Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
Can you explain this more?HamburgerBoy wrote:Daily reminder that golden also made a day 1 vote on timmers, but had the sense to switch it to Canuck, and then make Bubbles look like she had committed an unforgivable sin, after golden already washed himself clean.
Daily reminder that I've already provided several reasons why there is no analogy here. Why do you ignore my responses and just continue to post the same thing? It's not like I haven't tried to engage.HamburgerBoy wrote:Daily reminder that golden also made a day 1 vote on timmers, but had the sense to switch it to Canuck, and then make Bubbles look like she had committed an unforgivable sin, after golden already washed himself clean.
So what do you think my game was??? Ignoring your defence of sig, and hoping you had forgotten about it as well? Hoping you just wouldn't mention it? The moment you said it, I backed down. What a stupid long game I was playing, to intentionally ignore something you had been saying that you could immediately refute. What the heck kind of sense does that make?Golden wrote:Lol. Fair enough. I didn't remember that. Being stuck between two people you really think are civ is rough.HamburgerBoy wrote:I was sig's #1 supporter yesterday, and caught flak for that. The bandwagon-happy folks this day aren't giving me a lot of leeway.Golden wrote:Thats what it looks like to me. Defensive but keeping the option open to vote that way? The post where you suggested you'd vote her ahead of sig, while being her number one supporter. It reads all wrong to me.
The argument starts here and continues for a few more back-and-forths. While golden admittedly has given multiple angles for suspecting Bubbles, a lot of the initial suspicion boils down to her placing that day 1 vote on timmers, and I haven't bought golden's explanations as relevant to why his vote is OK but not hers.Dom wrote:Can you explain this more?HamburgerBoy wrote:Daily reminder that golden also made a day 1 vote on timmers, but had the sense to switch it to Canuck, and then make Bubbles look like she had committed an unforgivable sin, after golden already washed himself clean.
You say I was overreacting but keep in mind I had two highly aggressive players coming after me, and well look at yesterday and how quickly most of the people placed there vote on me. I reacted naturally. I still stand bywhat I said about the semantics of the argument.Know quickly looked at Bulls list everyone who voted for me is deemed as civvie and anyone that defended me is scummy? I would also like to hear DFaraday reasons for voting for me since I can't remember any. She/He voted for me very early yesterday and never came back and has done the same today.juliets wrote:sig made a post that read to me like he had knowledge of one of the baddies team, specifically their strategy for kills. He was then asked about that post and in my opinion he overreacted to what was being said about him. The argument grew into words that he thought another person used - Bullz I think - that he didnt think meant the same as his words (I disagreed - I saw these things as acceptable paraphrases). These overreactive defenses looked baddie in nature as imo most overreactive defenses looked. As I look at his whole behavior through this period my opinion is he is likely bad. I'm sure I've left something out but that is the nutshell of the case for me.Turnip Head wrote:What are the facts of the case, juliets?juliets wrote:Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.
You didn't make a point about my original vote for timmer. The post you were quoting was me changing the vote to canuck and only mentioning the two of them. Lets be fair about what your case was, here.HamburgerBoy wrote:Despite the argument yesterday, and explaining why you had changed from timmers to Canuck, you never directly admitted my point on the timmers vote itself. Second paragraph contains that point, but you only directly replied to the first paragraph.
But you just now said...Golden wrote:So what do you think my game was??? Ignoring your defence of sig, and hoping you had forgotten about it as well? Hoping you just wouldn't mention it? The moment you said it, I backed down. What a stupid long game I was playing, to intentionally ignore something you had been saying that you could immediately refute. What the heck kind of sense does that make?
linki again - @HB - IF my case was based in something not in the thread, why would you assume it has gone wrong?
So are you saying that when you backed off, you went back to a civ read on me, and at some later point, then went back to me being mafia and nutella's and Bubbles' teammates?Golden wrote:The only time I started to doubt your civvieness was your post that was something about choosing to vote nutella over sig, even though you were defending nutella, because it stuck out to me like a sore thumb, and immediately flipped my view on you.
I'm not trying to make this about Canuck or even the vote change to Canuck. From the beginning I've been consistent in saying that pin-pointing Bubbles for that timmers vote seemed like a massive, wifom-y stretch. I was saying that changing to Canuck is irrelevant to the fact that you had originally cast a vote on timmers. My point is that Bubbles being a low-poster is completely irrelevant to you not being one (after all, you weren't a low-poster in the game where you claim Bubbles learned your trick). The context thing is fine; I understand that you have a strong feeling of meta on Bubbles and my lack of experience means I can't call that. If anything I think that makes your "Bubbles is bad because she didn't admit to being civvie" point stronger than your "Bubbles is bad because she mentioned timmers the day before he was nightkilled". You can say that things can't always be objective and I'd agree, but you can't be surprised when people see an apparent double standard and call you out on that.Golden wrote:You didn't make a point about my original vote for timmer. The post you were quoting was me changing the vote to canuck and only mentioning the two of them. Lets be fair about what your case was, here.
You compared me, a high poster, calling out some lurkers in one post, on a day when I called out basically every low poster, versus bubbles, a low poster, who called out literally only one other low poster on the entire day and KEPT HER VOTE THERE.
How are those two votes in any way comparable? Once you can provide an explanation for how you can rationalise those two votes as the same, then I might have something to aim at in the answer.
I'm continually said the answer lies in context, but you don't like that. You think everyone should be able to be tested by the same objective standard. That's not how the game works. Different people have different scum behaviours.
I've answered all of this stuff... but you have really ignored all of my answers, focussing instead on just saying your part over and over.
I'm not surprised for being called out. I take suspicion often. I'm surprised that you seemingly didn't understand or acknowledge my responses the first time around, just repeating the case as though I hadn't responded. You have acknowledged it now. I tried to demonstrate why your 'apparent double standard' isn't one in actuality, but it seems like that just passed you by.HamburgerBoy wrote:I'm not trying to make this about Canuck or even the vote change to Canuck. From the beginning I've been consistent in saying that pin-pointing Bubbles for that timmers vote seemed like a massive, wifom-y stretch. I was saying that changing to Canuck is irrelevant to the fact that you had originally cast a vote on timmers. My point is that Bubbles being a low-poster is completely irrelevant to you not being one (after all, you weren't a low-poster in the game where you claim Bubbles learned your trick). The context thing is fine; I understand that you have a strong feeling of meta on Bubbles and my lack of experience means I can't call that. If anything I think that makes your "Bubbles is bad because she didn't admit to being civvie" point stronger than your "Bubbles is bad because she mentioned timmers the day before he was nightkilled". You can say that things can't always be objective and I'd agree, but you can't be surprised when people see an apparent double standard and call you out on that.Golden wrote:You didn't make a point about my original vote for timmer. The post you were quoting was me changing the vote to canuck and only mentioning the two of them. Lets be fair about what your case was, here.
You compared me, a high poster, calling out some lurkers in one post, on a day when I called out basically every low poster, versus bubbles, a low poster, who called out literally only one other low poster on the entire day and KEPT HER VOTE THERE.
How are those two votes in any way comparable? Once you can provide an explanation for how you can rationalise those two votes as the same, then I might have something to aim at in the answer.
I'm continually said the answer lies in context, but you don't like that. You think everyone should be able to be tested by the same objective standard. That's not how the game works. Different people have different scum behaviours.
I've answered all of this stuff... but you have really ignored all of my answers, focussing instead on just saying your part over and over.
Your initial comments that read like you knew something about the baddies' motives pinged me, and your defense since hasn't really convinced me otherwise. The fact that HB kept defending you also made me more suspicious. Golden too, but he feels more genuine to me.sig wrote: I would also like to hear DFaraday reasons for voting for me since I can't remember any. She/He voted for me very early yesterday and never came back and has done the same today.
MacDougall wrote:Does anyone know if there is an easier way to use Chatzy on Android than just a browser app? Does it have it's own app or something? Is there a trick I am not privy to?
I don't have a cell phone man. Can't help you.MacDougall wrote:MacDougall wrote:Does anyone know if there is an easier way to use Chatzy on Android than just a browser app? Does it have it's own app or something? Is there a trick I am not privy to?
You have so much going on in this thread that it didn't register much with me. Certainly your defense of sig hasn't made up as much of your post content as HB's has.Epignosis wrote:I note that you have nothing to say about me. Have I not defended sig?
I don't see how percentage of content is relevant. This answer is dodging the issue.DFaraday wrote:You have so much going on in this thread that it didn't register much with me. Certainly your defense of sig hasn't made up as much of your post content as HB's has.Epignosis wrote:I note that you have nothing to say about me. Have I not defended sig?
You claim you 'know' but you don't have any reason to know. Even if he roleclaimed in map btsc with you he could've lied and roles aren't explicitly attached to alignments in this game anyway. Can you see why I don't think you're qualified to comment on the Sig case at all when you blatantly haven't even read it?Golden wrote:@Bullz - because I was focussed on sig's posts when considering whether he was bad. The whole case fell down from the start. To me, the details after that point become irrelevant. I didn't need to get bogged down in the detail of understanding every aspect of the case. I understood enough - you thought sig was on the team responsible for timmer's death and I do not.
I don't think it could be any more plain that that. I haven't gone back to read the case again or think through it at all because I do not need to. It's like if someone makes a case on me - I know I am civ, so I know the case is wrong. I don't have to understand the case to know it is wrong. In this case, I am sure your case is wrong, even though I think it is sincere, and it may also be really good.
It also doesn't help that in reading HB I was much more focussed on the stuff I was interested in, which was his position in relation to people I actually think could be on the team that killed timmer.
I've been way more defensive of sig than I should have, and I do recognise that you could be right that he is bad and I could be wrong. But I do not think he was responsible for killing Timmer, so can you see how it is hard for me to see the need to understand the fine detail of your case?
@epi - if anyone can dig his own grave, sig can dig two. That is truth. Poor sig ties himself up in knots, but I think his sincerity is the most reliable aspect.
I counted last night and I think you made something like 13 posts defending Sig? Granted you have nearly 100 so that's not a large portion of your overall contribution but you still put a lot more effort into those 13 posts than I think Golden has into his however many.HamburgerBoy wrote:
I'm not going to take it personally if someone glosses over my case; in absence of anything else, had golden claimed to defend sig solely that on its own wouldn't really bother me. It's possible for him to overlook another person's case. I'd disagree that I spent that much time defending sig anyways; I defended nutella a fair bit as well, and have had suspicions in/arguments with at least a handful of other players, including Mac and Epi prior to my defense of sig. The biggest thing that's pinging me of all about golden is that the first statement he made on me, was in this post:
This is blatantly false. Of your voters, I've said I feel good about LoRab and JC. I took issue with Splints' blendy-looking vote for you and questioned her on it. I found Nutella's vote for you very suspicious and called her out on it - I also said I'd vote for her today if she were in Group 2. Luke and DF I'm not sure about. DF did have a decent explanation for his day 2 vote on you though as I recall. As for anyone defending you being scummy - if HB had't put so much effort into it, and Golden was coming out with solid arguments rather than unreasonably expecting me to just trust him, perhaps I'd think differently of them. I actually think HB is beginning to look better than Golden does to me as well.sig wrote: Know quickly looked at Bulls list everyone who voted for me is deemed as civvie and anyone that defended me is scummy? I would also like to hear DFaraday reasons for voting for me since I can't remember any. She/He voted for me very early yesterday and never came back and has done the same today.
Replace the "www." with "m.". That's what I always do. The mobile Chatzy isn't ideal though, I don't like to post from it unless I have to.MacDougall wrote:Does anyone know if there is an easier way to use Chatzy on Android than just a browser app? Does it have it's own app or something? Is there a trick I am not privy to?
That's odd, becasue I feel quite the opposite re Hammy & Golden. I think Hammy sounds very genuine, Golden not as much to me, but I am a piss poor judge of Golden. Also let's not forget Epignosis! He defended sig too.DFaraday wrote:Your initial comments that read like you knew something about the baddies' motives pinged me, and your defense since hasn't really convinced me otherwise. The fact that HB kept defending you also made me more suspicious. Golden too, but he feels more genuine to me.sig wrote: I would also like to hear DFaraday reasons for voting for me since I can't remember any. She/He voted for me very early yesterday and never came back and has done the same today.
What your famed Scumdar was wrong about Dom? You dropped him from your list? I don't mind being there; I know you are wrong about me, and it keeps the baddies awayEpignosis wrote:Top suspects, revised edition:
Typhoony
nutella
juliets
S~V~S
I don't have a "scumdar." That's a ridiculous word. I have Day 1 suspicions. Day 1 suspicions are inferior to Day 3 suspicions.S~V~S wrote:That's odd, becasue I feel quite the opposite re Hammy & Golden. I think Hammy sounds very genuine, Golden not as much to me, but I am a piss poor judge of Golden. Also let's not forget Epignosis! He defended sig too.DFaraday wrote:Your initial comments that read like you knew something about the baddies' motives pinged me, and your defense since hasn't really convinced me otherwise. The fact that HB kept defending you also made me more suspicious. Golden too, but he feels more genuine to me.sig wrote: I would also like to hear DFaraday reasons for voting for me since I can't remember any. She/He voted for me very early yesterday and never came back and has done the same today.
What your famed Scumdar was wrong about Dom? You dropped him from your list? I don't mind being there; I know you are wrong about me, and it keeps the baddies awayEpignosis wrote:Top suspects, revised edition:
Typhoony
nutella
juliets
S~V~S
It's relevant as far as expecting me to remember what everyone's opinions are. If I read a poem in which half of the stanzas are about sig and a Tolstoy novel which includes one chapter about sig and 65 chapters about everyone else, I'm more liable to remember the poem when I'm thinking of sig.Epignosis wrote:I don't see how percentage of content is relevant. This answer is dodging the issue.DFaraday wrote:You have so much going on in this thread that it didn't register much with me. Certainly your defense of sig hasn't made up as much of your post content as HB's has.Epignosis wrote:I note that you have nothing to say about me. Have I not defended sig?
As I mentioned, I find your vote for sig disingenuous. You are betting that sig is faking sincerity, but you have no experience with sig.juliets wrote:Given the evidence presented by Sorsha and Golden (Sorsha more so really) I'm going to put my second vote today on Tiny Bubbles. I hope she comes into the thread prior to the last two hours of the lynch and says something for herself. I am not married to this vote but i don't see anyone else in Group 2 that I'm tempted to vote for at this point in time.
Epig i saw your list of suspects. Can you share with me what I've said or done that causes you to be suspicious of me?
You haven't asked sig a single question since Day 0 that I can see.juliets wrote:You sound pretty set on it so I don't know what I can say to change your mind. I will say I just think you don't know me well enough. My mo is to ask questions looking for why people do the things they do, why they vote the way they vote. Thats how I scum hunt. I'm also very deliberative. And I've even been lynched for being too nice. This is just the way i am in every game.MacDougall wrote:You just are. I think everyone feels it too.juliets wrote:What makes you think that?MacDougall wrote:If I am forced to choose between sig and nutella I couldn't care less. Juliets is scum though.
No hard feels though. Your posts just have that faux contributive feel about em. You are lovely and all but yeah I think u got dat scumcard. Do you enjoy playing as a big bad?
Imma vote you and I hope some others do too.
Bullzeye wrote:Besides, it's Sig's (over)reactions to the suspicion that are why I suspect him.
juliets wrote:sig made a post that read to me like he had knowledge of one of the baddies team, specifically their strategy for kills. He was then asked about that post and in my opinion he overreacted to what was being said about him. The argument grew into words that he thought another person used - Bullz I think - that he didnt think meant the same as his words (I disagreed - I saw these things as acceptable paraphrases). These overreactive defenses looked baddie in nature as imo most overreactive defenses looked. As I look at his whole behavior through this period my opinion is he is likely bad. I'm sure I've left something out but that is the nutshell of the case for me.
I feel like there is nothing sig could have said to make you three consider that sig is civ. All three of you cited sig as overreacting to the initial ping. How would you have reacted in the face of repeated accusations, where you felt your words were misinterpreted? Bullzeye and DF have both displayed the ability to overreact and be overdefensive as civs, so I think they're both being a bit hypocritical by holding that against sig.DFaraday wrote:Your initial comments that read like you knew something about the baddies' motives pinged me, and your defense since hasn't really convinced me otherwise. The fact that HB kept defending you also made me more suspicious. Golden too, but he feels more genuine to me.
juliets wrote:sig, i am ready to vote for you. Tell me why I should not.
So you see I did ask sig a question. "Tell me why " is asking for information just like a statement with a ? at the end.Epignosis wrote:I didn't say you never spoke to sig, and I didn't say you never asked any questions.
I said you have not asked sig a single question.
TURN BACK NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE :Pjuliets wrote:So you see I did ask sig a question. "Tell me why " is asking for information just like a statement with a ? at the end.Epignosis wrote:I didn't say you never spoke to sig, and I didn't say you never asked any questions.
I said you have not asked sig a single question.
I'm looking at Tranq. He was solely focused on three players he's never played with (who were in my opinion easy targets) until I called him out on it. I'll try to build a more complete case but it will likely be later because I have to leave for the DMV soonjuliets wrote:TH, I would be willing to vote for someone else if there was a much more compelling case in group 1. I acknowledge that though I think sig screwed up it is not a 100% probability. Also, I acknowledged he sounded sincere but the fact remains I have seen many, many baddies in my time that have sounded sincere but were really bad. So do you have a more compelling case on someone that would pull me away from voting for sig?
It won't be a substantial case though, he only has a few posts.This is a fantastic post, and articulates exactly what it is about Juliets posting that has been off.Epignosis wrote:As I mentioned, I find your vote for sig disingenuous. You are betting that sig is faking sincerity, but you have no experience with sig.juliets wrote:Given the evidence presented by Sorsha and Golden (Sorsha more so really) I'm going to put my second vote today on Tiny Bubbles. I hope she comes into the thread prior to the last two hours of the lynch and says something for herself. I am not married to this vote but i don't see anyone else in Group 2 that I'm tempted to vote for at this point in time.
Epig i saw your list of suspects. Can you share with me what I've said or done that causes you to be suspicious of me?
Furthermore, I would expect a civilian juliets to engage sig directly with questions, but in reading through your posts, all you've done is talk about sig with other people.
In your own words:
You haven't asked sig a single question since Day 0 that I can see.juliets wrote:You sound pretty set on it so I don't know what I can say to change your mind. I will say I just think you don't know me well enough. My mo is to ask questions looking for why people do the things they do, why they vote the way they vote. Thats how I scum hunt. I'm also very deliberative. And I've even been lynched for being too nice. This is just the way i am in every game.MacDougall wrote:You just are. I think everyone feels it too.juliets wrote:What makes you think that?MacDougall wrote:If I am forced to choose between sig and nutella I couldn't care less. Juliets is scum though.
No hard feels though. Your posts just have that faux contributive feel about em. You are lovely and all but yeah I think u got dat scumcard. Do you enjoy playing as a big bad?
Imma vote you and I hope some others do too.