Sorsha wrote:Ok I snuck a little time in here for my LoRab posts.
LoRab wrote: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?
So this is the post that started my suspicion of you LoRab. I did have to read through it more than once to actually understand what you meant here. I think your posts are usually well thought out, easy to follow and I can pretty much see what you mean or how you came to your conclusions. This post isn't so much like that. After reading it a second time I could figure out what I think you meant, but its not really as clear as I'd expect some theory from you to be.
LoRab wrote:MacDougall wrote:LoRab wrote:MacDougall wrote:LoRab wrote: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.
I think I was clear, dispite your misreading of what I said.
Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.
m
I'm not even sure what that means.
Epignosis wrote:Epignosis wrote: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.
I do? I guess I get annoyed by repeated suspicions. But please, apply pressure. Eye me all you want. Ask me to twirl. All that. I have nothing to hide.
Ricochet wrote:LoRab wrote: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.
As I said earlier, I don't think I've played a champs game before so I don't know how they have worked. That said, I don't think that there is one set way that they are all set up. I actually know there is not. When I hosted the champ game on piano (which was, I believe, the first champions game in this circle of mafia) the theme was cupcakes and the roles were literally kinds of cupcakes. So, no, I don't know how every champions game works. Hence my speculating.
Ricochet wrote: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.
It was more speculation than theory. And seems to have not worked out as I thought it might. But I do appreciate the clarification and insight about other games.
MacDougall wrote:Ricochet wrote:MacDougall wrote:LoRab wrote: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?
Can someone else please tell me whether they also read what Lorab said the way I did the first time. Because if so, I'm going to assume Ricochet is faking a reason to make this post and didn't actually bother trying to understand why I made the post I made (which I've already explained but for the benefit of our post first understand later friend Ricochet)...
"Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won."
At first glance to me this reads like Lorab postulating that players may have roles they've had before, in which case she would know by virtue of having one, right. Seeing as though she meant otherwise I'd encourage her to be clearer with her points so that we don't spend multiple posts dwelling on a complete misread of a point. A simple change such as "Perhaps the game roles in this game are made up of roles from winning teams" would have been a clearer and just as succinct way of saying what she evidently meant to say. I don't think my misunderstanding is illogical based on the literal words she used so for you to question me over it is odd.
I don't actually need your writing advice, or your advice on how to post in mafia, but thanks. I actually think the sentence that you wrote is less clear than mine. And I've been playing this game long enough to know how to say things.
When you're misunderstood you're usually pretty pleasant about clearing it up. This post has a tone that I don't remember seeing from you... I can't remember the last time I played with you when you were bad but I know this isn't how you are as a civ. I don't really expect to see you completely denying that something in your post might have been misunderstood.
So some of my suspicion is what you've said and some is just a tone thing. I also agree with the point about you sounding disingenuous that Epi presented.
It wasn't so much that I was clearing up a misunderstanding about my post (which probably could have been clearer, since a few people misunderstood it. Sometimes my thoughts don't make as much sense coming out of my head than they did inside my brain, lol. Even if I am mostly clear most of the time), it was how he said it and that he didn't just say, "Oh, I misunderstood you," But instead told me how I should have been writing. Someone telling me how to write or how to play doesn't sit well. He and I had similar back and forth in the last game. My reaction was to being told I didn't know how to write, not to the fact that I could have said it differently, if that makes sense. The tone was frustration, which I tend to have at some point in many games.
Yes, I could have been clearer in my speculation earlier--but when I speculate, I sometimes spew thoughts and they don't come out as clear as my more thought out theories. I think we all have moments where we aren't as clear as other times. But that doesn't make me bad. It just means I didn't make my speculation more clear.
Epignosis wrote:LoRab wrote:Ricochet wrote:LoRab wrote:Ricochet wrote:LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.
And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.
First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?
I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).
So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?
Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.
Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.
You
seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.
Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post
seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.
You
seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.
And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.
Lorab says "seem," which is a strange word choice.
For example, this sentence:
"Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post
seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing."
I would have phrased it this way:
"Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post are bullshit, and aren't contributing anything. Please stop cluttering the thread that everyone is expected to read in order to be informed."
There's nothing "seeming" about it. Ricochet is flooding the thread with bullshit.
But Lorab's phrasing is hedging her stance, which is ordinarily something Mafia do. Like here:
LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.
What is it about Ricochet that others have pointed out that Lorab "definitely" sees? With Ricochet being the author of almost a quarter (!) of the thread's posts, this is as unspecific as it gets.
Lorab has interacted more with Ricochet than any other person so far, so why does the possibility of her vote hinge on what others have pointed out? Her stance is disingenuous. That's why.
My vote doesn't hinge on what others think, but what others think got me thinking about suspicion of him. Semantics, maybe, but in my mind there is a huge difference. And yes, I said seem. I often say seem. Because I'm not sure. I don't have info, so anything I say about him is how I'm reading his posts and how those posts seem to me.
Saying his posts are bullshit is, first of all, not my style. And, second of all, isn't entirely what I meant. I described my own thoughts. I recognize that I read things really differently than you do and think about the game extremely differently. We've established that many times. But that just makes me different, not bad.
My stance isn't disingenuous--it's my honest thoughts. If I felt more sure than I would sound more sure. But, at this point, I'm not--it's only day 1. And no one has slipped in a way that tweaks my eyebrow to notice something that makes me highly suspect them (and go after them for days). So, yeah, it's all based on what I read--and some of that is others' thoughts and some of that is how posts seem. It's just where my thinking is this game.
Ricochet wrote:LoRab wrote:Long Con wrote:LoRab wrote:Black Rock wrote:LoRab wrote:Ugh. Just got home from a long day at work during which I had no time to mafia--so just read through everything since last night. Waiting for dinner to get here and will then answer the points made about me. In short, I'll say I'm not bad. I have nothing to hide. Eye me all you want. *twirls*
But, yeah, I'll go back and quote posts and make an actual defense when I'm on a full stomach.
Oh good, I've been waiting on you all day. I look forward to seeing what you have to say, the twirl stopped meaning anything to me years ago.
Fell asleep on the couch about 5 minutes into the episode I started of Making of a Murderer. Now I'm up and groggy and cranky. Sorry you have to wait until morning.
And I know my twirling means nothing to you. Although I do believe that you were the person that called me out one time for not twirling, which is more or less why I always do it now. Can't remember what game and if I was bad or not then.
Dom wrote:I'm voting Rico for today. I am travelling tomorrow an dmight check in. NYC for the weekend. SEeing Hamilton and Spring Awakening (again).
So envious!! I need to get Hamilton tickets. Did you hear they broke the internet the other day, kind of like Star Wars did when those tickets went on sale? And I'm bummed I didn't get to this production of Spring Awakening. I saw Deaf West Productions do Big River years back and they were amazing--I was hoping to see what they'd do with SA, a show I love. Alas. No time before they close. Have a great trip!!!
I think it's time to retire the twirl. It just feels so hollow to me now, and makes my gut want to START suspecting you for saying it.
I would love to. Seriously.
I'm going to write this in OT, because it's meta talk and I don't consider it to have any impact on the ongoing game.
If what you told BR is serious, it's a very silly reason to keep using your catchphrases. As I've alluded in some discussion, early during N0 or so, any meta read I'd have on you, in theory, would tell me nothing about you being civ or bad, really, because the style in which you do can easily be either genuine or a smokescreen behind a baddie alignment. So your claims and twirls are basically blank, implacable and, at work, slighty vexating input in all discussions/debates carried out.
Then again, I'm not sure changing skin between games is the better tactic, either. I mean, look at what's happening to me, finding my best rhythm and finest instincts in catching baddies out of the tiniest details, only to be put down by everyone.
It's a longer conversation, and not appropriate for in game. Happy to discuss in post-game.
But, for good measure. Eye me all you want, y'all. *twirls* Seriously, though, read my posts--I have nothing to hide. I'm civ. I haven't had a whole lot of time to play this week, so I've been doing large catch ups after work at night. Which means that there are large chunks of skimming and thoughts that develop over the course of an hour of reading lots and lots, and not thoughts that get said over time.
Matt wrote:Ricochet wrote:Matt wrote:
Btw, everyone going after Lorab for her twirl is awkward. Lorab's twirl is fun, IMO, whether she's good or bad. I've never once thought she was good or bad because of it, but it's fun, you meanies!
Good luck making a case on her, then. I'd literally pay money to watch.
I don't get it. You'd pay money to watch me make a case on Lorab?
I'm cheap, tell me how much and depending on the price, I'll tunnel Lorab until endgame. Twirl be damned!
Thanks for the twirl love. I don't like the idea of tunnelling me, though. That would be frustrating for me and not a very good use of civ resources (if you are civ)--better to find a baddie to tunnel.
[-Mass Effect Mafia banner-]
