Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

[Marmot]

State your case, MM.

Ezekiel is probably dead.

Xander Crews is an asshat.

Finn is a Spy, and cannot be trusted.

I have no idea who Duncan Idaho is (but Idaho is pretty cool).

Watari has a mustache.

[MacDougall]

State your case, MM.

Ezekiel is probably dead.

Xander Crews is an asshat.

Finn is a Spy, and cannot be trusted.

I have no idea who Duncan Idaho is (but Idaho is pretty cool).

Watari has a mustache.

Duncan Idaho was my role from Dune. Apparently he was really cool and good and died in a fight where he took out like a million enemies before going down and then they made a replicant version of him that was also awesome. The role was a bulletproof with a one shot vig activated after the bulletproof was used.

[Golden]

State your case, MM.

Ezekiel is probably dead.

Ezekiel will L I V E E T E R N A L L Y

[LoRab]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

[Marmot]

Watari has a mustache.

Also, Watari is comparable to Batman's Alfred, except that Watari is more awesomer.

Linki: I said probably.

[MacDougall]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

[Marmot]

I am Ryuk. Discuss.

[Marmot]

Well that sure put a damper on the ol' chattery.

[a2thezebra]

You provided a good reason to not vote for most of the options, but the option I'm voting for is not one of them.

[a2thezebra]

I meant to post that 20 minutes ago.

[bcornett24]

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!

What is with this exchange?

Long Con, why even mention this?

[LoRab]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?

[bcornett24]

I wonder if 48 hours is enough time or not enough time.

...

[Long Con]

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

[a2thezebra]

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!

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.

[Long Con]

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.

[Long Con]

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?

[DharmaHelper]

I wonder if 48 hours is enough time or not enough time.

...

Yes may I assist you?

[MacDougall]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?

Sorry what? You postulated that the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won. I thought you meant that people literally were those roles. Be clearer about what you mean if you don't want to be misconstrued.

[bcornett24]

I wonder if 48 hours is enough time or not enough time.

...

Yes may I assist you?

Enough time for what?

[DharmaHelper]

I wonder if 48 hours is enough time or not enough time.

...

Yes may I assist you?

Enough time for what?

For Night 0.

[Epignosis]

Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.

[a2thezebra]

Each one of Long Con's posts within this quote box raises an eyebrow.

Jesus, how many eyebrows do you HAVE?

Far too many, I'm afraid.

[Epignosis]

Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.

I should clarify on this. A lot of people are saying "yep, she's like her, sounding like her, doing her twirly thing."

She cracks under pressure.

So somebody apply pressure. Now.

[Marmot]

Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.

I should clarify on this. A lot of people are saying "yep, she's like her, sounding like her, doing her twirly thing."

She cracks under pressure.

So somebody apply pressure. Now.

You're the pressure cooker. I'm just a toaster oven.

[bcornett24]

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.

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?

[RadicalFuzz]

Elo that post where you agreed with Faraday contained no original thoughts, it was essentially a +1 to his point. Which isn't objectively bad but I don't like that out of the gate your contribution is "I agree with this person on why that other person is suspicious."

These Vocaroo messages are annoying in that they take longer to listen to than it would to read them. I get super impatient when I'm trying to read though, so it forcibly prevents me from skimming, which is nice. J3 would you be interested in any specific individuals recording Vocaroos?

Okay, so no more Vocaroos. No love lost from me, I don't like hearing people, particularly when that voice doesn't match what I think they sound like given their posts.

Does anybody want to join me in lynching Wilgy?

[DharmaHelper]

That vocaroo shit was a fun exercise. In the appropriate format I can see that being a fun game.

[a2thezebra]

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.

[Sorsha]

My top suspect is Sorsha. I found her Ricochet comment superfluous and without adding anything to the conversation (not that the bar was set real high).

When am I not superfluous and adding nothing to the conversation? That's pretty much me days 1-4ish... Sometimes even longer.

What I was hoping for with my useless Rico comment was some discussion about him and why he's acting like this, if he's been like this before (I don't recall him being so), etc.

[Ricochet]

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING CHAMPIESSSNAAAM

DH, Elo and Epig confirmed never leaving my red rainbow spectrum for making me read through their two-page banter in my morning catch-up.

[Ricochet]

I see a winning option has been strengthened in votes. That is very good.

My top suspect is Sorsha. I found her Ricochet comment superfluous and without adding anything to the conversation (not that the bar was set real high).

My suspect #14 is Epignosis, for not letting players comment on me and suspect me as they please.

He is also my suspect #10 for not sending me a copy of his third album.

[Ricochet]

My top suspect is Sorsha. I found her Ricochet comment superfluous and without adding anything to the conversation (not that the bar was set real high).

My top suspect is Ricochet. But I think I suspected him early on in the last game we played together and I was wrong. I can't remember. Damn memory.

Ahem, what. You were bad in the last game we played and I don't remember you suspect me at all. Only killing me on N2.

You can thank you memory for this, but you are now a confirmed baddie trying to smear good ol' me.

[Ricochet]

Zebra and b24 have posted for the first time within 30 minutes of each other. Confirmed baddies biding their time.

[Ricochet]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

In case you really don't remember the Champies mechanics in previous years (which I doubt, but whatever), then it is near certain the roles (characters) in this game are a mashup of roles (characters) that appeared in the games played throughout 2015.

Just like you, I don't believe that means every role will necessarily have exactly the same power they were designed with in their original game. I'm less sure about alignments, because I don't remember roles being converted to an opposite alignment compared to their original one in previous Champies. Then again, it all depends on how wicked our Hosts this year can be in design- oh wait so that's like 200% possible. Heh.

One other thing you asked above and I want to answer to is that the roles imported in this game are not necessarily the roles with which players have won in previous game. For instance, Ezekiel, Xander Crews and Watari were civilian roles in games in which the civilians did not win. So while we are champions fighting it off based on having won games, the roles don't necessarily follow the same rule.

[Ricochet]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?

What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.

I wasn't given a role I've been before, that's not how Champies work. Were YOU given a role that you have been before?

[Golden]

The civs did too win biblical! Long Con should know, if he could remember what affiliation he actually was in that game.

[Ricochet]

The civs did too win biblical! Long Con should know, if he could remember what affiliation he actually was in that game.

Oops, my bad. I think I meant to say Ezekiel was not a winning role, but then I converted it into civilian loss, because of putting him along with Xander and Watari.

[Golden]

It appears to me that the person who had my role the first time around isn't even playing this game, if that is of any use.

I think anyone who has hosted this year has the best insight into how hosts may have selected the roles, although to be sure it is very little insight. I've been waiting to see how Epi votes, since he hosted many of these games.

[a2thezebra]

Zebra and b24 have posted for the first time within 30 minutes of each other. Confirmed baddies biding their time.

You're trying waaaaaaaaaay too hard to put in """""""effort""""""" so early in the game. In Day 0 / Night 0 / Day 1 there's a difference between trying to get things going to gauge reactions and simply trying to look as ridiculously town as possible.

[Ricochet]

My top suspect is Sorsha. I found her Ricochet comment superfluous and without adding anything to the conversation (not that the bar was set real high).

When am I not superfluous and adding nothing to the conversation? That's pretty much me days 1-4ish... Sometimes even longer.

What I was hoping for with my useless Rico comment was some discussion about him and why he's acting like this, if he's been like this before (I don't recall him being so), etc.

I endorse such discussion. Preferably by filling out this form I posted yesterday. Here it is again.

On scale from 1 to 5, please rate your experience with having Ricochet around in the Champies 2015, so far:

Ease in reaching out
Timely response to your inquiry
Friendly & courteous service
What level of civvieness would you rate his services?
What level of baddieness would you rate his services?
How satisfied are you with his products or services?
What aspect of his product or service could be improved?	__________ _ __ ____
Overall experience

Otherwise, I can't tell you how I've been before. I have no meta. Metaless.

[Ricochet]

It appears to me that the person who had my role the first time around isn't even playing this game, if that is of any use.

I think anyone who has hosted this year has the best insight into how hosts may have selected the roles, although to be sure it is very little insight. I've been waiting to see how Epi votes, since he hosted many of these games.

Not sure what role you are referencing.

I didn't host any game this year. I will be making my disastrous debut later this year.

[Ricochet]

Zebra and b24 have posted for the first time within 30 minutes of each other. Confirmed baddies biding their time.

You're trying waaaaaaaaaay too hard to put in """""""effort""""""" so early in the game. In Day 0 / Night 0 / Day 1 there's a difference between trying to get things going to gauge reactions and simply trying to look as ridiculously town as possible.

What does that have to do with you being caught on making a later appearence alongside your other inactive teamie?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

You're not putting any effort, by comparison, and I remember you having put more effort in early THM stages.

[Ricochet]

Yes, I am flooding the thread, why do you ask!

I'm not in the mood to update my rainbow list this morning, the version that MM corrected is fairly accurate.

[Golden]

It appears to me that the person who had my role the first time around isn't even playing this game, if that is of any use.

I think anyone who has hosted this year has the best insight into how hosts may have selected the roles, although to be sure it is very little insight. I've been waiting to see how Epi votes, since he hosted many of these games.

Not sure what role you are referencing.

I didn't host any game this year. I will be making my disastrous debut later this year.

I'd hope not, because I'm not trying to out myself. I'm just trying to say any theory about all the roles in the game originally being from players who played the game seems flawed, to me, because I think my role was originally played by someone who isn't playing.

[Ricochet]

Ah, ok. And no worries, I figured out who you are already.

I don't remember a theory on "all the roles in the game originally being from players who played the game", I remember one on all the roles in the game originally being winning roles. I agree about the theory (or both, in fact) being flawed. It should normally be just "roles that comes from games played before throughout the year", simple as that. Everyone can check Champies 2013 and 2014, if they're unfamiliar with this mashup format.

[Golden]

So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?

It was LoRabs theory.

[Ricochet]

Yes, emphasis on "in which they won".

[a2thezebra]

Zebra and b24 have posted for the first time within 30 minutes of each other. Confirmed baddies biding their time.

You're trying waaaaaaaaaay too hard to put in """""""effort""""""" so early in the game. In Day 0 / Night 0 / Day 1 there's a difference between trying to get things going to gauge reactions and simply trying to look as ridiculously town as possible.

What does that have to do with you being caught on making a later appearence alongside your other inactive teamie?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

You're not putting any effort, by comparison, and I remember you having put more effort in early THM stages.

It has nothing to do with it and I didn't imply that it did. You indirectly addressed me so I responded with my thoughts on you. I can't defend against what you're accusing me of because it's too absurd to defend against and you know it is.

In contrast to this, I actually accused you of something you can defend against, yet you chose to deflect. How hypocritical. You could give a solid reason for why you're acting the way you are, which would be nice especially considering that I'm far from the first person to bring up that you are in fact acting strange. Instead, you choose to accuse me of not putting in effort myself...on Night fucking 0. I did not imply that your behavior is alignment-indicative because I like to save my conclusions for when I'm given enough meat to form a conclusion, unlike the play style that you've demonstrated so far. And I've got some meat here. In a single post you pretend that my response was a deflective defense when it's not, while at the same time using deflection as your own defense because you don't have a reasonable answer as to what I accused of...because I hit the nail on the head. If your suggestion of me being on a team with bcorn because of THAT reason was a false suspicion that you used to gauge reactions, then you wouldn't have misrepresented my response to such an absurd degree, and if you believed in the value of your own scum-hunting efforts then you would've properly defended yourself to my actual suspicion of you. You're not interested in scum-hunting and you're not interested in gauging reactions, you're interested in throwing shade on whoever you think you can while trying to flaunt charts and lists to gain gullible townie points.

This is a cheap act you're trying to sell, bordering on WIFOM.

[a2thezebra]

Oh, and you said I put more effort in the early stages of THM? Let's take a look at my posts in Day 0 of THM. After all, it's only Night 0 here.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 3&sr=posts

SO MUCH EFFORT WHAT HAPPENED TO ME WHERE DID I GO WRONG