Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
I can give you some spoilers if you like.juliets wrote:Got here early and am going back through today's posts to see if Luke answered any questions. Will vote soon.
It is not a bs vote. I suspected him initially I continue to.Epignosis wrote:Also, I don't know why sig should have to "accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people."
Not only is that a loaded statement, that's not his responsibility. How is he supposed to "accurately describe his initial slip?" How should he "characterize what pinged several people?"
Bullshit vote right here.
Lorab
I'm going to do more than eye you.LoRab wrote:It is not a bs vote. I suspected him initially I continue to.Epignosis wrote:Also, I don't know why sig should have to "accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people."
Not only is that a loaded statement, that's not his responsibility. How is he supposed to "accurately describe his initial slip?" How should he "characterize what pinged several people?"
Bullshit vote right here.
To clarify: he mischaracterized what he actually posted. He did not post that it appeared as if Nadia was killing low posters. He said that they were. There is a huge difference between those two statements. His posting revisionist history which changes his initial post in a way that is not as suspicious as his post was. That is what I find suspicious.
Eye me all you want.
Who's Nadia? I just went over the host posts, and didn't see any mention of a Nadia.LoRab wrote:It is not a bs vote. I suspected him initially I continue to.Epignosis wrote:Also, I don't know why sig should have to "accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people."
Not only is that a loaded statement, that's not his responsibility. How is he supposed to "accurately describe his initial slip?" How should he "characterize what pinged several people?"
Bullshit vote right here.
To clarify: he mischaracterized what he actually posted. He did not post that it appeared as if Nadia was killing low posters. He said that they were. There is a huge difference between those two statements. His posting revisionist history which changes his initial post in a way that is not as suspicious as his post was. That is what I find suspicious.
Eye me all you want.
Examine me all you want. I have nothing to hide.Epignosis wrote:I'm going to do more than eye you.LoRab wrote:It is not a bs vote. I suspected him initially I continue to.Epignosis wrote:Also, I don't know why sig should have to "accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people."
Not only is that a loaded statement, that's not his responsibility. How is he supposed to "accurately describe his initial slip?" How should he "characterize what pinged several people?"
Bullshit vote right here.
To clarify: he mischaracterized what he actually posted. He did not post that it appeared as if Nadia was killing low posters. He said that they were. There is a huge difference between those two statements. His posting revisionist history which changes his initial post in a way that is not as suspicious as his post was. That is what I find suspicious.
Eye me all you want.
Autocorrect of mafia. I should learn to proofread.Matt F wrote:Who's Nadia? I just went over the host posts, and didn't see any mention of a Nadia.LoRab wrote:It is not a bs vote. I suspected him initially I continue to.Epignosis wrote:Also, I don't know why sig should have to "accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people."
Not only is that a loaded statement, that's not his responsibility. How is he supposed to "accurately describe his initial slip?" How should he "characterize what pinged several people?"
Bullshit vote right here.
To clarify: he mischaracterized what he actually posted. He did not post that it appeared as if Nadia was killing low posters. He said that they were. There is a huge difference between those two statements. His posting revisionist history which changes his initial post in a way that is not as suspicious as his post was. That is what I find suspicious.
Eye me all you want.
LOLTranq wrote:
Several people who know sig convinced me that this is the way sig is and that my read on him was not correct. So I moved my vote from him. Nothing has happened that has made me go back to my original suspicion.Tranq wrote:What happened to your sig suspicion?juliets wrote:I parked my vote on the host option because i do not have a decision made as to who I will vote for.
And why is this in OT?
Luke = 9 votesEpignosis wrote:Hamburgerboy = sig defender
Hamburgerboy = votes MacDougall when sig has six
Fine. Vote for Mac Day 5. He obviously wants your vote to do shit to you.HamburgerBoy wrote:Luke = 9 votesEpignosis wrote:Hamburgerboy = sig defender
Hamburgerboy = votes MacDougall when sig has six
Plus, Mac is self-confessed scum.
Why day 5?Epignosis wrote:Fine. Vote for Mac Day 5. He obviously wants your vote to do shit to you.
Because Mac ain't getting lynched Day 4.HamburgerBoy wrote:Why day 5?Epignosis wrote:Fine. Vote for Mac Day 5. He obviously wants your vote to do shit to you.
Compare the initial slip vs his descriptions. Characterize those pings for me, and what exactly makes them more suspish?LoRab wrote:Voted sig. His last post tipped the decision. He continues to not accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people. And his defenses in general continue to make him more suspish.
Opps.Sorsha wrote:Luke... I think you're getting some of your points confused with the other game, the forced votes were in Dune.
Nah.Epignosis wrote:Hamburgerboy = sig defender
Hamburgerboy = votes MacDougall when sig has six
Nah?MacDougall wrote:Nah.Epignosis wrote:Hamburgerboy = sig defender
Hamburgerboy = votes MacDougall when sig has six
I voted for him for thto second time based on my ongoing suspicion of him. I had several posts last Kung outlining my reasons for suspecting him. Don't have time right now to make fuller case or explanation.DrWilgy wrote:Compare the initial slip vs his descriptions. Characterize those pings for me, and what exactly makes them more suspish?LoRab wrote:Voted sig. His last post tipped the decision. He continues to not accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people. And his defenses in general continue to make him more suspish.
I don't know any bit of the Sig case, but what I do know is that it's hard to lynch mafia. It was pretty easy for you to vote based on a defense, rather than discuss it and point out the exact flaws in the defense.
Busy LoRab have excuses. LoRab plz u r cum.LoRab wrote:I voted for him for thto second time based on my ongoing suspicion of him. I had several posts last Kung outlining my reasons for suspecting him. Don't have time right now to make fuller case or explanation.DrWilgy wrote:Compare the initial slip vs his descriptions. Characterize those pings for me, and what exactly makes them more suspish?LoRab wrote:Voted sig. His last post tipped the decision. He continues to not accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people. And his defenses in general continue to make him more suspish.
I don't know any bit of the Sig case, but what I do know is that it's hard to lynch mafia. It was pretty easy for you to vote based on a defense, rather than discuss it and point out the exact flaws in the defense.
You don't have a fuller case or explanation.LoRab wrote:I voted for him for thto second time based on my ongoing suspicion of him. I had several posts last Kung outlining my reasons for suspecting him. Don't have time right now to make fuller case or explanation.DrWilgy wrote:Compare the initial slip vs his descriptions. Characterize those pings for me, and what exactly makes them more suspish?LoRab wrote:Voted sig. His last post tipped the decision. He continues to not accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people. And his defenses in general continue to make him more suspish.
I don't know any bit of the Sig case, but what I do know is that it's hard to lynch mafia. It was pretty easy for you to vote based on a defense, rather than discuss it and point out the exact flaws in the defense.
I don't want to see Mac at a shirtless bonfire. Or Lorab, if you are proposing such.DrWilgy wrote:<3 ya Mac, join us at our shirtless bonfire.
Epi, join us.
Ok then LoRab, why shouldn't I vote for you?
Indeed. Matt join us.
But you do want to see Wilgy.Epignosis wrote:I don't want to see Mac at a shirtless bonfire. Or Lorab, if you are proposing such.DrWilgy wrote:<3 ya Mac, join us at our shirtless bonfire.
Epi, join us.
Ok then LoRab, why shouldn't I vote for you?
Indeed. Matt join us.
I am bussing you.LoRab wrote:Dr w: Nice way to ask me a question, decide i'm suspicious, make a few assumptions, and vote for me before I have a chance to even answer your question.
When I'm done with this convention, in happy to further explain my suspicion of sig. Right now, I'm listening to Vice President Biden speak. That is somehow more important than worrying about having a vote.
Linkitis: you shouldn't vote for me because I'm not bad. Mac, you are wrong. And also bad. And I posted before I went away that I'd be away. So yeah, I'm busy. That doesn't mean I'm bad, it means I'm busy
Linkitis: I am fairly certain I had posts about sig the first time he came up, when I initially suspected him.
Not for you I won'tMacDougall wrote:Changing my vote to sig. He cum.
You're going to make me blush Wilgy.DrWilgy wrote:Edit to the last post.
Sig was called baddie for saying "Mafia are killing low posters" vs "I think mafia are killing low posters?"
LOL, Sig you would get yourself caught in this situation.
Ok I'm not going to be voting you today babe <3
I propose a LoRab CFD
D-d-d-daaaammmnn!!!Epignosis wrote:You don't have a fuller case or explanation.LoRab wrote:I voted for him for thto second time based on my ongoing suspicion of him. I had several posts last Kung outlining my reasons for suspecting him. Don't have time right now to make fuller case or explanation.DrWilgy wrote:Compare the initial slip vs his descriptions. Characterize those pings for me, and what exactly makes them more suspish?LoRab wrote:Voted sig. His last post tipped the decision. He continues to not accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people. And his defenses in general continue to make him more suspish.
I don't know any bit of the Sig case, but what I do know is that it's hard to lynch mafia. It was pretty easy for you to vote based on a defense, rather than discuss it and point out the exact flaws in the defense.
it's just me MM, Matt and Mac currently.LoRab wrote:There is no difference. I found the same think suspish as Bullz did and your subsequent posts have made it seem worse. His point was not based on word use, it was the gist of what you said. And people may have been surprised at the kill without "pretending." I disagree that there is a difference--and those who posted suprise may also be bad. But you seem more bad.sig wrote:I am seeing the difference . When people in the thread pretend to be so shocked by his death. This is more scummy then myself not being shocked by it and I still say there is a difference. it is very small wording but paraphrasing what I said in a way that appears to make what I said slightly more scummy is pingy.
"so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie" You seem to be acting slightly inmature here. baddie scum it is the same changing my words right after quoting me isn't. Especially when Bull's argument revolves around a SPECIFIC word, if Bulls argument is based on that which it is then yes it does matter when later in trying to get me lynched he says I said something I didn't say. That you fail to comprehend the importance when Bulls whole argument is based around my wording is strange.
And I was making a joke with the word twisting. I'm likely older than you, so please don't call me immature, because that's just insulting.. My joke was making the point that baddie means the same thing as some people mean when they say scum (I will never like that term in mafia, but it's just how I was mafia raised)...just like unsurprised and not shocked mean the same thing. And I don't even get how you'd see that as immature. Or maybe you're defining immature difrerenly than my understanding of it.
Your posts were more personal than that. "You play like an asshole," and, "[is he} this much of a douchebag in BTSC," are both personally insulting a player, not the player in that role. In the mafia world that I play in (and that I believe this forum is part of), personal insults aren't part of the game.MacDougall wrote:It's not a personal insult when he is playing a bad guy in a a game. I am sure he is lovely.
linkitis: I recall that Black Rock was once lynched based on an "us" thing--and she was bad. Pretty sure that was BR. Just saying.
Joe Biden shouldn't be talking to people who have a vote.LoRab wrote:When I'm done with this convention, in happy to further explain my suspicion of sig. Right now, I'm listening to Vice President Biden speak. That is somehow more important than worrying about having a vote.
LoRab's a chica. Unless she's already had the operation.DrWilgy wrote:Voted LoRab. His last post tipped the decision. He continues to not accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people. And his defenses in general continue to make him more suspish.
Ummmmm Zebra, I just realized you might not think that was funny. Just so ya know, I support the LGBT community very much, and I was just being immature right there.Matt F wrote:LoRab's a chica. Unless she's already had the operation.DrWilgy wrote:Voted LoRab. His last post tipped the decision. He continues to not accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people. And his defenses in general continue to make him more suspish.
