The Syndicate

nutella wrote:Also SVS why tf did you "hold your vote" they are changeable

I am not a fan of last minute vote changes. But mainly it is force of habit; when I am in a "taking votes" situation, I always hold my vote and don't give whether or not the votes are changeable much thought. I have seen LOTS of lynches shift in the last hour, so when I am taking votes I watch and wait.

DrWilgy wrote:
Last thing to point out, SVS, why did you ignore this?
DrWilgy wrote:
S~V~S wrote:So you think BR made me a baddie recruiter becasue I would like it? Whether I have a "thing" for being a baddie has no bearing on role assignment. One & Three don't go together.

You're just stringing stuff together, when your attempt to save Bubbles with your Timmer suspicions did not fly, you jumped onto DHs post.
SVS, that doesn't make sense, I've been voting for you for awhile now. I didn't list 1 and 3 as cause and effect, I listed it as possibilities. Your pursuit of Golden is what throws me for aloop the most. I agree with what Rico said.

timmer wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Day one there was a 12 or 13 player tie I think.
Oh that?

Wilgy, so your case is three points, one of which is that SVS likes being bad (WTF?) and one of which is that she is one of a ton of people who didn't die from a hugely tied lynch? And this is because you assume one of them was Ubby? What about Terras protecting all Guardians that day?

If that's your case, I'm moving' on, sorry dude.
Uggg... Timmer, I have stated previous the conditions for my vote and didn't want to go through it again. Her pursuit of Golden didn't feel genuine when I read it. I didn't have time to quote everything at the time, due to working on house renovations. Your WTF would be understandable if I hadn't already spoken about SVS being SK in a open role choice environment. I don't assume one of them is Ububudoo, but the possibility is there and we shouldn't forget that. Statistic wise, if we go after a Golden hounder, she's our best choice.

I'm currently packing for the move tomorrow, so I don't have alot of time left for mafia today, nor will I tomorrow. I'll chime in when I get the chance.

I did not respond to it since I had already responded to the shorthand version, plus I saw a statement here, not a question. You have not been voting for me for "a while now" you voted for me two lynches ago, and had your vote on Timmer most of the past day until DH asked you to switch it.

This game is NOT an open choice environment. And I don't think my preference for being a baddie is a secret from anyone here. If "liking being bad" is criteria for being bad in any given game, I would be screwed EVERY game. It is so well known that I like being bad that I actually think I would be a liability for a baddie recruiter, like I was in RM# when I was recruited by Reywas. I was taking suspicion from both Epi & DH from fairly early in the game. So take what you will about my current recruitment status from that.

And re Golden, that is how I tend to Mafia. I see something I suspect and I go pretty hard after them.

As for your other thoughts, I am sorry that Unfurl died. Other than Roxy I am probably the last person here to kill Unfurl. She is a gentle presence, and I think we need more of her, not less of her.

And had I been bad, and known Bubbles was gonna flip bad, i would have voted her, and I would have voted hella earlier than I did, as would, I think, pretty much anyone else playing, so this is not really WIFOM territory.

Linki @ Roxy, yeah I noticed that too. But why would she make herself come up as bad?

I held my vote until I was sure I would not need it to defend. I am not as sure about Bubbles as are some, Wilgys extreme desire to save her almost made me vote for her, but i will stick to my own suspicion and vote Sorsha.

You don't know who Kojak is?? OMG I feel so old ha ha

I think that is 100% typical of me.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:DH, if you could describe your desire to lynch S~V~S with one word, what would it be?

I mean the magnitude of your emotion. How strong is your desire?

Hey JJJ make me feel you really care about being fair.

Day one there was a 12 or 13 player tie I think.

So you think BR made me a baddie recruiter becasue I would like it? Whether I have a "thing" for being a baddie has no bearing on role assignment. One & Three don't go together.

You're just stringing stuff together, when your attempt to save Bubbles with your Timmer suspicions did not fly, you jumped onto DHs post.

Wilgy an FYI, Epi was killed by Azuma not Uzburger.

Scotty wrote:I just want to point out that DH's scum read on SVS is the most read-y thing he's done all game so far. I value his reads going forward, but also find it out of his game character this far. His point seems contributive, and I feel like SVS could have been recruited by a baddie team, but I am not sure she was done so between day 1 and 2. I think the switch would have happened sometime after that.

As for DH, isn't it interesting that he finally started going after someone after Unkerstein recruited earlier today?

I apologize for not being involved in the game as much recently. The other 3 mafia games I'm in just started and have me quite busy. I promise to get back in with more in depth reads, but for right now off the top of my head:

-I'm still not off the Sorsha could = Umlautzerbad train, since she hasn't really been part of the discussion as of late (and no excuse as of why).
-The lynch switch to Bubbles shouldn't intrinsicly reflect badly on her, and we should not assume that it was solely Ubolivegarden's doing to get unfurl lynched. There were other powers at play yesterday, and I'm not reading into that.
-That being said, I don't think Bubbles has done anything to make her appear civ in the interim, and for now I will be voting Bubbles. until further notice.
-I'd really rather track down the recruiters before getting into the semantics of what makes a baddie recruit, but if a murderer kidnapped my dog and said he would kill it unless I told him some suspicious names of recruitees now, I would say that JJJ, SVS and DH are ones to look at. I would wager that no more than 2 of those are baddies, though not necessarily on the same team.
-I'm avoiding the Rico/LoRab debate for now.

That underlined bit up there was why I asked DH how he knew when the earlier Uzburger recruit happened, and he produced a post from 24 hours or so before then= night post and when I shifted tone in thread. When the recruit actually happened was not posted, I looked through Black Rocks posts before I asked, so I found that odd.

And I have to agree with your short list, it makes sense, even though i don't belong on it, I can see why you might put me there.

DharmaHelper wrote:SVS is bad and will get my vote until I can't vote.

Yeah, that's about what I felt about Golden.

I figured you were suspicious of me, you did vote for me and never explain it. Or that question about how artistic i was.

And I am talking about Game Mechanics. Look at the roles, Wilgy. They're pretty wild. I am not saying dismiss discussion; I LOVE discussion. I am saying we not worry so much about being able to deduce things based on easily manipulated evidence. There are seemers, iirc there is a role that can insert stuff into the host post, there are roles with day or night ends that don't have to worry about saving it for when they need it. Vote manips. Power redirectors. People that can survive for any amount of reasons.

And I submit entries to all contests in this game. And in that game, those were the best roles, the indies, and two of the baddies, The most interesting. Even the host said I submitted the best list

@DH

ebwop, I kinda thought there were others but have no way of knowing for sure, but you got called out in thread for that one.

Nope.

And in that game, it was Rabbits abortive Superhero game, LT read you & Rey out in the thread for intentionally working me up. We were all civ.

I will never forget that. So no bullshit.

Not with all the night powers that can fuck with things, Wilgy. There are too many unknown variables. Sometimes you just have to suspend belief and let magic take over.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Black Rock wrote:The Recruitment Challenge is over, the leader shall now judge and make a decision. Sorry for the delay, I had the farrier here doing my horses feet.

There are over 24 hours between this post and Epis death, and Goldens subsequent remark. 24 hours in which I continued to not think Golden was bad.

And I get that way at pretty much any accusation, DH, as you well know. I recall games where you intentionally tried to upset me. And I have been using caps all game for emphasis.You just know how to upset me, just look at when we first started playing D & D.

You're stretching here.

*misspelled

Can you point out the combative? Was it calling you dear, or using this smiley: :P Or did you not like being told to read the thread? Becasue you missed a few things, IMO. And how do you know exactly when Uzbarger recruited? I went and looked back for that info, and I can't find it. I found the announcement of the first recruit, and the picture request, but can't find when he recruited either of those times. Unless the hosts misspleed his name

Ricochet wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
S~V~S wrote:And why would anyone think Golden would be an easy lynch? For killing Epignosis?
You didn't suspect Golden for killing Epignosis (aka his bait to get Epignosis being WIFOM) until late into Golden's lynch. Initially you suspected Golden for his nonchalance and for distrusting that he's playing his civ game.
i know. I meant that why would anyone want to lynch Golden for killing Epignosis. Epi was hounding him, and until he made that post, I felt sorry for him, too.
Golden made his doomed comment fairly immediately, so there was no window for players to feel "sorry about Golden being hounded by Epig". His comment split the players right away into those finding him nonchalant and bad and those finding him genuine and possibly framed.

So when was Golden a lynch target for killing Epignosis (or the WIFOM around it)? As I've said, only you converted your suspicion into that late on D3 and I think rey did it as well at one point (without having brought it up before at all). I'd have to double-check about others, don't recall.

Am I misunderstanding something? Did you mean DH implied people (easily) suspected and lynched Golden for killing Epig? Because I don't see where he implied that.

No, lol. How are you reading it this way? I am sorry I am not being clear. During the day before Epi died, I was sorry for Golden; I would imagine anone on the receiving end of Epis assuredness was.

I was asking why anyone would think it was an easy lynch, the "for killing Epignosis" part was rhetorical. Like how would someone people felt sorry for be an easy lynch?

@DH, um, I am not being combative? I am defending myself here.

It also occurrred after Golden said he had baited the baddies into killing Epignosis, lol.

DharmaHelper wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Linki @ DH, yes I clearly posted the EXACT time that my opinion on Golden shifted. EXACTLY. The exact post. Old news dear, keep up with the thread better
Well this just confirms it for me.
You did not already know this when you came to the conclusion you came to?
Know that you were bad? Not with 100% certainty. Your response confirmed it.

No, you didn't know that I was saying that for days smartass :P ? That one post made me change my mind. You can even see it in the thread, right after the night post where Epi & Typh died. I wasn't sure how I felt about it until he posted. If you want to think that changing my mind makes me a baddie, feel free. You'd be wrong. And why that specific role?

DharmaHelper wrote:
Linki @ DH, yes I clearly posted the EXACT time that my opinion on Golden shifted. EXACTLY. The exact post. Old news dear, keep up with the thread better
Well this just confirms it for me.

You did not already know this when you came to the conclusion you came to?

Ricochet wrote:
S~V~S wrote:And why would anyone think Golden would be an easy lynch? For killing Epignosis?
You didn't suspect Golden for killing Epignosis (aka his bait to get Epignosis being WIFOM) until late into Golden's lynch. Initially you suspected Golden for his nonchalance and for distrusting that he's playing his civ game.

i know. I meant that why would anyone want to lynch Golden for killing Epignosis. Epi was hounding him, and until he made that post, I felt sorry for him, too.

And why would anyone think Golden would be an easy lynch? For killing Epignosis?

Canucklehead wrote:Wow, those Timer defense posts by ?SVS and Tranq have some eerily similar language in them.... and are awfully close together.

Great minds think alike

Personally, I think the Timmer suspish is weak, to be blunt. BUT that's becasue I know the history. I was at the head of the pack that lynched him in RM3 for the exact same reasons the people who don't know him want to lynch him now, so I feel it is only right to speak up. I woke up, and I caught up from the night before during my morning coffee & Mafia time, and gave my opinion on Timmer, which had been the last conversation before I posted.

Ricochet wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Bold stance: next time we're in Position 2, the lynch will be switched again.

Will it be to save a teammate?
How will we be able to test that or get info out of that, if there'll be a lynch switch no matter what.

You can't. That's the point. I am of the opinion that with the variety of roles that can switch things around, there is no way to really know anything

With these hosts, attempts to "solve" their intricately woven chaos will invariable end in failure. Not all games are logic puzzles. Some games are finely crafted clusterfucks.

If you're a baddie and you've got a use it or lose it lynch switch, or use it or lose it whatever power, you use it.

I read some of Bubbles posts in other games, and I was like *meh* about her being bad. Anything is possible, but she sounds about the same in those games as she does here. Although i disagree with him on Timmer, I do tend to agree with Wilgy on Bubbles.

I had a doctors appointment and took half a day. I will be in and out.

Linki @ DH, yes I clearly posted the EXACT time that my opinion on Golden shifted. EXACTLY. The exact post. Old news dear, keep up with the thread better

I am still looking at Sorsha, and have been watching Bullz the whole game. Still waiting for that baddie hunting you chided Unfurl for not doing, Bullz.

linki~ wow that's hardcore, pulling quotes from another forum, lol!

DrWilgy wrote: Sidenote: Timmer seems to be loving SVS during the Golden debates... Don't forget this.

As everyone should, Wilgy, old boy, as everyone should

Although I fail to see why SVS love means someone is bad. You never did explain your random vote for me the other day, although you said you would.

TBH, all of these points say the same thing, basically. Timmer has a shitty attitude, especially as it applies to solving the game.

In the last game in this series, RM3 played at a different forum, Revolution Mafia, Timmer was lynched for his shitty attitude. He flamed out a bit since no one seemed to be grasping his point about how he chose to play the game. I was one of the primary pitchfork wavers in the forefront. I still feel rather guilty over this even though I was bad in the game, and any death not mine or a teammates should be cause for rejoicing.

My point is that Timmer has displayed this same "not burning any bridges" attitude the whole game. After RM3, I would find it suspicious if he behaved otherwise. There is nothing wrong with being neutral; most of us started out the game this way, and most of us still are neutral. He chooses to play as an actual neutral, thereby increasing his desirability as a recruit.

Do I think he could be capable of putting on an act and actually be bad? Oh 100%. But I am not going to vote for someone based solely on attitude. Especially an attitude that, while not one I would choose, is not unreasonable and which I have seen them have before as an unrecruited.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:But I still don't know that ANY host would give one of 4 power roles to somwonw unknown to them.
Maybe it's just me, but if I'm hosting this game and the random generator assigns the recruiter roles to 4 first-time players who've never dabbled in Mafia -- I leave it that way.
But you are not hosting this game. So i will discuss it if I please
I have no intention of stifling the discussion. I only mean to state my own perspective on the issue. Discuss whatever you like.

OK. I guess the way you read to me is as a thread steerer, someone who tries to push the thread in the direction he wants it to go. That takes a strong person, and you appear to be such a person. But steerers make me very very nervous, especially in a game like this with switching affiliation. I am a radical, a protester. I like to push against people who it feels like may be pushing me. Steerers can turn into stiflers, and ask Llama how I feel about stiflers :P

So take me with a grain of salt. But expect me to push back. I like to challenge authority

Linki @ Llama, I am sorry if I was too broad, every host is different.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:But I still don't know that ANY host would give one of 4 power roles to somwonw unknown to them.
Maybe it's just me, but if I'm hosting this game and the random generator assigns the recruiter roles to 4 first-time players who've never dabbled in Mafia -- I leave it that way.

But you are not hosting this game. So i will discuss it if I please

*someone, holy crap I need to proofread better

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm just going to say that "I don't think we should lynch ______ because I don't think BR/LC would have made _______ a recruiter." is a sentence I will never employ again in this game after this post. I think it's a very dangerous perspective and honestly seems contrary to the spirit of Mafia in the first place. Y'all know these hosts better than I do, but

Well, I think all discussions should be on the table. Even if we dismiss them, I don't think we should just blow off any topics of discussion. I know they randomed the roles, and I am not sure how sure I am that they would tweak the results~ I am a fairly good friend of Black Rocks, and I have only been a recruiter when the person ahead of me died. So i doubt they cherry pick totally. But I still don't know that ANY host would give one of 4 power roles to somwonw unknown to them. And I won't discount my personal feelings becasue others may find them dangerous or distasteful.

Turnip Head wrote:
Devin the Omniscient wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Or the lynch was switched to make us lynch Bubbles again
If that's the case, why not just let her be lynched the first time?? I'm with SD on this one.
Because if you have a lynch switch power, why not use it?

This~ lulz and if everyone is talking about who was or was not being saved and the same old people, they are not talking about anyone different. If it's a use it or lose it thing, why not go for chaos/thread distraction?

The Bubbles thing does not move me much, other than the bit where she made it sound like she was super involved when she had barely posted. I could see both sides of that, but it WAS a weird thing to say. While I see Roxys point about her, and to an extent agree with it, i am still not sure BR would give a recruiter role to someone unknown to her~ but I could be wrong. In past games pretty much everyone who played was from the same community, so with the melting pot we have here, that may not be the case. Although I suppose she could have been an early recruit.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
aapje wrote:I'm not sure I would agree based on the win conditions:
Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1
Each baddie group only needs to eliminate half of the civvies and none of the neutrals, while having to eliminate all of the other baddies. Then take in account they will take over the other team's kill if they are all eliminated and it would make the most sense for them to actively go after the other baddies.
I agree that both baddie teams are actively hunting for one another. I just don't think that's the only motive behind their votes. Self-preservation of their team is paramount and anyone not on it is going to be considered a decent enough lynch.

I don't particularly agree with this. Any port in a storm, yes, but if they are playing a smart game, there is no storm. And they would HIGHLY prefer a cred lynch. Maybe they will pile on Bullshit day one, but after that, it's a weak baddie who piles on just anyone.

I have to finish reading back, will be back soonish.

*added* bonus

Bye MP, sorry to see you go, but I hope you find some peace.

I am not really getting the case on Bubbles, so i am going to reread her today. I have a few people I have been keeping an eye on since Day One. I am still not feeling that Sorshas posts regarding the Golden/framing situation were sincere. They still feel leading to me having reread her yesterday; it fely like she was trying to push people in the direction of *me* without coming out and saying so, which feels like trying to avoid responsibility, plus has the assed bonus on being somewhat un Sorsha like, imo, and she agreed with me:

Sorsha wrote:SVS- if I suspected you I wouldn't dance around naming you. You used to be really good at reading me but your not here....

Right. If she was a civ. This is part of the reason I think she might not be civ/neutral. I mean that one post, "Who do you think might have framed Golden? Scotty made a really good post about it" At this point I visualize some wide eyed eyelash batting ha ha.

It is rather a hard thread to follow after having been afk for a while.

But I could be overreading, God knows that is just what i did with Golden.

Would you like a Custom Rank? I was thinking "Torquemada", perhaps?

Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote: If your next reply to me will remain unanswered, consider it that I've considered it pointless to keep talking to you on these matters.
So, to interpret your response in your own style, what I'm understanding is,

"I don't like the way you play and I don't get you, so I'm not talking to you any more or taking anything you say as a legitimate post."

or, maybe

"I'm just going to assess all of your posting in ways that completely delegitimize anything that you say."

Also, interesting that you tried to get what I was saying, but didn't respond to any of it.
If that's the way you feel like interpreting it or no u'ing me, feel free. I can only smile at the proof that I point out you blow off suspicions with stuff like thinking players just don't get or like how you play, your rebuttal is "no no I'm totally defending properly" and yet you now just slam a (however tongue-in-cheek) "I don't like the way you play" interpretation of everything I've written in the last reply. Gripping debunking.

Also convenient twist of words there (just like SVS did), thinking I said I'm done talking to you at all, when what I said was that I'll have nothing more to reply on the topics you brought up, if you keep pushing it in the same style I've pointed out, which doesn't add up to anything.

I've responded to everything you said, because that's what my posts were precisely, responses to what you bring up or state. Must I really ask you for a third time to point or explain properly the misdirection you brought up and suspect me for, considering what you've said does not make one tiny bit of sense? If your replies and views are so out of sphere, why must I keep "responding to any of it" in a way I find increasingly futile?

I wasn't twisting your words, i was giving my interpretation of them. Obviously, that is what we do, we read what each other writes and put our own interpretations on it. If we all read everything the same way, this would be a boring game indeed.

I found it to be an uncivil reply, which indeed was the point on my bringing it up in the context in which I did. If you did not mean it in a dismissive way, my apologies.

Long Con wrote:
S~V~S wrote:*I do, not I am
** "I am", not "I do". Increase your blush!

And the consequences are for those who shall be the receivers of those consequences!

Yeah, I know

As soon as I posted it I was like,

And vague reply is vague, which was about what I expected

*I do, not I am

Weli I do

@ Hosties~

Do the mild consequences apply only to the people that voted for them? Or do the people who chose to avoid your wrath get a break from consequences?

thellama73 wrote:Here is a list of the games TinyBubbles has payed on the Syndicate:
Recruitment 4
Angry Birds
Frisky Dingo
Bullets Over Broadway
Watchmen
Death and Taxes
Omtera

Can we stop saying she's "new to mafia"?

Wow, I did not play many of those, but I played a couple (and modded several) and I don't remember her at all, really. I thought this was the first game I had played with her. I am so embarassed

Wow that was quite the crazy catch up. Sorry to see you go Unfurl, you always add a genteelness to games. I am not sorry I missed last night; the tone in here makes me sad. We have people telling other people that they refuse to talk to them anymore, and "do as I do or else" kind of posts. I am disappoint BUT I am also glad it was not me doing any of those things as we all know I have done in the past

So no judgment, just hoping everyone feels happier after a relaxing night (and doing the happy dance that it was NOT ME

thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote: Further uestion to everyone: If Ubzarg did this, do you think or find it more likely that a) Bubbles is part of the team and he openly saved her or b) the situation didn't put himself or his teammates in any danger and he just performed the switch for sport and chaos, just like he locked the thread at a two-way tie point?

If b), do you think him and his teammates still tried to blend in during the Day and hunt or even vote for the main wagons or did they wander off, bringing out other ideas or suspects, sidelining etc.? If Uzbark's action is clear nonchalance, how can we profile him within the thread - or his teammates for that matter, how would they have behaved, knowing they'll totally manipulate the lynch?

Can we get an angle out of this? Not sure, but it makes me wonder.

Azura's power would mean that the only way unfurl would get Azura's votes and get lynched would be if Azura had gotten the most votes (hence being in lynch position). That would mean Azura is TinyBubbles.
I think Ubzarg would use his power regardless of anything else, since he gets to use it every Position 2, why not? Unfortunately, that gives us zero information. Of course the other possibilities are still out there, but for those to matter, we would have to answer: why would Ubzarg NOT use his power?

Yeah, Uzburger could have been one those who suspected Unfurl, or he could have had Bubbles on his team, or he could have been trying to frame one of the people who suspected Unfurl, or he could have just done it for random lulz, as you say, becasue he can.

I have to agree with LoRab on the Night Poll, as little as i want to see the Poison enter the game. Mild consequnces tonight, medium consequences tomorrow night, severe consequences the night after, horrendous consequences the night after that. I know & respect BR & LC~ they don't fuck around. So I am and voting for 4.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I think that summed it up. I assumed you had read it.
I had, I just didn't realize you were referencing that as "acting", sorry.

You do have the advantage of metagaming in your read of Sorsha; I do not. So I grant that I cannot really know whether her performance so far in this game is in line with what is typical of her as a civilian. When I assessed her purely at face value though I didn't struggle to find a neutral/civilian mindset in most of her content.

But thats the thing; it isn't meta for the most part. I think almost anyone would have been more direct. She is trying to lead people here without actually committing to it herself. The fact that I know here to be direct as a person makes it MORE suspect to me, but i would have felt the same had anyone made those posts.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:"Act" like an actress. I think she was acting.
I'm still not sure what you're referring to. Was she acting in a specific post, or in her entire post history?

Did you read my post frome earlier today, where I explained to Bea my thoughts on Sorsha? This one:

S~V~S wrote:Bea, I am not sure what you want me to say. I was wrong, very hideously wrong. I read back and caught up last night, but there was not much more that I could say than what I did say

Thanks for your take on Sorsha; my experience is that Sorsha is direct, and not not flinch back from speaking her mind. And in the two posts that caught my eye, the one before and the other after Goldens lynch, she was pretty clearly pointing to me, IMO, but she was strangely reluctant to say so.

Before:

Sorsha wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
Sorsha wrote: My thoughts on the matter is whoever is really hounding golden in the thread did it. But is it a silly question to ask who would set golden up?
I'm upto date and I'm not voting for Golden. Sorsha, what has you thinking someone hounding him is framing him?

If it is one of the players hounding him, who are they? DH, SVS and rey?
Well my thought was that they killed epi to frame golden to set up a golden lynch the next day, once that didn't happen they have had to step up their accusations against him to get the lynch train going to golden.

I don't agree with the conclusions svs has come to on golden. I have to re read dh and Rey a bit. I was just throwing it out there to see what others are thinking on it.

I should add that I'm not 100% caught up... It's just too much to read so I'm sorry if this stuff was covered already.
The nice soft defending, the, "Hrm who COULD it be?" I actually picture her posing just like the "ponder" smiley.

After:

Sorsha wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Wilgy clads himself in armor. The sun shines off his helmet blinding the crowd as he grabs his sword and shield. A cloud covers the sun and the reflection dissipates. The crowd can now see that Wilgy's sword and shield are both Golden*

Bring it on. Sorsha, I've had abit to drink tonight. Why don't you join me and tell me who framed Roger Rabit (Golden)?

Vote registered for Sorsha
Thats a good question Wilgy.. was it a frame or was it the result of a redirect (Ahriman), target switch (Master of Ancient Arts), switching three roles powers (Chaos Dancer) or a repel of kill to the Magnetarch?

Looks like Scotty has made a nice post about who may have framed Golden.

Do you think Golden was framed Wigly? And why did you vote for me? Also, what are your thoughts on the day ending early and no night?
Gee, the post of Scotty's that she refers to has my name at the top in giant letters. It feels like she is trying to lead horses to water here. She seems to want people to reach this conclusion on their own as opposed to making a case and taking responsibility. Had she just come right out and said it, I would have felt a lot better about her, tbh. Sorsha & I may have had our moments over the years, but one thing I will always say about her is that when she thinks she is in the right (not right as in "correct" but "in the right" as in righteous sense) Sorsha flatly refuses to pull punches.

Punches are being pulled all over the place in these two posts, punches just flying everywhere, except directly at me. So I will take your take on it into consideration. Plus not sure how much of this is defensiveness on my part, although as I said, when she made that first post while Golden was still alive, it went through my mind that the next frame up was on the backburner, and it was me.

I am going to reread a few specific people today; and then discuss my thoughts on them. After the Golden thing, I am feeling kinda tender about having an opinion about anything and am in second guess central. But a few people have gotten my attention, so a reread is in order. As for lists, i won't do them. Especially in a game with a lot of factions, as this one is. I have a fairly good example of my reasons in MPs big rainbow post. My first reaction to that was not a warm, fuzzy, "Aw MP thinks I am not a baddie for once!". It was "OMFG, why is MP drawing a huge target on my back??"

Anyone who played back in the day on LP/TP/RM will get that right away. Times they are a changin', but in a game with more than one bad group, they ain't a changin' that much.

I think that summed it up. I assumed you had read it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Sorsha, who among your detractors today do you feel has treated you the most unfairly, or otherwise been the most suspicious for their treatment of you?
Did you ask Bass this question? I don't recall.
I don't recall either. Lemme check.

S~V~S wrote:I am surprised to find Tiny Bubbles such a menace.
What does this mean?

S~V~S wrote:I am voting for Sorsha. I think her disingenuous act was just that, an act.
Could you please reference the disingenuous act you're referring to?

"Act" like an actress. I think she was acting.

Linki, becasue the way you treat people under suspicion is radically different IMO. You gave Bass the Bridge Scene from Monty Python, and you are giving Sorsha a platform question. You ask a lot of questions, but they are not terribly balanced, I think.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Sorsha, who among your detractors today do you feel has treated you the most unfairly, or otherwise been the most suspicious for their treatment of you?

Did you ask Bass this question? I don't recall.

I am surprised to find Tiny Bubbles such a menace.

I am voting for Sorsha. I think her disingenuous act was just that, an act.

Yeah, it's impressive, just not sure how to interact with it.

Never mind it's full of links and I don't have the time to cut & paste all of those links.

I skimmed didn't read fully, it did not require a dowload.

The problem there is that the orange posts are taken out of context. My position on Golden clearly and rapidly changed after he made ONE post. So yeah, I changed my mind. But it has a different aspect when taken out of context. That post was cold to me in a way I don't deem Golden to be. I was wrong, and will work harder to take tone out of it, but with the way I think, that is not always easy for me.

If you like feel free to relink the hyperlinks every page, I think that the hosts are fairly busy and may or may not have time to get around to that. I never use those myself anyhow, it is just as easy to find one post of a players and click "In Topic" under the avatar as it is to open a new tab and go to the first page

I find that Excel/Drive docs are hard to discuss in thread. Next time, break it up into smaller posts that can be posted in thread. As a matter of fact, I may just do that, I have a few minutes before I have to be out of here.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Also, I don't think players can ever just come in and shout they've been forced to vote or do something; they can try to signal it, at least. So MP heavily denying to have been forced doesn't fully detract me from finding the other version to be a plausible signal or tactic in dealing with a forced vote. In fact, a pee fountain sort of signaling.
Is there really any precedent for players abjectly denying that they were forced to so something they didn't want to do when that is in fact the truth? Couldn't they just ignore those comments to allow the theories to survive instead of putting a concerted effort into eliminating them?
I've flatly denied being forced to do things I was forced to do in many a game.
In some hosts games, the host punishes you if you let on that you have been forced, and if directly asked, you had best deny it. So denial does not mean much. I do not recall if these hosts are punishers or not, I try not to run afoul of their directives.

Just home, will read back to this AM.
I'll take your word for it, folks. This concept is from another planet for me.

In one game on The Piano, MP hosted it, I killed more people with a death compulsion than we did with NKs. As a host I love death curses; as a player I try to work around them very gingerly. And now that I think of it, The Hunger, which is in this game, and which killed me in a previous game, was a death compulsion as well. So I guess these hosts DO do that kind of thing. So grains of salt abounding.

Sorry for triple posts, I have to go for a bit later as the house I rent in is being sold, and real estate is bringing strangers to judge me today, so i gotta clean and get the dog out before they get here early PM. bbl.

Also, I notice Wilgy voted without posting it

For me

Heres a screencap for posterity:

Search found 279 matches