The Syndicate

Long Con wrote:Llama, I noticed that when Golden brought it up earlier. Mac never specifically denied being bad, he just said MM would find any evidence of it.

That's supposed to be "wouldn't".

Llama, I noticed that when Golden brought it up earlier. Mac never specifically denied being bad, he just said MM would find any evidence of it. Depends on how unwaveringly honest you think Mac is intent on being. The implication here is that he didn't want to lie about his baddieness, he preferred to flaunt it instead? "Mwa ha ha, you will NEVER find the evidence you need to defeat Me!

Foolish Civ!"

Is this like A Few Good Men, where Col. Jessup wanted to claim proud responsibility for the Code Red?

Like when you attacked sig for his use of the word "interesting", among other things, this feels to me like you are opportunistically jumping on things to cast suspicion on people... as opposed to stating a genuine suspicion. Like a predator that senses weakness.

LoRab wrote:
Long Con wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Black Rock wrote:
LoRab wrote:Ugh. Just got home from a long day at work during which I had no time to mafia--so just read through everything since last night. Waiting for dinner to get here and will then answer the points made about me. In short, I'll say I'm not bad. I have nothing to hide. Eye me all you want. *twirls*

But, yeah, I'll go back and quote posts and make an actual defense when I'm on a full stomach.

Oh good, I've been waiting on you all day. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, the twirl stopped meaning anything to me years ago.
Fell asleep on the couch about 5 minutes into the episode I started of Making of a Murderer. Now I'm up and groggy and cranky. Sorry you have to wait until morning.

And I know my twirling means nothing to you. Although I do believe that you were the person that called me out one time for not twirling, which is more or less why I always do it now. Can't remember what game and if I was bad or not then.

Dom wrote:I'm voting Rico for today. I am travelling tomorrow an dmight check in. NYC for the weekend. SEeing Hamilton and Spring Awakening (again).
So envious!! I need to get Hamilton tickets. Did you hear they broke the internet the other day, kind of like Star Wars did when those tickets went on sale? And I'm bummed I didn't get to this production of Spring Awakening. I saw Deaf West Productions do Big River years back and they were amazing--I was hoping to see what they'd do with SA, a show I love. Alas. No time before they close. Have a great trip!!!
I think it's time to retire the twirl. It just feels so hollow to me now, and makes my gut want to START suspecting you for saying it.
I would love to. Seriously.

Are you addicted to the twirl? Do you need help giving it up? I'm here for you.

LoRab wrote:
Black Rock wrote:
LoRab wrote:Ugh. Just got home from a long day at work during which I had no time to mafia--so just read through everything since last night. Waiting for dinner to get here and will then answer the points made about me. In short, I'll say I'm not bad. I have nothing to hide. Eye me all you want. *twirls*

But, yeah, I'll go back and quote posts and make an actual defense when I'm on a full stomach.

Oh good, I've been waiting on you all day. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, the twirl stopped meaning anything to me years ago.
Fell asleep on the couch about 5 minutes into the episode I started of Making of a Murderer. Now I'm up and groggy and cranky. Sorry you have to wait until morning.

And I know my twirling means nothing to you. Although I do believe that you were the person that called me out one time for not twirling, which is more or less why I always do it now. Can't remember what game and if I was bad or not then.

Dom wrote:I'm voting Rico for today. I am travelling tomorrow an dmight check in. NYC for the weekend. SEeing Hamilton and Spring Awakening (again).
So envious!! I need to get Hamilton tickets. Did you hear they broke the internet the other day, kind of like Star Wars did when those tickets went on sale? And I'm bummed I didn't get to this production of Spring Awakening. I saw Deaf West Productions do Big River years back and they were amazing--I was hoping to see what they'd do with SA, a show I love. Alas. No time before they close. Have a great trip!!!

I think it's time to retire the twirl. It just feels so hollow to me now, and makes my gut want to START suspecting you for saying it.

I have no intention of running interference for Metalmarsh. If he wants to use my contribution to avoid answering your questions, then that's on him. I have to participate in this game too. I saw some points that I thought were not accurate, and I spoke up.

HBoy, I don't follow your accusation of DH at all. I don't think that post was intentionally misleading. It looked more like a joke that was based on a misunderstanding of what RFuzz said in his first post.

Golden wrote:
Long Con wrote:
When Golden senses civilian intent and quality play Golden is not feint with praise. This is normal for him.
To me, saying "This is not a testament to his alignment though" means that you could be sensing Civilian intent as a Civvie or a baddie, so we shouldn't assume you are Civ because of it.
I don't think so. There is a difference between saying 'I don't see that behaviour as alignment indicative' and saying 'This is not a testament to HIS alignment'. It was about me, in response to Mac saying it matched my civ game.

But that's exactly what I said above:

...we shouldn't assume you are Civ because of it.

It was an appropriate response to Mac saying it matches your Civ game. Because the behaviour is not alignment-indicative, Mac was erroneous in saying it matches your Civ game.

I'm not trying to say that you are not Civ in any way, I'm saying that it is not correct to assume you're Civ because you normally praise a player that you sense Civilian intent in.

Black Rock wrote:Just a thought in my head: I can't wait to see what Rico turns. I am so back and forth with him. I think he is civ or neutral but Zebra keeps on bringing up such valid points for him being a WIFOM baddie.

Indeed. I am very interested to find out Blue Eye's motivations here. I don't find his excessive contribution to be healthy for the Civs or for the game, so there'd better be a damn good reason for it.

Turnip Head wrote:This is not the 2015 Game of Nerds

But I love nerds, and this thread is already unreadable as is, and I'm drunk, so carry on

Gotta love the OT green! Uninterested parties can just skip and skim to their hearts' content.

DrWilgy wrote:What format you play LC?

Standard and Commander. And I have a few Tiny Leaders decks. I haven't gotten into Modern yet, it's pretty intimidating, and I feel like I'd just be netdecking if I wanted to be competitive. Standard, at least, I feel like I'm on even ground. I'm ravenously consuming spoilers for Oath of the Gatewatch these days.

MacDougall wrote:Really cool. I love the Jace one.

Thanks, the second one in? I made that for my brother-in-law, who always played Azorius decks.

MacDougall wrote:I unabashedly stole the pic from here

http://sandara.deviantart.com/art/Tiger-356857707

Holy crap, Mac! Her stuff is so good! So Swanland! I am a huge fan of his stuff. I do play MTG, and I made a custom playmat design for myself out of Swanland images. Please have a look here, the first image is my playmat. As you can see, Wurmcoil is included prominently. The other images are playmats I have designed for people by request, in exchange for them mailing me cards.

Long Con wrote:
When Golden senses civilian intent and quality play Golden is not feint with praise. This is normal for him.
To me, saying "This is not a testament to his alignment though" means that you could be sensing Civilian intent as a Civvie or a baddie, so we shouldn't assume you are Civ because of it.

To clarify, I don't think one needs to have witnessed you doing it as both alignments to say that. It's more of a cautionary statement to not automatically assume it means a Civ read for you.

Fuzz, I keep looking at Mac's avatar and thinking that it's almost a Raymond Swanland piece... not quite, but possibly inspired by him.

When Golden senses civilian intent and quality play Golden is not feint with praise. This is normal for him.

To me, saying "This is not a testament to his alignment though" means that you could be sensing Civilian intent as a Civvie or a baddie, so we shouldn't assume you are Civ because of it.

OK thanks!

Long Con from the current Heist game 'LOST Again' wrote:How do you KNOW that one of the two Day 1 lynch guys was bad, Zebra?

That's what I was thinking of, Z. Just mixing up my questioning of you in two separate games.

a2thezebra wrote:
Long Con wrote:Also, Zebra, that's another time you have made an assertion that I don't see how you could know. About curse roles.
Excuse me? What was the first time?

Hmmm... never mind, I think I was confused. It might be in the other game I'm in, please pardon me. Why am I on your list?

Draconus wrote:Is there a case on llama that I missed?

My recent post indicated my reasons for suspecting him.

thellama73 wrote:
sig wrote:I still disagree with this DH, even if a player skims my post which I'd say isn't that big they'd see the first line.
sig wrote:I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!
This is obviously a starting fluff, if anything it would make people skip the rest of my post.

I had a few OT lines then this.

sig wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.
Mac has a role from the TH game, or I'm getting my old people bands mixed up? :P
Another obvious fluff portion. Anyone skimming would see the quotations breaking up the post and at the very least I'd think they would read what I was quoting. Then another quote this time from Llama, and his thing with Zebra, which was done in good fun.

So I highly doubt anyone skimming my post would think it had any OT stuff since the OT stuff was between much more noticeably fluff.
Not to mention like I said in my above post it was Night 0 and like many people I was messing around. I still find it very odd that you single out this post, and make it seem like a bigger deal then it is. Not to mention the fact that Llama quickly agrees with you about it.
I mean he could just be doing that since I made light of a post which he didn't want me to joke about and he was mad that I did this, however I don't know his personality enough to know if that is the case or not, and I doubt a mature adult would get pissy that I made a joke about how he was referring to Zebra. This leads me to think he is either budding up to you for an unknown reason, he is mafia and thought this was good to mention, or he wanted to appear like he was more involved in the game and this was a safe way to do so.

I think it is semi likely that either DH or Llama are mafia.
I also still have some reservations about DH/JJJ for the audio posts.

I notice DH mentions my fluff post after I brought up the points about the audio posts, I don't recall him ever directly answering me about my theory on this while I do remember JJJ doing so. This is another ping for DH in my book.

Sig, you're completely misrepresenting what I (and I assume DH) found fluffy about your post. It wasn't the jokey comments. It wasn't OT material. It was the on topic portions that actually said nothing. For example, you said my point about MacDougall was "interesting" and left it at that. Why was it interesting? What was interesting about it? What is your opinion of my point, is it a good one or a bad one, and why? I asked, and you never answered. That's what I mean by fluff - the illusion of contribution.

I think that Llama's attack on sig might be a crime of opportunity... he saw sig's post and saw that it wasn't very meaty, and decided sig was easy prey. I don't really think a night 0 post, long or short, is the greatest evidence of a person's baddieness. Sometimes a civ just wants to get a post in among a progressing slog of a read - you catch up, finally, and then refresh and there's another page and a half. Your head is spinning trying to get reads out of all the Ricochet nonsense, and so you just make a post to be present.

Llama's attack on "interesting" is what made me suspicious. It's such low-hanging fruit. How many posts does sig have? Has he responded to Llama's "interesting"? Lemme check... No, he hasn't. I suspect Llama. Lorab and Llama and Boomslang.

sig wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Long Con wrote:He wants the four of us dead... or all four to vote for him... I'm staying away for now from Blue Eye.
This is not A World Reborn tier, so your paranoia is unwarranted. But yes, distance yourself, baddie emperor yees yeeessa
What do you mean by this? That no World Reborn roles are in this game?

Rico, I still don't think I get the A World Reborn reference here. I don't know what you mean by "tier". Can you clarify what you meant - are you saying that such a role is something we'd see in one of my games, and not in a Game of Champions?

Also, Zebra, that's another time you have made an assertion that I don't see how you could know. About curse roles.

He wants the four of us dead... or all four to vote for him... I'm staying away for now from Blue Eye.

RadicalFuzz wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy

Zebra that wasn't a statement about any given case in this game, it was a generalized statement about how to present suspicion of someone who disagrees with you. It sounds more legitimate to say "this case is logical, and you disagree with it, so you are illogical and wrong" than "you disagree with me so you are illogical and wrong."

Dharma, Faraday did expound a little bit when I requested him to. Elo, as I had said then, didn't add anything but reiteration to Faraday's suspicion against me.
What is with the you and Wilgy stuff?
I don't know.

It doesn't seem familiar to you?

I am seeing what Epi is saying here about Lorab. It does look hedgey.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh there are already three pages. Which is great from an info perspective, bad from a I'm-drinking-Manhattans-and-wasn't-ready-for-this perspective.

But I like this poll. Lots of different interpretations: what roles people liked, which ones they actually think are in the game. Another theory: could this poll actually be determining the role of one player? It could be like a play-in game in the NCAA tournament, as it were. I don't know how closely the roles have been imported, but if they are faithful, that'd seem to hint against Watari, because there were so many role interactions going on in Death Note.

Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.
Question: Does anyone think this is too defensive? Follow up question: Does anyone remember any other contribution Tranq made to Night 0? Anything at all?

I had a criticism of Boomslang's post much earlier, and he's who I'm casting a vote for right now.

*votes Boomslang*

Ricochet wrote:
Long Con wrote:Do you think you will get yourself lynched, Rico? You're clearly being silly, and it's cool and everything, but it might get you killed. What are the benefits of sticking with this strategy?
You said you'd kill me on N1, so...

I think that staying alive might just be an important factor in winning this game. If you come out of the gates with a fun vendetta against me, what else can I do? I need you to die, sir. You created this, not me.

Do you think you will get yourself lynched, Rico? You're clearly being silly, and it's cool and everything, but it might get you killed. What are the benefits of sticking with this strategy?

Ricochet wrote:Nevermind, I used whilst twice, I'm going blind.

So you admit it!

Ricochet wrote:"It can be reasonable to misinterpret someone's thoughts."

Ok.

You seem to be confused about "misinterpretation". Misinterpretation isn't intentional by default. One can innocently misinterpret someone else's thoughts, which results in a "misunderstanding". Alternatively, a baddie can choose to wilfully thrust a misinterpretation of someone's thoughts into the mix in order to make them look bad. That's "manipulation".

It can be reasonable to innocently misinterpret someone's thoughts, as long as it is recognized as a misunderstanding when things are clarified.

Golden wrote:
Ricochet wrote:"Your interpretation of LoRab's theory wasn't right, but it was reasonable."

Pretty hollow contribution to this subject.
No. You, me and Mac all came out of LoRab's posts with different interpretations. The difference being, you have treated both Mac and my theories as simply 'wrong' and in Mac's case, dismissed clear points and reasonable questions just because you decided your interpretation was right.

The one thing Mac made very clear from the second he interpreted LoRab's post was that he himself did not have a role he had before, so how you could twist that into him claiming he had a role he had before, and say he was losing his green lustre because (why? Hasn't Mac only won the one game? So under that theory, wouldn't it HAVE to be Idaho?)

To me it feels like you are just throwing nonsense out there to see what sticks.

Is that a suspicion, or a belief that it's a Civ strategy? I agree, but I haven't decided yet which. What will his behaviour achieve?

bcornett24 wrote:
Long Con wrote:What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.
This part. It makes no sense to me. Why even bother to post it? This looks like a scum team on the surface but it is probably not what it actually is it is just what it looks like on the surface? What? Your followup is even more messed up than the original post?

Just posting my thoughts as they came to me. I don't know why it would fail to make sense to you, it reads pretty straightforward to me.

Maybe you aren't down with posting thoughts that aren't your final, complete thought? I don't know what to tell you, I was... chatting. I think I wanted to get that "too obvious" thought out of the way before getting to my actual current opinion.

* * * * *

Ricochet wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Note: Zebra and Ricochet stopped fighting as soon as I pointed out that I think they are faking it.
You must be blind (and I don't mean the character).
You literally stopped arguing as soon as I pointed out that I think your argument is contrived. So how am I blind?
That was like two minutes ago, so you're ignoring everything before that for your own convenience. I perfectly kept challenging zebra's activity, whilst he perfectly kept calling bullsuit on everything I say. Anyway, I can't focus on replying to different people with the same intensity.

linki: You're the one throwing darts incessantly, I've said my share with zebra in the meantime, whilst you were doing it. Man, it's like you're rusing someone and then shout at the crowd, "hey look, he's paying so much attention to me instead of doing anything else, hue".

I am not bad. Eye me all you want.

Overuse of "whilst".

How finely are you crafting your posts that you have to go Olde English twice?

* * * * *

So I'm caught up now. So much Ricochet-Macdougall stuff and Zebra got dragged into the mix.

a2thezebra wrote:
bcornett24 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Long Con wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Long Con wrote:What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.

However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.
Weird post. Do not like.
What, were there "too many quotes" for your taste?
No, sorry I was agreeing with you. I was referring to Boomslang's post.
Phew! I thought I dun got meself lynched Day 1 already!
What is with this exchange?

Long Con, why even mention this?
Each one of Long Con's posts within this quote box raises an eyebrow.

Jesus, how many eyebrows do you HAVE?

bcornett24 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Long Con wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Long Con wrote:What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.

However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.
Weird post. Do not like.
What, were there "too many quotes" for your taste?
No, sorry I was agreeing with you. I was referring to Boomslang's post.
Phew! I thought I dun got meself lynched Day 1 already!
What is with this exchange?

Long Con, why even mention this?

Which part are you asking why I'm mentioning? I would normally assume it is the latest statement, but, as seen within the quoted exchange, that assumption is sometimes wrong.

I haven't heard of my role before. I don't know which game it came from.

Oh. Well, that is pretty crappy for those of us whose speakers are currently dead... or for people on phones with no headphones... or for people playing in church... or about a thousand other reasons why listening to audio can complicate things for people.

These links are audio recordings, right? Vocaroo? Are they serious, in-game content, or jokes?

Ricochet wrote:I wish there was a rule not to end up creating any ties between the Night 0 options, so I can create them.

Also, how soon are the others willing to test the idea that Black Rock and Long Con were given baddie roles?

Ok Mr Smart Guy, let's test this. If you die Night 1, then it was me. Then everyone will know I was given a baddie role.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Elo and Metalmarsh made their first posts at very near to the same time. Discuss.
Are they having an affair?

Coincidence, MacDingus.
I was being sarcastic Epi. Did you see the posts they quoted.
I didn't even notice that.

Theory: baddies don't have to read the thread as thoroughly as Civvies. Converse.

MacDougall wrote:
Long Con wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Boomslang wrote:Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.
It wasn't a slip. It was Tranq being a nub. Hence my opening post.
What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.

However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.
Weird post. Do not like.
What, were there "too many quotes" for your taste?
No, sorry I was agreeing with you. I was referring to Boomslang's post.

Phew! I thought I dun got meself lynched Day 1 already!

MacDougall wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Boomslang wrote:Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.
It wasn't a slip. It was Tranq being a nub. Hence my opening post.
What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.

However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.
Weird post. Do not like.

What, were there "too many quotes" for your taste?

Epignosis wrote:
Boomslang wrote:Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.
It wasn't a slip. It was Tranq being a nub. Hence my opening post.

What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.

However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Long Con wrote:I see we are fully under way in classic scandalous Syndicate style! I (pretty much single-handedly) won Biblical Mafia so I'm going to high-five my vote directly on to Ezekiel for this poll.

I don't know if this Macdougall instinct thing is legit or not, but I'll be impressed if it is!
I was gonna be a smart ass but halfway into this post I realized I only won Biblical because my win condition was "you win the game lol"
You were shitting your pants when Paul (MP) was around.
Fucking chatterbox RIH

Chatterbox indeed!

Obviously I was kidding about singlehandedly winning Biblical. More like I sunk into the lowest hidey-hole that I could and made a few bold and risky assertions, at least one of which was luckily right and got me enough cred to avoid lynch. I couldn't handle the sockpuppetry of it all.

I see we are fully under way in classic scandalous Syndicate style! I (pretty much single-handedly) won Biblical Mafia so I'm going to high-five my vote directly on to Ezekiel for this poll.

I don't know if this Macdougall instinct thing is legit or not, but I'll be impressed if it is!

The Syndicate

Search found 238 matches

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions

Re: [Night 0] 2015 Game of Champions