The Syndicate

I do sort of agree; there seems to be more of a streak of extremely paranoid civvies constantly suspecting everyone and refusing to put out the necessary trust to win in full games here.

thellama73 wrote:
Roxy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Good game guys. Another baddie win, lol.
I can't believe the dismal Civvie track record in the Jobs section of the Hall of Fame. Wow! Do we need more powerful Civvie teams in this meta?
It's an issue I've tried to address here:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... ?f=8&t=404

I find two reasons for the rampant string of Mafia victories:

1. Overpowered Mafia with an unbalanced ratio.
2. Apathetic or uninvested civilians.
I agree bc it is what happened in this game.
Not the overpowered mafia obv as there was a trio of players that were alive longest all from different teams.
Uninterested civs.
I cannot tell you how MANY PM's I sent out prior to the start of night literally BEGGING the civ players to use their power.

Never in any game that I have hosted have I seen so many civs not bothering to post, play or use their night action(s). It really bummed me out after all the work that went into creating a fun and balanced game - to have to beg people to use their ability. As a matter of fact there were a few that NEVER got used r if they had the civs would have had better chance than what they did.

My favorite completely unused role - The Dead Collector could choose any dead power they wanted to - they had kills, blocks, protections etc at their disposal and yet never used - a real bummer especially as it was my favorite role.
I've had this experience as a host as well, and it is very frustrating. Especially when you have crafted the rolls to be balanced, and then one player not using their ability throws the game out of balance.

This. It can be incredibly disappointing.

I think S~V~S is signifying that perhaps people are too focused on NO U'ing those who suspect them and aren't as willing to cooperate as perhaps they should be even when they have reason to. But maybe I misunderstand?

Anyway, I think this is an interesting discussion, but for most of the Job games here I've seen so far, I think the most contributing reason is the one Epig pointed out: disinterested civilians.

Additionally, it could be argued that even though the probability of a coin flipping 10 times and landing on heads each time is unlikely, but it is still a possibility nonetheless. Obviously mafia games are incredibly complicated and depend on the personality, effort, and luck regarding each individual, but it's entirely possible that the explanation is that mafia have won just because they have won.

Enrique wrote:

Great games, guys, and I especially want to give props to the other baddie team for completely blindsiding us so far into the game! We had no idea of who you guys were pretty much until there were no other options left.

You know what's awful? Starting the games as a civvie with two lives, being suspected enough to presumably not be lynched, and still die as early as possible. Still had a lot of fun following the game after that (didn't even make it a fifth of the way through ), and and, also want to give props to Dana for a great first full game! It was clear by the time you died that the civs weren't gonna win, but you made it to the very end and only died because of a lynch switch. Made me proud.

DP, Roxy. You guys were amazing. It only took me 3 days of your game to be completely addicted to Mafia again. I really enjoyed the secret roles format, and actually look forward to more games like this in the future. Good job!

Can we also just take a moment to appreciate Bullzeye for what a great player he is? He won practically every challenge in the game, and despite all the setbacks he won the game. It only made sense to kill him in the end (well, I probably would've killed Boogs, but I recognize I'm biased ), but most wouldn't have lasted as long as Bullz did. I know you're taking a break, but take this win, and hope to play with you again in the future!

I agree, Bullzeye rocked the house this game. And DP and Rox hosted one hell of a game, it's a shame I had to go so early!

Roxy wrote:MP - did you hyave to move the game so fast?? Now I cannot edit the rest of the stuff to page one

BTW the changeable vote box does not work - no one can change votes even if the box is checked

Now move my game back please so we can have a proper finish

Oh, sorry about that, Rox! I didn't realize there'd be permissions issues like that. You got it.

Oh, and that reminds me, I can't believe I was the only one to get Sir Bevedere on the survey! How weird is that? Lol.

Wow, what an endgame!!!! Even having died so early, I did continue to follow on and off, and I have to say: Congrats to the final four. Wow. And congrats to FEB LC, that was amazing.

Enrique wrote:
bea wrote:and while I'm here - are you sure about LC canuck? You and lorab both seem pretty sure he's civ. And I'll admit - I've thought he was civ all game, but could could you be wrong?

I KNOW this is my paranoia speaking. I know it. He double crossed me in trev's star wars game, he double crossed me in wabbit's sword of truth game, he double crossed me in fight club. He's *really* good at starting out as civ and then doing the double cross. Are you SURE about him?
Ahh, Trev's Star Wars was such an amazing game. LP is back, in case anyone hasn't noticed, so all those classic mafia archives are available again The ending was insane. LC knew he could win with me, but he tried to kill me anyway... thankfully my role didn't allow for that

Good to hear LP is back. Understatement, in fact.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Roxy wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:There are two Prince Herberts???
no u
I am not a Prince Herbert

I am, you guys should rezz me

Roxy wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Can dead players participate in this contest?
why yes, yes you can!

Awesome!

Sadly, I don't think I can beat Canuck's stroke of genius. But I may try anyway.

Can dead players participate in this contest?

thellama73 wrote:You guys are going to have such egg on your face.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Neutral is not civvie! I'm counting that as a win!
Any lunch where you don't dine is a win isn't it?

BRAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINS!!!!!

LoRab wrote:
I vaguely remember an amulet. Very vaguely. Did I win that game? I can't even remember if I was civ or bad.

You must have been given it by the Devil's team, and since I hadn't encountered it, I had no idea what it would do.

It was you, a civvie, and Bree, another civvie, Map, the last remaining Devil member, and me, the last remaining Jello team member. I had previously claimed the civvie Ambassador role to save myself from being lynched, but in reality I was the Jello Ambassador. Map actually outed herself in thread and you began working with her, claiming the other bad role, but then I came out and said I was bad, and after a lengthy discussion Map and I agreed to each kill one of you. She would kill Bree and I would kill you, and then our "tie" would be decided by LC and BR. Well, that night, LC said I had been offered the Amulet of... Power, I think? And that I could take it or pass it on... I was super afraid that if I passed it on, then Map would get it and she would beat me in the case of a tie, so I thought I should hold onto it. I debated so much over it though. Turns out it was the Amulet of Misdirection and any night target that would target you (the giver of the amulet) from the wearer of the amulet (me) would be redirected back at myself.

Map had an extra vote up her sleeve, but so did I! So I had no idea what LC and BR would have done for a tie, but I blew it by being super paranoid with the amulet.

Totally epic endgame, my favorite I've ever been involved in still, to this day.

Canucklehead wrote:ETA: the one exception I can think of to my truancy from baddie chatrooms was the first Recruitment game at TP. I had a shittonne of fun that game and hung out in our baddie chat a LOT. I have no idea how we did as a team in the actual game (I think we lost? Probably pretty hard?), but I will admit that I did in that instance spend a lot of time chatting and planning who we were going to recruit and kill. FoD Forever!

Best team ever.

We lost, but I got to the final four! I blame LoRab because of that stupid amulet. UGH! Still haunting me to this day.

Anyone have a rezz? Please?

Agreed on TARDIS blue. Best color ever.

Made wrote:That feel when God won't answer your prayers, but Moving Picture does

Made wrote:
Mister Rearranger wrote:
Enrique wrote:Yeah llama I really should have the whole game figured out from the get-go shouldn't I :/
I'm glad you've moved over to the Made-train now that he's outlived his usefulness to your team. Should give you oodles of civ-cred.
Dear God,
I am a sinner, who's probably gonna sin again. Lord for give me(Lord for give me) for things I don't understand. I just want to be alone.
Bitch don't kill my vibe

I suspect you MR. So hard man, so hard. Enrique, ride with me, and by the end of this, you will have so much civvie cred, then probably die night 3 for being the only person to trust ya boy made the entire game, making you a super obvious civvie right?

Oh well, I'm officially dead now! And thanks for the game while what little it lasted, Rox and DP! Have fun, everyone!

Well, I have just a really small bit of downtime here between classes, but I see I'm a dead man. I still haven't had time to catch up at all. I frankly don't get why I received all these votes at all. Maybe if I had time to read it would be a different story, but somehow I doubt it.

I just want to say that whoever found baddie behavior in my behavior is completely wrong. Every single one of my posts has been sincere this game, as I am playing entirely alone. It just confounds me that it seems I get extra scrutiny from a lot of players consistently, especially in full games (apparently, I have a little bit better luck at speed games). I guess I was the absolute worst person to receive this role for that reason. I tried my best to root out baddies this game as I always do when I'm playing alone.

I've not lied once and I've tried my best, but apparently people continue to misunderstand or misrepresent me.

Good luck finding the baddies, everyone.

Holy crap, there's no way I can catch up. I have been up since before dawn studying literature for my Empirical Accounting and Economics Research Seminar class and have so much more to go, not to mention my other classes, and then I am busy in classes from 2:30 to 7:30 central time.

And it seems I have votes. I have not read any more since my last post but I frankly don't understand why people are finding me suspicious, but it's disappointing. It might be best for me anyway though considering RL circumstances, but that doesn't change the disappointment or the fact that my accusers are either mistaken civvies or taking advantage of my playstyle to get a civvie lynched.

I don't know if I'm going to need to save myself and I find it almost impossible I'll be here any earlier than three hours before the poll closes, so I'm voting S~V~S because that's where I want to vote. I don't really think Made is bad, but I'll probably pop in really quickly later to see if I need to save myself, even though I probably can't even if I wanted to.

Votes S~V~S

I don't understand the comments against me that said I've been indecisive or haven't taken enough of a side or something to that degree? I realize I have a lot of posts, but I thought I've been clear. But I can summarize what I think right now:

- I think S~V~S is my number one suspect right now. I've expanded on this, but it essentially comes down to the way she has conducted herself so far this game. Yes, it's mostly just an interpretation that she's being dishonest.

- I also think Epig suspects me for stupid reasons (because I made a joke post? and I read through the thread and I don't think I saw whether he answered my question about whether he still thinks that's the "most suspicious" post so far, but someone correct me if I'm wrong). If someone finds my behavior suspicious because of an interpretation of my intentions, so be it (as LoRab would say, eye me all you want), but OF COURSE I find Epig's suspicion odd because he said me joking about being bad often and being sick of it is the most suspicious post in the game. I don't really have an opinion of Epig being bad, but I haven't seen his usual civvie case-building self yet, so I'm curious about what he thinks about other items as well.

- Regarding Made, I thought Llama made a good observation, and he has acted very illogically so far this game. I at first thought that tipped him more towards likely bad than anything, but right now I am leaning more likely good (but still far from convinced) for the following reasons: (1) I don't think he's acted like a baddie would rationally act; (2) I think if he were bad, he would be playing differently and have learned from Misfits; (3) Enrique knows Made better than almost all of us and has been defending him, and I have no particular reason to distrust Enrique (yet); (4) I think he has been made out to be an easy scapegoat for suspicion, as you can see by the fact that he has received the blunt of a substantial chunk of the discussion thus far; (5) his defenses, while mostly not great, have struck me more likely as genuine than not.

- I am leaning more likely civvie than not on Llama so far. A baddie llama is usually much more careful, I think.

- Other than those players I've mentioned, I don't feel particularly leaning one way or the other just yet on most everyone else. Going to try to fix that. On that note...

- I DEFINITELY want to hear more in the way of content/suspicions from: AP, BWT, BR, Bullz, DF, Hedgeowl, juliets, Lizzy, LC, MM, MR, Mongoose, Blooper, and SD. And from those I've not mentioned, but after looking over the player list, these are the players of which I don't know practically anything about their suspicions at the moment, or at least cannot recall them.

I think that's all I have for now? With PhD officially starting today, I might not be around as much as I'd like (which I'm sure many of you will appreciate :P), but I'll try my best to spam the thread with my thoughts as much as I can.

Linki

reywaS wrote:Bullzeye, I think it's an exercise in futility to try to figure out how any random baddie team would help (or not) a new player.

This is probably true.

Now I'll entertain Made being bad, but I think the way everything has gone down so far has convinced me that it's not as likely. You told me not to presume, Rey, and I agree what you said is possible, but what are you currently thinking about it?

One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.

juliets wrote: What did you find weird about my post? What made you crick your brow?

Disregard, I got confused because Made added a comment in your post in a different color that I thought he was highlighting that you originally said and it made me read your post differently.

Bullzeye wrote:Well that was a riveting read. As far as Made goes, on the one hand I agree with this summary here:

MovingPictures07 wrote: But this is someone who multiple times said "if he were" and even more declarative statements that he was on a baddie team and was just revealed to be a civvie. And it's just his second game.

I just think if he had was a baddie, he would have learned so much from all the craziness he committed in Misfits and would be playing differently. He's a paranoid as F civvie. Totally reminds me of MR F in a way.

It just all seems too easy.
When Made flipped civ in Misfits my mind wasn't just blown, it launched itself out of the back of my head and splattered across my bedroom wall. I was more sure of him being bad than I was of the sky being blue. I think the comparison to MR F is a good one (I wouldn't be surprised if he started ranting in French about Dex est MOM or claiming that people are possessed and trying to exorcise them) and could see how some of his comments might just be another case of putting his foot in his mouth like in Misfits. On the other hand there is the whole thing about the chat where he said he couldn't retrieve a piece of info because it had been cleared '8 seconds ago' but later said he'd gone off memory. That doesn't make sense and nor does it work alongside the 'Made is just zany' theory in my opinion.

Yeah, same here.

It doesn't make sense to me either, but how does it not work alongside that theory?

I still entertain Made could even be a baddie and still be scapegoated by the other team, assuming there are two teams. But it just seems less likely to me at this point. Do you not recall how many times he lied about being Virtue in the other game?

I put some value in Enrique's opinion of him, especially because I have no reason to believe Enrique is being particularly malicious at the moment, just as I would put some value in Epignosis's opinion of Elo if I had no reason with Epig. Does that mean I'm relying solely upon those? Not at all. In fact, it hardly makes any impact. Everything I've said is my own interpretation right now. But I think it only vindicates my current thoughts on the matter.

I think Llama is genuine in his suspicion of Made, especially given the way he declared his observations and his posts since. Maybe others are too. But I'm absolutely CONVINCED that baddies would love to jump on this train and then come back and point fingers at Llama and originally me, until I started considering the counterarguments more. I believe one of those baddies is likely S~V~S. Seriously, go back and read her posts. She may have questioned Made about the D0 thing, but she didn't really start ramping up her suspicion of Made until after all of this discussion that Llama started. Additionally, I just can't get my finger around it, but the way you're going about your 'tunnel vision' and the way you've spoken about it just seems like you're trying too hard to seem like your normal civvie self.

S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:4 hours.

And no, not yet. He did the opportunistic thing i was expecting someone to do, and started trying to discuss lynching people who did not show up for the challenge. He lied about returning to the chatroom.

I don;t see that anyone else has done anything quite so attention getting. Plus, like i said, that "no lynch" thing pinged the living daylights out of me Day Zero. LIVING DAYLIGHTS.
Fair enough, duly noted. I agree with you on the "no lynch" thing, but him saying that didn't ping me really.

I still think you're suspicious, but I'm willing to shut up about it for a bit.
Why? Because i suspect someone you do not and i am tenaciously pursuing it? Again, you know me, right? Unless you are saying I am suspicious in the SVS way that i always am suspicious. If that is the case say so, and stop trying to say you have a real basis for it. that i can understand, i get that all the time.
Seriously? This is just making me more suspicious of you. That is not AT ALL why I suspect you. I already said: you tenaciously pursuing people is totally in character for you. And it has absolutely nothing to do with you suspecting someone I do not (Besides, I already admitted the points made against Made, lol, are valid, I'm just not sure whether that makes him a crazy civvie or actually bad yet).

I think you're suspicious because I believe you're fabricating a suspicion of Made that you don't really believe is true. Not only that, but you refuse to talk about absolutely anyone else. And your suspicion of Made popped up around a time I found it to be opportunistic. And in fact, yes, you may be tenaciously pursuing it, but as I said before, as a civvie you at least are aggressive all around and I personally believe you'd be pursuing it differently. I think you're trying too hard to seem like your civvie self.

LINKI
The bolded part makes no sense at all. Of course I believe it. He got my eye on Day Zero for the No Lynch thing to start, but then for saying he was tempted to do the maths re odds. How? With one number? He would have to have some additional knowledge of the composition of the roles to do that, and indeed, at some later point he speculated about how many baddies were split between teams.

Made wrote:
While we must acknowledge the possiblity of mafia teams, I agree. Mafia being on two seperate teams/evenly split between teams (which is probably more likely anyways) is more likely anyways.
He then makes this "joke post":

Made wrote:
we COULD just kill someone who didn't show up to the challenge ...real talk tho wink winks, how many of you guys were there and how many of you saw the movie?

Also, I'd say chat's pretty irrlevant because everyone (probably) wanted to win.....assuming there aren't any team of 3+. and even if there was, avoiding the chatroom all together makes more sense than sabotage.

3 fucking brag linkis really?
Then a bit later this real one:

Made wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Made, do you find anyone suspicious right now?
The only thing that rubbed me the wrong way was BWT's lack of participation during the game. he was there for 2 mintues before the game, but didn't post questions in chat or answer in the thread. He said he had dinner in 2 mintues, around question 7 or 8 so it may be excusable, but still. Most i got.

Why would not fully participating in the challenge make BWT suspicious? It would be an awesome reason to make a spacegoat out of him though. Which is precisely what this looks like to me. And civvies don't need spacegoats.

For the most part, these things are the main reasons I suspect him. Talking about the numbers as if he knew what some of them were, and suspecting people for a specious reason.

The other stuff, for the most part i did not see. I was in the chat about 40 mins or so before the challenge started trying to wheedle/guilt the hosts into changing the time, then I was in the thread watching from the bus, since I could not participate. So i did not see any slip, or subsequent scripts in the chatroom before it was cleared, and my thoughts on him have nothing to do with those things. When i first got home, I went right to the chat, but Rox had just cleared it. When he posted like 40 mins later that she had just cleared it, I went and looked, and he had not been in there since it was cleared. He did subsequently go in there after I posted that he had not been in there.

Enrique asked why this made him bad, and I don't know that it does. It does mean he made something up. Which to my mind adds to the totality of the picture.

I am requoting you here, MP, the last paragraph as there is so much between where I originally quoted you and here:

I think you're suspicious because I believe you're fabricating a suspicion of Made that you don't really believe is true. Not only that, but you refuse to talk about absolutely anyone else. And your suspicion of Made popped up around a time I found it to be opportunistic. And in fact, yes, you may be tenaciously pursuing it, but as I said before, as a civvie you at least are aggressive all around and I personally believe you'd be pursuing it differently. I think you're trying too hard to seem like your civvie self.
I really firmly believe this, and I have no idea why you think i an fabricating this, and that I don't think it's true, lol. I am playing VERY hard, yes. I have not had so much fun in a thread in ages. I don't believe i would be pursuing it differently, I have been accused of tunnelvision more than even Reywas.

What exactly was "opportunistic" about my timing? I first questioned Made on Day Zero, than specifically noted specific things he said on Day One. And don't tell me it was becasue i am taking advantage of an easy victim~ you were in the baddie chat in Fight Club~ you know i wanted to kill the rest of the cops, not recruit them, specifically becasue i did not want to alienate INH or hurt his feelings, since my knowledge of his feeling led me to believe he might be hurt by that. I am not someone to take advantage of a nub for the lulz, or because he is an easy victim. And you know that about me maybe more than anyone else.

And I think NO ONE has talked about any suspicions other than that of Made, not just me. Oh except those saying I am suspicious, lol. I will weigh in on that; I am definitely not bad.

Also, LC, I look forward to that.

What happened to the S~V~S that ALWAYS gives newbies a pass on Day 1 (a la Thomas)? Why aren't you understanding here that Made has only played one (speed) game before? I'm not saying you should bypass suspicion of him for that, but you seem to not take it into consideration when you find him suspicious for things. Almost everyone around here is grilling Made, except for perhaps one of the two people that know him BEST (Enrique), for gameplay that is just odd and wacky and inexplicable, but not exactly beneficial for a baddie to take.

How the heck could his day 0 comment about no lynch PING YOU LIKE CRAZY, as you've said? You and I both know there are other sites that have a no lynch option (KSite, for one), and while I agree with you that I don't like the option, how can you not understand a scenario where Made is still pretty new to the game, a lone civvie, and knows only tangentially about the rules of the game, and thought, hey, maybe a no lynch option is in our best interest, even if you disagree?

It's opportunistic because even though you questioned Made you didn't start pushing hard until Llama came forth with his observation.

What benefit would a baddie have to lie about the amount of minutes a chat was closed down or erased?

reywaS wrote:Irrational behavior doesn't equal baddie behavior necessarily...but it is possible.

1. baddie makes a slip.
2. baddie get nervous.
3. baddie behaves irrationally because baddie doesn't know how to rationally cover up the slip.

Sure, that's possible, and it's happened before. I presume you think Made did indeed make a slip then?

I'm going to sleep on it.

thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote: Please explain to me how irrational behavior equals baddie behavior.
It doesn't, but I am not suspecting him based on irrational behavior. I am suspecting him based on behavior that would be perfectly rational for a baddie.

Now I really am going.

Sure, and you're entitled to think that. I just don't know if his behavior would be all that rational for a baddie, personally.

A Person wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
A Person wrote:
Mongoose wrote:Aww Matty, don't be scared of the volume. Come back, Matty! You can distill all these posts down fairly easy with some strategic scanning.
i have looked at a little and honestly I think the accusers seem more suspicious than the accused, but we have even less to go on than normal for day 1, so i don't know really.
Why?

That's a pretty sweeping general statement.
Because accusing the accused is a good way not to be accused. Not that baddies are the only ones who want to escape accusation, it is just a tactic i've seen some people use, it's probably nothing to do with alignment and more to do with playstyle.

Are you kidding? The more I accuse, the more attention I always get.

reywaS wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Yes, I was about to also clarify this for MP. I will add that I think it's weird that Made added the "No, I went off memory" comment into juliets text and then added the "well, fuck me" as a separate post outside of juliets post. That seems like he's trying to deceive someone.
But this is someone who multiple times said "if he were" and even more declarative statements that he was on a baddie team and was just revealed to be a civvie. And it's just his second game.

I just think if he had was a baddie, he would have learned so much from all the craziness he committed in Misfits and would be playing differently. He's a paranoid as F civvie. Totally reminds me of MR F in a way.

It just all seems too easy.
So, essentially you are giving him a free pass this game to be suspicious? That's exactly what this post sounds like.

No, how did you get that out of my post? I just see a lynch train forming against him right now and I'm not sure I think all of his behavior makes him bad. Am I not allowed to have that opinion?

Please explain to me how irrational behavior equals baddie behavior.

And to be fair, as I've stated multiple times, my opinion on Made is undetermined. I just think he's being made out (lol) to be an easy vote, and I'm not convinced he's bad.

I'm just trying to take into consideration Made's playstyle because he is still almost completely new to the game and new to almost all of us.

A Person wrote:
Mongoose wrote:Aww Matty, don't be scared of the volume. Come back, Matty! You can distill all these posts down fairly easy with some strategic scanning.
i have looked at a little and honestly I think the accusers seem more suspicious than the accused, but we have even less to go on than normal for day 1, so i don't know really.

Why?

That's a pretty sweeping general statement.

AP, get in here, or maybe I'll just give you my vote.

reywaS wrote:
Yes, I was about to also clarify this for MP. I will add that I think it's weird that Made added the "No, I went off memory" comment into juliets text and then added the "well, fuck me" as a separate post outside of juliets post. That seems like he's trying to deceive someone.

But this is someone who multiple times said "if he were" and even more declarative statements that he was on a baddie team and was just revealed to be a civvie. And it's just his second game.

I just think if he had was a baddie, he would have learned so much from all the craziness he committed in Misfits and would be playing differently. He's a paranoid as F civvie. Totally reminds me of MR F in a way.

It just all seems too easy.

S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:4 hours.

And no, not yet. He did the opportunistic thing i was expecting someone to do, and started trying to discuss lynching people who did not show up for the challenge. He lied about returning to the chatroom.

I don;t see that anyone else has done anything quite so attention getting. Plus, like i said, that "no lynch" thing pinged the living daylights out of me Day Zero. LIVING DAYLIGHTS.
Fair enough, duly noted. I agree with you on the "no lynch" thing, but him saying that didn't ping me really.

I still think you're suspicious, but I'm willing to shut up about it for a bit.
Why? Because i suspect someone you do not and i am tenaciously pursuing it? Again, you know me, right? Unless you are saying I am suspicious in the SVS way that i always am suspicious. If that is the case say so, and stop trying to say you have a real basis for it. that i can understand, i get that all the time.

Seriously? This is just making me more suspicious of you. That is not AT ALL why I suspect you. I already said: you tenaciously pursuing people is totally in character for you. And it has absolutely nothing to do with you suspecting someone I do not (Besides, I already admitted the points made against Made, lol, are valid, I'm just not sure whether that makes him a crazy civvie or actually bad yet).

I think you're suspicious because I believe you're fabricating a suspicion of Made that you don't really believe is true. Not only that, but you refuse to talk about absolutely anyone else. And your suspicion of Made popped up around a time I found it to be opportunistic. And in fact, yes, you may be tenaciously pursuing it, but as I said before, as a civvie you at least are aggressive all around and I personally believe you'd be pursuing it differently. I think you're trying too hard to seem like your civvie self.

LINKI

Mongoose wrote:Day 1 Recap

1. Made is suspicious for various reasons.
2. Made is not suspicious for various reasons.
3. What does everyone think about everyone else?
4. ALL OF THE THINGS

How about... Made COULD be suspicious, but MAYBE he isn't?

So, what do you think?

thellama73 wrote:
Just to clarify, Made inserted the "went off memory" line in answer to Juliets' post. She didn't write it. And it is a crazy, nonsensical thing for him to have said.

Oh, did he? I didn't notice, but I remembered seeing that when he quoted it. OK, that's weird. Thanks for pointing that out, Llama.

I somewhat retract that then, but I still want to hear more out of juliets.

S~V~S wrote:4 hours.

And no, not yet. He did the opportunistic thing i was expecting someone to do, and started trying to discuss lynching people who did not show up for the challenge. He lied about returning to the chatroom.

I don;t see that anyone else has done anything quite so attention getting. Plus, like i said, that "no lynch" thing pinged the living daylights out of me Day Zero. LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

Fair enough, duly noted. I agree with you on the "no lynch" thing, but him saying that didn't ping me really.

I still think you're suspicious, but I'm willing to shut up about it for a bit.

Fair enough, S~V~S. I'll sit on it. I'm just making observations as to what I think as I read the thread. SOMEONE has to be bad. :P

reywaS wrote:
Made wrote:
juliets wrote:
Made wrote:Roxy cleared the room 8 seconds ago, so i can't check exactly who asked if i knew something...
Made, did you really go to the chat room to find this out?
No i went off memory I don't understand why SVS didn't see that you had been there.

For anyone wondering, once llama brought that comment up by made I remembered it. And I don't remember anyone saying "you should know". I certainly would never say something like that and those of you who know me well know that. With that said, I do not have a perfect memory and worry about reporting what I remember. I agree I'm concerned with this but it's more that there is something to add to it, whether he was in the chat room at the end.

I have not read through the entire post-game thread but felt like I needed to ask that question (sorry if it's already been answered made) and also give you my take on the comments made.
Well fuck me.....
You went "off memory" that Roxy had cleared the chat 8 seconds earlier?

I found JC's post weird here too, and I didn't want to say anything just yet, but she's one of the few in the category I mentioned earlier (that I was hoping would post more because she's pinged me just a bit), but she doesn't have enough content thus far, and I wasn't sure if I was just being silly. I'm honestly not sure what to think of her yet, but this post made me crick my brow a bit.

S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
A baddie can never be truly genuine in suspicions because from the very start of their game they have a vested interest in their teammates.
I disagree. But that is neither here nor there as re suspicions. But i think baddie suspicions can be genuine if the have other baddies to hunt. You are talking intentions, not suspicions.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:You think me potentially having tunnelvision is out of character?
Where did you get that impression? I'm not saying that AT ALL. it is totally in character.

I just question whether you actually believe it.
This:

I'm far from advocating "SHE'S BAD!!" but I do find her fixation with Made to be opportunistic. I actually agree with some of her points; I just am not sure I'm buying that they're necessarily genuine.
Why do you find it opportunistic? And why do you not think they are genuine? I really want to know, so i can save this post for future games.

And it's 4 hours into day one, MP. No i have not said anything about anyone else yet, lol.

Baddies can genuinely attempt to find other baddies, but here's the thing: A baddie doesn't really care whether they get a baddie on a different team or a civvie. Yes, they may prefer one or the other at a point in time for strategic reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, it makes no difference. Overall, a baddie cannot possibly be genuine because there will always be that concept, in addition to the fact that they have teammates. I mean, I see what you're saying, I just disagree.

I find it opportunistic and am questioning whether they are genuine or not due to timing and considering all of your posts made thus far: You've talked about almost nothing but Made, and I think when you have talked about Made the tone just strikes me as S~V~S trying to be civvie S~V~S. I just get the impression you may not be genuinely baddie hunting. You've been aggressive about Made, but you also could be more aggressive, and I've seen you walk the fine line between subtle and aggressive as a baddie many times, whereas in your civvie game you just are full on aggressive. Of course, as I've stated, it comes down to my interpretation of your posts so far, so it's a relatively weak suspicion. But it's what I think.

Lol, fair point, there is still plenty of time for things to develop. But you really have no opinion of anyone else right now?

Linki

thellama73 wrote:Also, can we pause for a moment and laugh at the porr saps who were not around today, and who now have zero chance of ever catching up in this game?

HIGH FIVE.

I just don't understand how no one else is even commenting on my observations about S~V~S. Yes, she gets tunnel vision, but she knows she has a reputation for civvie tunnel vision. Wouldn't it be great, as a baddie, to always fabricate going after someone else under that same premise?

Also, I know S~V~S, and even if she gets tunnel vision, she is pretty opinionated about players in general. Has she said nearly anything else about anyone other than Made? No.

S~V~S, what do you think of Enrique?

Epignosis wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I want to hear more from everyone on this matter. I'm pretty torn on Made right now.
Why do you need everyone else to clarify your own thoughts on Made?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Besides, I've been bad statistically way too many times, especially in full games. I love being a baddie, but even I'm sick of it right now.
Most suspicious thing anyone has said so far.
Are you kidding me? My comment was in jest. Hence the :P face. You know I'd be one of the last people to believe I'm any less likely to be a bad role in a game because statistically every game resets.
Now you're telling me what I would know.

Your domain is mathematics. Mine is language. By placing this comment in the thread (even if it is a gambler's fallacy made in jest), it still affects people's judgment about you. By adding the face, you inject a convenience into your statement. If people accept your comment, then good. If someone calls you out on it, then it's no big deal, because you had the face.

Win-win.

What? It was a joke. Should I have put it in sarcastic orange? I thought it was obvious.

S~V~S wrote:You think me potentially having tunnelvision is out of character?

Where did you get that impression? I'm not saying that AT ALL. it is totally in character.

I just question whether you actually believe it.

Search found 92 matches