The Syndicate

I responded to that post from Dom and only dropped it after Matt responded to me.

Dom has questioned me but he's also shown a capacity to treat my suspicions as genuine.

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:To be honest I'm not sure what you're getting at with your first paragraph so feel free to reword. But I've resigned myself to the fact that you're gonna disagree with any move I make or the reasons I make them.

I am referring to this.

Turnip Head wrote:

MacDougall wrote:As it stands, Scotty and Turnip Head remain suspects. Turnip Head's case making, while voluminous, has lacked much chutzpah. When questioned on his reasons on a couple of occasions he responded with sketchy reasoning and/or nervous seeming sarcastic retorts. I find that suspicious.

Maybe Day 1 chutzpah is a civ trait of yours but it's not one of mine. At the start of games I prefer to feel people out and develop my reads over time. I don't really have anything to say about you calling my reasoning sketchy or my retorts nervous-seeming, you're entitled to your opinion.

Your answer doesn't address what I was specifically saying I was suspicious of. You misunderstood or misrepresented my meaning. I didn't say your entire play lacked chutzpah. I said your case making and particularly referred to the times you were requested to elaborate on your statements.

Your response was along the lines of me having made that statements against your entire play.

I don't really know what you want from me. Sorry if my Day 1 cases are shitty.

I don't find your play shitty at all. I find it suspicious. I think that you have just been caught embellishing your opinion which makes me feel like you are mafia. I don't think it's a reflection on the quality of your play.

I am just trying to discover whether you are Mafia. I don't want to upset you. I'm trying to be tactful tbh.

It's funny, I never upset people when I case them when I am mafia. When I am town I drive people nuts. If you want some insight into my meta here it is hahaha.

You're not upsetting me. Like I said I'm gonna play my way regardless of your opinion of me. It would be nice if you viewed me as genuine so maybe we could tag team some baddies but I obviously can't make you see things my way. I don't think you've ever played a game where I've been civ so I'm not surprised you don't trust a single word I say.

Turnip Head wrote:You're not upsetting me. Like I said I'm gonna play my way regardless of your opinion of me. It would be nice if you viewed me as genuine so maybe we could tag team some baddies but I obviously can't make you see things my way. I don't think you've ever played a game where I've been civ so I'm not surprised you don't trust a single word I say.

It sounds like you have a pretty strong civilian read on me huh?

In the interest of encouraging others to read posts, I'm gonna leave now lest this back and forth become incomprehensible.

I don't think you'd be coming after me this hard if you were mafia. Indy maybe. But yeah you feel civ to me atm.

MacDougall wrote:It's funny, I never upset people when I case them when I am mafia. When I am town I drive people nuts. If you want some insight into my meta here it is hahaha.

Trying to claim civ pretty hard here eh?

I kid I kid. Satire.

I'm half way through page 8 and my eyes are criss-crossing, that's where I must end for tonight. It's 247 in the morning and I need to wake up soon to go to work. I will pick it back up tomorrow evening.

Too bad it was a no lynch, but I doubt Robin would have done it this early in the game unless he were one of the potential lynchees.

I'll go with City Hall just because.

in normal day 1 fashion, I've attracted ire from a good handful of vocal people.
It's late and I have an early bus to catch. I'm tired of defending my vote. One last analogy before I just ignore it and wait for Dom and Mac to pummel me into the ground for doing what I fucking try to do every day 1- vote no posters, followed by low posters.

Hypothetical--- Ignore the names and pretenses of both Equiv and lovedelic. Let's substitute Equiv with Eleanor Roosevelt and lovedelic with Betsy Ross. Two important women in the history of the United States. Also both are working under me in my cigar company (why not). But Betsy Ross didn't show up to work, and the company loses 28% in production that day because of it. Eleanor Roosevelt didn't work very hard that day because of a bad knee, and wasn't really up to snuff.
I fire one of them. Which did I fire? The one that didn't show up to work or the one that's not up to the level I expect yet?

There's another employee I have- MaximumPotato (MP) I hear rumors that he's been pissing in the coffee pot but I can't confirm or deny that. So I will have I get security cameras installed to better monitor his habits. Do I fire him for a rumor? Some would. Hell, the board (Dom, Mac and others) say I should send a message to the rest of the staff not to mess with me! But I don't feel comfortable giving him the slip on a hunch. Not yet. Betsy Ross was supposed to be let go, but the board is antsy and says I'm demeaning to women. But I didn't fire Eleanor Roosevelt, did i?

Does this analogy ring true at all to you guys?


I will never understand why I was almost lynched today, except that some of the more vocal instigators led others to believe I'm some sort of two-faced deviant.

Dom, you can be quite trite and persuasive in so little words, which allows many people to trust you. This makes me wary of your voice in a game where baddies should be actively campaigning to look for the other baddies as well. It helps to follow someone like you or Mac which seem to be an ally to the civs, but had you actually lynched me you would have found to be utterly wrong in your suspicions. And then people would probably think twice about trusting you.

That being said, I don't read either of you as bad because you both have a reasonable flair about you and you could very well be hard-nosed civs. But as a young woman once told me, "you're gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us"

I'll attempt to add more to the discussion on my trip tomorrow. I welcome sabie, but warn that should she not post in the next cycle, regardless of her newness to the game, And should I survive the night, I will be voting her in the best phase. If she does post, then great! I'll move on to more pressing matters as the situations arise.

Anyone who played LMS III should know that we must lynch women early and often. :P

You will never understand why you were almost lynched huh. Preposterous notion. Guess me and the other 3 people that voted for you are all idiots.

Over dramatic hyperbole. You absolutely know why we suspected you. We stated our cases as length numerous times. You got lucky Scotty.

Black Rock wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Although I agree on them arguing semantics, I disagree that at this point you couldn't discern alignment-indicative behavior. I definitely have ideas of their alignment already. Usually you're more opinionated.

Linki: I will never laugh at you for it Bea. To me, right now, it's necessary to get in to the flow of the game. It's taking much longer than I thought and there is no way I will finish tonight as it it almost 1 am and I have to work in the morning.

Black Rock wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:From my perspective, Enrique and Golden are arguing about semantics and I cannot discern any alignment-indicative behavior from them. I find myself agreeing with Turnip Head on this one.

Now, with that said, I will admit that my first slight civilian read is Dom. He questioned Enrique, pursued it, and GTH I evaluate his behavior to be one in which he is developing those thoughts organically. But I'm systematically incorrect about Dom, so this means you all should probably find him a slight mafia read. :P

Why wouldn't it be alignment-indicative? It seems like a fairly substantial issue, and hardly seems to be semantic. And TH did suggest it ruled out certain alignments (for me anyway)....

I don't much like this post, MP. That includes the equivocating on Dom.

Why are you trying so hard to claim an alignment so early?

I wasn't trying hard to claim an alignment, I was just trying to demonstrate that I suspected MP for the same reason you have done in the first post here... that I felt there was enough in there at minimum for me to get ideas about Enrique's alignment, and I think the whole argument between Enrique and I was pretty much the definition of the kind of thing that might be alignment indicative (arguing about win cons). Also I didn't like that he said he 'agreed with TH' that it wasn't alignment-indicative when that wasn't what TH said.

It could have been simply throwaway from MP, but I still don't much like it. It indicates to me someone who wasn't trying to solve the Enrique/golden question, but just take a position.

MacDougall wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

I hope you backed this up.

Maybe you should wait until the end of your reads before making numerous posts otherwise one might be inclined to feel like you are just trying to jack your post count for cred.

I'm not inclined to think that. I think stating thoughts as you are catching up indicates someone who isn't afraid of having to change their mind as they catch up, and not afraid of giving a take on earlier content (which could just as easily be a fresh take).

Scotty wrote:It's late and I have an early bus to catch.

Scotty slipped!

Scotty, what I don't trust from you is that you seem tunnelly and not very open minded. I can understand if that comes about from defensiveness, but even if all you are interested in tomorrow is voting sabie if she doesn't turn up, I think you should move on to other discussions first anyway. I know that you are a great contributor to the thinking of the thread often. Given I'm not seeing that, it gives me pause.

I don't actually think your low poster/no poster thing is that suspicious, but if it feels like thats all the opinions you have, that is a bit suspicious.

That's also part of the point. He overlooked other cases in lieu of casting a vote that nobody agreed with, for someone nobody was going to lynch and actively dismissed every other case being made as not being up to his standard for a vote. I don't like it at all.

Based soley on result of yesterdays lynch, I wouldn't try to lynch Scotty again btw. (Still 900 posts behind. Still think TH is a badewd.)

I suppose a "thoughts at this point rainbow" may be needed before EoN. I may not be here.
Scotty
Zebra
Mac
Everyone else
Dom
Bea
TH

Turnip Head wrote:

sprityo wrote:Okay, so it was between Scotty and Wilgy and you ended up not being able to lynch either?

1. Why Wilgy?

2. Why Scotty?

I actually am having a zero understanding of either of these.

Okay, not zero, but I don't understand the logic of why you guys voted for Scotty aside from his wanting to lynch a low poster

I guess we fucked up because you weren't here to guide us. Who would you have voted for?

Ouch sassy much, TH? I was just asking why. No need to be rude. I would've voted for Floyd or lovedelic since I do believe in low post lynching, albeit that it is never the best option. Day 1 is the crapshoot.

And we'll, rather than answering me with a question, why not answer with an answer, or at least why you think it happened?

DrWilgy wrote:Based soley on result of yesterdays lynch, I wouldn't try to lynch Scotty again btw. (Still 900 posts behind. Still think TH is a badewd.)

I suppose a "thoughts at this point rainbow" may be needed before EoN. I may not be here.
Scotty
Zebra
Mac
Everyone else
Dom
Bea
TH

Do you think TH is bad because he pushed for your lynch, or because of the vague eyeball you gave him ages ago and never elaborated on?

bea wrote:that's a fair point dom. And also can't you have a bit of tunnel vision just a bit because it's MP? Would you feel the same way if he had been saying that about Zeeb or Matt or Enrique or Golden? I do also get that he said MP was his biggest suspish and he went with no poster vs suspish.

I'm just asking the question cuz I feel like, for the sake of fairness I should. Ya know?


also - I really like BR's catch up. It makes me sad she wasn't around while all this was going down, but happy she is here now.

Bea, I am suspicious of MP himself but voted Scotty. This suspicion has very little to do with the actual players scotty named and the circumstances around their being chosen.

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:....I know. . . . . !~~~!!!!!!!!


I am saying you said that with the intention of saying his role claim was not valid.

What role claim?

There was an insinuation that because Golden and SVS shared an 8 bond that one is cop 8 or something. I thought it wasn't true. I don't think anyone bought it or took it as that.

This is a discussion that we all have kind of agreed was not very fruitful. I left feeling okay about Enrique (with an eye on him) and okay about Golden.

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:At the end of the Day I think it's fair to say I tried to influence. I felt Wilgy was a much better choice than Floyd, Scotty or Zebra. That doesn't somehow invalidate or contradict everything I was doing before that.

I'm unsure that your explanation directly relates to what I was saying was suspicious. I felt that your explanations for your play, when questioned by Dom and I, were found to be lacking. While at the time you were carrying them off as though they were something that you felt strongly enough about to making movements towards casting doubt against the players subjected to your play.

Your explanation that your day 1 play is generally feeling out and developing reads, is not an explanation for why your case came across weak to both myself and to Dom when placed under a microscope.

If you prefer to dip your toes in, why proceed to influence the thread with your reads?

....Why am I suddenly being mentioned as if I'm standing by your side? I'm not.

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:

Enrique wrote:Okay, so what was the purpose of that post?

If one read my posts I think they would know.
I think you are posting ad nauseam about Golden because you are trying to sell people the idea that he is bad. I'm not on board with the evidence presented. You claimed that something might've been an attempted role hint, and I said I don't think you genuinely thought it was a role hint. Whether you are subverting the truth because you genuinely think Golden is bad or because you are bad remains to be seen.
Your most curious behavior to me has nothing to do with this, but rather with your response to me. You jumped to the conclusion I was accusing you of something (of which you have yet to clarify). TH later gave you a frame of reference that would make sense, but you declined to take it. Hyper-defensiveness is running through you.

You are starting to remind me of baddie Dom to be honest. It's been a while since I've have had that perspective with you but you are reminding of that time you and LC went at it and you were both bad.

Don't really know what to say to this. If you feel that way, that's shitty, but there is absolutely nothing I can do with this post. Was this supernatural mafia? I don't know?

Turnip Head wrote:Because come crunch time at End of Day I'm gonna try to get a baddie lynched. If you were reading my intentions as civ I think that would be clear. Why do you think I, as a baddie, would be trying to influence the thread at that time?

Which case are you specifically referring to as being weak and why are you dragging Dom into it?

Seems stronger that way?
I didn't like it one bit.

Black Rock wrote:
I really don't understand this exchange... at all. Can someone simplify it for me?

I snipped for brevity.
But that exchange was so tiresome.
Basically a lot of people jumped on Zebra because she said it was "alarming" that so many people had voted for Arkham Asylum. When asked which players alarmed her, I believe her initial response was that none of them alarmed her. Eventually she came out suspecting Matt.
Since none of the individual players alarmed her, several players took issue with this. They said that doesn't make sense.
Zebra said that it wasn't any individual player, but rather the number of players voting it. I thought this argument was a bit vacuous since Epig told us no one had information on the poll. I think this is where the Matt/Zebra conflict started.

Scotty wrote:in normal day 1 fashion, I've attracted ire from a good handful of vocal people.
It's late and I have an early bus to catch. I'm tired of defending my vote. One last analogy before I just ignore it and wait for Dom and Mac to pummel me into the ground for doing what I fucking try to do every day 1- vote no posters, followed by low posters.

Except, that's NOT what you did. You voted a no-show despite having given a pass to a low poster for the same reason! Additionally, AFTER you voted, all of a sudden, all these low posters sounded like great votes to you! But before you voted you only mentioned MP-- someone who you said you couldn't vote for because of the lack of evidence DESPITE there being even LESS evidence against the no show you voted.

Scotty wrote: Hypothetical--- Ignore the names and pretenses of both Equiv and lovedelic. Let's substitute Equiv with Eleanor Roosevelt and lovedelic with Betsy Ross. Two important women in the history of the United States. Also both are working under me in my cigar company (why not). But Betsy Ross didn't show up to work, and the company loses 28% in production that day because of it. Eleanor Roosevelt didn't work very hard that day because of a bad knee, and wasn't really up to snuff.
I fire one of them. Which did I fire? The one that didn't show up to work or the one that's not up to the level I expect yet?

There's another employee I have- MaximumPotato (MP) I hear rumors that he's been pissing in the coffee pot but I can't confirm or deny that. So I will have I get security cameras installed to better monitor his habits. Do I fire him for a rumor? Some would. Hell, the board (Dom, Mac and others) say I should send a message to the rest of the staff not to mess with me! But I don't feel comfortable giving him the slip on a hunch. Not yet. Betsy Ross was supposed to be let go, but the board is antsy and says I'm demeaning to women. But I didn't fire Eleanor Roosevelt, did i?

Does this analogy ring true at all to you guys?

No.
Because Mafia is not a business. Being bad at your job is not the same as trying to kill the town. Contributing to the discussion (being productive in your factory) is not remotely the same as finding baddies and lynching them. A mass murderer could be productive in your factory and still kill all the workers when all is said and done. This is why your analogy falls apart.

Scotty wrote:I will never understand why I was almost lynched today, except that some of the more vocal instigators led others to believe I'm some sort of two-faced deviant.

Please don't veil your accusations.

Scotty wrote:Dom, you can be quite trite and persuasive in so little words, which allows many people to trust you. This makes me wary of your voice in a game where baddies should be actively campaigning to look for the other baddies as well. It helps to follow someone like you or Mac which seem to be an ally to the civs, but had you actually lynched me you would have found to be utterly wrong in your suspicions. And then people would probably think twice about trusting you.

So let's follow your logic here.
Don't listen to Dom, he's actively campaigning to look for baddies-- OTHER BADDIES MIGHT DO THAT TOO.
Then don't listen to anyone, Scotty. That's the logical conclusion of your argument.

Scotty wrote: That being said, I don't read either of you as bad because you both have a reasonable flair about you and you could very well be hard-nosed civs. But as a young woman once told me, "you're gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us"

So, I'm not bad, but you insinuated that I might be above. Cool.

S~V~S wrote:Meanwhile 8 people besides me missed the vote, but whether I voted for someone I suspected or someone everyone else suspected but I did not is the biggest issue.

Fuck this.

To be fair those 8 people weren't present in the thread at the time and didn't announce that they knew they still needed to vote with several minutes to spare. It's still bad they missed it, but I'll bet their excuses are better than yours.

Enrique wrote:Would anyone be willing to follow Matt's formula here? Three players per location to keep the others in check? I spoke against it before but the numbers actually kinda work out.

I'll keep the idea in mind when I place my vote but can't promise to follow it.

DrWilgy wrote:Guys. Why the hell do you always try to D1 lynch me only when I'm not here. It's like Home Alone Mafia all over again. I guess I'm lucky I survived.

I have 1000 posts to catch up on. I'll hopefully get it done by D2.

Maybe if you know you're not going to be around you should say so? I haven't seen anything about not being able to get online from you, so your absence became notable. Especially with it pointed out you're more likely to be quiet early on as a baddie.

DrWilgy wrote: 1st of all, why use Meta on the player that goes out of his way to negate Meta?

Saying you don't have a Meta (or that you deliberately try not to, same thing really IMO) doesn't exempt you from being looked at in relation to your behaviour in past games.

bea wrote: Doesn't Epi hate ties? I can't rememer off the top of my hed what his meta is for ties as a host though. I think him saying something about it being a stop not a tie should be considered.

From my experience in Epi games, either a tie = no lynch (usually if there's only one mafia) or he has a role mechanic in place to deal with them. Similarly, in A World Reborn my role decided ties. So we've got two hosts who like that sort of thing, and confirmation that ties don't prevent lynches. I guess we'll find out at some point if they do have anything in place to deal with the tied lynch.

Enrique wrote:

Enrique wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

THERE'S A TIE?

Ooooooooooooo. It always brings a smile to my face.

I think this guy did. I like to think Robin is less of a dick.

You could read mine as well, Mac. I don't necessarily agree and that's okay. I'd think Epi posting a huge pic of the Joker saying oooh I love ties! means something, but who knows. Let's just not tie it up again.

btw i kinda accidentally made a great joke in that post. dh dh are you listening?

Not DH but I caught it. Do I win a prize?

I feel like I had a bit of a meltdown last night. I wanted to apologize for that. I have been letting real life stress get the better of me. I promise not to be so emo anymore. Also I think imma go to the gcpd.

Bullzeye wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Based soley on result of yesterdays lynch, I wouldn't try to lynch Scotty again btw. (Still 900 posts behind. Still think TH is a badewd.)

I suppose a "thoughts at this point rainbow" may be needed before EoN. I may not be here.
Scotty
Zebra
Mac
Everyone else
Dom
Bea
TH

Do you think TH is bad because he pushed for your lynch, or because of the vague eyeball you gave him ages ago and never elaborated on?

Vague eyeball that I will explain eventually.
His "slip" and behavior regarding it.
All around behavior and tone.
His response to me regarding history didn't feel genuine either. I guess I'll wait for a bigger response like he stated though, or just continue catching up and hope I hit something regarding that.

Regarding not talking about being here, why would I do that if I thought I would be here? I don't plan on not being here.

Golden wrote:Scotty, what I don't trust from you is that you seem tunnelly and not very open minded. I can understand if that comes about from defensiveness, but even if all you are interested in tomorrow is voting sabie if she doesn't turn up, I think you should move on to other discussions first anyway. I know that you are a great contributor to the thinking of the thread often. Given I'm not seeing that, it gives me pause.

I don't actually think your low poster/no poster thing is that suspicious, but if it feels like thats all the opinions you have, that is a bit suspicious.

You call it tunnelly, I call it my normal day 1. Every game. Look at the D1's any of the other 10 games I've played on this site. I do tunnel, admittedly, but this is not an example of that.

Next time maybe I'll just vote in alphabetical order or something, because apparently that is a safe way to vote that won't induce criticism.

Golden wrote:

Scotty wrote:It's late and I have an early bus to catch.

Scotty slipped!

youre right, it was a UFO, not a bus

Hosts:

- How do you decide lynch ties?
-Was this:

All GCPD win dead or alive as long as the individual win condition is met.

*A result of something that happened during the lynch?
*A result of the location poll?
*Always the case but just not yet changed in the roles?
*Something else?

Typhoony wrote:Hosts:

- How do you decide lynch ties?

Typhoony wrote: -Was this:

All GCPD win dead or alive as long as the individual win condition is met.

*A result of something that happened during the lynch?
*A result of the location poll?
*Always the case but just not yet changed in the roles?
*Something else?

Long Con and I were feeling magnanimous.

I've got shows to watch and a thread to read.

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:Scotty, what I don't trust from you is that you seem tunnelly and not very open minded. I can understand if that comes about from defensiveness, but even if all you are interested in tomorrow is voting sabie if she doesn't turn up, I think you should move on to other discussions first anyway. I know that you are a great contributor to the thinking of the thread often. Given I'm not seeing that, it gives me pause.

I don't actually think your low poster/no poster thing is that suspicious, but if it feels like thats all the opinions you have, that is a bit suspicious.

You call it tunnelly, I call it my normal day 1. Every game. Look at the D1's any of the other 10 games I've played on this site. I do tunnel, admittedly, but this is not an example of that.

Next time maybe I'll just vote in alphabetical order or something, because apparently that is a safe way to vote that won't induce criticism.

This isn't the point. The point is that your rationale is self contradictory.

Don't we have some "concrete evidence" now?

Fun to see we are adhering to Enrique's 3-per rule.

Can't decide if I want hopsital or Blackgate more. Going to flip a coin between the two and where it ends up is where I'll be.

DrWilgy wrote:
Regarding not talking about being here, why would I do that if I thought I would be here? I don't plan on not being here.

This is fair, but if you don't expect not to be here then surely you can't be surprised that people think it's strange when you're not around? If that even makes sense?

Hey all, still haven't caught up, sorry. This week has been hell and I've had pretty much no free time. I'll try to properly get my head into this game ASAP, or else replace out. I'm quickly uncovering that the pace of this game is too much for me to handle at this point in my RL situation.

Voted for Wayne Manor because I'm going in order of the list.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Hey all, still haven't caught up, sorry. This week has been hell and I've had pretty much no free time. I'll try to properly get my head into this game ASAP, or else replace out. I'm quickly uncovering that the pace of this game is too much for me to handle at this point in my RL situation.

Voted for Wayne Manor because I'm going in order of the list.

I wish you knew how beautiful this vote was.

Bullzeye wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:
Regarding not talking about being here, why would I do that if I thought I would be here? I don't plan on not being here.

This is fair, but if you don't expect not to be here then surely you can't be surprised that people think it's strange when you're not around? If that even makes sense?

It being found strange is not the problem. It being alignment indicative is.

If the arguement for my lynch is "he's not posting a bunch, he must be bad!" then it's bullsuit. If the arguement for my lynch is "he's a low poster and that's a liability regardless of alignment." I would be happy with that. I mean... It's not hard to recognize how volatile a low poster (especially when they are as dashing as I am) can be.

Going back to Arkham. If we're not sharing info, then probably best to stick to one place so at least I know what's going on there.

Fish Mooney's I guess.

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:Scotty, what I don't trust from you is that you seem tunnelly and not very open minded. I can understand if that comes about from defensiveness, but even if all you are interested in tomorrow is voting sabie if she doesn't turn up, I think you should move on to other discussions first anyway. I know that you are a great contributor to the thinking of the thread often. Given I'm not seeing that, it gives me pause.

I don't actually think your low poster/no poster thing is that suspicious, but if it feels like thats all the opinions you have, that is a bit suspicious.

You call it tunnelly, I call it my normal day 1. Every game. Look at the D1's any of the other 10 games I've played on this site. I do tunnel, admittedly, but this is not an example of that.

Next time maybe I'll just vote in alphabetical order or something, because apparently that is a safe way to vote that won't induce criticism.

As scary as it sounds, this has proven to be somewhat correct.

Dom wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:Scotty, what I don't trust from you is that you seem tunnelly and not very open minded. I can understand if that comes about from defensiveness, but even if all you are interested in tomorrow is voting sabie if she doesn't turn up, I think you should move on to other discussions first anyway. I know that you are a great contributor to the thinking of the thread often. Given I'm not seeing that, it gives me pause.

I don't actually think your low poster/no poster thing is that suspicious, but if it feels like thats all the opinions you have, that is a bit suspicious.

You call it tunnelly, I call it my normal day 1. Every game. Look at the D1's any of the other 10 games I've played on this site. I do tunnel, admittedly, but this is not an example of that.

Next time maybe I'll just vote in alphabetical order or something, because apparently that is a safe way to vote that won't induce criticism.

This isn't the point. The point is that your rationale is self contradictory.

Don't we have some "concrete evidence" now?

No. I don't know anyone's alignment yet. We don't know if Robin saved himself or me or if there's another secret power in effect. If aomeone dies tonight, we'll know something. Motivations, maybe. We have a pool where people voted for other people but that tells me nothing yet.

I get a feeling, however, that I will need to change my gameplan and start talking reads on other people for day 1 part 2. Im in the unenviable position this weekend where I'm tied up in 5 shows before I get a week off, so my time is limited to delve into other people. So I'll have all of next week to drive my post count up to normal (sorry about it, Black Rock).

Im actually kind of happy Floyd survived so that he gets an opportunity to contribute. I hate voting in a hurry

Im not excited for tonights shenanigans. So many weird roles and so many potential outcomes. Im going to the police department tonight, as I suppose they might be able to provide some more hints. Wayne Manor is also an option for that, but Im with sticking with the GCPD tonight.

Caught up. Interesting there was no lynch. I doubt it was Robin--more likely a character trait, I'd think.

MacDougall wrote: I remain wary of Matt, Bea, Lorab and Bass. DharmaHelper has also started to worry me.

Thank you for properly using wary, first off. And I'd expect nothing less. A game without you suspecting me would be a game without one of us playing--and, let's be honest, you'd likely suspect me in a game that I wasn't playing, lol.

I'm voting Enterprises. Because gadgets are cool, yo.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Scotty wrote: You call it tunnelly, I call it my normal day 1. Every game. Look at the D1's any of the other 10 games I've played on this site. I do tunnel, admittedly, but this is not an example of that.

Next time maybe I'll just vote in alphabetical order or something, because apparently that is a safe way to vote that won't induce criticism.

As scary as it sounds, this has proven to be somewhat correct.

Everybody should vote in alphabetical order.
Kills must also be done in alphabetical order.
I have hereby decided this.

Typhoony wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Scotty wrote: You call it tunnelly, I call it my normal day 1. Every game. Look at the D1's any of the other 10 games I've played on this site. I do tunnel, admittedly, but this is not an example of that.

Next time maybe I'll just vote in alphabetical order or something, because apparently that is a safe way to vote that won't induce criticism.

As scary as it sounds, this has proven to be somewhat correct.

Everybody should vote in alphabetical order.
Kills must also be done in alphabetical order.
I have hereby decided this.

I'd object, but I'm 7th alphabetically so I suppose I still get a decent run anyway.

Bullzeye wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Scotty wrote: You call it tunnelly, I call it my normal day 1. Every game. Look at the D1's any of the other 10 games I've played on this site. I do tunnel, admittedly, but this is not an example of that.

Next time maybe I'll just vote in alphabetical order or something, because apparently that is a safe way to vote that won't induce criticism.

As scary as it sounds, this has proven to be somewhat correct.

Everybody should vote in alphabetical order.
Kills must also be done in alphabetical order.
I have hereby decided this.

I'd object, but I'm 7th alphabetically so I suppose I still get a decent run anyway.

Are you saying that your win con is not in jeapordy if you don't survive by the end of be game?

Scotty wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Scotty wrote: You call it tunnelly, I call it my normal day 1. Every game. Look at the D1's any of the other 10 games I've played on this site. I do tunnel, admittedly, but this is not an example of that.

Next time maybe I'll just vote in alphabetical order or something, because apparently that is a safe way to vote that won't induce criticism.

As scary as it sounds, this has proven to be somewhat correct.

Everybody should vote in alphabetical order.
Kills must also be done in alphabetical order.
I have hereby decided this.

I'd object, but I'm 7th alphabetically so I suppose I still get a decent run anyway.

Are you saying that your win con is not in jeapordy if you don't survive by the end of be game?

I'm saying I haven't won a game of mafia in so long I no longer care either way. Like the idea of winning doesn't even cross my mind any more until I get close to it.

Bullzeye wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Scotty wrote: You call it tunnelly, I call it my normal day 1. Every game. Look at the D1's any of the other 10 games I've played on this site. I do tunnel, admittedly, but this is not an example of that.

Next time maybe I'll just vote in alphabetical order or something, because apparently that is a safe way to vote that won't induce criticism.

As scary as it sounds, this has proven to be somewhat correct.

Everybody should vote in alphabetical order.
Kills must also be done in alphabetical order.
I have hereby decided this.

I'd object, but I'm 7th alphabetically so I suppose I still get a decent run anyway.

Are you saying that your win con is not in jeapordy if you don't survive by the end of be game?

I'm saying I haven't won a game of mafia in so long I no longer care either way. Like the idea of winning doesn't even cross my mind any more until I get close to it.

We have a lot in common, my man.