Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
S~V~S wrote:You would rather have the votes spread? That opens thing up to manips, if there are any, and generally favors the baddies in general.Enrique wrote:No, I'm saying I don't like early bandwagoning like that.
That block of BWT, Daisy, and Canuck is coincidental, to say the least. So they might be, but it'd be a very ballsy move by Daisy to push that strongly against MP so my thought (and vote) relied on me doubting that she's bad.S~V~S wrote:Same question as for Enrique, MR, do YOU think the people who voted for MP are bad? Or do you just think they might be cause they voted for MP?
I'm challenging you not to do it, and not to publicize your charity or lack thereof, instead of buying into a narcissistic, hypocritical fad.Bullzeye wrote: In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.
Meh, I have to do it now. It's peer pressure and stuff. I'm kinda annoyed tbh, I'd hoped to avoid it.thellama73 wrote:I'm challenging you not to do it, and not to publicize your charity or lack thereof, instead of buying into a narcissistic, hypocritical fad.Bullzeye wrote: In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.
On the contrary, I encourage you to keep calling out baddie behavior. That's very useful. What I find odd is you saying "I don't think X is bad" right after calling out all their supposed baddie behavior.Enrique wrote: Don't expect me to stop calling out potential baddie behavior where I see it, though. Sure, a lot of the time I will be looking and nothing and just bring more heat onto me than anybody else. idc I'm not one for letting things fly without any discussion.
Rubbish. You don't have to do anything. Say no to peer pressure.Bullzeye wrote:Meh, I have to do it now. It's peer pressure and stuff. I'm kinda annoyed tbh, I'd hoped to avoid it.thellama73 wrote:I'm challenging you not to do it, and not to publicize your charity or lack thereof, instead of buying into a narcissistic, hypocritical fad.Bullzeye wrote: In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.
Suspenseful!!Made? Just sayin'.Long Con wrote: Looks like MP is far ahead at this time though, so it will take a bunch of people voting for the same person to save him.
My cousin has a son with ALS, and she thinks the Challenge is the greatest thing ever. Sothellama73 wrote:I'm challenging you not to do it, and not to publicize your charity or lack thereof, instead of buying into a narcissistic, hypocritical fad.Bullzeye wrote: In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.
I think it can be a good thing if the people in the video actually explain why they're doing it and how people can donate money. Most don't though, it seems to have been co-opted into a bit of a fad among certain groups of people.S~V~S wrote:My cousin has a son with ALS, and she thinks the Challenge is the greatest thing ever. Sothellama73 wrote:I'm challenging you not to do it, and not to publicize your charity or lack thereof, instead of buying into a narcissistic, hypocritical fad.Bullzeye wrote: In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.
Charity is good. Posting on your Facebook wall saying "Pay attention to me! I'm so altruistic! Look what a good person I am! Follow me on Twitter! Look how much ice water I can dump on my head! Look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" is less good. At least in my view.S~V~S wrote:My cousin has a son with ALS, and she thinks the Challenge is the greatest thing ever. Sothellama73 wrote:I'm challenging you not to do it, and not to publicize your charity or lack thereof, instead of buying into a narcissistic, hypocritical fad.Bullzeye wrote: In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.
Potential* baddie behavior. I'm not making my mind based on something so small.thellama73 wrote:On the contrary, I encourage you to keep calling out baddie behavior. That's very useful. What I find odd is you saying "I don't think X is bad" right after calling out all their supposed baddie behavior.Enrique wrote: Don't expect me to stop calling out potential baddie behavior where I see it, though. Sure, a lot of the time I will be looking and nothing and just bring more heat onto me than anybody else. idc I'm not one for letting things fly without any discussion.
The ends justify the means. Nothing bad ever came from that philosophy.Enrique wrote: Well, that's where the awareness comes from. Ice Bucket Challenge has resulted in a HUGE boost in donations. Once you've seen a video you've seen them all, but eh, it's doing good.
Nobody do this, it's a trap, trust me. Go back to sleep Sheeple.Hedgeowl wrote:[ He is a new player and people were convinced he was bad in misfits, because he played how they expect a baddie to play. Expand your horizons, open your minds.
How so? Personally I perfer that over 2-3 candiates becauseS~V~S wrote:You would rather have the votes spread? That opens thing up to manips, if there are any, and generally favors the baddies in general.Enrique wrote:No, I'm saying I don't like early bandwagoning like that.
As a government employee, I'm sure it's not that bad.S~V~S wrote:
I am going to employee hell for the amount of time I have spent online today
Yeah personally I don't see why people have such a problem with something so innocuous tbh.Enrique wrote:... I would've put that under another layer of . I gotta go, but really man? You have that big of a problem with the fad?
Because clearly fun with potential attention seeking sprinkled in is worse than ALS. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Yeah personally I don't see why people have such a problem with something so innocuous tbh.Enrique wrote:... I would've put that under another layer of . I gotta go, but really man? You have that big of a problem with the fad?
Spread votes make it easier for baddies to manipulate the results with only one or two votes, or if they have vote manipulations. If you have only a few major vote getters, it is harder to employ shenanigans.Made wrote:Nobody do this, it's a trap, trust me. Go back to sleep Sheeple.Hedgeowl wrote:[ He is a new player and people were convinced he was bad in misfits, because he played how they expect a baddie to play. Expand your horizons, open your minds.
Ok catching up.
How so? Personally I perfer that over 2-3 candiates becauseS~V~S wrote:You would rather have the votes spread? That opens thing up to manips, if there are any, and generally favors the baddies in general.Enrique wrote:No, I'm saying I don't like early bandwagoning like that.
1. More leads means more people (being critical of others opens you to suspicion imo) actively playing, by that logic more civvies.
2. Theories have a weird way of tying into each other, giving civvies the best possible chance of a good lynch
What Juliet v MP comment??Made wrote:Nobody do this, it's a trap, trust me. Go back to sleep Sheeple.Hedgeowl wrote:[ He is a new player and people were convinced he was bad in misfits, because he played how they expect a baddie to play. Expand your horizons, open your minds.
Ok catching up.
How so? Personally I perfer that over 2-3 candiates becauseS~V~S wrote:You would rather have the votes spread? That opens thing up to manips, if there are any, and generally favors the baddies in general.Enrique wrote:No, I'm saying I don't like early bandwagoning like that.
1. More leads means more people (being critical of others opens you to suspicion imo) actively playing, by that logic more civvies.
2. Theories have a weird way of tying into each other, giving civvies the best possible chance of a good lynch
3. Less of a chance everyone'll gang up on me.
People in this color i plan to reread before the vote
The Hedgeowl Hedging, and now Llama arguing that Enri's hedging... pretty sure one of them's bad...
With everything I just read here's a list of who i would suspect. At this point...
SVS (For accusing me harder than llama, this poisition specifcally could change radically depending on my reread) > Juliet( Lack of talking on issues not directly related to them/ adding nothing to conversation) > MP (Same as juliet but to a lesser extent.) > Hedgeowl (Hedging) > Dana + Canuck (Just gut..they haven't pinged me, but the fact that they've been around for so long and haven't slightly is off putting.)
linki- The MP V. Juliet comment....that's probably the biggest thing of suspect i've noticed this game.
linkie x2
Linkies rule everything around me L.R.E.A.M (x3)
dolla dolla dolla linki y'all (x4)
Fair enough. My apologies again, especially after what little interaction we did get to have in the chat.juliets wrote:MR -
So you non-nonchalantly left us, 3 of us, on our own to do that whole challenge? Do you know how hard that was? So really what I get out of what you're saying is you didn't care - you had no desire to help the team out. This explanation just doesn't help me with my uneasiness about you. I think there is a fair chance you not only didn't care you planned to not help us after you checked out who was there and saw we were not your teammates. No one else who was part of our group did this and some people like bwt and mp came in as soon as they could after they found out about the event. So bottom line, you intentionally didn't help us and as a result we struggled and ended up here. I am uneasy about you so you get my vote today -
votes MR
Spread votes make it easier for baddies to manipulate the results with only one or two votes, or if they have vote manipulations. If you have only a few major vote getters, it is harder to employ shenanigans.Made wrote:Nobody do this, it's a trap, trust me. Go back to sleep Sheeple.Hedgeowl wrote:[ He is a new player and people were convinced he was bad in misfits, because he played how they expect a baddie to play. Expand your horizons, open your minds.
Ok catching up.
How so? Personally I perfer that over 2-3 candiates becauseS~V~S wrote:You would rather have the votes spread? That opens thing up to manips, if there are any, and generally favors the baddies in general.Enrique wrote:No, I'm saying I don't like early bandwagoning like that.
1. More leads means more people (being critical of others opens you to suspicion imo) actively playing, by that logic more civvies.
2. Theories have a weird way of tying into each other, giving civvies the best possible chance of a good lynch
Enough with the "sheeple" moniker.Enrique wrote:Because clearly fun with potential attention seeking sprinkled in is worse than ALS. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE.DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Yeah personally I don't see why people have such a problem with something so innocuous tbh.Enrique wrote:... I would've put that under another layer of . I gotta go, but really man? You have that big of a problem with the fad?
This one.juliets wrote:MR -
So you non-nonchalantly left us, 3 of us, on our own to do that whole challenge? Do you know how hard that was? So really what I get out of what you're saying is you didn't care - you had no desire to help the team out. This explanation just doesn't help me with my uneasiness about you. I think there is a fair chance you not only didn't care you planned to not help us after you checked out who was there and saw we were not your teammates. No one else who was part of our group did this and some people like bwt and mp came in as soon as they could after they found out about the event. So bottom line, you intentionally didn't help us and as a result we struggled and ended up here. I am uneasy about you so you get my vote today -
votes MR
Thats MR not MP. And what do you find suspicious about this post?Made wrote:This one.juliets wrote:MR -
So you non-nonchalantly left us, 3 of us, on our own to do that whole challenge? Do you know how hard that was? So really what I get out of what you're saying is you didn't care - you had no desire to help the team out. This explanation just doesn't help me with my uneasiness about you. I think there is a fair chance you not only didn't care you planned to not help us after you checked out who was there and saw we were not your teammates. No one else who was part of our group did this and some people like bwt and mp came in as soon as they could after they found out about the event. So bottom line, you intentionally didn't help us and as a result we struggled and ended up here. I am uneasy about you so you get my vote today -
votes MR
While I agree that we were short on people and disorganized and things were chaotic, this just seemed to come out of no where.juliets wrote:Thats MR not MP. And what do you find suspicious about this post?Made wrote:This one.juliets wrote:MR -
So you non-nonchalantly left us, 3 of us, on our own to do that whole challenge? Do you know how hard that was? So really what I get out of what you're saying is you didn't care - you had no desire to help the team out. This explanation just doesn't help me with my uneasiness about you. I think there is a fair chance you not only didn't care you planned to not help us after you checked out who was there and saw we were not your teammates. No one else who was part of our group did this and some people like bwt and mp came in as soon as they could after they found out about the event. So bottom line, you intentionally didn't help us and as a result we struggled and ended up here. I am uneasy about you so you get my vote today -
votes MR
No it didn't. I already asked MR why he left the chat and never came back. He didn't answer which is why I brought it up again today. Obviously I was thinking about it or I never would have asked the question the first time.Made wrote:While I agree that we were short on people and disorganized and things were chaotic, this just seemed to come out of no where.juliets wrote:Thats MR not MP. And what do you find suspicious about this post?Made wrote:This one.juliets wrote:MR -
So you non-nonchalantly left us, 3 of us, on our own to do that whole challenge? Do you know how hard that was? So really what I get out of what you're saying is you didn't care - you had no desire to help the team out. This explanation just doesn't help me with my uneasiness about you. I think there is a fair chance you not only didn't care you planned to not help us after you checked out who was there and saw we were not your teammates. No one else who was part of our group did this and some people like bwt and mp came in as soon as they could after they found out about the event. So bottom line, you intentionally didn't help us and as a result we struggled and ended up here. I am uneasy about you so you get my vote today -
votes MR
Also,sorry bout that, too many M's (btw Mr Moustache isn't MM, it's the other MM right?)
thellama73 wrote:Charity is good. Posting on your Facebook wall saying "Pay attention to me! I'm so altruistic! Look what a good person I am! Follow me on Twitter! Look how much ice water I can dump on my head! Look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" is less good. At least in my view.S~V~S wrote:My cousin has a son with ALS, and she thinks the Challenge is the greatest thing ever. Sothellama73 wrote:I'm challenging you not to do it, and not to publicize your charity or lack thereof, instead of buying into a narcissistic, hypocritical fad.Bullzeye wrote: In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.
Use blue you non-playing son of a silly person.DharmaHelper wrote:thellama73 wrote:Charity is good. Posting on your Facebook wall saying "Pay attention to me! I'm so altruistic! Look what a good person I am! Follow me on Twitter! Look how much ice water I can dump on my head! Look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" is less good. At least in my view.S~V~S wrote:My cousin has a son with ALS, and she thinks the Challenge is the greatest thing ever. Sothellama73 wrote:I'm challenging you not to do it, and not to publicize your charity or lack thereof, instead of buying into a narcissistic, hypocritical fad.Bullzeye wrote: In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.
I'm so sorry your facebook/twitter has been flooded with people bringing attention to a serious disease in an interesting, fun and creative way, and raising over 50 million dollars to research it in the process. That must be incredibly inconvenient for you. On the bright side, at least you don't have ALS.
Oh.my.god.thellama73 wrote:I'm challenging you not to do it, and not to publicize your charity or lack thereof, instead of buying into a narcissistic, hypocritical fad.Bullzeye wrote: In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.
The failed attempts are the only ones I ever watch. The girl tryng it while sitting atop her horse is my favorite.A Person wrote:I literally was just shown this:
It sums up a lot of reasons why I dislike the whole thing
So your logic here is to go along with Daisy and myself because we know him best? No other reason why?Mongoose wrote:Indeed. And perhaps in the position to read him best. My vote will lie there for now.S~V~S wrote:Enrique wrote:
Well this is a bit curious. The first three votes after llama (who also had his vote set to MP for a bit). Do we really feel that strongly about MP? Consecutive votes like that always make me uneasy. Grrr..
His fiancée and his best friend feel that strongly about him.
linki - I can't get into the wifom of that right now.
first thing that pinged me, fuunny enough it. more for Juliet rather than SVSS~V~S wrote:No we can't ignore it, but trying to lynch people based solely on the challenge has zero to do with who is bad and who is good. When I played Roxys previous game with a very similar challenge, I was very participatory, and so were ALL of my teammates. And we manipulated the civvies hard into turning on each other for false loyalties.Made wrote:Then again.... people who would be most intrested in the game would be those with important roles, and the irresponcible....
(also, pure speculation, is that a reoccuring pattern? those talking most towards the beginng of the game being the ones that are bad, or things like that)
thirdly SVS, should we then just ignore the challege (save from things that are really suspicious of course)
No we can't ignore them. But I intend to watch for that sort of manipulation, for sure. It works. Ask Juliets
note to self, SVS does not like when you weight odds based on nothing.S~V~S wrote: The bolded part makes no sense at all. Of course I believe it. He got my eye on Day Zero for the No Lynch thing to start, but then for saying he was tempted to do the maths re odds. How? With one number? He would have to have some additional knowledge of the composition of the roles to do that, and indeed, at some later point he speculated about how many baddies were split between teams.
