The Syndicate

meh. I really liked the theme, llama! And you are terrific as a host! So bravo, and gg to the ones that won. I was certain that KF was one of the ones to vote MM Day 1, but didn't really have a chance to push that. Actually thought it was Roxy up until the end, so well played on SVS' part!

I can't help but feel a little jipped as an Xtacle, in that we started 2 people short. Not to mention the blind luck of killing Stan within in the first few days or else absolute loss. The odds were stacked against us, especially after we lynched an Xtacle day 1. I knew we were toast at that point, since we had 4 xtacles going into night 2. Can't help but wonder if we would have fared if we had those 2 other teammates.

Long Con wrote:Invention contest? I also need to read more thoroughly next time. Wait. There is no next time. Maybe it's on-topic but I think it doesn't matter: hilarious that Scotty and I were both Xtacles.

Also holy shit I didn't notice there is a "dead" denotation of font next to Font Colour. wtf I've been using iterations of Red this whole time.

Roxy wrote:

Scotty wrote:Or Hamburger Boy. Roxy followed him immediately on sig, and sig, imo was the easy vote. sig could have definitely snowballed more. I'd feel like I'd lean more in his direction than even Roxy.

Before you start making ass-u-mptions you should check your facts so you do not spew misinformation

What facts are wrong? The latter is my opinion, and you did vote immediately after Hamburger Boy. So what am I assuming?

Roxy wrote:

Scotty wrote:Show me someone else on Day 1 that had more reason to feel suspicious of someone.

I thought my rasoning was better than yours for sure and just as good as LC's.

I'm sorry, this was a quote that LC said and got formatted wrong. I didn't say this. But yes, you justified your reasoning.

Long Con wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Long Con wrote:Show me someone else on Day 1 that had more reason to feel suspicious of someone.

OK, the fact that you're explaining yourself now helps, even though you don't like my use of adverbs. I'm not giving you other people to feel suspicious about. That's your prerogative. My NOU vote was centered around the fact that you didn't lead up to it, and it seemed to come out of nowhere.
You could have voted sig or Porcupine, if you want suggestions. If you want, I could suggest some other names if you want me to vote for you.

I think you misunderstood the part of my post that I isolated. I wasn't asking you to give me other suspicions, I was asking you to find a player on Day One that voted with more justification of actual suspicion than I had for you. I voted for you because of several little pings along the way, which I spoke about when they happened.

I can't help that the vote "seemed to come out of nowhere" to you, because I did speak of each suspicion along the way (all quoted in my previous post)... that's what I used as a lead-up... things I had already said. Perhaps if I had summarized those things in my vote post you would have felt more square about it, but I was a little rushy at the time, so I just went ahead with short and sweet.

I say all of this because I don't like my suspicions being called weak, and consequently having you accuse me of being Killface for it.

Plus, I think I voted kind of earlier. If you want Killface in an outlier vote, I'd imagine he was a later voter.

I think there was definitely a lack of build-up of your suspicion of me that may or may not have been jokey, and then to call me a "serious" suspicion without linking any evidence was what I was reacting toward. As for other people that had justified suspicions, who actually said why they voted the way they did: Epi, timmer, and actually even SVS and Roxy said why they were suspicious. There isn't a lot to go on in Day 1, so justification is paper thin. But do you get my point?

And let me be clear- I am not accusing you of being Killface. But I am eyeing you in that direction, due to my late-night psychological profiling of what I thought KF would do. I think he would vote early on Day 1, and would have his teammates back him up by voting elsewhere.

I want to talk about Hamburger Boy for a second. Anyone mind? oh well I'm going anyway.

He was someone with absolute no justification for voting MM. But he does get interested in ties:

HamburgerBoy wrote:If the day ends on a tie, what happens? Are all the leading candidates announced?

HamburgerBoy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm here! Just caught up. Wow, what a crazy Day 1 vote.

HamburgerBoy and Saberfish (and anyone else new), the way a host deals with ties does depend, but most of the time, the result is randomized among the tied vote-receivers. Sometimes there is a role mechanic that decides ties. Sometimes there is no lynch.

Is it announced though who is tied? The reason I ask is that it seems unusual for there to be a wide spread in a game where one of the baddies has a double-vote, because if it remained a 2-way split it seemed to have high potential for revealing that person (at least from a very small group of possibilities).

Leading up to his vote for MM, he asks several questions about ties and (I think) is the first to bring up the double vote mechanism as a point.
He also sounds nervous, like he wants to make sure if he were bad that weren't revealed.

HamburgerBoy wrote: If there was a double-voter on a two-voted candidate it would be announced that they tied with the three-voter then? If so, had it remained 1s and 2s everywhere it would have given a minimum 50% chance of catching Killface.

He seems to be REALLY curious about KF being exposed, though he seems to not have a handle on how llama handles tie votes. This line of thinking can explain why he wanted to tie a vote, as opposed to putting his vote on someone without a vote.

And then the last post he makes after the vote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Burgerboy didn't actually say why he voted. So...

Hamburger
SVS
Roxy

But...

I was brought up to believe all is for the best

It was to widen the tie.

He wants to WIDEN the tie? For someone so curious about the +1 vote dynamic, his delivery is odd, imo.

When he puts a vote on MM, there were- at the time- 5 other players with tie votes, and 7 votes left to cast. So by putting his vote on another 1-vote person (and might I add, with NO justification) he assures that he can hide out in the cacophony of ties, knowing MM is ultimately going home, and him looking none the wiser.
Then Roxy adds 3, which, if Hamburger were KF, would raise it to essentially (4), and put him in the clear of looking bad. This wouldn't incriminate Roxy, but it would raise my eyebrows if Hamburger is in fact KF.

Hamburger Boy, why did you specifically vote for MM as opposed to anyone else?

S~V~S wrote:

Scotty wrote:I would also add that in my opinion, KF didn't vote for MM, and if he did, it's SVS.
No, KF probably did vote early, on someone who probably wasn't going to gain any traction, based on weak reasoning.

Nah, that would have been really stupid of me were I KF. When I voted for MM, there were 10 or 11 people left to vote, and nearly two hours of poll time left. I would have piled onto someone with votes, and I would have done it later, and would have gotten teammates to do the same. With only 3 people missing the vote, most if not all of the baddies probably voted. Especially in this case, where I would have expected Roxy to vote for MM for the same reason I did~ in Mafia people ask you questions, and if you don't answer them, it looks suspicious, and he seemed to be intentionally evasive

Would you have piled on though if you were KF? I'm not so certain. I think there's a lot of strategies KF could utilize and the voting is a map. It's early yet, and I don't suspect you any more than the others, because your reasoning does make sense, but I'm still going to be wary of anyone that voted for MM.

If people don't ask you questions and you don't answer? That's MM's style, I've found. And this is the 3rd game I've played with him and only the 1st where I've learned whether or not he is civ.

SVS, what do you think about Epi and DH? Do they seem intentionally evasive at all?
Also GMan, who picks and chooses what semi-questions he can "comment" on?

Made wrote:

Scotty wrote:I would also add that in my opinion, KF didn't vote for MM, and if he did, it's SVS.

I see it more likely that if KF voted MM it's Roxy based on vote timing. Personally i woudlnt' of predicted a 3 way tie. I expected a snowball to land on whoever got 3 votes first personally. Is roxy even the type to play something that risky tho?

That does seem like a risky move, considering it was within the last 45 minutes or so if I recall, with 8 votes left to cast.
But then again, maybe not so risky if her teammate(s) bring up a few other names in votes.

Or Hamburger Boy. Roxy followed him immediately on sig, and sig, imo was the easy vote. sig could have definitely snowballed more. I'd feel like I'd lean more in his direction than even Roxy.

Long Con wrote:

Scotty wrote:I would also add that in my opinion, KF didn't vote for MM, and if he did, it's SVS.
No, KF probably did vote early, on someone who probably wasn't going to gain any traction, based on weak reasoning.

People that fit this bill to me:
-LongCon

First of all, which votes, in your opinion, were based on strong reasoning?

Well, on day 1, you are correct, no one will have strong reasoning, so I suppose "strong" isn't the best word here. But "justified" reasoning is.
If you can justify your vote on Day 1 by saying "I'm suspicious of him because he's wearing a silly hat and I don't like silly hats" then at least it's better than just "I'm suspicious of him". Which, imo, is what you did to me.

LongCon wrote:

Scotty wrote:I don't know, I would feel jipped if I were on Crews' team.

That's a sketchy thing to say.

In other words, it's as if I were dealt pocket 7's and lost to pocket 8's. (Right, ika? )

LongCon wrote:

Scotty wrote:Yea, LC. Brilliant idea! Who needs BTSC when we can communicate right out in the open!

Btw, Xander, if you're listening: don't do that.

Trying to keep Xander from utilizing his role to any potential?

Look, I'm averse to Xander coming out and revealing himself. I guess I just don't like this strategy is all. Could it work? Maybe. I'm also not counting on Xander taking advice from just anyone. Xtacles would only be able to protect him for so long.

LongCon wrote:

How do you suppose the xtacles will get coordinated? They don't know the identity of each other, so that's actually WORSE. Protecting takes 2 people, but how do the xtentacles know which 2 should do it? They could end up putting 4 on him and killing him instead.

It's like asking 6 horses to decide as a group where the nearest bathroom is. They would tell you, except they're bloody horses, mate.

The whole mechanic is hogwash and disproportionately random.

LC, I don't think you're thinking through these strategies, and honestly I don't think you are on Xander's team.

There as well.

Someone (I think it was MM) brought up that Xtacles received their names and that was a loophole I forgot about, so I cede that this criticism is unfounded.

I do see that you are thinking through the strategies, and going through the trouble of setting one up, but you gotta understand if I'm wary of believing a strategy for a power player to not have holes.

Long Con wrote:

Scotty wrote:LC, I don't think you're thinking through these strategies, and honestly I don't think you are on Xander's team.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to let us all know how honest you are being when you said that. Maybe you thought that if you had said "I don't think you're on Xander's team", we might not think you were being honest about it. So, good thing you clarified that with a totally necessary adverb.

Another thing that made me feel suspicious of you.

Show me someone else on Day 1 that had more reason to feel suspicious of someone.

Second of all, you could have easily gained traction. Roxy and Timmer both expressed some concerns about you. Hindsight is 20/20, you didn't get any other votes this time, but at the time I voted, there was plenty of possibility.[/quote]
OK, the fact that you're explaining yourself now helps, even though you don't like my use of adverbs. I'm not giving you other people to feel suspicious about. That's your prerogative. My NOU vote was centered around the fact that you didn't lead up to it, and it seemed to come out of nowhere.
You could have voted sig or Porcupine, if you want suggestions. If you want, I could suggest some other names if you want me to vote for you.

Your justification still is lacking, but it was day 1. So I'll give you a pass. You say I look suspicious, I say tomato.

Me gaining traction? Sure, anything is possible. I operate under the assumption every day that I won't be lynched. Hindsight is always 20/20, as you say.

timmer wrote:All this chatter about Killface and no one mentions Saberfish's vote? My gut is telling me that that's the most logical KF vote, right thur. Absolutely nobody was going to vote Mac's Mom, everyone said they were loving her posts, it's one of the few spots Saber could have voted with a near-guarantee that no one would follow suit.

And his reasoning? "Doesn't like the cut of her jib".

That's a definite angle too, timmer. Both single voters seem suspicious.

I would also add that in my opinion, KF didn't vote for MM, and if he did, it's SVS.
No, KF probably did vote early, on someone who probably wasn't going to gain any traction, based on weak reasoning.

People that fit this bill to me:
-LongCon
-Epi
-Dharma

Those are my candidates right now for Killface.

More later. Now to bed.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I have a really busy few days ahead of me between PhD work and wedding planning. Daisy flies out Saturday morning, then I fly out Wednesday morning, gotta have everything PhD done by then. Very likely won't be back until Day 2. Not sure how active I'll be going forward, but I know how much of an addict I am, and I'll try, so I'll inevitably still probably have a fair amount of posts. Night folks.

Do yo thing man, you're about to get chained up married!

MovingPictures07 wrote:Scotty, I didn't NK you in Watchmen, no, but I heavily suspected you at end of Day 1 going into Night 1, and it seems like the civilian ninja agreed with me.

I was watching the vote specifically, saw Cookie voted, so didn't vote sig for that specific reason. Otherwise, I would have voted sig, actually, to tie up a no show. I learned from Watchmen to more closely watch the vote if I was going to wait until the last minute possible to cast it. Kept pressing F5. :P

I don't follow. How would Epi's assessment make me look more suspicious?

If you knew Cookie had already tied it up, why throw your vote to LC- which you said you empathized with me as a reason for voting him- instead of any willy-nilly place? I assumed your purpose was to tie up the vote, like you said, but because you didn't realize Cookie had already done that.

So now that I know you knew Cookie had done that, it makes you look suspicious to me.
Now couple that with the fact that you agree with Epi's assessment in regards to hiding the vote if you were Killface. It may not be a bad strategy to throw in another last minute tie if you wanted to build cred (knowing MM will flip good) and look like Mm just lost on a a bad roll of the death die.
That's one theory.

I'll revisit this as we go along, and that isn't enough for me to make you a top suspect or anything, just an observation that could be fishy. I don't have a rainbow list, but I'm putting you at slight mafia read right now. That could change.

Killface is exposed nonetheless this vote. Since his votes do count double, We can safely say the following people are mathematically impossible to be KF:
-Elohcin
-Mac's Mom
-Cookie
-Scotty
-Moving Pictures

I would also conjecture that he would be best served either voting later on someone that wasn't getting traction, or if voting early with the assumption that his teammates would have his back in hiding him later on.

Or it's sig. Which would just be hilarious.

Just reading over the role list again, and this fucker stands out:
Dry Cleaner - Master of disguise (he's not really Chinese.) Role checks and lynches will reveal the wrong role.

One of the several indies that will make civ teams hard. There's always that chance that MM was that guy.

If not, hopes are fading for team Xander to utilize the vigilante ability of his Xylophones.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Scotty wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I voted for LC. I wanted to keep a tied vote, and I felt more comfortable voting for him than Cookie, Epi, timmer, or myself (obviously). I see Scotty's point about LC's nonchalance in voting, and I can empathize a bit.

Thanks MP! Wanna be buddies today?

Bass isn't here to comment on it this time.


linki- Ah damn. Sorry MM

Sure man. I owe you after getting you NKed in Watchmen, and I don't get any bad vibes from you so far.

I don't remember you being the one that got me NK'd there

Also, you said your reasoning behind your snipe vote in the last minute was to force a tie?

MovingPictures07 wrote:I voted for LC. I wanted to keep a tied vote, and I felt more comfortable voting for him than Cookie, Epi, timmer, or myself (obviously). I see Scotty's point about LC's nonchalance in voting, and I can empathize a bit.

What about for sig, who also had 2 votes? (Well, 3, but I know you and Cookie voted around the same time)

If what saber suggested has merit (and it might), what if one of the tie voters took the pressure off of the MM vote when Killface voted him? Tieing it up would look mighty less suspicious if that were the case.

Linki-so you agree with Epi's assessment. Do you realiE that makes you look suspicious?

ika wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Oh, all right.

ika, some advice:

If you're not really drunk, and just faking for the game, then please get some acting lessons. If you cannot afford those, I recommend learning from John Huston and Sinclair Lewis.

If you are really drunk, then please stop playing cards, or at least have a ginger ale now and again when you do, and don't bet on pocket sevens.

im sobering up at this point. i took theature in HS so i knwo some acting.

as for later pfffff. nah i like pocket 7, i mean if you want to talk about not playing hands i will almost alawys play 7-2 cus thats fun hand

You think playing the worst hand in poker is fun?
Damn, man, I wanna play with you. I could use an extra buck.

Also, I do not believe you jumped from incomprehensible gibberish to competent sobriety that fast. I wanted to avoid the drunk angle that people have taken in regards to Epi on Day 1, but that was just brilliantly bad. By buttering us up saying you did acting in HS doesn't help either.

I'm sure you probably were playing poker and lost, but I seem to remember you coming into Watchmen mid game and starting fights, and we saw how that turned out for you. Now here you are again, sparring with Epi and just being generally hostile.

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:linki- Ah damn. Sorry MM

Why are you sorry?

It's showing empathy for someone. mostly sorry he had to be the 1st death in the game (next to Trent I guess).

MovingPictures07 wrote:I voted for LC. I wanted to keep a tied vote, and I felt more comfortable voting for him than Cookie, Epi, timmer, or myself (obviously). I see Scotty's point about LC's nonchalance in voting, and I can empathize a bit.

Thanks MP! Wanna be buddies today?

Bass isn't here to comment on it this time.


linki- Ah damn. Sorry MM

Aaaaand MP just sniped in at the end. 3 way tie.


Gettin dat popcorn..

Epignosis wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Sorry for cutting it close, just finished dinner and then caught up. I voted MP, feel more comfortable with a vote there than anywhere else at the moment. This is a crazy widespread vote!

Dayumn.

Bringin up dem divorce papers now, huh?

thellama73 wrote:Voting closes in ten minutes. Still missing six.

I already owe 1 drink.

And MM, I will dissect those past 3 comments you made as hidden messages should you appear as civilian.

Scouts honor.

Cookie wrote:

Scotty wrote:9 left to vote.

My bet is still intact.

I'm going to vote. I'm waiting in case I need to save myself.

Well it is currently a 5 way tie with less than an hour left.

It would be coincidentally hilarious if Cookie were lynched in both the games she were playing today..

9 left to vote.

My bet is still intact.

Elohcin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:
It's never too early to explain to your three-year-old that pulling his scrotum isn't a particularly healthy endeavor, even if the activity is "skretchy and fun."

And who loves boobs WAY too much for his own good.

I've heard that about Epi

timmer wrote:What if sig is xander?

Cookie sounds good enough to me.

What if Cookie is xander?

timmer wrote:I have to go but have no idea who to vote for. Someone gimme sumthin.

If you really want a safe vote, go for sig. Since he is MIA.

Elohcin wrote:

Mac's Mom wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Mac's Mom, you are quite the hilarious one. Can I ask where you are from?

Sure.

I'm from a time where things made more sense, where the grass and air didn't smell like putrid children basking in video game delusions, where meat was meat, where the plays of Eugene O'Neil enthralled us all, where a man could get things done without being harassed, where you could plant your own food, drink your own whiskey, crack wise with the neighbor, rough a mother******* up at the local bar and not be charged, and where life was much simpler than how many "likes" you get on whatever doodad you carry in your pockets.

I asked WHERE, not WHEN. :P And if you can believe this, I don't carry any kind of doodad in my pocket. My husband and I have one cell phone between the two of us (yes, we share it) and it doesn't even have internet access. If you touch the screen, nothing happens at all. Also, you have to flip it open just to see the buttons. Crazy, eh?

Oh my goodness, the gameshow Boom is on the tv and the category is 'Sex'. My eight year old says, "Oh my goodness, no one is going to get this one. What in the world is SEX?!" Just when you think it was okay to watch a game show with your kids on a Thursday evening at 8pm.

I often wonder how the Newlywed Game gets away with everything that it does, when doing re-runs at 10am on the weekends.

Elo, I think Boom might be the best outlet to transition into the Birds and the Bees talk.

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I just want to let everyone know that I am having a delicious mint julep right now, with mint from my own garden, and I'm making bourbon chicken over jasmine rice for supper.

mmm mmm

that sounds amazing. I just picked up some Orange chicken from my local Chinese hole--in-the-wall and was serenaded by the local homeless guy on my corner. He was singing the always-classic Wiggle by Jason DaRulo.
I love this city sometimes.

You should have asked him if he wanted to see your frisky dingo.

oh yeah! And then he would have "stabbed" me with his "knife"!

Epignosis wrote:I just want to let everyone know that I am having a delicious mint julep right now, with mint from my own garden, and I'm making bourbon chicken over jasmine rice for supper.

mmm mmm

that sounds amazing. I just picked up some Orange chicken from my local Chinese hole--in-the-wall and was serenaded by the local homeless guy on my corner. He was singing the always-classic Wiggle by Jason DaRulo.
I love this city sometimes.

HamburgerBoy wrote:Is there any reason to assume that the Xtacles couldn't be underpowered/unusable/however people are putting it? This is my first game here, but maybe their purpose is more equivalent to a bunch of vanilla roles which happen to (uncontrollably) shoot powers every which way, being more of a game mechanic than something that's supposed to be controlled? That the power would be diminished quickly within a couple days (I'm assuming the odds of killing Stan early are low) seems to further support that.

That's the point I was making around Day 0, to an extent. They can have the power to do stuff, but will be disorganized past a certain point.

Yes, Xander can tell call them by name, and in the first day at least the Xitophobes can team up and have relevancy... but after a few NK's it's going to be very hard to predict which Xtacles are still alive by name. We wouldn't want a missed vote and oops, protected the wrong person or whatever. Plus if Xander is dead, that's infinitely worse for the xytophiles.

LC suggested a master scheme that may or may not pan out for Xander but also doesn't make him seem any more kind-hearted than my landlord. It's almost feigning helpfulness, where he's assuming that Xander is an underdeveloped toddler without any strategic planning.

timmer wrote:Hey all, so reading back, I've got decent vibes from SVS (the point about Epig maybe not being drunk is interesting), I'm not sure I understand voting for Long Con, so MM gets a bit of a from me, as it was pointed out that the reasoning was weak. Scotty seems to be not enjoying the attention he is getting... do people who know his play style well have an opinion on whether this indicates a certain alignment?

You've played with me before. What do you think?

Epignosis wrote:Four hours until the end of Day 1.

Side game.

How many people will miss the vote?

I say 7.

I'll bet you it's over 7. If I lose, I'll chug the difference.
Who wants to bet under 7 against me? If it is exactly 7, I'll chug 7.

Long Con wrote:Geez, Scotty. You seem worried.

Worried? No, but I take offense to someone voting me for inane reasons.

Mac's Mom wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Mac's Mom wrote:

Scotty wrote:LC, your vote for me makes about as much sense as this shit:

Handerpants! By golly, what'll they think of next!

Say, does Depends happen to produce those? Been gettin' tired of the old model. Keeps chaffin' me where the good Lord had the kindness to split us, if you catch ma drift.

lol

Mac, what do you look for in a lynch candidate? Is this your first mafia game?

'Tis my first.

And I'm lookin' for the one who gives me the most sass.

I don't put up with the kind of guff your generation revels in, no siree. Not after the things I've seen. They'd make a monkey shine your shoes and give you a quarter-dollar for obliging him!

You make it sound like you're from the 19th century.

Mac's Mom wrote:

Scotty wrote:LC, your vote for me makes about as much sense as this shit:

Handerpants! By golly, what'll they think of next!

Say, does Depends happen to produce those? Been gettin' tired of the old model. Keeps chaffin' me where the good Lord had the kindness to split us, if you catch ma drift.

lol

Mac, what do you look for in a lynch candidate? Is this your first mafia game?

Long Con wrote:I cast a vote Scotty's way, he's my most serious suspicion at this time. Going to work soon, maybe not home until after the lynch is up. I just sat down to vote, and realized as I was typing this that I could have also voted DisgruntledPorcupine for the Low-Posting angle, but I didn't. Oh well, he's got more of a chance to prove me right for next time. ;o

This post infuriates me for its nonchalance. Oops! Dropped a lit match in a truckstop bathroom! You didn't have to light the match.

And then putting Disgruntled Porcupine's meaningless (and only) post at the end? That's just insulting.

Long Con wrote:Perhaps a 24/24 schedule should have a different set of standards regarding Participation Score?

I'm interested in trying to catch baddies, Epig. I think it would be very cool. I will also support lynching an inactive today. DisgruntledPorcupine would be my choice.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:;o

Th-th-th-that's all, folks!

This apparently means nothing to you.

Long Con wrote:

Scotty wrote:LC, I don't think you're thinking through these strategies, and honestly I don't think you are on Xander's team.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to let us all know how honest you are being when you said that. Maybe you thought that if you had said "I don't think you're on Xander's team", we might not think you were being honest about it. So, good thing you clarified that with a totally necessary adverb.

As for thinking through these strategies, the problem you are having is a lack of vision. This can be done, and it can be well-coordinated and executed by Xander. We can make him invincible. Unlynchable, unkillable.

I took Llama's rule to mean in-thread stuff. If he wants to limit what Xander can say in the secret message, so be it. The Xtacles will know soon enough.

Because of adverbs? That's your serious line of reasoning? That's the only time you have addressed me or even mentioned me all game.

"serious suspicion"? Bullshit. You're just on me because I didn't like your plan of revealing Xander.

I might be in a right mind to NO-U vote on this one.

LC, your vote for me makes about as much sense as this shit:

sorry that should read "I don't like that sig HASN'T posted.
And I know Tiny doesn't like be acronymized as TB. Sorry, my dear!

Mac's Mom wrote:

Scotty wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, game-related question for everyone:

What do folks make of DH's vote for Epi? Does it say anything about alignment for you, however small?

I have to get back to being frisky with my PhD work, so I'll be back at some point, IDK when.

I feel like those 2 have history and can't make anything of it one way or another. DH didn't really explain it thoroughly either.

I'm more interested in Roxy.

If she's not voting for me today, I guess there's no limit to how obnoxious I can be. I mean, she won't vote for me, so why worry?

I'd vote for a newcomer in a heartbeat. If they don't post, however insignificant, then they're useless to me. I'll always err on the side of people that have played before and know better, but I wouldn't put it past me to vote, say Mac's Mom or Hamburger Boy (McDonalds isnt paying me enough for this endorsement).

If sig doesn't post in the next day, and if there isn't a resoundingly suspicious read, I'll probably be voting sig. I've at least played with him before.

But we'll see.

Yeah, well I'm posting now. Don't get your undies in a bunch.

I go commando.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation?

Now that leaves sig as the last person that hasn't posted.

Looking at the lowest posters right now. These are the ones that stand out to me right now.
sig- 0
Disgruntled Porcupine- " ;o "
Tiny Bubbles- 2
Mac's mom- 3-
ika- 4

So far, Mac's mom has just barked threateningly thrice.
Disgruntled porcupine is the one that stands out to me. Like, what even is that post. Birdo?
TB and ika- nothing of note, though ika did ask LC about his color scheme. neither have posted in a while
I don't like that sig has posted, and he stands to get my vote today but porcupine is a close 2nd right now with that post.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Also, votes are not changeable in this poll.

O rly? Someone should tell DH. I don't know if he knows yet.

Cookie wrote:

Scotty wrote:I would like to lynch Cookie as well.

Ooo... VENGEFUL. I kinda like that. Buuut please don't.

We'll see. I want to see what others have to contribute by tomorrow afternoon before I vote.

I would like to lynch Cookie as well.

Made wrote:

Epignosis wrote:This is why 48 hour days are a pointless joke. People seem to love them, but most don't use them. Makes no sense to me. It just invites the same six or seven people to say the same six or seven things six or seven different ways, and then when voting time comes, everybody else is all "oh noes! I have thirteen pages to catch up on!"

People love them because they gives people breathing room. Instead of having to show up everyday ready to play, you can show up read a bit, say a bit, then sleep on it, and come back the next day with more opinions and a final vote. It's a more comfortable pace that fits better to my lifestyle personally.

I think Epi's point was that a vocal majority come back in at the end of the phase and complain that they have to catch up, and don't really catch up. That may be your style, and is more forgiving for people with busy schedules. I'm in the camp that likes to do things fast and loose, so I can roam either way, but am also innately impatient, and feel like everything that needs to be said can be done so in 24 hours. Also, I believe that setting a shorter deadline can impose a more substantive dialogue.

Made wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Politicians?

WHATTT ARE THOOOSSSEEE?!?!?!

I didn't really look at the other roles, so I went on the first picture, which Mr. Ford, who looks like a poltician. I dunno why I thought that.
Team Chinatown then.

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:Plus in this game, which has 3 (and maybe 4) different teams, the majority of players are NOT on the team you are on; you would be best served (looking at probability) just lynching inactives early.

23.8% chance of picking team Killface out of a hat.

How bout odds of picking your own team if you are on
-Crews
-Killface
-politicians

And don't include the indigo-girls who want nothing more than to get off their team.

Plus in this game, which has 3 (and maybe 4) different teams, the majority of players are NOT on the team you are on; you would be best served (looking at probability) just lynching inactives early.

Epignosis wrote:People I will vote:

Cookie - One post so far. Not what I want to see.

MP - I still find his reaction to DH's overly gregarious post disconcerting and not genuine.

Tiny Bubbles - Hasn't claimed being a civilian yet.


People I will not vote:

Long Con - More interested in organizing how (presumably) others use their roles (even if it breaks rules or the intention of the game) than looking for someone to lynch Day 1 and making some real progress. Waste of time. I like it.

DharmaHelper - RIP Twosimus.

Scotty - RIP Scotty

Wait, why am I dead? Am I dead right now? Is this real life? Is any of this real?

Elohcin wrote:

Scotty wrote:
I'd vote for a newcomer in a heartbeat. If they don't post, however insignificant, then they're useless to me.

This just isn't true. Of course you can't know their alignment (unless you are both bad) but if the non-participant is on your side then it is more helpful to you to keep him/her alive. It creates a slightly better chance that someone who is not on your side will get lynched/killed.

But you're playing the odds here. Why play the odds? The semantics of it aside, I just plain don't like playing with inactives. The longer they sit and rot, even if they are on civ team, the bigger the chance of mafia picking off vocal people as the game wears on. Not adding to the civ cause yet remaining in the game is just easy pickins, and muddies the waters.

Epignosis wrote:This is why 48 hour days are a pointless joke. People seem to love them, but most don't use them. Makes no sense to me. It just invites the same six or seven people to say the same six or seven things six or seven different ways, and then when voting time comes, everybody else is all "oh noes! I have thirteen pages to catch up on!"

I feel the same way.

But then I'm also not in a position to do anything about it.

DharmaHelper wrote:Delicious speculation

Gotta speculate on something, which is just a cough above nothing. I hate Day 1 for this reason especially.

Also if I could behead that dentist in MN for doing the same to Cecil the Lion, I would. I'm positively furious right now.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Long Con wrote:DH, why did you vote for Epig?

Because somebody asked if votes were changeable. Because I didn't want MM to be the one to do it this game, because out of anyone I'd think Epi would be fine with my vote.

How very nice. The reasoning does look suspicious. DH could have asked the host whether or not votes are changeable, but seemed content with just throwing it out there. Because Epi probably wouldn't mind.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, game-related question for everyone:

What do folks make of DH's vote for Epi? Does it say anything about alignment for you, however small?

I have to get back to being frisky with my PhD work, so I'll be back at some point, IDK when.

I feel like those 2 have history and can't make anything of it one way or another. DH didn't really explain it thoroughly either.

I'm more interested in Roxy.

If she's not voting for me today, I guess there's no limit to how obnoxious I can be. I mean, she won't vote for me, so why worry?

I'd vote for a newcomer in a heartbeat. If they don't post, however insignificant, then they're useless to me. I'll always err on the side of people that have played before and know better, but I wouldn't put it past me to vote, say Mac's Mom or Hamburger Boy (McDonalds isnt paying me enough for this endorsement).

If sig doesn't post in the next day, and if there isn't a resoundingly suspicious read, I'll probably be voting sig. I've at least played with him before.

But we'll see.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Scotty wrote:Sigh. OK. Well. I'm down to get frisky.

Looking to hire a professional to make me feel better. Any takers?

There's no better professional than a Sockfaced professional.

Do you...uh...do you do private dances?