vote registered for Tiny Bubbles.

linki- lol DH. you funny. I'll get to you when I get some time.

Whats funny is not fact checking your "legimate" suspicions.

nutella wrote:DH, you seem to refuse to take ANYTHING seriously. Why won't you respond to the people bringing up your name, and why have you not contributed a single original thought or any kind of substantial discussion for the entire game?

Who has brought me up that I haven't responded to?

Scotty wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Vote registered to Golden
Oh damn, I'm sorry, you did vote for him. That was in the abbreviated poll the first half of Day 3 and I was only going off of the one Long Con posted, which you forgot to vote again. (Did he say those counted?)

I'll be sure to look more into you as well if that is what you wish. I do remember you had a beef with Golden as well.

So to be clear, first you tried to lump me into a group I had no business being in, and that made me suspicious, but now that I've shown you were wrong to do that, You think I should be looked at for being in the group that was less suspicious. Cool.

Vote Scotty

Scotty wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:You took that from my mouth. Were you recruited and are now actually playing DH?
I've been playing, I just haven't been playing how I usually play.
And why is that? Is it the different format of game? OR something more devious??

I refuse to take you seriously.

DharmaHelper wrote:Vote registered to Golden

Scotty wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Again, I think our best bet is to look at people that mentioned Golden offhand but didn't vote him (or didn't vote at all).

Names that come to mind:
TinyBubbles
DH
Dom
LoRab

So, you're kidding right?
Sorry, I should clarify.

Didn't vote for him Day 3.

Yes, I know you and others voted for him earlier on.

So, are you fucking with me or what?

Again, I think our best bet is to look at people that mentioned Golden offhand but didn't vote him (or didn't vote at all).

Names that come to mind:
TinyBubbles
DH
Dom
LoRab

So, you're kidding right?

thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote: Regarding Boomslang... OK, here's where my mind is at. I can understand why everyone finds his indignant self-vote suspicious. I even find it somewhat suspicious. However, I know Boomslang quite well. He was one of my groomsmen at my wedding (along with birdwithteeth, Devin, and Russ).

I also know his RL is busy. Regarding his mafia meta, in past games he never was one to be a super high poster, but to contribute a couple times a cycle when he really felt he had something to say. With that said, he's somewhat of an enigma for me from a meta standpoint, since he hasn't played TOO many mafia games, and he's returning from a hiatus with this game and Angry Birds. So my judgment of him relies on RL meta, not mafia meta really.

I'm literally torn right down the middle with my thoughts on Boomslang:

1) Half of me finds the fact that Boomslang has consistently been on Golden and hardly contributed much else to be opportunistic. Part of me also sees his self-vote perhaps as a frustrated Azura or Azura teammate since it appears to me that team is absolutely trying to take advantage of Golden (assuming Golden is not on that team) and use him as a free lynch today.

2) The other half of me can actually get inside Boomslang's head and see where he's coming from, but mostly because I know him well. Boomslang is a sharp guy. He's really good at strategy games. I can see why he thinks self-voting is absolutely absurd, since he has a similar perspective to mine on the matter. Consistently with that, he voted for me after I self-voted on Day 1 of Angry Birds (but I won't mention more since that game is ongoing; I just wanted to demonstrate that fact). So I can easily see a scenario in which a neutral, or even civilian, Boomslang doesn't want to bother to pick up the WIFOM that Golden is laying down, doesn't trust him at all, and thus is voting for him. I can absolutely see this. If that is the case, and if Golden isn't bad, then Boomslang is an alternate option for mafia shenanigans, assuming this vote continues to be that specific two-man race.

If I had to pick one of the two candidates at gunpoint, I'd actually pick number 2, and assess that Boomslang is a neutral being utilized by the mafia.
Equivocate much, MP?

I too love guacamole.

DrWilgy wrote:You took that from my mouth. Were you recruited and are now actually playing DH?

I've been playing, I just haven't been playing how I usually play.

Also keeps everyone alive, so there is that. If whoever stopped the night was recruited, they would have probably either not done that, or waited to get their own kills in.

Bummer man.

Meanwhile

TinyBubbles wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:I'll hug anybody who asks for one
i want a hug!

MovingPictures07 wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:I'll hug anybody who asks for one
Me! Me!

Get a load of that wool, DH.

I'll hug anybody who asks for one

thellama73 wrote:So no one else thinks DharmaHelper is a shifty robot but me?

Vote registered to Golden

Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Golden wrote:Now answer mine.
If it worked once, It could work again. You've already shown you have no problem basically asking the people with the kills to do your dirty work, why would I, how could I in good faith, assume you wouldn't be above doing it twice?

Did you not think you could have lynched Epi? Or were you afraid that having lynched him would have put a nail in your coffin?
OK, so you were scared of me on the offchance that I would pull the same ploy a second time and on the offchance it would work twice (note, even after I had stated I don't think I would possibly be able to replicate it) and on the offchance that if I tried it again I would choose you as the target...

What has 'in good faith' got to do with it?

What I see in your answer to my question is exactly the same as what I thought of your suspicion all along.... you are not particularly scared of me killing you, you just see me, generically, as a threat.

And no, I did not think I could lynch epi (at least not before he lynched me). As I said, when epi has done what he did in this game in the past, it has not worked out well for me. Everything I did to epi was specifically about epi, and the impact he has on games, and I don't think anyone who claims they legitimately think I might do the same to them without any reason to think it is being genuine.

Oh, btw, you didn't actually directly answer my question. I thought I should point that out, since it seemed you had a problem with that when I did it. You've actually been avoiding it all afternoon.

Were you legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

Of course I am

It'd be like putting my name on the top of a rainbow list. Let me tell you why your Epi plan was good:

It was good because it got rid of someone you needed to get rid of in order to make it farther into the game. Now let me tell you why your Epi move was the worst possible thing you could have done:

You came up with a solution to a temporary problem that created a problem much bigger, and more difficult to solve. Namely, now you are unrecruitable. No one in their right mind would want you on their team, because of the big fuckin' red X on your forehead right now. You also presented at least one opportunity for the killer(s) to avoid accountability for their kill. Accountability is the most dangerous thing in mafia, and you basically gave whoever killed Epi a free pass.

So either you are a baddie and cooked up the whole "baited" kill as a smokescreen, or you are fine with not being recruited. Which of those do you think is more likely?

Golden wrote:Now answer mine.

If it worked once, It could work again. You've already shown you have no problem basically asking the people with the kills to do your dirty work, why would I, how could I in good faith, assume you wouldn't be above doing it twice?

Did you not think you could have lynched Epi? Or were you afraid that having lynched him would have put a nail in your coffin?

Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?
I'm not sure how this question is relevant.
You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?
You either do, and will eventually try and kill me, or you don't, and you'll put another hit out on me, or you'll get recruited to someone with a kill, and probably want to kill me. There are several possiblities that would lead to you being "responsible" for my death.
So you are legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

Were you legitimately scared that if you didn't put the hit out on Epi he would have A) Not ended up on your team eventually and B) Killed you.

Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?
I'm not sure how this question is relevant.
You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?

You either do, and will eventually try and kill me, or you don't, and you'll put another hit out on me, or you'll get recruited to someone with a kill, and probably want to kill me. There are several possiblities that would lead to you being "responsible" for my death.

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

I'm not sure how this question is relevant.

Why would you be a threat if you weren't eventually going to kill me?

Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:You didn't even answer my question.
Yes I did. That's what the third paragraph is for.

Doesn't address the discrepancy in those quotes I mentioned.

You didn't even answer my question.

Later G-Man.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
DH: I think is playing a neutral game and was happy to vote for me a threat. I've no problem seeing that as genuine.

DH - I don't buy that you are scared for a second. It's just more bullshit. If I successfully baited an epi kill, there is no way I succeed in doing that twice.
Lets play Which One of These Did Golden Say?

If you guessed both, you are correct.
I don't think you are scared that I am going to get you killed, which is what you claimed. I have no problem believing you simply have no qualms getting me out because you see me as a threat. Those are two different things.
What is the difference between seeing you as a threat and being afraid of you leading to my death? Do you think I am threatened that you might hug me too hard?

I am Glip Glorp, Prince of the Woop Wah

Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
DH: I think is playing a neutral game and was happy to vote for me a threat. I've no problem seeing that as genuine.

DH - I don't buy that you are scared for a second. It's just more bullshit. If I successfully baited an epi kill, there is no way I succeed in doing that twice.
Lets play Which One of These Did Golden Say?

If you guessed both, you are correct.
I don't think you are scared that I am going to get you killed, which is what you claimed. I have no problem believing you simply have no qualms getting me out because you see me as a threat. Those are two different things.

What is the difference between seeing you as a threat and being afraid of you leading to my death? Do you think I am threatened that you might hug me too hard?

Why can't I mix things up apart from alignment entirely?

DH: I think is playing a neutral game and was happy to vote for me a threat. I've no problem seeing that as genuine.

DH - I don't buy that you are scared for a second. It's just more bullshit. If I successfully baited an epi kill, there is no way I succeed in doing that twice.

Lets play Which One of These Did Golden Say?

If you guessed both, you are correct.

thellama73 wrote:
Observation 6: re: DharmaHelper. I have seen this kind of game from him a million times. Lots of snark, some poking of hornets' nests, but not much original contribution. It is typical for him, but he also is great at fooling people with his baddie game. People know this, and know he would make a powerful recruit. I'm always nervous about keeping him alive too long.

I disagree

Ricochet wrote:Bye Bass. The Sorcerers don't have it easy, it seems.

I have pages to catch up with, but right off the bat I found something interesting in nutella's posts. I'll post it chronologically

nutella wrote:RIP Epi and Typh. I am like many others surprised and saddened to see Typh go so early and hope he gets a rez since he is quite a fun/intense player to have around. I somewhat agree with MP's assessment -- I would certainly not kill Typhoony so early, I would be hoping for the chance to end up on a team with him, but I wouldn't necessarily discount that someone else familiar with his gameplay could want to eliminate him early on.

Also, it's revealed that he was killed by the Brutal Executioner, and looking at that role we now know that Typh was a Sorceror. For what that's worth.

nutella wrote:My answer to Rico: Azura and the Pyromancer are both pretty scary, but the other 5 Sorcerors don't look so bad to me, and again the scariness of a role really depends on what team they end up on. I guess even if Azura kills again on Night 3 we can't rule that out because the kill would have passed to the recruit. And even if he wasn't Azura I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he was one of the first recruits to a baddie team. So yeah, you have a point that there would certainly be risk in rezzing Typh.

nutella wrote:Well I'm not particularly disappointed to lose the Magnetarch, was a dangerous role anyway. And I'm rather indifferent that he was unrecruited. Honestly I'd call this a relatively successful day 2 given the circumstances. It will be hard to find the actual baddies.

Think I'll go for Position 3.
So why the double standard between these two Sorcerers' deaths? And why suddenly find Magnetarch to have been dangerous, when previously it was deemed not so bad?

This, and what Rey said, make a lot of sense.

Search found 363 matches