The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:I like SVS's "who would kill Long Con?" question very much. That seems like a fruitful avenue to explore, and I will have to think about it a lot before casting my next vote.

S~V~S wrote:What question about boo? I might have missed it in this thread.

thellama73 wrote:I like SVS's "who would kill Long Con?" question very much. That seems like a fruitful avenue to explore, and I will have to think about it a lot before casting my next vote.

thellama73 wrote:I like SVS's "who would kill Long Con?" question very much. That seems like a fruitful avenue to explore, and I will have to think about it a lot before casting my next vote.

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I like SVS's "who would kill Long Con?" question very much. That seems like a fruitful avenue to explore, and I will have to think about it a lot before casting my next vote.

I would. Long Con would have been my first kill. I am amazed that he lasts as long as he does in games. He's manipulative and dangerous. Even in the Game of Champions, he only took had one NK against him, and that was at his request.

ooo WIFOM

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I like SVS's "who would kill Long Con?" question very much. That seems like a fruitful avenue to explore, and I will have to think about it a lot before casting my next vote.

I would. Long Con would have been my first kill. I am amazed that he lasts as long as he does in games. He's manipulative and dangerous. Even in the Game of Champions, he only took had one NK against him, and that was at his request.

ooo WIFOM

Epignosis wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Without pulling posts, I had the impression that S~V~S and boo were Raye and Naomi. I no longer have that impression.

I will admit that my suspicion of S~V~S was reactionary- S~V~S would not vote for boo without a "smoking gun," but she would vote for me on a whim. While that annoys me, it shouldn't cloud my judgment. I find S~V~S to be awfully inconsistent in practice across the board. I believe that is one source of contention between S~V~S and me, or for that matter, S~V~S and thellama73. She's a "gutter," not a "caser." I can accept that, even if I disagree with her approach and even if I am the victim of that approach.

Obviously, I suspect her for ballooning the detective win condition into basically needing everyone dead to win. But I know she gets paranoid. Drive me insane, but I'm sure I have the same effect.

I think what you all need to start asking yourself is this: What would Kira do without the support of a team? Essentially, we're up against a handful of Serial Killers, one of which has a partner, and some of which that do not even have a kill.

What I mean is this: Rather than go on and on about how someone acted in this game or that game, explore how a person might act by having a vanilla Mafia role (i.e., no BTSC or kill). That person would just be looking to survive until the point when he DOES get the kill, right?

I would advise you all to do your rereads with that in mind.

"I believe she is awfully inconsistent" says the man who has been completely inconsistent.

Yeah, but I'm intentional.

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I like SVS's "who would kill Long Con?" question very much. That seems like a fruitful avenue to explore, and I will have to think about it a lot before casting my next vote.

I would. Long Con would have been my first kill. I am amazed that he lasts as long as he does in games. He's manipulative and dangerous. Even in the Game of Champions, he only took had one NK against him, and that was at his request.

ooo WIFOM

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I like SVS's "who would kill Long Con?" question very much. That seems like a fruitful avenue to explore, and I will have to think about it a lot before casting my next vote.

I would kill Long Con. Does that answer your question?

Turnip Head wrote:So you're eliminating Epi from being Kira because Long Con suspected him?

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:So you're eliminating Epi from being Kira because Long Con suspected him?

Would you kill someone who was gunning for you on the first night? It's a bit obvious, isn't it?

Turnip Head wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:So you're eliminating Epi from being Kira because Long Con suspected him?

Would you kill someone who was gunning for you on the first night? It's a bit obvious, isn't it?

I'm not Epignosis.

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Without pulling posts, I had the impression that S~V~S and boo were Raye and Naomi. I no longer have that impression.

I will admit that my suspicion of S~V~S was reactionary- S~V~S would not vote for boo without a "smoking gun," but she would vote for me on a whim. While that annoys me, it shouldn't cloud my judgment. I find S~V~S to be awfully inconsistent in practice across the board. I believe that is one source of contention between S~V~S and me, or for that matter, S~V~S and thellama73. She's a "gutter," not a "caser." I can accept that, even if I disagree with her approach and even if I am the victim of that approach.

Obviously, I suspect her for ballooning the detective win condition into basically needing everyone dead to win. But I know she gets paranoid. Drive me insane, but I'm sure I have the same effect.

I think what you all need to start asking yourself is this: What would Kira do without the support of a team? Essentially, we're up against a handful of Serial Killers, one of which has a partner, and some of which that do not even have a kill.

What I mean is this: Rather than go on and on about how someone acted in this game or that game, explore how a person might act by having a vanilla Mafia role (i.e., no BTSC or kill). That person would just be looking to survive until the point when he DOES get the kill, right?

I would advise you all to do your rereads with that in mind.

"I believe she is awfully inconsistent" says the man who has been completely inconsistent.

Yeah, but I'm intentional.

I dunno, but from the cheap seats where I am, being intentionally inconsistent is worse than being unintentionally inconsistent. Which is pretty much how I play my game, I flit around.

What question did you want to ask me about boo, the one you said I did not answer?

Linki @ MM, LC plays and he plays hard. He plays harder on weekdays, though, since weekends=family. So who would want to shut him up? But thanks for volunteering that. You too, Epig. You were already on my list though, so no WIFOM ooooo

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:So you're eliminating Epi from being Kira because Long Con suspected him?

Would you kill someone who was gunning for you on the first night? It's a bit obvious, isn't it?

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:So you're eliminating Epi from being Kira because Long Con suspected him?

Would you kill someone who was gunning for you on the first night? It's a bit obvious, isn't it?

thellama73 wrote:
Would you kill someone who was gunning for you on the first night? It's a bit obvious, isn't it?

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Without pulling posts, I had the impression that S~V~S and boo were Raye and Naomi. I no longer have that impression.

I will admit that my suspicion of S~V~S was reactionary- S~V~S would not vote for boo without a "smoking gun," but she would vote for me on a whim. While that annoys me, it shouldn't cloud my judgment. I find S~V~S to be awfully inconsistent in practice across the board. I believe that is one source of contention between S~V~S and me, or for that matter, S~V~S and thellama73. She's a "gutter," not a "caser." I can accept that, even if I disagree with her approach and even if I am the victim of that approach.

Obviously, I suspect her for ballooning the detective win condition into basically needing everyone dead to win. But I know she gets paranoid. Drive me insane, but I'm sure I have the same effect.

I think what you all need to start asking yourself is this: What would Kira do without the support of a team? Essentially, we're up against a handful of Serial Killers, one of which has a partner, and some of which that do not even have a kill.

What I mean is this: Rather than go on and on about how someone acted in this game or that game, explore how a person might act by having a vanilla Mafia role (i.e., no BTSC or kill). That person would just be looking to survive until the point when he DOES get the kill, right?

I would advise you all to do your rereads with that in mind.

"I believe she is awfully inconsistent" says the man who has been completely inconsistent.

Yeah, but I'm intentional.

I dunno, but from the cheap seats where I am, being intentionally inconsistent is worse than being unintentionally inconsistent. Which is pretty much how I play my game, I flit around.

What question did you want to ask me about boo, the one you said I did not answer?

Linki @ MM, LC plays and he plays hard. He plays harder on weekdays, though, since weekends=family. So who would want to shut him up? But thanks for volunteering that. You too, Epig. You were already on my list though, so no WIFOM ooooo

This one.

Me saying that makes you want to lynch me even more? Ha- you're not even trying. Come on...daughter (phrase sounds stupid when you use the feminine word instead of "son," doesn't it?).

I'm starting to think you still are afraid of me. You shouldn't be. But go ahead and lynch me so you can sleep better. If I *am* good, and you are too, then you lost a decent ally. If you aren't good, then you don't care if I die.

I think you are too concerned with the threat I bring instead of the help. I get that's a risk, but for once, if you ARE a detective, think it through before you help lynch me.

But do what you gotta do. I care not.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:So you're eliminating Epi from being Kira because Long Con suspected him?

Would you kill someone who was gunning for you on the first night? It's a bit obvious, isn't it?

Yes. Becasue then people say,

thellama73 wrote:
Would you kill someone who was gunning for you on the first night? It's a bit obvious, isn't it?

They say it every game. Someone who had strong suspicions of a person is NKed, and everyone says, "Oh, the dead guy suspected RacerX. But RacerX would never do that, it's too obvious." And they move on, leaving RacerX to chortle in his chatroom. Sometimes RacerX IS a civ, so it's cool. Bit sometimes he isn't and he gets away with it ALOT. It happens all the time. I have been RacerX; you have never done that? Ever?

Epignosis wrote:I was struck by FZ.'s thrust at S~V~S for not contributing to discussion. I might vote there again.

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I was struck by FZ.'s thrust at S~V~S for not contributing to discussion. I might vote there again.

This is what you linked me to. Not a question. Can you pretty please with sugar on top quote it?

Linki, yeah, I have done that as well. But saying right off the mark that someone would never do it becasue it is too obvious is a mistake imo.

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I was struck by FZ.'s thrust at S~V~S for not contributing to discussion. I might vote there again.

This is what you linked me to. Not a question. Can you pretty please with sugar on top quote it?

Linki, yeah, I have done that as well. But saying right off the mark that someone would never do it becasue it is too obvious is a mistake imo.

S~V~S wrote:Boom, did you see my very reasonable answer? Would not want you to miss it and think I did not answer it.

S~V~S wrote:

Boomslang wrote:
Finally, there's one other thing that stood out that I don't think has been readdressed:

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S...in case you missed it:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S, I still feel strongly about a vote for FZ. However, these new boo revelations have me atingle. What say you?

I am not voting for boo unless he says something really amazingly bad. While we have some philosophical differences re low posting and whether it's better to get rid of low posters from the perspective of PLAYERS v. ROLES, I am seeing his points more so than I am seeing yours or Llamas regarding Snowman.

What would boo have to do that's amazingly bad to get you to vote for him?

SVS still hasn't given a good answer to that reasonable sounding but very vague claim, which pings me.

What would be amazingly bad? Saying something like, "My kill failed last night" or something of that sort. Really, it was just a remark basically saying it would take a lot of convincing for me to vote for boo. And it would. It would have to be one hell of a smoking gun, becasue I have not seen anything that leads me to believe he is bad. I won't say he's GOOD, but I certainly don't suspect him any more than anyone else at this stage.

S~V~S wrote:That is a post by me. The answer to the question is at the bottom of the post.

And Boom asked that question, not you.

Can you stop being all Mr Mysterious and just ask me the question. This is really freaking obnoxious.

Boomslang wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Boom, did you see my very reasonable answer? Would not want you to miss it and think I did not answer it.

What would be amazingly bad? Saying something like, "My kill failed last night" or something of that sort. Really, it was just a remark basically saying it would take a lot of convincing for me to vote for boo. And it would. It would have to be one hell of a smoking gun, becasue I have not seen anything that leads me to believe he is bad. I won't say he's GOOD, but I certainly don't suspect him any more than anyone else at this stage.

Duly noted. I can't say I'm fully satisfied with that answer, because the example you're giving is basically an example of (forbidden) role outing. I do understand that you have a high standard of proof, and I just hope that carries forward to everyone else in the game.

linki w/TH: Yes, but changing multiple opinions without the presence of significant changes to the available evidence? I've pointed out a pattern of behavior here, not an isolated instance.

S~V~S wrote:OK, ha ha. I missed a question in a busy thread, and when someone pointed it out, I promptly answered it.

the fact that you prodded me to answer a question I had already answered makes me feel you don't read MY posts, so right back at cha.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:What question about boo? I might have missed it in this thread.

You answered later when someone else raised it again.

Matahari wrote:Nit-picking, as a profession, pays very well.

S~V~S wrote:OK, ha ha. I missed a question in a busy thread, and when someone pointed it out, I promptly answered it.

the fact that you prodded me to answer a question I had already answered makes me feel you don't read MY posts, so right back at cha.

I hope you are not accusing me of being personal here, becasue it is not personal.

Linki, well, you are incorrect. So everyone should take all of your opinions with a grain of salt.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:OK, ha ha. I missed a question in a busy thread, and when someone pointed it out, I promptly answered it.

the fact that you prodded me to answer a question I had already answered makes me feel you don't read MY posts, so right back at cha.

I hope you are not accusing me of being personal here, becasue it is not personal.

Linki, well, you are incorrect. So everyone should take all of your opinions with a grain of salt.

I take everything he says wth several grains of salt, knowing that half the time, he doesn't even believe what he's saying, but is trying to get a reaction.

Epignosis wrote:I've said all that I needed to say. I'll be back after the Night post if I'm alive (which I think I will be). Going to watch a little TV.

S~V~S wrote:Wow, TH & MM already voted.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Wow, TH & MM already voted.

Sure did.

I don't believe Epi is being intentionally inconsistent.

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Wow, TH & MM already voted.

Sure did.

I don't believe Epi is being intentionally inconsistent.

You believe he is being unintentionally inconsistent? Or Unintentionally consistent?

Either way it adds up to you not suspecting him. Or am I just a fail at reading?