The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:That is a weird question Matt.

Gotta stay consistent with my rep.

SVS - This is going to sound weird, but I have a question.

Were you secure in the knowledge that you wouldn't be killed on Night 1 or did you fear for your safety as the rest of us did?

FZ - Do you not trust Sorsha? I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt on this one.

FZ. wrote:The MM case, well, I don't think it's a case. If I'm wrong, I'll be very surprised, but if I'm right and Sorsha is on to him, she'll need a body guard during the night. Lynching him would educate us. Then again, maybe we shouldn't because it wouldn't be fair. And maybe, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Per the underline, I 100% agree with this. I feel like Sorsha knows something, and if SVS is right in that Sorsha never acts like this as a baddie, then I'm inclined to go that way.

Golden's point about MM not being around (despite him just showing up) even though he's been on the site is interesting too.

I'd rather vote for Turnip today, and I'm still lookin' at Golden and the Zeebs, but I want to see what happens when MM is lynched.

Metalmarsh

Linki - Luke, vote MM! Let's see what happens!

S~V~S wrote:Sorsha seems very sure. She & I have played together for years, and if she is this sure, I am going to trust her. I have never seen her act even remotely like this when bad.

I am still leery of Eloh, and several good avenues of discussion have opened up today, but I am going to trust Sorsha, as I said, and vote MM.

I'm thinking of joining. Turnip still feels weird, but I'm interested to see how this plays out.

Turnip Head wrote:How do you feel about niju yugi-oh's vote for Zebra 1.0 and niju in general?

Let me look. Btw, after some deductive reasoning, I'm assuming niju is the one you refer to as "Blooper" ?

Here are niju's posts...

Spoiler: show

Picks water. So did I. This tells me nothing.

Spoiler: show

Talks about trying to read Dune again (I think that's the book she's referring to). Tells me nothing.

Spoiler: show

Doesn't like policy lynches. *high fives Niku* Believes Zebra's reactions are normal, doesn't ping her. (But wait, you say she later votes for Zebra?

) Does not want to vote against outspoken peeps on Day 1.

Spoiler: show

nijuukyugou wrote:More thoughts.

I'm torn, frankly. I said before that I believed Zebra's reaction to be genuine and didn't agree with the suspicion, but I liked Golden's long post regarding both the reasons for going after an overreactor, and also reiterating the specific reasons why Zebra should be voted. As Zebra's suspicion of Golden was broken down in the thread, I disagree that Golden would have "no civ reason" to suspect and question Mac's behavior, and think that Golden's initial suspicion of Mac was sound until he was questioned further (in other words, I either see Zebra's suspicion of Golden at this point as very misguided or fabricated). That, to me, was questioning a suspicion as it should be, then changing one's mind based on the responses. People don't do that often enough. So, based on the big post and these thoughts, part of me is inclined to vote Zebra, despite my initial reaction.

BUT.

Too often, I see, as others are saying, one big argument between two people, often civs, that distracts everyone from the baddies' hiding, so the baddies don't even have to discuss any of their teammates. Like FZ, I'm also pinged by Eloh, especially what appeared to me to be an immediate jumping on Zebra's reaction, and her responses to suspicion aren't making me feel any better (except that I totally believe her regarding comfort level in speed/side games, because I'm the same way and feel I can get involved earlier). sig's jumping on the Zebra suspicion pings me in the same way, like a baddie just waiting for something to jump on.

BUT. DAMMIT.

I am suspecting both a suspicious individual, based on a big argument and Day 1 case, and the people "suspecting" her (in quotations depending on what happens today, I suppose), and god that's making my head hurt. I find Golden's points compelling, there's more info to go on for Zebra than for my other suspicions at this point, and I think it will be telling if the lynch goes through in many ways. I've literally got to run (while the sun's still out ), and I don't want to agonize over this choice for any longer. Voting Zebra.

Now that's curious. Earlier Niku says she will vote someone who is jumping on suspicions without contributing much or peeps hiding in the shadows, and here she is flip flopping on Zebes, and eventually votes Zebes.

Spoiler: show

Hmmm.

It does seem weird that she trusted Zebes, says she doesn't like to vote for outspoken players, then votes Zebes, an outspoken player.

When you're questioning me, it's cool beans. When I turn it around, you don't want to go into circles.

In that case, what are your thoughts on Sorsha believing you may be MM's teammate?

Turnip Head wrote:
Matt F wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Matt F wrote:Dang it I'm misrepresenting again. In the other game, I made a post similar to the one here, but it wasn't EXACT. Apologies. Still, Turnip didn't say squat about me self-voting over there.
Because you quickly changed your vote and continued playing that game normally. That was like, my whole point.
No, I don't think I quickly changed it. Let's see...

On Oct. 27th, 11:05 pm, I self voted over there.

On Oct 28th, 4:37 pm, I changed my vote.

In between those posts, you had posted eight times in that game and never once mentioned it.

And when did I first mention it here?

And yet, playing in both games, you knew that one game had changeable votes and one game did not. You come at me in the game that does not.

Kinda wanna vote for you today, but I'm still sketchy as f*ck concerning Golden/Zebes 2.0, and I'm still super intrigued by Sorsha's vote for MM.

Turnip Head wrote:
Matt F wrote:Dang it I'm misrepresenting again. In the other game, I made a post similar to the one here, but it wasn't EXACT. Apologies. Still, Turnip didn't say squat about me self-voting over there.
Because you quickly changed your vote and continued playing that game normally. That was like, my whole point.

No, I don't think I quickly changed it. Let's see...

On Oct. 27th, 11:05 pm, I self voted over there.

On Oct 28th, 4:37 pm, I changed my vote.

In between those posts, you had posted eight times in that game and never once mentioned it.

Dang it I'm misrepresenting again. In the other game, I made a post similar to the one here, but it wasn't EXACT. Apologies. Still, Turnip didn't say squat about me self-voting over there.

FZ. wrote:I'm on the fence when it comes to TH. There are moments I find myself thinking what the hell is he talking about, and then there are others, where he comes off like I expect civ TH to act. What are people's thoughts on him?

He went after Black Rock on Day 1 because of her (what I felt anyway was a) genuine reaction to Mac's policy lynch idea. Also is pinged by her "shrug" smiley.

Turnip Head wrote:
Black Rock wrote:This is the first I have heard of policy lynches and I don't think it's in anyone's best interest.
This post rubs me the wrong way in a way I can't quite articulate, but I'll try to. I agree that Mac's plan is a crapshoot at best and destructive at worst, but the way BR words it here feels like she has inside knowledge on the situation. The little shrug at the end pings me too, as if BR is saying "Do what you'd like, ignorant civvies, I've said my piece."

When BR gets sarcastic, saying "omg BR used an emot uh oh", basically making fun of Turnip's ping, Turnip responds...

Turnip Head wrote:Like I said, I don't think following a policy lynch is a good idea either. Your tone just stood out to me. What does the shrug mean BR? What does it mean?!

Seems like Turnip is now making a joke about the smiley, even though in his previous post he looked quite sincere when mentioning it.

Then SVS asks Turnip what he would have done had BR used the bigger shrug smiley, Turnip responds...

Turnip Head wrote:I'm not sure.

Again, this feels like he's joking about it again, despite seeming quite sincere when mentioning it in his original ping of BR.

Then he makes about 5 or 6 posts, all discussing other players and not mentioning BR again. Then he posts...

Turnip Head wrote:But I'm going with Black Rock, I just have a gut feeling about her. I'm interested to hear the theory she's working on though.

Now that's interesting. He places a vote on Black Rock, yet at the same time says he's interested in hearing her theory. To me, that is saying that he knows he's wasting his Day 1 vote on Black Rock because later, after she won't be lynched, they can discuss her theory. Why waste your vote on Black Rock? Why is it, after you initially accused Black Rock, she defends herself and then all you do is make jokey posts about emoticons until you eventually do vote for her? Why?

Other interesting notes...

Turnip Head wrote:
Matt F wrote:
FZ. wrote:Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?
The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

I keep going back to this post and I don't feel good about it. The game moved pretty quickly past Mac's attempt to policy lynch you, but you didn't step your game up and you've stated you won't do so until Day 1 is over and you're still alive, and then you self-voted. You've effectively put the onus on everyone else to make a decision about you or vote elsewhere. I find that Day 1 is usually the hardest place for baddies to hide or to contribute, since there's no voting records for them to manipulate, and a single mistake is usually enough to get lynched on Day 1. So you've given yourself a pass for one of the most difficult phases in the game. I see plenty of baddie motivations for the attitude expressed in this post and I'm struggling to find the civilian motivations for it.

I find this strange because in the other game I made that EXACT same post, and do you know how many times Turnip questioned me on it? ZERO

Turnip Head wrote:
FZ. wrote:But even though it's a solid point, when I recall back to the situation, it felt like a genuine reaction to what was going on.

And I also have to wonder if you're not looking for a reason to cast a vote on a person that already has 2 votes.
What I'm looking for is for Matt to explain his actions to me. And I hate to drag another game into this, but I see Matt participating at a high level in the other game that's going on where Mac pulled the same stunt on him, but he's not even trying in this one.

But remember, kids, Turnip is all about in thread evidence.

I also like the following...

Turnip Head wrote:And I was puzzled by that statement from Golden as well. If he feels strongly about zebra, why wouldn't he pursue that suspicion as strongly tomorrow?

But Turnip's very next post...

Turnip Head wrote:
FZ. wrote:Turnip, you haven't said anything about the Golden/zebra issue. What's your stance on that, and how come you haven't even mentioned it? If you did, I must have missed it
I feel pretty good about both of them atm.

I dunno how I feel about him. It's hard for me because I feel like I'm NO Uing the guy here, but let's remember, I did ask about Turnip and Drac when the day first started, so it's not entirely a NO U.

I'm kind of intrigued by Sorsha's vote and her very matter of fact stance on MM having btsc chat. Does Sorsha have info? (not that she can answer, unless she answers "No" I guess, just speculating ((sorry for speculating Turnip

)) )

Turnip Head wrote:
Matt F wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:That's what I'm trying to do, just not the way you want me to I think looking for who killed BR and why is a wild goose chase. I prefer to chase thread evidence.
Then why has half of your case on me been because I've been "more active" in the other thread? Looks to me like you're looking outside of the thread for evidence.

That was a misrepresentation, I apologize. After looking over your posts, I noticed you only claimed that one time, not "half of your case". Apologies.

Turnip Head wrote:That's what I'm trying to do, just not the way you want me to I think looking for who killed BR and why is a wild goose chase. I prefer to chase thread evidence.

Then why has half of your case on me been because I've been "more active" in the other thread? Looks to me like you're looking outside of the thread for evidence.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't care to guess who killed BR because I think anyone could have done it. I do not plan to vote for sig. I think the same people trying to find meaning in the BR kill could be the ones who killed her. So.

So. So the players who are encouraging discussion based on what little info we have, those are the bad ones. I suppose those who are keeping quiet and refuse to speculate...they must be the civs?

Linki - Oh Sorsha said it better then I did I think

If MM were to get lynched today and flip bad, how would you view his Day 1 vote on Turnip?

Sorsha wrote:So really? You didn't think to look back at BRs posts to see who might have felt threatened by her or have some reason to kill her? It's even been discussed in the thread..... And in your btsc chat room I would presume.

That's an interesting statement. Very matter of fact. Are you endorsing an MM lynch today?

Turnip Head wrote:Epi is not playing this game, so I'm not sure why you think you owe him anything with how you play this game. I'm not comparing your play here to how you played in another game, you are. I think the way you are playing this game is how a member of the mafia would play.

I wanted to be respectful to his game, that's why.

You have, throughout the course of this game, pointed out that I was more active in the other game then this one and you have demanded to know why I haven't been focusing on other suspects besides Golden and Zebra. The only answer I could give, the true answer, was by showing you why I was quieter in this game as well as not pointing too many fingers. If you do not wish to know the answer to your questions/comments, then don't question/comment. Simple!

I can see a future where I'm lynched Day 2 and Turnip says "I swear guys, he was answering all of my questions honestly, but he looked like mafia to me! His fault!

Turnip Head wrote:
Matt F wrote:Bea - As I said, I'm looking at Drac and Turnip. I said I'd wait, but eff it, let's do this...
You never said that, you just asked Golden about it.

And if I'm asking Golden about specific players, I suppose I must think they're on the up and up. (do I need sarc orange for this sentence?)

Anywho, as for why I've been trying to stay focused on one case at a time and "quieter" in a game hosted by Epignosis... (removing names because that game isn't over yet, and I'm not quite sure what the standard rule for this is)...

Epignosis wrote:Matt, I'm going to level with you.

If you are a civilian, you stink.

You load the thread with inconsistent things. Player A and I are scum buddies yesterday and Player B's gotta be lynched next.

Bottom line:

No one takes you seriously.

There's a reason for that. You are all over the place.

Epignosis wrote:I don't care about multiple suspicions. But you are all over the place.

I've expressed my ideas in a concise manner. I have helped lynch two Mafia. You have accused damned near everybody with OMG GUYS LYNCH HIM TOMORROW KTHKS BAI

It's not helpful.

Stop doing it.

Tbh, I didn't want to bug the guy during his own game after that bizness, but after I'm being called out for not having enough suspects (on Day 2!!!) and being "quiet", you can damn well believe from here on out, full on MR F is back in action.

Turnip Head wrote:...and I think that's exactly what you were planning to do when you took yourself out of the Day 1 conversation after Mac called you out early on.

Also, let's be clear. Mac didn't call out anything. He simply wanted to lynch me because he doesn't like my playstyle. Even Mac will tell you this. It had nothing to do with "calling me out (as a baddie)".

Bea - As I said, I'm looking at Drac and Turnip. I said I'd wait, but eff it, let's do this...

Drac voted for sig Day one. I think it is very possible for Drac to be on the Mafia, kill BR, frame sig, and then Drac has a "consistent" looking vote on Day 2 when he votes sig again.

Turnip is the one who was asking Black Rock questions about her item and whether or not that's why she was voting sig...I think it's entirely possible that was a set up question, kill BR, frame sig, and then Turnip could go back and say "Hey look at my interaction with BR what if sig is bad???"

However, at this point, Turnip is wasting energy looking at me, so maybe I'm wrong on that front.

bea wrote:Much like I know I'm a civ, it's gonna make me be careful with Matt. Because there were only 2 of our item too if I recall correctly and I know I'm civ.

Are you talking about me or is there another player named Matt? I picked water, which had four options. And as far as I can tell, it was a worthless pick.

Turnip Head wrote:MattF, your contributions today are pretty much exactly what I expected from you and it doesn't make me feel good about you. All of your discussion has been centered around Zebra and Golden. After the Day 1 we had, you have to practically be forcing yourself to tunnel that hard. I think you are trying to take advantage of the Day 1 mislynch on Zebra, and I think that's exactly what you were planning to do when you took yourself out of the Day 1 conversation after Mac called you out early on.

Turnip, I believe we've already gone over this (though it could've been in the other game), but again...

Day 1, I was taken aback by Mac's Policy Lynch idea, felt rather embarrassed really, and didn't feel like contributing much. As it were, after getting scolded by Epig in TH, I've also been more hesitant to go balls to the wall against all of my pings. It's his game so I've been trying my damnedest to try and stay focused, work one "case" at a time. Sorry I had to admit to that, but I keep gettin' questioned on why I'm "quieter" in this game then the other, so there you go.

HOWEVER, I know Golden and Zebra aren't the only ones I've mentioned in this day phase...

Matt F wrote:
Golden wrote:The obvious answer is sig.

The obvious question is... is it too obvious?
What do you think of Drac and Turnip? Just like, in general and stuff.

And if sig gets lynched today and flips civ, I will most definitely expand on why I asked Golden specifically about you and Drac.

But while you're here, Turnip, how do you feel about Zebra not wanting to pursue a player she thinks is bad "for the sake of the town" ?

Linki - Yo Turnip, let me respond to you before you start asking other players to vote for me, eh?

^-----That was addressed to Golden

Since you know I tunnel like a mofo (and aren't half the grandmasta you are at catchin' baddies), I sincerely hope you find your balance and make yourself a better player. It's definitely something I have trouble with. I've been trying hard not to push so much this game, but in the case of Zebra, it's been really hard since I haven't gotten a straight answer out of her. But as you said, and as I've guessed, she does think you're bad. I just don't know why she couldn't say it. It really seemed like she blew her top, as well, because I was simply asking her what her stance was on you.

Anyway, if anyone else would like to chime in, that'd be fantastic. If not, I guess the town will go another way (I think sig is on the chopping block currently?)

I will also be looking forward to when Zebra decides to actually pursue who she believes to be scum as opposed to saying "For the town's sake...naaah".

Golden - Let's take you out of the equation.

Player A and Player B go at it on Day 1. Player A successfully leads a lynch on Player B. Player B dies.

Player B replaces back into the game. Player B says "I think Player A is bad but I will not pursue their lynch for the sake of the town." (technically, I believe that's what she was saying, but I've YET to get a straight answer)

Do you not find that, in the least, suspicious? I'm guessing you don't because (multiple times now) you have claimed Zebra 2.0 as civvie.

Furthermore, multiple times I've asked what I thought was a simple question, because I was never quite sure on the answer. Does Zebra 2.0 believe Golden is bad?

Instead of getting a straight answer, I've received ALL CAPS LARGE TEXT RESPONSES that tell me just to reread her posts if I really want an answer to that question. I don't know why she couldn't just say "Yeah I do think he's a baddie mcbadderton".

I think it's curious that you are able to call Zebra 2.0 "civvie civvie civvie" despite her being vague and evasive on her stance towards you.

Also Golden, I know we both tunnel, but from what I remember in the past, you play a super civvie that may get it wrong sometimes, but has also caught his fair share of baddies, so I wonder why you would even want to change your game up?

Anyway, let's see if Zebes is willing to vote your way if she has back up. I'm curious to know her answer on that.

MacDougall wrote:Good point Mattology.

a2thezebra wrote:Yes, that is what he was saying. Great, I have now appointed myself the translator of mediocre-at-best logic.

Yes, that it was I was implying, and your continued "LET ME BLOW UP WITH ALL CAPS CUZ THAT'S HOW TO SHOW HOW SERIOUS I AM" isn't impressive. Originally, all I wanted was to know was your current position on Golden, because I have not been sure on what it is, yet you continue to evade and tell me to look at your old posts.

Looking at your old posts, this is what I see. You come back in the game. You tell everyone you will not pursue Golden, even though you think he is bad, "for the sake of the town". This doesn't make any sense.

I'll tell ya what. I've been pinged on Golden ever since he was sure as shit that you were bad, but then started to say stuff like "I won't pursue this if it doesn't happen today." So if you think he is bad still, I'll help ya vote for him today, whattaya say? Put your money where your mouth is?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Matt F wrote:I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I just want to know, for the record, what Zebra 2.0's opinion of Golden is.

Good or bad???

Before, I asked you Zebra what the point of making any cases was, if you genuinely felt peeps weren't reading your posts. Remember, that seemed to be the reason why you would no longer go after Golden. After that question, you posted apologizing for your previous harsh post, but didn't answer.

Sorry again, but I'm just feeling really weird about you not wanting to go after Golden (despite you thinking he's bad...I think?) and now Golden is all "Zebra 2.0 looks good to me!!" (paraphrasing)

Are you asking zebra or everyone else?

I was specifically asking Zebra 2.0 what her official stance on Golden is, but feel free to give your own thoughts as to whether there's something weird here or if I'm just outta my mind!

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I just want to know, for the record, what Zebra 2.0's opinion of Golden is.

Good or bad???

Before, I asked you Zebra what the point of making any cases was, if you genuinely felt peeps weren't reading your posts. Remember, that seemed to be the reason why you would no longer go after Golden. After that question, you posted apologizing for your previous harsh post, but didn't answer.

Sorry again, but I'm just feeling really weird about you not wanting to go after Golden (despite you thinking he's bad...I think?) and now Golden is all "Zebra 2.0 looks good to me!!" (paraphrasing)

a2thezebra wrote:The entire reason I'm not continuing my crusade against Golden is because people won't read my posts, and that reason is re-affirmed by people not even reading my posts enough to understand that that is my reason. If you want to know what my issues with Golden are, go back and read what you should have already read. I am one hundred and nineteen percent done repeating myself for the sake of a frankly lazy town.

Well, I think people do read your posts. At least I hope they do. I was reading one of your last posts towards Golden, and I was just trying to understand it is all.

Also, per the underline, if you don't think people are reading your posts and that is why you will no longer crusade against Golden, then what is the point in making any cases at all...if you truly believe people don't read your posts?

I dunno, it strikes me as funny is all. Then again, at this point, I'm not sure if you still have bad vibes about Golden, but I suppose I'll take FZ's answer.

Matt F wrote:Zebra - Do you think Golden is bad for doing everything short of wagering his grandkids' college funds to get you lynched, or do you think he was just a mistaken civvie?

I ask because I'm kind of confuzzled as to where you stand with Golden now regarding his alignment. If I'm reading this correctly, (and knowing me I'm not haha!), it seems like now you are saying he is scum, but you will wait until "the time is right" to get him, but not do it now for "the town's sake".

FZ. wrote:If I get the meaning behind what she said, I think that most people view Golden as a civ at the moment, and she's said everything she could about the topic last day, so no point in bringing it all up again, because she's right at least about one thing: we were tired of that fight. So she's hoping other people start going after him, because we just view her opinion as being tunnelled or something.

Don't know if that's what she meant, but that's how my brain interpreted it.

Zebra?

a2thezebra wrote:
Matt F wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I've never played a closed set up before. We don't get to see win conditions either?
Just saw this, didn't register the first time around. I received a win condition with my role. Are you saying you didn't?
Shhhhh you don't want to get modkilled do you?

I was bein' honest, but there's also this...

Epignosis wrote:14. This is a closed setup. Any claims a player posts in the thread will not be confirmed or contradicted by the host.

Anywho, after rereading Sorsha's question, I think it's possible she may have been talking about not being able to see Win conditions for every faction.

Derp

Sorsha wrote:I've never played a closed set up before. We don't get to see win conditions either?

Just saw this, didn't register the first time around. I received a win condition with my role. Are you saying you didn't?

Turnip Head wrote:
Luke11646 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I can confirm that spice was a bad choice
Why was it a bad choice?
Because it didn't give me superpowers, or any other benefit. Didn't get me high. Can't even season my food with it.

Since you're both here, Golden and SVS, per the underline...true or false?

Golden wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I feel a lot better about Bea, and still distrust Elohcin.
I feel good about bea's posts, for sure. The vote still bothers me.

How do you feel about draconus?

What is it about Drac that you find suspicious?

Golden wrote:The obvious answer is sig.

The obvious question is... is it too obvious?

What do you think of Drac and Turnip? Just like, in general and stuff.

Okay, that makes it sound a lot better then the way I was describing it. Haha! I'd still like to hear from her, though.

I know it's not popular to roll the way I do (and for serious, after Mac's outburst, I've thought about what he's said as a legitimate concern and will try to slow my role when I feel I'm gettin' too excited for a case), but I think that simply dropping a case on someone you truly feel is bad...is not helpful. That's why I questioned Golden earlier about him saying he would drop his case if it didn't take off Day 1, and why I'm questioning Zebra on it now. It doesn't mean you have to post a million posts as I have in the past when zeroing in on someone, but to drop it altogether seems odd to me.

After several players (three!!! I think?) commented on their fight as "civ on civ", I am inclined to trust their input (or as someone else claimed earlier, one of those several players is bad and knows it was civ on civ) and so I believe we have a civvie Golden atm.

Anyway, tired. Peace

FZ. wrote:The last post is a good start

Question - Was I reading that wrong? Or did I correctly describe what seems to be Zebra's current stance on Golden, re: "You are scum. I will get you when the time is right but not now for the town's sake." I know it wasn't formatted in a sentence that way, but that's how I took it. Am I incorrect or did you view it the same way?

Zebra - Do you think Golden is bad for doing everything short of wagering his grandkids' college funds to get you lynched, or do you think he was just a mistaken civvie?

I ask because I'm kind of confuzzled as to where you stand with Golden now regarding his alignment. If I'm reading this correctly, (and knowing me I'm not haha!), it seems like now you are saying he is scum, but you will wait until "the time is right" to get him, but not do it now for "the town's sake". And if that's what I'm reading, then I will have to quote you and say...

a2thezebra wrote:This makes so little sense that it actually makes anti-sense.

Linki - FZ - How am I being unhelpful?

RIP Zebra. Welcome back Zebra.

Later BWT. Hope all goes well with ya.

a2thezebra wrote:This makes so little sense that it actually makes anti-sense.

RIP Zebra. We'll be sure to gobsmack Golden for ya.

Turnip Head wrote:
Matt F wrote:
FZ. wrote:Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?
The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

I keep going back to this post and I don't feel good about it. The game moved pretty quickly past Mac's attempt to policy lynch you, but you didn't step your game up and you've stated you won't do so until Day 1 is over and you're still alive, and then you self-voted. You've effectively put the onus on everyone else to make a decision about you or vote elsewhere. I find that Day 1 is usually the hardest place for baddies to hide or to contribute, since there's no voting records for them to manipulate, and a single mistake is usually enough to get lynched on Day 1. So you've given yourself a pass for one of the most difficult phases in the game. I see plenty of baddie motivations for the attitude expressed in this post and I'm struggling to find the civilian motivations for it.

As much as the hosts may not like referencing other games, this is actually relevant I think and I need it to defend.

Frankly, Turnip, I was entirely put off by Mac's policy lynch idea in both games. So i decided (rashly unfortunately) that I would just self vote and let the chips fall where they may. Luckily for me in the other game, the poll is changeable, and once I came to my senses, voted elsewhere. I can't do that in this game.

Speaking of "stepping up my game", this is actually funny, because less then an hour ago, I had a post all laid out questioning Golden on why he would so easily give up on his Zebra suspish if it didn't take today, after saying things like "If I had a lynch switch I'd use it on you today" and "My gut is screaming!" ? Then I doubted myself and wondered if I should just scrap the post because perhaps it was too "delusional" for some. But enough with the self-doubting, believe me, if I find anyone suspicious in this game, I'll let it be known from here on out.

Golden - Do you really plan on dropping this "day one aspect" from your suspish of Zebes after suspecting her quite strongly for it, or did you just feel like since nobody was buying her as Mafia, you felt you should publicly talk about backing off of her?

Black Rock wrote:Honestly my tone is probably an issue because he was doing it here and that other game where I am co-hosting. I found it annoying and a terrible idea. My shrug meant nothing.

Ftr, I believe this is sincere.

FZ. wrote:Matt, I read your explanation about how you made those jokes because of the heat in the other game. Still, your jokes were all somehow related to roles. Can you explain why?

The ones Zebra posted were related to roles, but I was doing other jokey posts, too. Again, it was gettin' intense in TH, so I just wanted to kick back in this game for a sec.

Sorry about the self-vote. Once this bizarre day 1 is over, if I'm still in the game, I will legit scumhunt then.

self vote Day 1

If I'm here Night 1, then we can put this ugly business behind us and rock 'n roll. If not, just as well.

MacDougall wrote:It appears you are beginning to feel what it's like to play with you.

Nah I don't know what you're doing. I may go a little off the wall with suspicions sometimes, but you're playing on a whole new level.

For real, this is starting to make me feel uncomfortable.

But I like uncomfortable.

MacDougall wrote:MattF

Explain to us Matt why you should not be lynched on day 1 for being you.

I don't really have a good answer for that one. But I assure you I am a civilian!

Matt F wrote:...so I thought I'd let loose in her for a bit...

Let loose in HERE*

Zebra - I did come on a little strong Day 0. It's been gettin' pretty intense in TH so I thought I'd let loose in her for a bit, being day 0 and all. I know this didn't require a defense really, especially you giving it "barely a 2", but wanted to explain.

I do, however, plan to grab a hold of myself this game, and instead of spitballin' in nearly every post like I usually do, maybe just type it in the notepad, and only post a suspish when I feel it's solid.

Search found 218 matches