The Syndicate

spooky

...Have Mac and I ever been civ together?

MacDougall wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I have a question for everyone.

If I don't make 100 posts today will I get lynched again? Is that something I need to contend with? I would rather not.

I didn't lynch you last time because you didn't make 100 posts.

Damn sure felt that way.

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I have a question for everyone.

If I don't make 100 posts today will I get lynched again? Is that something I need to contend with? I would rather not.

I'll try to lynch you. Idk bout the others.

Haha ok.

Long Con wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I have a question for everyone.

If I don't make 100 posts today will I get lynched again? Is that something I need to contend with? I would rather not.

Just don't make any jokes like "Rule 1: Always lynch X day 1" and you're off to a good start.

I have a rule. Long Con is always bad when he starts cracking wise and not being serious.

Sorry, I haven't been here for a year. I remembered you as a very talkative player. Didn't say I would lynch you because of that, just making an observation. I still stand behind the part about Wilgy. You've played with him many times. Unless you were joking when you said he was bad because of what he said, I still find it odd.

As for LC, in the few games I remember him being bad, he was one of the most helpful players in the game, so I'd have to vote nay on that rule.

llama, why'd you choose Quin as your wild day 0 accusation?

Elohcin wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Elohcin wrote:I don't know where to place my vote. The poll assumes we like Clinton. **scratches head** I think I will have to pick pantsuits.

Lol do you not?

No, but like llama and SVS, I am here to play, not debate.

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:I don't know where to place my vote. The poll assumes we like Clinton. **scratches head** I think I will have to pick pantsuits.

Hmm, seems a tad sketchy.

What is sketchy about it?

Just an observation. You'd want to be on Clinton's side in this game, don't you?

By the way, cheers G-Man for the Hillary Points!

FZ. wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I have a question for everyone.

If I don't make 100 posts today will I get lynched again? Is that something I need to contend with? I would rather not.

I didn't lynch you last time because you didn't make 100 posts.

Damn sure felt that way.

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I have a question for everyone.

If I don't make 100 posts today will I get lynched again? Is that something I need to contend with? I would rather not.

I'll try to lynch you. Idk bout the others.

Haha ok.

Long Con wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I have a question for everyone.

If I don't make 100 posts today will I get lynched again? Is that something I need to contend with? I would rather not.

Just don't make any jokes like "Rule 1: Always lynch X day 1" and you're off to a good start.

I have a rule. Long Con is always bad when he starts cracking wise and not being serious.

Sorry, I haven't been here for a year. I remembered you as a very talkative player. Didn't say I would lynch you because of that, just making an observation. I still stand behind the part about Wilgy. You've played with him many times. Unless you were joking when you said he was bad because of what he said, I still find it odd.

As for LC, in the few games I remember him being bad, he was one of the most helpful players in the game, so I'd have to vote nay on that rule.

I vote nay to you.

MacDougall wrote:

Long Con wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Long Con wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I have a question for everyone.

If I don't make 100 posts today will I get lynched again? Is that something I need to contend with? I would rather not.

Just don't make any jokes like "Rule 1: Always lynch X day 1" and you're off to a good start.

I have a rule. Long Con is always bad when he starts cracking wise and not being serious.

Emphasis on the 'wisdom' factor, I'd say.

Is this where I get voted for?

I would never cast a vote until I was 100% sure that the pity party was over.

I've been out in the real world and/or sleeping for the past 36 hours or so and it made me forget about this game. But I am back now and I think Marmot's question to Quin is a good one. I will keep reading to see his answer.

Marmot wrote:

Quin wrote:I would like this FZ. person to check in. I don't think I've played with him before.

FZ is a she, and it's good to have her back.

Are you two teammates?

I didn't have to read far. His snarky remark doesn't sit well. He hasn't "checked her role card" possibly because she hasn't checked in to BTSC yet to tell him who she is. I will keep my eye on Quin.

Quin wrote:

Marmot wrote:

Quin wrote:I would like this FZ. person to check in. I don't think I've played with him before.

FZ is a she, and it's good to have her back.

Are you two teammates?

I don't know, I haven't checked her role card.

I'm going to go make my kids breakfast. I will be back later to read more.

I don't know, Eloh. I think Quin's response is not suspicious, just quality friendly snark.

Okay, Day 0 was fun. Now down to business.

Mac is being a whiny baby about his last game, but I don't interpret that as a baddie move, so I'm not inclined to vote for him yet. Hopefully he will have something more productive to contribute when he's done feeling sorry for himself.

FZ. wrote:llama, why'd you choose Quin as your wild day 0 accusation?

Because I think Quin is bad. Something about his tone reads off to me. He is acting weird.

Quin wrote: Why don't you find out?

Ok. *Votes Quin*

To elaborate, there is a clipped terseness to Quin's posts this game that I don't remember observing from him before.

Are votes changeable?

Long Con wrote:Are votes changeable?

G-Man wrote: 4) All votes are changeable.

Everyone's checked in, so...ima thinking one of the low posters is definitely bad.

Jackofhearts, I see you.

Scotty wrote:Everyone's checked in, so...ima thinking one of the low posters is definitely bad.

Jackofhearts, I see you.

Too easy.

Scotty wrote:Everyone's checked in, so...ima thinking one of the low posters is definitely bad.

Jackofhearts, I see you.

Wouldn't almost everyone qualify as low posters at this point?

DFaraday wrote:

Scotty wrote:Everyone's checked in, so...ima thinking one of the low posters is definitely bad.

Jackofhearts, I see you.

Wouldn't almost everyone qualify as low posters at this point?

Agreed. No one has really contributed much yet. It's premature to go after low posters as such.

So far a quick readback tells me people are suspecting people for being themselves.

Also Epi seeing into souls is kinda scary

I was worried, I thought this ended today. Now is a good time to bring up my schedule for the next month; I have Grand Jury duty which is much worse than regular Jury Duty starting tomorrow. In NY, Grand Jury sits 5 days a week, 9-5 (thank God my company pays jury duty) for a MONTH. SO... not sure if I will have more time (people who have gone have told me you spend a lot of time in the jury room waiting) or less time for Mafia. I should have a better idea tomorrow night after I get back. It's in a town called Riverhead, about 50 miles from where I live so

Anyone willing to make a lie detector statement? I'm Civ, and I support Hillary Clinton.

I could see an FZ vote as possible. I thought her question about the rules seemed contrived.

thellama73 wrote:I could see an FZ vote as possible. I thought her question about the rules seemed contrived.

Your suspicions seem somewhat contrived.

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I could see an FZ vote as possible. I thought her question about the rules seemed contrived.

Your suspicions seem somewhat contrived.

Your face seems somewhat contrived.

S~V~S wrote:Also Epi seeing into souls is kinda scary

Only those with souls need fear me.

I'm a redhead- I have no soul

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I could see an FZ vote as possible. I thought her question about the rules seemed contrived.

Your suspicions seem somewhat contrived.

Your face seems somewhat contrived.

Why don't we all just say that we are civ and then use process of elimination to deduce who would never ever lie about it.

Sure. Although ALL of us would probably lie about it,lol. We're Mafia players.

I'm a civ, and I fully support Hillary Clinton.

S~V~S wrote:I'm a redhead- I have no soul

Me too!

I don't really find Quin suspicious. But then again this is only my second game on this site and there are only a couple people I know well enough to make judgments on. Getting a civ read on LC. Not really sure if going after low posters is a good idea here, but I don't really have any better ideas yet, so it may come to that for me.

I'm a civ and I support Hillary Clinton.

Other than that, it usually takes me a few cycles to start putting things together. If Ron Swanson were in this game, I'd say he's guilty as shit for three days before realizing it was Donna right before I'm killed!

Anyway I'm gonna get back to watching TV and nursing this hangover. I'll check back in periodically.

S~V~S wrote:Sure. Although ALL of us would probably lie about it,lol. We're Mafia players.

I'm a civ, and I fully support Hillary Clinton.

Well I definitely believe you.

You do?

I am not sure what to say to that. Thanks, maybe?

I predict a mechanic that stops the person with the most votes from being lynched and the lynch is actually decided based on the location of each voter.

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I could see an FZ vote as possible. I thought her question about the rules seemed contrived.

Your suspicions seem somewhat contrived.

Your face seems somewhat contrived.

Mom, Dad, please stop fighting...

SVS why did you question me calling out Epi? He's clearly bad, so what drew you to it?

DrWilgy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I could see an FZ vote as possible. I thought her question about the rules seemed contrived.

Your suspicions seem somewhat contrived.

Your face seems somewhat contrived.

Mom, Dad, please stop fighting...

SVS why did you question me calling out Epi? He's clearly bad, so what drew you to it?

I thought you were red peeking but the rules specifically forbid it. So I wasn't sure what the point was.

Epignosis wrote:

I predict a mechanic that stops the person with the most votes from being lynched and the lynch is actually decided based on the location of each voter.

What's a location?

Nobody gets a fucking "red peek" Day 0. If you do, the game is pointless and we might as well do something else.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

I predict a mechanic that stops the person with the most votes from being lynched and the lynch is actually decided based on the location of each voter.

What's a location?

You're Canadian, so I forgive you.

S~V~S wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I could see an FZ vote as possible. I thought her question about the rules seemed contrived.

Your suspicions seem somewhat contrived.

Your face seems somewhat contrived.

Mom, Dad, please stop fighting...

SVS why did you question me calling out Epi? He's clearly bad, so what drew you to it?

I thought you were red peeking but the rules specifically forbid it. So I wasn't sure what the point was.

Would you kill me for being cop?

If I was bad yeah, but i'm not.

The point was though that role claiming isn't allowed. So I wasn't sure if you were just fucking around or what.

Like if maybe you were trying to set up cred with a fake claim.

Epignosis wrote:Nobody gets a fucking "red peek" Day 0. If you do, the game is pointless and we might as well do something else.

Yeah that was also my fucking point. Geez.

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Nobody gets a fucking "red peek" Day 0. If you do, the game is pointless and we might as well do something else.

Yeah that was also my fucking point. Geez.

That was at Wilgy, not you.

notsawyer540 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I'm a redhead- I have no soul

Me too!

I don't really find Quin suspicious. But then again this is only my second game on this site and there are only a couple people I know well enough to make judgments on. Getting a civ read on LC. Not really sure if going after low posters is a good idea here, but I don't really have any better ideas yet, so it may come to that for me.

I'm a civ and I support Hillary Clinton.

Other than that, it usually takes me a few cycles to start putting things together. If Ron Swanson were in this game, I'd say he's guilty as shit for three days before realizing it was Donna right before I'm killed!

Anyway I'm gonna get back to watching TV and nursing this hangover. I'll check back in periodically.

Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.

Quin, I feel like you are not taking my efforts to lynch you seriously.

thellama73 wrote:Quin, I feel like you are not taking my efforts to lynch you seriously.

I'm not.

Quin wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I'm a redhead- I have no soul

Me too!

I don't really find Quin suspicious. But then again this is only my second game on this site and there are only a couple people I know well enough to make judgments on. Getting a civ read on LC. Not really sure if going after low posters is a good idea here, but I don't really have any better ideas yet, so it may come to that for me.

I'm a civ and I support Hillary Clinton.

Other than that, it usually takes me a few cycles to start putting things together. If Ron Swanson were in this game, I'd say he's guilty as shit for three days before realizing it was Donna right before I'm killed!

Anyway I'm gonna get back to watching TV and nursing this hangover. I'll check back in periodically.

Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.

Why? Are you always so sure of your own opinion that you can't see the drawbacks in your own argument?

One must be wary of being *too* sure of one's opinion, lest a tunnel become one's only path.

S~V~S wrote:

Quin wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I'm a redhead- I have no soul

Me too!

I don't really find Quin suspicious. But then again this is only my second game on this site and there are only a couple people I know well enough to make judgments on. Getting a civ read on LC. Not really sure if going after low posters is a good idea here, but I don't really have any better ideas yet, so it may come to that for me.

I'm a civ and I support Hillary Clinton.

Other than that, it usually takes me a few cycles to start putting things together. If Ron Swanson were in this game, I'd say he's guilty as shit for three days before realizing it was Donna right before I'm killed!

Anyway I'm gonna get back to watching TV and nursing this hangover. I'll check back in periodically.

Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.

Why? Are you always so sure of your own opinion that you can't see the drawbacks in your own argument?

No. But if I find it suspicious I'm going to say so. I want a dialogue.

What are the drawbacks in my argument?

Long Con wrote:I don't know, Eloh. I think Quin's response is not suspicious, just quality friendly snark.

That's okay. It's normal for people to think my suspicions are off. I even get lynched for them sometimes.

So I see a lot role-claiming. I thought this was illegal. G-Man...will those who have claimed an alliance have negative consequences?

(Still have a bit of catching up.)

Alignment-declaration and roleclaiming are two different things.

Quin wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Quin wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I'm a redhead- I have no soul

Me too!

I don't really find Quin suspicious. But then again this is only my second game on this site and there are only a couple people I know well enough to make judgments on. Getting a civ read on LC. Not really sure if going after low posters is a good idea here, but I don't really have any better ideas yet, so it may come to that for me.

I'm a civ and I support Hillary Clinton.

Other than that, it usually takes me a few cycles to start putting things together. If Ron Swanson were in this game, I'd say he's guilty as shit for three days before realizing it was Donna right before I'm killed!

Anyway I'm gonna get back to watching TV and nursing this hangover. I'll check back in periodically.

Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.

Why? Are you always so sure of your own opinion that you can't see the drawbacks in your own argument?

No. But if I find it suspicious I'm going to say so. I want a dialogue.

What are the drawbacks in my argument?

I wasn't talking abour drawbacks in YOUR argument; I was talking about
You saying you found it suspicious that he was qualifying his opinion. It was essentially a rhetorical question. "Are you always so sure of your own opinions that you find someone who can see both sides of a suspicion questionable?".