The Syndicate

I'm getting a similar vibe from what Sorsha is saying regarding you intentionally putting a target on Fuzz as to what SVS said in Recruitment about you asking for that NK

DharmaHelper wrote:Golden what game was it when you totally got shafted for "putting a hit out" on somebody. I think llama?

Nope it was G-Man in Recruitment mafia

Golden what game was it when you totally got shafted for "putting a hit out" on somebody. I think llama?

Sorsha wrote:@Lorab- so he really has no reason to be trying to suck up to you. We agree on that then. So what's his deal? It crossed my mind that maybe he has a role win condition similar to in Dune. In Dune I won if certain players who voted a certain option in the day 0 poll survived to the end (or maybe they just had to win the game I'd have to check) So I'm considering that maybe that's what HB is up to but that doesn't have anything to do with my suspicion of you.

You say that you do try to butter up players that you think are civ which is what I think you were trying to do with black rock.

Golden successfully got fuzz nked by putting a target on his back but it hasn't seemed to work between HB and you. Perhaps you and HB are on opposing baddie teams is why?

This implies intent. Do you think it was Golden's intention?

Nailed another pun.

FZ. wrote:DH, we'll just agree to disagree. On the bright side, I will say this back and forth makes me feel better about you.

This discourse has given me a lot to think about I will admit.

FZ. wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:@FZ, I'd like to draw you attention to this in particular.

I was a threat to nobody on Night 0, being so vocally detached and lazy as I was. I made exactly one case against someone that was remotely substantive, that being llama. Llama addressed some posts in the general vicinity of that case, but never responded to anything I said. At any point. The next day I was posting in emoticons. Maybe there's a connection. Even if not, his ignorance of me is clearly deliberate at this point and I don't think town llama has any reason to ignore me. I've done nothing to insult him in any prior game, and I have not been a significant part of this game's torrent pace -- so I haven't annoyed him either. All I've done is cast suspicion upon him, both in the form of Night 0 text and Day 1 emojis.

He hasn't given me the time of day. I think he should become dead as soon as possible.
Does that sound uncertain to you? The way JJJ sees it, his statement " It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad" means that either llama as a civ cursed him, or llama/one of llamas teammates cursed him as mafia. Except that logically doesn't track.
No, I think that he sees it as if llama is bad, than he cursed him (or his team mates. Doesn't really matter. I don't think the team mates refers to the case, but rather to being bad), and if he doesn't have team mates (i.e., he's not bad), maybe it just wasn't him.

Long Con wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Long Con wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:I view "pursuing her suspicion" as engaging the person she suspects, collecting the evidence, and presenting a case for her vote. She didn't, and in fact *ACTIVELY* didn't.
The way BR is pursuing Lorab doesn't surprise me. She's mostly a gut player, you should know that.
Should I?
You should. You have played with her a fair number of times... gut play is mostly how I've seen her operate, so I imagine we both saw the same lady.

And if that isn't something you recall, then read my sentence an alternate way, like "She's mostly a gut player, you should consider making this part of your knowledge."

First of all, don't tell me what I "should know". It just makes me more suspicious of you. You don't know how I read you, how I analyze you, and how I remember your post play in games. You know how YOU do these things, but the things I know, remember, and analyze are not going to be the same as you.

Long Con wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:I view "pursuing her suspicion" as engaging the person she suspects, collecting the evidence, and presenting a case for her vote. She didn't, and in fact *ACTIVELY* didn't.
The way BR is pursuing Lorab doesn't surprise me. She's mostly a gut player, you should know that.

Should I?

@FZ, I'd like to draw you attention to this in particular.

I was a threat to nobody on Night 0, being so vocally detached and lazy as I was. I made exactly one case against someone that was remotely substantive, that being llama. Llama addressed some posts in the general vicinity of that case, but never responded to anything I said. At any point. The next day I was posting in emoticons. Maybe there's a connection. Even if not, his ignorance of me is clearly deliberate at this point and I don't think town llama has any reason to ignore me. I've done nothing to insult him in any prior game, and I have not been a significant part of this game's torrent pace -- so I haven't annoyed him either. All I've done is cast suspicion upon him, both in the form of Night 0 text and Day 1 emojis.

He hasn't given me the time of day. I think he should become dead as soon as possible.

Does that sound uncertain to you? The way JJJ sees it, his statement " It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad" means that either llama as a civ cursed him, or llama/one of llamas teammates cursed him as mafia. Except that logically doesn't track.

I view "pursuing her suspicion" as engaging the person she suspects, collecting the evidence, and presenting a case for her vote. She didn't, and in fact *ACTIVELY* didn't.

I hope I snipped these quotes correctly. Anyway, FZ since you haven't read LC's case on JJJ because it was too long, I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on this particular aspect of it, at least?

Long Con wrote:
Spoiler: show
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Long Con wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I did not suggest llama definitely cursed me or imply I was convinced of that. I said something completely different from that. I literally said "I don't know". The difference is not at all negligible.
But what you said was this:

I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.
Unless I'm reading it differently than you intended it, that's saying "I don't know if Llama did this or if one of his teammates did it".

The difference is negligible, because they both mean "Llama is a baddie on the cursing team".
You are. The word "maybe" should not be glossed over. It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad (this is me speaking within the perspective that "town" isn't a "team" in the same manner as a mafia team). I was clearly suspicious of llama and I said so both in text and in emojis. I thought there was a decent enough likelihood that either he cursed me or a mafia team mate of his cursed me.

I was not certain that's what happened. I'm not certain of anything at all.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Cool well as long as llama willfully ignores me I'm gonna go ahead and continue trying to guide him to the guillotine.
Could you clarify why you thought/think that he cursed you?
I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.

I was a threat to nobody on Night 0, being so vocally detached and lazy as I was. I made exactly one case against someone that was remotely substantive, that being llama. Llama addressed some posts in the general vicinity of that case, but never responded to anything I said. At any point. The next day I was posting in emoticons. Maybe there's a connection. Even if not, his ignorance of me is clearly deliberate at this point and I don't think town llama has any reason to ignore me. I've done nothing to insult him in any prior game, and I have not been a significant part of this game's torrent pace -- so I haven't annoyed him either. All I've done is cast suspicion upon him, both in the form of Night 0 text and Day 1 emojis.

He hasn't given me the time of day. I think he should become dead as soon as possible.
That line in pink is what he claims meant "It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad". The claims are quite obviously false when you read the post. Note who is asking him as well.

FZ. wrote:DH, to spare us all another long post quote, I'm answering without it.

It's not that I don't think you're not attempting, I'm just not sure I buy the sincerity of your suspicions. Yeah it could just be disagreeing I guess, but I'm not sold on it yet. You seem like a logic person and the way you play as a civ, from what I've seen, is something I find easy to relate. The fact that I find myself disagreeing with you so much bothers me.

I get how that's different, but in what way did she not pursue her suspicion? She voted for her twice. I perceived it as a gut feeling more than a solid reason, thus her answer that she can't really build a case. Again, I can only judge by how I play when I think of what a baddie would do (unless I know that person's bad game really well), but if I were a baddie, I would try to build the case, just so I look like I can back up my votes and not look bad.

Uhm, she literally said "I won't bother to respond to LoRab's defense because it's too perfect."

FZ. wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Black Rock wrote:Ok, I have basically caught up.A quick answer to Juliets and HB.

I did not respond to LoRabs responses to her suspicion because I saw no point. She took her time, made her excuses, and as far as I am concerned, carefully crafted her response so it was 'just perfect'. The fact that she was under suspicion because of her wording means she was careful to try and debunk that theory. LoRab is not a player to be underestimated. She is smart. She is crafty. She is a damn good mafia player. She is also one that is hard for the masses to suspect because of that. Mostly I am running on gut. If I were a baddie trying to take down LoRab for no good reason, I would have dropped it after it didn't work. LoRab is a personal friend of mine and I won't go after her unless she twists my gut (except for the brief period I always thought she was bad). I also have played with her for 7 years and know for a damn fact she is not an easy target to get lynched. This is not baddie BR trying to take out an easy target. This is BR acting on her gut. When I act on my gut I cannot give you the proper reasons, the reasons some of you need to make sense of all. I have not built a case because there will be no good case to build. LoRab was accused early and she will be careful.

Could I be wrong? Damn right I could. I didn't role check her and I can't know with certainty. Am I questioning myself? Yes, because I am starting to wonder is HB has information I do not. If HB does not tell me he knows without a doubt she is civ then I will not trust LoRab this game.

I will go back and address any other concerns juliets and HB have.
Still catching up on last night, but I got to this post and felt the need to address it, because it set off several red flags.

1. Refusing to engage the person you suspect in discourse regarding those suspicions is pingy as Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. The reasoning you give here also doesn't make sense to me. You say her response was measured and careful in order to debunk the theory that she was being too measured and careful? Dunno, that doesn't click with me. I'm wary in general of anyone who outright refuses to back up their suspicions of someone. That tells me you know you're standing on thin ice and would rather ignore the person you suspect (in this case LoRab), than have your suspicion debunked. If a suspicion cannot stand up to scrutiny, it is either false in nature or faulty in nature.

2. This is fear mongering to me. You're not arguing the facts of the case, you're propping LoRab up as this "big scary boogie woman" as justification for why you refused to engage. Using a player's skill at the game as a reason to A) Want to lynch them and B) Ignore the holes in your suspicion does not sit well with me.

3. Explicit WIFOM. And especially faulty WIFOM as well.

4. I find this particularly amusing. There won't ever be a good case to build on LoRab ever in the whole game? That's just patently false. Anyone can build a "good case" on anyone given enough time and content and effort. But you don't want to put that effort forward because why? Because you know that if you do, your "gut read" starts to turn into something entirely different?

Looking at this post, I'm seeing a majority of emotional appeals rather than factual statements and evidence. That tells me that you have no evidence, and indeed no desire to acquire any such evidence. It comes down to you just wanting to lynch LoRab because she's a "good player", which is a motivation I'd associate with baddies.

This. DH's colour posts really bug me. Not because of the colouring. Because I find myself thinking his attempts feel blown up to seem like he's so engaged in scum hunting. And I find myself disagreeing with his reasons for suspecting people. For example, if someone can't back up their suspicion with a great "case" like people expect, it doesn't make them bad. If anything, when I'm bad, I try to really back up my suspicions as much as I can. Just like he's doing here. It's so easy to find these easy reasons to suspect people. By easy I mean, not doing what is expected by the book (like backing up suspicion).

1. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you haven't read the rest of the thread apparently. I am not "attempting to seem like I'm scum hunting." I'd like to know what gave you that vibe. I try in every game I play to be verbose and thorough in who I suspect.

2. If we disagree, we disagree.

3. Let me be absolutely clear. not being able to back up your suspicions and not being willing to back up your suspicions are two different things. Building and presenting a poor case does not make a person bad, I agree. What I found suspicious was not that BR built and presented a poor case though. What I said was that BR did not build a case, she did not engage LoRab, and she did not make an effort to pursue her suspicion of LoRab. In my view, this means that she knew that if she did, the case would fall apart and not be as strong as what she'd presented. Two different things.

Ricochet wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote: Epi and I have two distinct, different styles of playing. What he finds suspicious and what I find suspicious differ in almost every game we play. I also clash frequently with his methods of going after his suspects. I don't want to get into another pitfall of me and Epi talking through each other for 50 pages.

You should still do it at least once per year.

It's played out. And more often than not just leads us both in a circle with adverse effects on everyone else

FZ. wrote:
Golden wrote:Every person going after JJ I lean bad on. Llama and Long Con particularly so, but MM also to some extent. The only one that is only mild ping at this point is dom.

Besides that, the case is a crock.

Long Con's case is around JJ's thing about llama. But JJ clarified that as soon as he was out of cursing, and what more was he supposed to do beyond the simplistic while cursed? In addition, the theory was good - he theorised llama didn't respond to his case effectively because he knew Jay would be cursed and so it wasn't an urgent priority. As far as day one theories go, it's as good as any.

JJ has claimed he won't be able to post as much (and he isn't posting as much) but the truth is that he has still contributed and the posts have had content.

I will use my vote to save JJ if I have to.

This is the line I like the least:

Long Con wrote:What I'm seeing in your response is a lot of ways to interpret your actions in a Civ light, but it has not convinced me that it couldn't be the way I interpreted it. I'm going to *vote JaggedJimmyJay* instead of Boomslang at this point, because JJJ is still my top suspect.
Like... I'm not convinced my theory is impossible, therefore I still think you are bad.

????

My strong preference is a lynch for Long Con, who I think has been pingworthy in just about everything he has done the entire game.
I think I feel similar to you on this. The more he talks, the more genuine he comes off to me. I don't know yet what I feel of the others pushing for him, but I don't see him as bad yet. I'll be honest and say I didn't read LC's case, because it was just too damn long. I just read the person and decide what I feel. I don't feel he's that bad as everyone is painting him. I'm not sure he's a civ, but am at a 60-40 for a civ vs. mafia on him.

And can someone please tell me what they think of DH? His posts make me so uneasy. I'll go and quote the last one that pinged me now.

I'd urge you to at least read the post LC made on JJJ before you come to any conclusions. He made some really good points.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:JJ/Matt - I can disagree with Epi and not find him suspicious. I do that all the time. What's the issue?
Disagreeing with his LoRab read is not an issue. Disagreement in general is not an issue.

You said you have numerous problems with his play, or at least multiple problems. You crapped in Epi's Corn Flakes. What purpose does that serve?
I don't think you understand what I was saying.
What were you saying?

Epi and I have two distinct, different styles of playing. What he finds suspicious and what I find suspicious differ in almost every game we play. I also clash frequently with his methods of going after his suspects. I don't want to get into another pitfall of me and Epi talking through each other for 50 pages.

Matt asked me what my thoughts were regarding Epi and the other, non-BR people who suspect LoRab. I gave him an answer and added that, while I disagree with how Epi is handling the case, I'd rather not get bogged into exactly what you're bogging me down into. :P

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:JJ/Matt - I can disagree with Epi and not find him suspicious. I do that all the time. What's the issue?
Disagreeing with his LoRab read is not an issue. Disagreement in general is not an issue.

You said you have numerous problems with his play, or at least multiple problems. You crapped in Epi's Corn Flakes. What purpose does that serve?

I don't think you understand what I was saying.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:If I got into all the problems I see with Epi's play we'd have another Mac/Rico/Zebra situation, or more accurately, another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason.
If you think he's bad then say so and explain why. You're not preventing "another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason", you're withholding a perspective you claim to have for no good reason.
I never said I think he's bad.
If you don't think he's bad, then what is the purpose of insinuating you "see problems with his play"? That can do nothing but discredit him.

JJ/Matt - I can disagree with Epi and not find him suspicious. I do that all the time. What's the issue?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:If I got into all the problems I see with Epi's play we'd have another Mac/Rico/Zebra situation, or more accurately, another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason.
If you think he's bad then say so and explain why. You're not preventing "another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason", you're withholding a perspective you claim to have for no good reason.

I never said I think he's bad.

Matt wrote:Mac, no, I'm not trying to create conflict. I have reason to believe Epig is a big bad and I wanted your thoughts on him. Which I'm not sure I even got, you pretty much just kept turning it back on me, I see. Just to be clear, though, you no longer suspect Lorab?

Llama - Thanks.

FZ - I was immediately pinged by you when you said that you had never played a game with bad sig. You have, though, in Dune. I suppose we could chalk that up to plain forgetfulness regardless of affiliation, I dunno. Also, in one reply to Rico, you say something to him like "Way to twist my words" or something, which I thought was funny because Rico is civ so you think Rico is twisting your words? Then, a few posts later, you comment that there is no reason for you to guess about Rico because you know his affiliation...makes me feel that at some point between those two posts, your potential teamies reminded you that Rico is a civvie and therefore accusing him of twisting your words ain't cool.

DH - If you think Black Rock is fibbing about Lorab, does that mean you also think Epig and others are BSing their cases on Lorab? Or is it just BR?

How would that make sense? Black Rock's suspicion of LoRab to me looks disingenuous, but that has no bearing one way or the other on Epi or anyone else. My comment on Epi's side of things was that I don't hold much stock in a case that hasn't evolved in 3+ days of discussion beyond what I don't see as a smoking gun. I don't recall "anyone else" having thoughts drastically different from Epi or BR in the case of LoRab.

If I got into all the problems I see with Epi's play we'd have another Mac/Rico/Zebra situation, or more accurately, another DH/Epi situation of taking up the thread for no good reason.

Long Con wrote:Here's why I suspect JJJ. He first became my suspect when Zebra was revealed as the curser. The theory is that Jimmy's belief that Llama was the one who cursed him was fake. JJJ is an experienced player, and I don't think an experienced player would jump to the conclusion that the person who he had some suspicion about would be his curser, with any certainty. JJJ's Smiley posts condemned Llama and might have gotten him lynched if not for Rico's shenanigans. No waiting to have a discourse, not consideration that it was a frame, just right to the idea that Llama cursed him, and here's why.

The way that JJJ dealt with it, coupled with the way that Zebra interacted with the idea, leads me to the belief that it was a plan. To put it another way - starting on a little thought journey into the baddie BTSC, discussing how to take advantage of a cursing role beyond the meagre reward of messing with someone... what I saw with the two of them looks a lot like a plan.

Going from this post:
Spoiler: show
Long Con wrote:JJJ, like HamburgerBoy already pointed out, despite the fact that you couldn't talk, you managed to easily convey that you believed Llama cursed you, and why you believed he cursed you. Saying "I couldn't bloody talk" is disingenuous.

The fact that Zebra didn't agree with you and pursue Llama as a suspect makes complete sense as a baddie teammate. If Llama is going to flip Civ, then it looks good on her that she wasn't after him with you.

Now we know that's because she was responsible. There's no value in trying to frame somebody if it can't actually turn into a case constructed of legible words.
How can you say there's no value in it, when Llama was on par with Lorab as the top lynch candidate, without Rico in the equation?

Now you have torn your shirt open and gone to super-civ mode with your very helpful breakdown of zebra's interactions... after you have been accused. That looks like scrambling to me.

JJJ wrote:Now we know that's because she was responsible. There's no value in trying to frame somebody if it can't actually turn into a case constructed of legible words.
This isn't the only time he has defended against my theory with the notion that being unable to clearly communicate for one phase makes the framing plan valueless. That makes no sense, and here's why I say that: First, JJJ quite capably made the case in Smiley talk that he thought Llama cursed him and wished to lynch him for it. Second, JJJ gets to talk after the curse is over, and so would have plenty of time to make the case later on, so "can't actually turn into a case constructed of legible words" is not realistic. Zebra's unexpected death and reveal changed the plan irrevocably, does anyone believe that Jimmy would not have continued hunting for Llama's blood based on the idea Llama cursed him?

Here's another thing, read this one and then consider:

Spoiler: show
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Long Con wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I did not suggest llama definitely cursed me or imply I was convinced of that. I said something completely different from that. I literally said "I don't know". The difference is not at all negligible.
But what you said was this:

I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.
Unless I'm reading it differently than you intended it, that's saying "I don't know if Llama did this or if one of his teammates did it".

The difference is negligible, because they both mean "Llama is a baddie on the cursing team".
You are. The word "maybe" should not be glossed over. It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad (this is me speaking within the perspective that "town" isn't a "team" in the same manner as a mafia team). I was clearly suspicious of llama and I said so both in text and in emojis. I thought there was a decent enough likelihood that either he cursed me or a mafia team mate of his cursed me.

I was not certain that's what happened. I'm not certain of anything at all.
Here's the actual quote by Jimmy. Does it read like he's proposing two different possibilities? One, where Llama is bad, and the other, where Llama is Civ?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Cool well as long as llama willfully ignores me I'm gonna go ahead and continue trying to guide him to the guillotine.
Could you clarify why you thought/think that he cursed you?
I don't know whether llama did that. Maybe llama has team mates.

I was a threat to nobody on Night 0, being so vocally detached and lazy as I was. I made exactly one case against someone that was remotely substantive, that being llama. Llama addressed some posts in the general vicinity of that case, but never responded to anything I said. At any point. The next day I was posting in emoticons. Maybe there's a connection. Even if not, his ignorance of me is clearly deliberate at this point and I don't think town llama has any reason to ignore me. I've done nothing to insult him in any prior game, and I have not been a significant part of this game's torrent pace -- so I haven't annoyed him either. All I've done is cast suspicion upon him, both in the form of Night 0 text and Day 1 emojis.

He hasn't given me the time of day. I think he should become dead as soon as possible.
That line in pink is what he claims meant "It implies two realities: one in which llama has team mates and one in which he does not. If he does not have team mates, he isn't bad". The claims are quite obviously false when you read the post. Note who is asking him as well.

Another vaguer ping: After he got accused of this, he began an impressive, 'really-Civvish' ISO of Zebra. It was very helpful, and I believe several people thanked him for it. It's just the kind of thing that's easy to look at and say "this is good, solid contribution, very helpful to the Civs." What I see is one trick in the bag of tricks that an experienced player like JJJ knows will buy some cred.

I think that's pretty much it. Maybe a few gut feelings to shore it up. That's my JJJ case.

Black Rock wrote:
MacDougall wrote:BR I don't remember you being so committed in the previous games we played together. You on holidays or something?

I've been busy since June, January - April are my quiet months. I've been a pretty crappy player as of late. I joined this game promising myself I would get back to the true Mafia BR! At least for a game. There is folklore that surrounds that Black Rock that I feel I haven't been living up to. I once was so committed to Mafia that I even voted while in labour for my second born child?

Linki: ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Kid wasn't even out of the womb yet and you voted to lynch him/her? Brutal.

Black Rock wrote:Ok, I have basically caught up.A quick answer to Juliets and HB.

I did not respond to LoRabs responses to her suspicion because I saw no point. She took her time, made her excuses, and as far as I am concerned, carefully crafted her response so it was 'just perfect'. The fact that she was under suspicion because of her wording means she was careful to try and debunk that theory. LoRab is not a player to be underestimated. She is smart. She is crafty. She is a damn good mafia player. She is also one that is hard for the masses to suspect because of that. Mostly I am running on gut. If I were a baddie trying to take down LoRab for no good reason, I would have dropped it after it didn't work. LoRab is a personal friend of mine and I won't go after her unless she twists my gut (except for the brief period I always thought she was bad). I also have played with her for 7 years and know for a damn fact she is not an easy target to get lynched. This is not baddie BR trying to take out an easy target. This is BR acting on her gut. When I act on my gut I cannot give you the proper reasons, the reasons some of you need to make sense of all. I have not built a case because there will be no good case to build. LoRab was accused early and she will be careful.

Could I be wrong? Damn right I could. I didn't role check her and I can't know with certainty. Am I questioning myself? Yes, because I am starting to wonder is HB has information I do not. If HB does not tell me he knows without a doubt she is civ then I will not trust LoRab this game.

I will go back and address any other concerns juliets and HB have.

Still catching up on last night, but I got to this post and felt the need to address it, because it set off several red flags.

1. Refusing to engage the person you suspect in discourse regarding those suspicions is pingy as Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. The reasoning you give here also doesn't make sense to me. You say her response was measured and careful in order to debunk the theory that she was being too measured and careful? Dunno, that doesn't click with me. I'm wary in general of anyone who outright refuses to back up their suspicions of someone. That tells me you know you're standing on thin ice and would rather ignore the person you suspect (in this case LoRab), than have your suspicion debunked. If a suspicion cannot stand up to scrutiny, it is either false in nature or faulty in nature.

2. This is fear mongering to me. You're not arguing the facts of the case, you're propping LoRab up as this "big scary boogie woman" as justification for why you refused to engage. Using a player's skill at the game as a reason to A) Want to lynch them and B) Ignore the holes in your suspicion does not sit well with me.

3. Explicit WIFOM. And especially faulty WIFOM as well.

4. I find this particularly amusing. There won't ever be a good case to build on LoRab ever in the whole game? That's just patently false. Anyone can build a "good case" on anyone given enough time and content and effort. But you don't want to put that effort forward because why? Because you know that if you do, your "gut read" starts to turn into something entirely different?

Looking at this post, I'm seeing a majority of emotional appeals rather than factual statements and evidence. That tells me that you have no evidence, and indeed no desire to acquire any such evidence. It comes down to you just wanting to lynch LoRab because she's a "good player", which is a motivation I'd associate with baddies.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:What's with the hesitation on Lorab? I suspect her because of her wording regarding Ricochet, and her response was too measured, too kind. Black Rock claims to read Lorab well and says she's bad (and I believe her, because Lorab's tone is a mystery to me and I've only played a handful of times with her). Is that not a one-two punch? What's the deal? Lynch her already and be done. Then see where we stand.

That's my position. Still.
Even her very first post regarding LoRab is actually one of suspicion built on agreeing with Rico's case on her, and as you have said yourself, Rico was spewing bullshit. BR's next post was basically (if indirectly) agreeing with your case on LoRab. She then said a couple things about wanting to see LoRab address points to her, and then ignored that LoRab actually did later. After that, she then proceeded to agree with Sorsha's post against LoRab. Sorry, not a one-two punch to me, it looks like for the better part of day 1, her only concern was agreeing with people that found LoRab suspicious.

In fact, in light of the Rico-LoRab thing I had overlooked before, what do you think of the possibility that Black Rock was bussing? I don't find BR's case on LoRab to be coming from anywhere genuine.

This ain't the first time ol' HB took up the fight for the Not Too Shabbi Rabbi. Is that offensive to say? LoRab. I'm referring to LoRab. Whom I adore.

For my part, I'm not sold on a case that in the course of Night 0 to Day 3 has not evolved past "I got the heebies"

OK now that I'm not tired out of my mind and watching 3 different things at once lets get cracking on what happened last night, shall we?

Dom wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Oi real quick before I clock out tonight, Anybody wanna talk about why the fuck the thread says "Day 3.0" and not "Day 3"
you could read the thread and find out!

Epignosis wrote:What's with the hesitation on Lorab? I suspect her because of her wording regarding Ricochet, and her response was too measured, too kind. Black Rock claims to read Lorab well and says she's bad (and I believe her, because Lorab's tone is a mystery to me and I've only played a handful of times with her). Is that not a one-two punch? What's the deal? Lynch her already and be done. Then see where we stand.

That's my position. Still.
I suspected LoRab earlier, so I'll look into those reasons again.

Sassy fucker.

Oi real quick before I clock out tonight, Anybody wanna talk about why the fuck the thread says "Day 3.0" and not "Day 3"

Golden wrote:
thellama73 wrote:The RadicalFzz kill was obviously because so many people were calling him a definite civ. Today I intend to look at those who were eager to paint a target on his back.
Bullsuit.

Voting llama

I was waiting to see who ran that argument first. I find it much more likely that RadicalFuzz would be killed by someone who wanted to run that argument. I was wondering if it might be DH. I've never been part of any mafia team that has talked about killing someone because others are reading them as civ, nor have I ever hosted a mafia team having that discussion.

If I might have run the argument first, or if I might have been involved in Fuzz's death? Or both, I guess.

Long Con wrote:Metalmarsh has voted for JaggedJimmyJay without posting, so maybe he's silenced.

That's also a lynch I would be happy to support.

To clarify, you'd support a MM lynch or a JJJ lynch?

That's a pretty intense night.

sig wrote:DH used a smile he must be mafia case closed.

Kinda stupid isn't it? That is at least two people's reasons or a portion of their reasons for voting me.

linki: Yes that is what I'm saying a seemer did something to Zebra, they had a night 0 to preform actions so it is possibly that they set her up. If this is the case that means Zebra was most likely right about her mafia reads and they wanted to discredit them, or did it for an unknown reason.

linki: Me fuzz?

I hope you don't mean me?

FZ. wrote:
Golden wrote:
FZ. wrote:This might be a difference of cultures issue. I think a seemer is either a person who will look bad when checked or a person who can make someone look bad. Or did I misunderstand what you're asking here?
Maybe. Sig didn't obviously 'speculate' that it could be someone who can make someone look bad, since the role said that outright. Sig was speculating that zebra was actually good. Further than that, he was speculating that Zebra really was the Roger Rabbit role, just that her affiliation was wrong.

But look at the role powers. They do not appear to be the role powers of a civilian. They appear to be the role powers of a baddie.

But, let me ask you something FZ, you seem quite passionate in your perspective that sig is civ. This is interesting, given you have recently subbed in and so bring a different perspective. I think you've explained well why you think some of the points made against sig are suspicious or unfair, but could you put into words why you think sig is good (if I am reading you right and you do).
I don't really think I've played with bad Sig, or at least I don't remember him as one. But I completely agree with what you said about him often being lynched as a civvie for managing to get his foot in his mouth. This is what I'm seeing here. Maybe the fact I've missed some of the early game discussion is preventing me from seeing something, but I just don't see anything that feels bad about him. He just feels like his normal self. The fact that a lot of people find him suspicious can mean two things in my opinion: 1. That he's bad and some of his team mates are throwing him under the bus, or 2. that he's good and he's an easy lynch to hide behind. The more people vote for him, the easier it is for a baddie to hide in the crowd

sig wrote:I didn't think there was a difference between fluffy and jokey, I've always thought they meant the same thing. I responded to your and everyone's cases against me, however as I said how can I defend myself from posts that you can't defend yourself from? I don't think everyone who is voting for me is scummy however many of you give scummy or weak reasoning for your vote.

A good start is by not immediately attacking anyone who finds you suspicious for doing a suspicious thing.

sig wrote:1. That is my thought process I might be wrong, but I don't see how this would be scummy?
2. I disagree here, the chances of lynching a baddie day 1 is so small, getting an unkillable confirmed civ is better then maybe possibly lynching a baddie day 1. I think it is scummy for people to say it would have been better to lynch a baddie.
3. Cool glad we agree here
4. I've given reasons against Llama? Calling it a vendetta is pingy to me, it is an attempt to make anything I say about Llama look like a grudge match thus making people less likely to believe my case.
4. part 2, Her and Mac's interactions, however I'm not as confident in that today as I was when i first made this post.
5. I deemed that it was something important to discuss, so I brought it up.

sig wrote:Still going on about the fluff post, plus he calls my defense of it weak. First I shouldn't have even needed to defend a fluff post, second how does one defend a joky post? There is no way he would think I had a strong defense. All three reasons are weak. I think my initial suspicion of DH might be accurate and this is one of the reasons he is voting for me.

First off, "Jokey" and "fluff" are two different things man. Your post was fluff, that is to say its intended purpose was to appear to contribute to discussion without actually doing so. Your response to the scrutiny of this post has amounted to "Oh guess anyone who looks at me is bad". Not gonna fly.

2. Well, in terms of "winning the game", lynching baddies trumps lynching civvies, regardless of how possible either outcome is.
4. Everything I've seen from you RE: Llama (and myself for that matter) has come on the heels of llama suspecting you. I have difficulty thinking that is genuine.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I just noticed MM hasn't posted this phase apart from this single thing:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:And Oh shit Cincy! Just looked at the score. Who dey

Does this OT Bengals lamentation qualify as evidence that he can't be silenced? I don't know what's typical on The Syndicate. Do silenced players tend to post in OT? I don't remember seeing it.
I've never seen silenced players allowed to post in any capacity OT or otherwise.
Au contraire.

In Harry Stephen Keeler Mafia, I cursed SVS to make a minimum of 10 posts using the smiley in it (or something to that effect). She was silenced the same night. So llama comrpomised, and said SVS could post, but only in OT green with said smiley involved.

And no, I'm not silenced, just busy. And disheartened.

My original statement stands. I've never seen that personally :P

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I just noticed MM hasn't posted this phase apart from this single thing:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:And Oh shit Cincy! Just looked at the score. Who dey

Does this OT Bengals lamentation qualify as evidence that he can't be silenced? I don't know what's typical on The Syndicate. Do silenced players tend to post in OT? I don't remember seeing it.

I've never seen silenced players allowed to post in any capacity OT or otherwise.

Long Con wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
sig wrote:So zebra was mafia, that most likely means JJJ wasn't on her team. I did see the idea that she picked him, but this makes little sense for day 1. I think it is worth looking into the players who after Rico flipped made comments, like saying how they hope he isn't as spammy or it would be better to have lynched a baddie. I find the first group to almost be trying to weaken Rico's credit thus giving him less of an opinion and basically neutering him, and the second group to just be scummy.

I think a few mafia members were on the Rico wagon, however I also think there is a good chance that either LoRab or Llama are scum.

I don't have many civ or scum reads right know, but I do think Long Con is a civilian, and I'm leaning scum on Llama. Know here is my question do you think the early snipping that Llama and Zebra did was fabricated? It was only a little bit, but I'm curious what people think of it.

I think with Zebra's lynch it also makes it less likely that Mac is on her team.

One last thing, if Roger Rabbit was a civ role last game wouldn't it be odd for it to be a scum role this game? Could this be some sort of seemer/prankster thing? Remember Night 0 scum was able to do actions in theory they could have targeted Zebra and then killed her today. This could be a seemer role where it replaces the scum who used it, just switched the alignment, or let the seemer pick a role.
I think the chances of this are low, but then again the chances of hitting a mafia night 1 is also small.
One thing I'm always wary of is Mafia buddying up to Civs, so this is one thing that I have to say toward the relatively popular idea that sig is bad. Why do you think I'm Civ, sig?

See guys this is how you use colors.

Oh also I'm voting sig for the moment. Not likely to change unless something really fucks me up in my catch up.

That big fluffy post of fluff was a total red flag, his defense of it was weak, and the post above is another flag for me.

sig wrote:So zebra was mafia, that most likely means JJJ wasn't on her team. I did see the idea that she picked him, but this makes little sense for day 1. I think it is worth looking into the players who after Rico flipped made comments, like saying how they hope he isn't as spammy or it would be better to have lynched a baddie. I find the first group to almost be trying to weaken Rico's credit thus giving him less of an opinion and basically neutering him, and the second group to just be scummy.

I think a few mafia members were on the Rico wagon, however I also think there is a good chance that either LoRab or Llama are scum.

I don't have many civ or scum reads right know, but I do think Long Con is a civilian, and I'm leaning scum on Llama. Know here is my question do you think the early snipping that Llama and Zebra did was fabricated? It was only a little bit, but I'm curious what people think of it.

I think with Zebra's lynch it also makes it less likely that Mac is on her team.

One last thing, if Roger Rabbit was a civ role last game wouldn't it be odd for it to be a scum role this game? Could this be some sort of seemer/prankster thing? Remember Night 0 scum was able to do actions in theory they could have targeted Zebra and then killed her today. This could be a seemer role where it replaces the scum who used it, just switched the alignment, or let the seemer pick a role.
I think the chances of this are low, but then again the chances of hitting a mafia night 1 is also small.

Engaging in my catch up and I have to say this post really rings my bells.

1. I don't think it clears JJJ from being on Zebra's team at all. Mafia target in-house with those types of roles early very often.
2. I disagree. I think its good form for Rico to dial it back now that he's done what he wanted to do. I also can't fault anyone for thinking that however unlikely it would have been, lynching a baddie D1 would trump lynching a civvie.
3. Rico would have been a very easy vote to make late, I agree.
4. Several instances of your post (the suspecting people who thought it would be better to lynch a mafia, calling out Lorab and Llama) already indicate you suspect Llama, But you don't say why. Seems like a vendetta to me.
4. How?
5. This is a big ping for me. A huge indication of mafia is their tendency to bring speculation into the thread.

Hot damn am I off the poll? I've been busy all day.

I will be back later tonight with some thoughts after I have fully re-read everything I need to.

a2thezebra wrote:Dharma. I have a question for you. What do you think MM is trying to achieve with his crock of total shit?

It could be that his question wasn't bait, but he's using the "bait" defense as an excuse after taking some flak.

Turnip Head wrote:2 hours to get your PM's in. Hurry up

To summarize:

MM asked a question in order to see how people would react, but in his plan he forgot to account for the reaction of people actually answering the question? All that matters to him is the reaction to the question he asked, but he did not expect, having asked a question in a game of questions and answers, to receive answers in any capacity.

Speaking of questions and answers, MM could not answer (and indeed attempted to completely dodge) my question regarding what it was he would have considered an acceptable response to his bait-question.

Crock. of. total. shit.

juliets wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
juliets wrote:Metalmarsh here is the question I asked you. Note that I am not asking the same questions you already answered. I'm wanting to know what was in your head when you picked the word "which" when you framed the question.

juliets wrote:MM, your question to him was "which team do you think he is on?". That sounds like you not only know there are two teams (i know you responded to this already) but that you knew what the team names were. What made you use the word "which"? And what did you expect in return from JJJ that would be an example of "which"? I hope you understand what I am asking. If not, let me know.
Sorry I never responded juliets. I've been playing much of this game so far on my phone, and just must be missing posts.

Anyway, to answer your questions.
1) I have no idea how many teams there are. That was an intentional "slip" to see how folks responded.
2) I did not know that the mafia team(s) have names. Your suggestion of that is very suspicious imo. I did not imply that I knew it either.
3) I expected Jay to be far more aggressive in his response, since the number of mafia teams is unknown, and I implied that I knew how many there were. Then again, Jay was acting apathetic before I asked the question, so I don't know what to make of it. Different Jay =/= mafia Jay.
And to add, Matt did propose the same case that you did, that I slipped, and must be mafia. But he took a pretty hesitant approach to it. The Matt I remember from Talking Heads would have dogged me all day and all game over something like that.

Juliets, where did you get the idea that the mafia team(s) have names?
I've never played a game where the mafia teams haven't had names. It just made sense that since you were indicating you thought there was more than one team you also thought the teams would have names. I think you admitted to this during the discussion that has taken place.

zebra and DH have hit precisely on my reasons for asking you the question so i don't feel we need to rehash that. Thanks to the two of you for reading my mind while I wasn't here. I do think the root of the miscommunication here is that you asked the question to see what reactions there were to the question, not to get a specific answer to the "which" question. You didn't expect a response to the question. (That's a little hard for me to understand but I take you at your word). I, on the other hand, read the question as one where you were looking for a specific answer and didn't understand how someone could be expected to answer a "which" question without knowledge of names of the parties from which he would choose. I wouldn't have asked the question if I had realized you were just looking for reactions about the question.

The only thing I can't understand is why you think I'm suspicious for asking the question. As games go on I ask lots of questions. Some of them represent misunderstanding which sounds like the case here. Thats why I ask, to cull out those issues and get to the real issues.

If you feel we need further discussion about this just let me know.

As far as the vote goes for today, I think I'll vote for spider monkey. I have no idea who that could be and we don't even know if the person attached to it receives something good, something bad, or nothing at all. We don't even know for sure if someone is attached to animal. So Spider monkey it is.

Cuz it's a crock of shit basically.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Ricochet wrote:LoRab and llama have not butted heads over who is the better writer and poster.

confirmed fishy
I think I'm cool with lynching llama first. I hope I don't forget by the time I have to vote.
Which team do you think he is on?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:I understand the question was bait, but at the time you asked it, surely you would have expected a response. At the time you asked, nobody knew it was a bait question. So given that, they would indicate to you "which team", how exactly?

The question itself is a poison pill, is what I'm getting at. You suspect JC for saying that you suggested the teams were named, which you didn't explicitly, but you can't in turn suspect her when "which team is he on" requires a distinction between teams.
No, I was not. My expectations are not the same as yours.

Juliets suggested that I knew what the team names are, not just that I know that there are names.

Do you know what names have been given to any mafia teams in this game?

I don't. I do see what you are saying regarding why JC says she suspects you. I get that part. I think we're not quite connecting our points here.

You're saying it is unreasonable for JC to suggest that you knew what the names are. Which I get.

I understand the question was bait, but at the time you asked it, surely you would have expected a response. At the time you asked, nobody knew it was a bait question. So given that, they would indicate to you "which team", how exactly?

The question itself is a poison pill, is what I'm getting at. You suspect JC for saying that you suggested the teams were named, which you didn't explicitly, but you can't in turn suspect her when "which team is he on" requires a distinction between teams.

Search found 686 matches