The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote:Wow, Blooper was in and out of here fast! And it is possible that the hosts made subject/tense errors. In context your/he makes sense.

Haha I wasn't kidding when I said I was making pumpkin gingerbread (also, it's good for my health to close the mafia screen every once in a while :P)

I'll have to look at Daisy, because I didn't really get a feel for her - what was the major argument against her? From what I saw, it seemed that MP raised suspicion of her, she reacted, and MP said her reaction made her even more suspicious.

Also wow, more stuff. Good puzzle solving, y'all!

nijuukyugou wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Wow, Blooper was in and out of here fast! And it is possible that the hosts made subject/tense errors. In context your/he makes sense.

Haha I wasn't kidding when I said I was making pumpkin gingerbread (also, it's good for my health to close the mafia screen every once in a while :P)

I'll have to look at Daisy, because I didn't really get a feel for her - what was the major argument against her? From what I saw, it seemed that MP raised suspicion of her, she reacted, and MP said her reaction made her even more suspicious.

Also wow, more stuff. Good puzzle solving, y'all!

Essentially, it was that some of her actions appeared to be contrived and her positions seemed questionable. Namely, she appeared to be suspicion mongering when unnecessary (saying that the fact that S~V~S and I aren't at each other's throats as "concerning").

For the record, I currently don't feel quite as strongly about it as I did yesterday (not that I was crusading her as bad then anyway, but it was my best suspicion), but I'm still mulling things over.

Dana wrote:

zeek wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

zeek wrote:We solved the Cyberman Head thing, the others haven't been updated so I guess we were wrong about them.

I'm being extremely picky with these. You have to get the EXACT wording and spelling right for each word for me to update or give you guys any further information.

I would like to question your spelling of Vastra in Jenny's secret ability then :P

I would also like to ask about the third to last word in the Cyber Controller:
--- -a---t -- ----t------ --t-- ----- -t--- ------ -- ---- t--- -- --a-.
Emperor Dalek for comparison:
--- -a---t -- ------- --t-- ----- -t--- ------ -- ---- t-a- -- --a-.

I thought they were the same I am an idiot.

Dana, did you have any more success with decoding the Doctor? Don't post them, just wondering.

zeek wrote: Dana, did you have any more success with decoding the Doctor? Don't post them, just wondering.

A bit more towards the end but no very big revelations yet. I have them all written out in a notebook though so I can keep filling in when(if?) we get new letters and work on it throughout the day. Is what you found in the beginning/middle part?

The end.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

keys56000000000 wrote:
Dana, I think you spilt that wine in front of you. All over the table and on our collective pants.

Fellow civvies, hear me! I have to stop here in my catch up to inform you all that Dana and MP are mafioso! That post by Dana is a defense of MP. Epignosis is right, the answer to Dana's question is obviously yes. Of course he'd want to appear like a civvie. Playing consistent with you previous civvie form is an obvious choice for any baddie. Dana surely knows that's how the game is played. She's bad, MP is bad, I practically guarantee it.

Back to the catch-up.

Lol, except that this is totally reaching and you're wrong about me. Could be right about Dana for all I know.[/quote]

It's not reaching. It's actually pretty standard WIFOM stuff. I think you were feigning frustration at the prospect of being lynched on day 1 again. I think you're drowning everyone in a sea of on-topic posts.

The beauty of having two baddie teams for a player such as yourself is you can still hunt mafioso if you are one. It's very easy to appear genuine, you just hunt the guys on the opposite baddie team. I think I see that in you. A very enthusiastic player, relishing his role as the baddie hiding in the spotlight, fooling everyone, maybe even catching a baddie on the other team. I don't think it's reaching at all.

Re-reading her posts (which are a blessedly low number!), I don't really see anything that pings me about Daisy. I've not really played with her much before, and in the games where I did play she was either quieter than me or had to drop out for RL reasons, so I don't have a feel whether or not she is being contrived. It looks to me like her suspicions are consistent and the reaction to her being accused seems normal.

Dana wrote:

zeek wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

zeek wrote:We solved the Cyberman Head thing, the others haven't been updated so I guess we were wrong about them.

I'm being extremely picky with these. You have to get the EXACT wording and spelling right for each word for me to update or give you guys any further information.

I would like to question your spelling of Vastra in Jenny's secret ability then :P

I would also like to ask about the third to last word in the Cyber Controller:
--- -a---t -- ----t------ --t-- ----- -t--- ------ -- ---- t--- -- --a-.
Emperor Dalek for comparison:
--- -a---t -- ------- --t-- ----- -t--- ------ -- ---- t-a- -- --a-.

That was a fail from me as a host. I have since corrected this error.

Also, there was another error I found in the secrets. I have since corrected that error too. Thank you to the individual who pointed it out to me.

keys56000000000 wrote:
It's not reaching. It's actually pretty standard WIFOM stuff. I think you were feigning frustration at the prospect of being lynched on day 1 again. I think you're drowning everyone in a sea of on-topic posts.

The beauty of having two baddie teams for a player such as yourself is you can still hunt mafioso if you are one. It's very easy to appear genuine, you just hunt the guys on the opposite baddie team. I think I see that in you. A very enthusiastic player, relishing his role as the baddie hiding in the spotlight, fooling everyone, maybe even catching a baddie on the other team. I don't think it's reaching at all.

You could incriminate anyone on WIFOM though; your arguments basically boil down to what you believe I am doing. Given you don't know how I play, of course you don't think it's reaching.

Why can't you consider a perspective in which I'm the exact thing but genuinely baddie hunting, as a civvie?

Additionally, not sure if this factors into your analysis, but FYI Dana has played a couple of games with me now and doesn't know my playstyle at all.

Anyway, keys, I'm glad you're around again, and I look forward to hearing what you think after you've fully caught up (assuming you haven't yet).

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Also, there was another error I found in the secrets. I have since corrected that error too. Thank you to the individual who pointed it out to me.[/color]

Are you able to say what or where the error was so we don't have to search through all of them again? Like I said, I wrote them all down and I'd prefer to not have to scan through 4ish pages of blanks.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

keys56000000000 wrote:
It's not reaching. It's actually pretty standard WIFOM stuff. I think you were feigning frustration at the prospect of being lynched on day 1 again. I think you're drowning everyone in a sea of on-topic posts.

The beauty of having two baddie teams for a player such as yourself is you can still hunt mafioso if you are one. It's very easy to appear genuine, you just hunt the guys on the opposite baddie team. I think I see that in you. A very enthusiastic player, relishing his role as the baddie hiding in the spotlight, fooling everyone, maybe even catching a baddie on the other team. I don't think it's reaching at all.

You could incriminate anyone on WIFOM though; your arguments basically boil down to what you believe I am doing. Given you don't know how I play, of course you don't think it's reaching.

Okay can someone please explain to me why WIFOM is a bad thing?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Additionally, not sure if this factors into your analysis, but FYI Dana has played a couple of games with me now and doesn't know my playstyle at all.

My first game was mainly getting used to mafia in general so I didn't really pay much attention to anyone's play style, except maybe Made because he was so insane. Last game you were killed really early when all the focus was on Made and Llama and others, so I didn't learn your style there. I don't see why playing 2 games with you would make me have to know your style.

Dana wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

keys56000000000 wrote:
It's not reaching. It's actually pretty standard WIFOM stuff. I think you were feigning frustration at the prospect of being lynched on day 1 again. I think you're drowning everyone in a sea of on-topic posts.

The beauty of having two baddie teams for a player such as yourself is you can still hunt mafioso if you are one. It's very easy to appear genuine, you just hunt the guys on the opposite baddie team. I think I see that in you. A very enthusiastic player, relishing his role as the baddie hiding in the spotlight, fooling everyone, maybe even catching a baddie on the other team. I don't think it's reaching at all.

You could incriminate anyone on WIFOM though; your arguments basically boil down to what you believe I am doing. Given you don't know how I play, of course you don't think it's reaching.

Okay can someone please explain to me why WIFOM is a bad thing?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Additionally, not sure if this factors into your analysis, but FYI Dana has played a couple of games with me now and doesn't know my playstyle at all.

My first game was mainly getting used to mafia in general so I didn't really pay much attention to anyone's play style, except maybe Made because he was so insane. Last game you were killed really early when all the focus was on Made and Llama and others, so I didn't learn your style there. I don't see why playing 2 games with you would make me have to know your style.

WIFOM itself isn't necessarily bad, but it's a circular argument. In mafia, sometimes cases inevitably depend upon WIFOM, but WIFOM-laden arguments are generally seen not to hold much weight. Like if I said I thought Epig was good because he appears to be baddie hunting. But then one could argue, well, what if he wanted me to THINK he was baddie hunting and he's really bad? You can just talk yourself around in circles. Not sure if you're aware of the origin of the expression, so:



And to the second point: Sorry if I didn't express that right, but that was precisely my point. I wasn't implying that you SHOULD know my style. We've had practically no interaction whatsoever.

Dana wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Also, there was another error I found in the secrets. I have since corrected that error too. Thank you to the individual who pointed it out to me.[/color]

Are you able to say what or where the error was so we don't have to search through all of them again? Like I said, I wrote them all down and I'd prefer to not have to scan through 4ish pages of blanks.

I fixed the one that you pointed out to me. There was another one I fixed, but I won't tell you where that one is. Other than it does not currently affect any of the progress you all have made with decoding so far.

MovingPictures07 wrote: WIFOM itself isn't necessarily bad, but it's a circular argument. In mafia, sometimes cases inevitably depend upon WIFOM, but WIFOM-laden arguments are generally seen not to hold much weight. Like if I said I thought Epig was good because he appears to be baddie hunting. But then one could argue, well, what if he wanted me to THINK he was baddie hunting and he's really bad? You can just talk yourself around in circles. Not sure if you're aware of the origin of the expression, so:

Yeah, I knew about the movie scene but I still don't entirely understand what's so bad about it. All we have are people's actions and if he wanted you to think he was baddie hunting then wouldn't that be different from him actually hunting? As in, wouldn't his actions or words be slightly different? I guess what I'm not understanding is how it's circular when new points are being brought up.

MovingPictures07 wrote: And to the second point: Sorry if I didn't express that right, but that was precisely my point. I wasn't implying that you SHOULD know my style. We've had practically no interaction whatsoever.

Okay, that makes more sense, thanks. It seemed like you meant we've played a few games and I still don't know your style but I should by now.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dana wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Also, there was another error I found in the secrets. I have since corrected that error too. Thank you to the individual who pointed it out to me.[/color]

Are you able to say what or where the error was so we don't have to search through all of them again? Like I said, I wrote them all down and I'd prefer to not have to scan through 4ish pages of blanks.

I fixed the one that you pointed out to me. There was another one I fixed, but I won't tell you where that one is. Other than it does not currently affect any of the progress you all have made with decoding so far.

If I find it, am I allowed to say?

Voted perbea, because of evil time lord on karn. Sounds like a trap.
Back to reading....

Dana wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: WIFOM itself isn't necessarily bad, but it's a circular argument. In mafia, sometimes cases inevitably depend upon WIFOM, but WIFOM-laden arguments are generally seen not to hold much weight. Like if I said I thought Epig was good because he appears to be baddie hunting. But then one could argue, well, what if he wanted me to THINK he was baddie hunting and he's really bad? You can just talk yourself around in circles. Not sure if you're aware of the origin of the expression, so:

Yeah, I knew about the movie scene but I still don't entirely understand what's so bad about it. All we have are people's actions and if he wanted you to think he was baddie hunting then wouldn't that be different from him actually hunting? As in, wouldn't his actions or words be slightly different? I guess what I'm not understanding is how it's circular when new points are being brought up.

MovingPictures07 wrote: And to the second point: Sorry if I didn't express that right, but that was precisely my point. I wasn't implying that you SHOULD know my style. We've had practically no interaction whatsoever.

Okay, that makes more sense, thanks. It seemed like you meant we've played a few games and I still don't know your style but I should by now.

Yeah, sure, they'd inevitably be different.

My point against Keys was just there's absolutely no satisfactory way I can defend against an accusation like that in principle except to say 'You're wrong, consider another perspective (i.e., that I am a civvie and that I have been genuinely baddie hunting)'.

It's different than an accusation that says, for example, that Elo voted for juliets for 'going with the flow', juliets was civ, etc. Those are facts. It doesn't mean Elo is bad, of course, but that's just an example. Accusations that rely entirely on WIFOM don't rely on facts, just pure interpretations of behavior. Which... early on in the game, you inevitably have to some degree. A lot of my reads on people so far have been admittedly based on a lot of WIFOM which is why I don't feel that comfortable with a lot of my baddie reads so far.

Does that make sense?

Also, keys, I had a look at your posts again and I find it odd you've gone from:

keys56000000000 wrote:It's great to see players getting stuck in right from the get-go! I hate games where people are too afraid to post. Good to see some balls.

Two things I want to post on.

First, my two cents on the issue of speculating on role powers. IMO it's better to put all our cards on the table. Baddies will be trying to figure this stuff out regardless of anything posted here.

Second, while I agree that it's too soon to really judge anyone, it kinda seems like MP hit on a nerve. Do I detect a bit of Dana defending Zeek? Or is it Dana jumping the gun on what she identifies as an easy lynch? Hard to tell at this early stage, but very possibly. At any rate, I certainly don't suspect MP yet, whereas Dana has "pinged" my suspicio-meter.

Saying I hit a nerve and you "certainly don't suspect" me yet, to:

keys56000000000 wrote:

fingersplints wrote: I think keys was saying Dana might be jumping on an easy target. And Dana said an easy target of who even though she only was discussing MP. So I pointed out that she said herself MP was lynched early. Someone who is always lynched early = easy target.

Splints knows what I was saying. @fs it's like we're like this *two fingers from my brain to yours*

If I saw anything in all of that, it was a baddie Dana overplaying what she saw as weakness in MP. *If* I saw anything. Tbh I was really just throwing out the mildest of pings to see what came back. Which wasn't much. But you can't blame a fella for trying!

@SVS~: why do you think clipping quotes is bad? Nobody wants to read all these quotes, get to the point, I say!

@Epi: what about that exchange seems false to you? I'm intrigued, can you put you finger on it?

@everyone: stop describing MP's play as "aggressive" or "intense", etc - he's just playing the game the way it's supposed to be played.

Continuation of the same assumption, no opinion on me... to:

keys56000000000 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Seriously, people, answer me this: What is suspicious about pursuing something I detected to be possibly insincere?

I'm not saying I do find you suspicious yet, but I'll answer your question by playing devil's advocate.

It's pretty early in the game. Day 0, to be precise, so technically the game hasn't started yet. So it'd be pretty reasonable to say that there isn't much of anything to go on at the moment. Therefore, your early enthusiasm could very well be merely an attempt at appearing like an enthusiastic civvie.

TL;DR: you could be doing a wine-in-front-of-me thing.

At this stage I don't find anyone suspicious. I don't blame MP or Epi or indeed myself ( ) for trying, but I just don't see it yet.

@canuck: I'm sure somebody else can better answer your question, but I believe the answer is no, you don't need to have watched the original series, and that the reboot is labeled season 1 (2005).

Arguing WIFOM here. But this is the weirdest part...

keys56000000000 wrote:I'm laughing here. You guys crack me up. I feel like I'm at a casino.

Epi seems like a gambler to me. He's gambling on Enri coming back mafia, in which case he'll take the glory of catching a baddie. If he comes back civvies, as I suspect he would, Epi will shrug it off unapologetically. He's going all in.

MP seems to be throwing shit to see what sticks. If people go for it, great. If they don't, or if the target successfully deflects said shit, it was never his intention to begin with. Just gauging reactions. Hedging his bets, so to speak.

I'm not voting for Enrique. If anything, I'm more convinced of his civvieness than his mafianess after this exchange.

As for Epi and MP themselves, I'm not saying that they're bad. At present I lean towards them being crazy-brave civvies.

Can someone explain what supatown means?


-----

As Splints said, we're going to be away for couple of days visiting my boi Chris. Then I have a busy day saying goodbye to in-laws and enjoying my last day in the states. Then I have a gruelling trip back home across the Pond. So don't expect anything of substance from me till Tuesday, alright? Have a good one.

You here, which takes place AFTER your post before with the WIFOM originally, that you lean towards me being crazy-brave civvies.

To now what you're now saying, that you "practically guarantee" that I'm bad.

Not to mention that zeek has been playing a similar game to me and has posted at least as much but you say nothing about him, AND you never again brought up the Dana defending zeek thing which you only mentioned that one time.

And I don't know if you've caught up yet, but just look at how the Epig lynch went down yesterday. And then you're going to tell me you can "guarantee" I'm bad?

Something smells fishy here.

I await your elaboration.

zeek wrote:Dalek Sec wrote:If someone targets a member of your team with a night action, you can project(?) a -a----- ---------t on them. A ---- -- t--- t-----. If --a--, the night action ---- --t---- a-- --- ---- a ---- again(?). If taken, --t---- -a-----. -- t-- ---- -a--- --a-- -- t-- ------ ----, that --a--- ---- --t -- a--- to -----t----- target your team -- a-- -a- (--t---- -- ----- --t--) --- t-- ---a----- in the game. If taken, the night action still ---- --t----, --t t---- any of -t--- -----t-.

linki-

Dom: Don't be an asshat, thats one or two of the rules. Think me shady if you want but I do not get off disagreeing with you. I am bored by it, I stated that. I am pursuing things I feel you are misrepresenting. I have also said I want your opinion on the votes for Epig, which you have not given. You are perpetuating this butting of heads now. I want to drop it for now as I can't get a clear view of you being embrawled in an argument with you, I want distance from it to consider everyone on an equal ground.

My thoughts on Epig's voters are as clear as the reasoning against him.

S~V~S wrote:I am still surprised that Blooper can discuss the "fast & furious" Epi lynch without mentioning Daisy. Looking forward to hearing her answer.

This is a very good point, SVS.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Essentially, it was that some of her actions appeared to be contrived and her positions seemed questionable. Namely, she appeared to be suspicion mongering when unnecessary (saying that the fact that S~V~S and I aren't at each other's throats as "concerning").

For the record, I currently don't feel quite as strongly about it as I did yesterday (not that I was crusading her as bad then anyway, but it was my best suspicion), but I'm still mulling things over.

MP, is there anything in the game that you HAVE felt strongly about??

Yeah, keys, you're getting a little ahead of yourself here. People will voice their interpretations of other players regardless of whether they're teammates or not. We're not trying to get anybody lynched here, we're actually trying to find the bad guys, and a defense of someone you think is innocent (or you have no reason to believe is bad) is not out of place. Personally I'm leaning civvie for both MP and Dana, and I very much doubt they're on a team together at least.

Dom wrote: MP, is there anything in the game that you HAVE felt strongly about??

Sure, I felt strongly that Alzarius was the best option N1.

It's Night 2, so... I wouldn't say anything else, especially since we have not yet lynched baddies, would warrant a particularly "strong" opinion of someone being bad just yet. Though maybe I'm giving too much weight to that word.

Dana wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dana wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Also, there was another error I found in the secrets. I have since corrected that error too. Thank you to the individual who pointed it out to me.[/color]

Are you able to say what or where the error was so we don't have to search through all of them again? Like I said, I wrote them all down and I'd prefer to not have to scan through 4ish pages of blanks.

I fixed the one that you pointed out to me. There was another one I fixed, but I won't tell you where that one is. Other than it does not currently affect any of the progress you all have made with decoding so far.

If I find it, am I allowed to say?

It's up to you. But I'd be surprised if you did.

Dom, an addendum: I suppose I've felt temporarily strong about various suspicions I've had throughout the game, but the lasting strength of the arguments didn't really stand up when I took a step back. If that makes sense.

Anyway, I have a few ideas on where to look next, but I'm going to wait until D3 starts and until sometime tomorrow since I need to catch some sleep and do some homework in the morning before class.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dana wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dana wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Also, there was another error I found in the secrets. I have since corrected that error too. Thank you to the individual who pointed it out to me.[/color]

Are you able to say what or where the error was so we don't have to search through all of them again? Like I said, I wrote them all down and I'd prefer to not have to scan through 4ish pages of blanks.

I fixed the one that you pointed out to me. There was another one I fixed, but I won't tell you where that one is. Other than it does not currently affect any of the progress you all have made with decoding so far.

If I find it, am I allowed to say?

It's up to you. But I'd be surprised if you did.

As far as I can tell, you added some spaces into Emperor Dalek's secrets, so some longer words became two shorter words. If there's more, I'll keep searching.

Dana wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dana wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dana wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Also, there was another error I found in the secrets. I have since corrected that error too. Thank you to the individual who pointed it out to me.[/color]

Are you able to say what or where the error was so we don't have to search through all of them again? Like I said, I wrote them all down and I'd prefer to not have to scan through 4ish pages of blanks.

I fixed the one that you pointed out to me. There was another one I fixed, but I won't tell you where that one is. Other than it does not currently affect any of the progress you all have made with decoding so far.

If I find it, am I allowed to say?

It's up to you. But I'd be surprised if you did.

As far as I can tell, you added some spaces into Emperor Dalek's secrets, so some longer words became two shorter words. If there's more, I'll keep searching.

That's not it actually. But feel free to try again.

Also, I won't answer yes or no anymore. :P

Clom
1
DFaraday (14) 4%

Darp
2
Dom (11), keys56000000000 (23) 7%

Grolon
1
Elohcin (15) 4%

Karn
15
Long Con (3), Made (5), sabie12 (6), Bullzeye (7), Metalmarsh89 (8), Snow Dog (9), MovingPictures07 (12), zeek (13), juliets (16), Chris (19), S~V~S (20), Bass_the_Clever (21), nijuukyugou (22), Roxy (24), Turnip Head (26) 56%

Perbea
5
Gotrees (4), fingersplints (10), Dana (17), Enrique (18), Hedgeowl (27) 19%

The Library (Hosts/Dead/Non)
3
bea (1), Epignosis (2), birdwithteeth11 (25) 11%

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dom, an addendum: I suppose I've felt temporarily strong about various suspicions I've had throughout the game, but the lasting strength of the arguments didn't really stand up when I took a step back. If that makes sense.

This has me worried about you tbh.
you seem to be setting fires and then walking away from them. At first, I thought itwas you playing carefully... but you haven't stuck to a suspicion all game.

It sounds to me that MP escaped death on his own while someone else prevented Elo's death. Great news though.

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dom, an addendum: I suppose I've felt temporarily strong about various suspicions I've had throughout the game, but the lasting strength of the arguments didn't really stand up when I took a step back. If that makes sense.

This has me worried about you tbh.
you seem to be setting fires and then walking away from them. At first, I thought itwas you playing carefully... but you haven't stuck to a suspicion all game.

I don't see what's so wrong with that? We're looking at MP's thought process on the thread, he's been fairly transparent, and he's not leading us on and lying just for the sake of having an opinion. And as of tonight, we also know he's not a Cyberman.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:It sounds to me that MP escaped death on his own while someone else prevented Elo's death. Great news though.

Why do you think Elo was protected? Didn't the gun just jam? How is that any indication of anything?

Enrique wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:It sounds to me that MP escaped death on his own while someone else prevented Elo's death. Great news though.

Why do you think Elo was protected? Didn't the gun just jam? How is that any indication of anything?

That's how it interprets to me. The flavor doesn't look like she negated the death on her own (while MP's did look that way). It looks like a third party was involved somehow.

Enrique wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dom, an addendum: I suppose I've felt temporarily strong about various suspicions I've had throughout the game, but the lasting strength of the arguments didn't really stand up when I took a step back. If that makes sense.

This has me worried about you tbh.
you seem to be setting fires and then walking away from them. At first, I thought itwas you playing carefully... but you haven't stuck to a suspicion all game.

I don't see what's so wrong with that? We're looking at MP's thought process on the thread, he's been fairly transparent, and he's not leading us on and lying just for the sake of having an opinion. And as of tonight, we also know he's not a Cyberman.

True.

However, it DOES trouble me that MP has not had a single case he has truly followed through with. He has waned. It's just something that has made me a bit suspicious. I am still far more suspicious of Made.

The post says we only have 24 hours to lynch someone, is that a mistake? Also do we get more letters today?

Dana wrote:The post says we only have 24 hours to lynch someone, is that a mistake? Also do we get more letters today?

No u.

And we'll see.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dana wrote:The post says we only have 24 hours to lynch someone, is that a mistake? Also do we get more letters today?

No u.

And we'll see.

Please, dear gracious host, grant us more letters on this beautiful morning.

Last line of the Master: "This is up to and including kill attempts."

MP, what did it for me is Dana's post, the one asking if you really would behave in such a way if you weren't a civvie. I remain unconvinced that anyone who has played multiple games with you would question the plausibility of you successfully feigning your civvie game. You're obviously a good enough player to do so.

Up until that point I thought you could have genuinely been just a very enthusiastic civvie. I definitely thought you were being liberal, sometimes quite wild, with your accusations, but that it was with good intentions. As I said, now I see you as more of someone relishing hiding in plain sight, in the spotlight, even. You're having fun playing the baddie-hunt game, like a good civvie would, but you're also having fun fooling everyone, like a good baddie would.

You keep telling me I don't know your style of play. That I should change my perspective. What are you expecting me to say to that? "Oh, my apologies MP, you cannot be bad, this is clearly just your civvie playstyle! I just had to change my perspective -- seeing you as a baddie to seeing you as a goodie -- to realise that! My bad."?

I don't buy your act. Your subsequent counter-attack is nothing but a lame switcheroo, and somewhat hypocritical of you if you want to dismiss my accusations of yourself as mere reaching.

I haven't caught up fully, but I intend to vote for MP.

Ha, I couldn't help but check the results before actually falling asleep. I had a strange feeling the Cybermen were going to try to kill me tonight. Nice try, suckers!

Dom, that's not true. I failed to mention it before, but I strongly believed juliets was bad and I followed that through hard until the very end.

Keys, so you're going to attempt to incriminate me based solely on the post made by someone else... and yet you're going to gun after me and not them? Right, because that's logical.



Be back tomorrow sometime with thoughts.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Ha, I couldn't help but check the results before actually falling asleep. I had a strange feeling the Cybermen were going to try to kill me tonight. Nice try, suckers!

Dom, that's not true. I failed to mention it before, but I strongly believed juliets was bad and I followed that through hard until the very end.

Keys, so you're going to attempt to incriminate me based solely on the post made by someone else... and yet you're going to gun after me and not them? Right, because that's logical.

I said you were both bad, didn't I? It's only been what, a few hours since I posted that? You keep attempting to put negative spins on my accusation of you. That only convinces me further of your guilt. At the very least, you come off as a massive hypocrit.

If we're both bad, then why me?

Your accusation is completely baseless and ridiculous. Are you even going to consider that I just survived an NK from a mafia team?

Also, buddy... you never responded to this.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Also, keys, I had a look at your posts again and I find it odd you've gone from:

keys56000000000 wrote:It's great to see players getting stuck in right from the get-go! I hate games where people are too afraid to post. Good to see some balls.

Two things I want to post on.

First, my two cents on the issue of speculating on role powers. IMO it's better to put all our cards on the table. Baddies will be trying to figure this stuff out regardless of anything posted here.

Second, while I agree that it's too soon to really judge anyone, it kinda seems like MP hit on a nerve. Do I detect a bit of Dana defending Zeek? Or is it Dana jumping the gun on what she identifies as an easy lynch? Hard to tell at this early stage, but very possibly. At any rate, I certainly don't suspect MP yet, whereas Dana has "pinged" my suspicio-meter.

Saying I hit a nerve and you "certainly don't suspect" me yet, to:

keys56000000000 wrote:

fingersplints wrote: I think keys was saying Dana might be jumping on an easy target. And Dana said an easy target of who even though she only was discussing MP. So I pointed out that she said herself MP was lynched early. Someone who is always lynched early = easy target.

Splints knows what I was saying. @fs it's like we're like this *two fingers from my brain to yours*

If I saw anything in all of that, it was a baddie Dana overplaying what she saw as weakness in MP. *If* I saw anything. Tbh I was really just throwing out the mildest of pings to see what came back. Which wasn't much. But you can't blame a fella for trying!

@SVS~: why do you think clipping quotes is bad? Nobody wants to read all these quotes, get to the point, I say!

@Epi: what about that exchange seems false to you? I'm intrigued, can you put you finger on it?

@everyone: stop describing MP's play as "aggressive" or "intense", etc - he's just playing the game the way it's supposed to be played.

Continuation of the same assumption, no opinion on me... to:

keys56000000000 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Seriously, people, answer me this: What is suspicious about pursuing something I detected to be possibly insincere?

I'm not saying I do find you suspicious yet, but I'll answer your question by playing devil's advocate.

It's pretty early in the game. Day 0, to be precise, so technically the game hasn't started yet. So it'd be pretty reasonable to say that there isn't much of anything to go on at the moment. Therefore, your early enthusiasm could very well be merely an attempt at appearing like an enthusiastic civvie.

TL;DR: you could be doing a wine-in-front-of-me thing.

At this stage I don't find anyone suspicious. I don't blame MP or Epi or indeed myself ( ) for trying, but I just don't see it yet.

@canuck: I'm sure somebody else can better answer your question, but I believe the answer is no, you don't need to have watched the original series, and that the reboot is labeled season 1 (2005).

Arguing WIFOM here. But this is the weirdest part...

keys56000000000 wrote:I'm laughing here. You guys crack me up. I feel like I'm at a casino.

Epi seems like a gambler to me. He's gambling on Enri coming back mafia, in which case he'll take the glory of catching a baddie. If he comes back civvies, as I suspect he would, Epi will shrug it off unapologetically. He's going all in.

MP seems to be throwing shit to see what sticks. If people go for it, great. If they don't, or if the target successfully deflects said shit, it was never his intention to begin with. Just gauging reactions. Hedging his bets, so to speak.

I'm not voting for Enrique. If anything, I'm more convinced of his civvieness than his mafianess after this exchange.

As for Epi and MP themselves, I'm not saying that they're bad. At present I lean towards them being crazy-brave civvies.

Can someone explain what supatown means?


-----

As Splints said, we're going to be away for couple of days visiting my boi Chris. Then I have a busy day saying goodbye to in-laws and enjoying my last day in the states. Then I have a gruelling trip back home across the Pond. So don't expect anything of substance from me till Tuesday, alright? Have a good one.

You here, which takes place AFTER your post before with the WIFOM originally, that you lean towards me being crazy-brave civvies.

To now what you're now saying, that you "practically guarantee" that I'm bad.

Not to mention that zeek has been playing a similar game to me and has posted at least as much but you say nothing about him, AND you never again brought up the Dana defending zeek thing which you only mentioned that one time.

And I don't know if you've caught up yet, but just look at how the Epig lynch went down yesterday. And then you're going to tell me you can "guarantee" I'm bad?

Something smells fishy here.

I await your elaboration.

You just shrugged it off.

So why the change?

Seriously now. Bed time. I look forward to seeing an actual response tomorrow.

Also, EBWOP:

And if the change is SOLELY because of that one post made by someone that wasn't even me, then that's just... crazy. Especially since you say I'm bad with such confidence.

If my alignment is conditional upon Dana's, why lynch me first before her?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Ha, I couldn't help but check the results before actually falling asleep. I had a strange feeling the Cybermen were going to try to kill me tonight. Nice try, suckers!

Dom, that's not true. I failed to mention it before, but I strongly believed juliets was bad and I followed that through hard until the very end.

That's true. You're right. I apologize for that oversight.

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dom, an addendum: I suppose I've felt temporarily strong about various suspicions I've had throughout the game, but the lasting strength of the arguments didn't really stand up when I took a step back. If that makes sense.

This has me worried about you tbh.
you seem to be setting fires and then walking away from them. At first, I thought itwas you playing carefully... but you haven't stuck to a suspicion all game.

This is the same concern I'm having re: MP, stemming all the way back to his gambit on Day 1. He accused Zeek of some trivial things early, then played that off as a gambit saying he caught a baddie in Enrique, but then he backed off of that too. And then yesterday he stayed on Daisy's case all day but kept qualifying his suspicion ("I'll allow myself to be wrong", "I could be wrong", "I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong" etc etc).

How are you feeling about Daisy these days, MP, and why?

I didn't shrug it off, I literally just explained why the change. To reiterate, again, I think I caught Dana defending you with an argument I find to be entirely unconvincing. I said I certainly don't suspect you yet, which I thought implied that I was giving you a chance. I would have probably gone on thinking you were just an over-zealous, verbose player had Dana not posted that.

You keep complaining about it being one post from someone else. What does it matter how many posts or from whom? I think everyone else will agree with me that it can only take one unfortunate post from a teammate to blow one's cover.

Again, ridiculing my suspicion of you. It's crazy, huh? I think the notion of you relishing hiding in the spotlight is perfectly reasonable, and I'm betting others will see it that way, too. You post A LOT. You accuse practically anyone you can get your hands on, for literally anything. You have people defending you out of the realms of reason.

I'll get to Dana. I thought I saw him/her defending Enrique in a similarly conspicuous fashion, who is coincidentally defending you, too. I can only take on so much, I'm still catching up and I have little sway against you veterans of this site, but I'll get there. Your come at me bro (btw 2011 called and they want their smack talk back) challenge has been accepted.

Ah, fuck sleep.

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Ha, I couldn't help but check the results before actually falling asleep. I had a strange feeling the Cybermen were going to try to kill me tonight. Nice try, suckers!

Dom, that's not true. I failed to mention it before, but I strongly believed juliets was bad and I followed that through hard until the very end.

That's true. You're right. I apologize for that oversight.

Hey, not a problem! I failed to mention it myself.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dom, an addendum: I suppose I've felt temporarily strong about various suspicions I've had throughout the game, but the lasting strength of the arguments didn't really stand up when I took a step back. If that makes sense.

This has me worried about you tbh.
you seem to be setting fires and then walking away from them. At first, I thought itwas you playing carefully... but you haven't stuck to a suspicion all game.

This is the same concern I'm having re: MP, stemming all the way back to his gambit on Day 1. He accused Zeek of some trivial things early, then played that off as a gambit saying he caught a baddie in Enrique, but then he backed off of that too. And then yesterday he stayed on Daisy's case all day but kept qualifying his suspicion ("I'll allow myself to be wrong", "I could be wrong", "I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong" etc etc).

How are you feeling about Daisy these days, MP, and why?

I did not back off of juliets. I've been completely transparent in all of my thoughts, though, it's not like I'm backing off without explanation or reason, only after I believe my cases to have not held up to scrutiny, typically from counterarguments from the accused players themselves.

There's nothing wrong with qualifying my suspicion; the reason I'm doing it is so that people know exactly my level of confidence in my suspicions at any given time (I realize I post a lot, so I try to make this clear).

I have no reason to feel even remotely close to 100% or even 90% about a suspicion this early. Do you think I should?

I love how even the second incarnation of you apparently can't resist talking about only me.

And to answer your question... I've been mulling it over for quite some time. I want to make sure I'm not just judging her more harshly because I know her better RL than anyone else. That said, she is still one of my main suspects at the moment.

keys56000000000 wrote:I didn't shrug it off, I literally just explained why the change. To reiterate, again, I think I caught Dana defending you with an argument I find to be entirely unconvincing. I said I certainly don't suspect you yet, which I thought implied that I was giving you a chance. I would have probably gone on thinking you were just an over-zealous, verbose player had Dana not posted that.

You keep complaining about it being one post from someone else. What does it matter how many posts or from whom? I think everyone else will agree with me that it can only take one unfortunate post from a teammate to blow one's cover.

Again, ridiculing my suspicion of you. It's crazy, huh? I think the notion of you relishing hiding in the spotlight is perfectly reasonable, and I'm betting others will see it that way, too. You post A LOT. You accuse practically anyone you can get your hands on, for literally anything. You have people defending you out of the realms of reason.

I'll get to Dana. I thought I saw him/her defending Enrique in a similarly conspicuous fashion, who is coincidentally defending you, too. I can only take on so much, I'm still catching up and I have little sway against you veterans of this site, but I'll get there. Your come at me bro (btw 2011 called and they want their smack talk back) challenge has been accepted.

Okay, so apparently you guarantee I'm bad based on behavior that isn't even mine. It does matter how many posts or from whom; are you serious? If someone finds 10 posts of someone's own words that are suspicious versus 1 post of someone else's words... surely that's a difference, yes? I won't argue with a teammate sinking anyone; I just find it odd as fuck that you therefore try to argue I should go first. If you're basing the argument that I'm bad based off of the defense of someone else -- if Dana's post TRULY is the ONLY thing that convinced you that I'm bad -- then why make up all these other WIFOM related reasons that you mentioned earlier in the game? And why lynch me before lynching her if my baddieness is conditional upon her defending me? It's simple causation-based logic, yet you haven't given me an answer to that.

And yes, I firmly believe "guaranteeing" someone as bad based off of one post posted by someone else whose alignment you also don't know to be crazy, yes. I'm not insulting you or ridiculing you; I'm sorry if you took it that way because it's clearly not. But it's incredibly illogical to conclude with such confidence in such circumstances, especially when there are so many other players you haven't issued any opinions on whatsoever.

You also failed to address my two points about zeek twice now: (1) zeek has posted even more than I have, so clearly he's taking a similar strategy. No opinion of him? And (2), here you said:

keys56000000000 wrote:It's great to see players getting stuck in right from the get-go! I hate games where people are too afraid to post. Good to see some balls.

Two things I want to post on.

First, my two cents on the issue of speculating on role powers. IMO it's better to put all our cards on the table. Baddies will be trying to figure this stuff out regardless of anything posted here.

Second, while I agree that it's too soon to really judge anyone, it kinda seems like MP hit on a nerve. Do I detect a bit of Dana defending Zeek? Or is it Dana jumping the gun on what she identifies as an easy lynch? Hard to tell at this early stage, but very possibly. At any rate, I certainly don't suspect MP yet, whereas Dana has "pinged" my suspicio-meter.

If Dana was defending zeek too, then surely he must be her baddie teammate too, right?

It appears your arguments are collapsing amid scrutiny, yet you fail to acknowledge that.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dom, an addendum: I suppose I've felt temporarily strong about various suspicions I've had throughout the game, but the lasting strength of the arguments didn't really stand up when I took a step back. If that makes sense.

This has me worried about you tbh.
you seem to be setting fires and then walking away from them. At first, I thought itwas you playing carefully... but you haven't stuck to a suspicion all game.

This is the same concern I'm having re: MP, stemming all the way back to his gambit on Day 1. He accused Zeek of some trivial things early, then played that off as a gambit saying he caught a baddie in Enrique, but then he backed off of that too. And then yesterday he stayed on Daisy's case all day but kept qualifying his suspicion ("I'll allow myself to be wrong", "I could be wrong", "I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong" etc etc).

How are you feeling about Daisy these days, MP, and why?

I'm nervous about this though. This is exactly what I have traditionally suspected MP (I mean going back to years ago). I was traditionally wrong about this.
However, MP is not the same player he was back in 2010.