The Syndicate

Bullzeye wrote:What if I don't want to vote for you, but don't want to go along with any future plans of yours? Y'know, since your big idea was basically to murder a civ. Tbf I'm actually having trouble figuring out exactly what happened but I have some ideas.

This post rings untrue to me.

If you believe that Golden's idea was to murder a civ, why not vote for him?

Golden - I have serious reservations about the role claim you have.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Uh-Oh, Love Comes to Town - Depending on whether this player is from The Syndicate or RateYourMusic, every night it can attempt to seduce a player from the opposite forum. If the target follows Uh-Oh's vote the subsequent day, then it is successfully seduced. Thereafter, all powers that target one player will be redirected to the other. In addition, if one of them is lynched, the other will die in its place. If the seduced player dies first, then Uh-Oh may try to seduce another player.

I'm hesitant here, not only because I believe it's entirely possible Angel could steal a power during any phase they want, Day or Night, but also because of the underlined above. The wording has it "If the target FOLLOWS Uh-Oh's vote the subsequent day"...you voted AFTER Bea in the Day 2 poll, so how is that following exactly?

How is that successfully seducing if all you have to do is wait for your seduced to vote, and then copy them? From the way I understand this role, you would have to vote first, and then bea would have to FOLLOW you.

I don't like this at all.

JJJ - I'll reread our convo about Sorsha in a bit and see what I think. What do you think of Golden's (what I believe to be bogus) role claim?

Matt F wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:What if I don't want to vote for you, but don't want to go along with any future plans of yours? Y'know, since your big idea was basically to murder a civ. Tbf I'm actually having trouble figuring out exactly what happened but I have some ideas.

This post rings untrue to me.

If you believe that Golden's idea was to murder a civ, why not vote for him?

Golden - I have serious reservations about the role claim you have.

I didn't mean to imply that that had been his intention, but it was undeniably the outcome.

I think "following a vote" means to vote the same player during a lynch phase, but that's just my understanding of it.

Hosts, can Angel use his one time dead role power steal at any point during phases or only during the Nights?

Hosts, does "following the vote" in Uh-Oh's case means for the order to be specifically Uh-Oh followed by its seduced?

Warning Sign doesn't redirect anything. The purpose of that role is null if they're dead; it seems like it was designed to give a random player some insight in possibly identifying a town.

So her role doesn't have any effect on this. Since she's dead, we know who Warning Sign was. Some Syndicat will get a message saying that Warning Sign got a vote, but we all know that she got a vote.

Linki: Bullzeye, re: Golden's possible role, the 'follows' could simply mean being on the same vote—and not necessarily contingent on who voted before whom.

Ricochet wrote:Also, are we actually allowed to talk about Uh-Oh and/or Golden in such specific manner?

We aren't infodumping if we do it, because we don't know if he really is that role. We can talk hypotheticals all day er'day.

Ricochet wrote:Also, are we actually allowed to talk about Uh-Oh and/or Golden in such specific manner?

I'm normally the first to call out infodumping and accuse those responsible of being the absolute worst forms of humanity, but I see this situation as okay because nothing has explicitly been said to cause it, rather a particular set of circumstances have lead to people being able to put two and two together. Obviously MP's word is law though.

Strawhenge wrote:Warning Sign doesn't redirect anything. The purpose of that role is null if they're dead; it seems like it was designed to give a random player some insight in possibly identifying a town.

So her role doesn't have any effect on this. Since she's dead, we know who Warning Sign was. Some Syndicat will get a message saying that Warning Sign got a vote, but we all know that she got a vote.

Linki: Bullzeye, re: Golden's possible role, the 'follows' could simply mean being on the same vote—and not necessarily contingent on who voted before whom.

Maybe you misunderstood. You said there's ambiguity if Golden is A or B in the Uh-Oh equation, if connected with bea. But if we now know bea's role (and it's not Uh-Oh), how can there still be ambiguity if Golden is A or B in the Uh-Oh equation?

If Golden is not able to defend his position because of infodumping rules, fine, but I would seriously like to hear everyone's thoughts on my reservations about the role claim.

I don't buy it.

I think the wording is specific. I don't think you really "seduce" someone if all you have to do is wait for them to vote, and then vote after. The wording specifically says "if the target FOLLOWS Uh Oh's vote".

But yeah, if MP would like to clarify, that'd be swell.

Ricochet wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:Warning Sign doesn't redirect anything. The purpose of that role is null if they're dead; it seems like it was designed to give a random player some insight in possibly identifying a town.

So her role doesn't have any effect on this. Since she's dead, we know who Warning Sign was. Some Syndicat will get a message saying that Warning Sign got a vote, but we all know that she got a vote.

Linki: Bullzeye, re: Golden's possible role, the 'follows' could simply mean being on the same vote—and not necessarily contingent on who voted before whom.

Maybe you misunderstood. You said there's ambiguity if Golden is A or B in the Uh-Oh equation, if connected with bea. But if we now know bea's role (and it's not Uh-Oh), how can there still be ambiguity if Golden is A or B in the Uh-Oh equation?

...Oh, right. Haha. Never mind then! Three hours of sleep.

Ricochet wrote:Hosts, can Angel use his one time dead role power steal at any point during phases or only during the Nights?

At any point.

For example, if Angel were to find out a player's role during Night 3, it could elect to use that power immediately at the start of Day 4 if such a power were immediately applicable.

Ricochet wrote:Hosts, does "following the vote" in Uh-Oh's case means for the order to be specifically Uh-Oh followed by its seduced?

Uh-Oh must vote the player first, then the seduced must follow.

However, this does not refer to final tally, but a follow at any time. So if Uh-Oh votes MovingPictures07, for example, and then the seduced player votes for MovingPictures07 after Uh-Oh and Uh-Oh's vote is cast on MovingPictures07 at that time, that's it. If either Uh-Oh or seduced or both moves his or her vote thereafter, it is irrelevant to the fact that the seduced player already followed Uh-Oh's vote.

Ricochet wrote:Also, are we actually allowed to talk about Uh-Oh and/or Golden in such specific manner?

Speculating on why you think someone might be a particular role based entirely on in-thread content is totally OK and not against the rules.

What would qualify as infodumping would be using language that implies outside-of-the-thread knowledge or utilizes non-thread content when speculating, whether intentionally or not.

What I have seen thus far falls under the former category and is acceptable. Just be mindful that infodumping can still be construed as such even if unintentional. If any of you are ever unsure, just ask me and Sloonei, and we will be happy to clarify.

Hope these answers have provided sufficient clarification.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Hosts, can Angel use his one time dead role power steal at any point during phases or only during the Nights?

At any point.

For example, if Angel were to find out a player's role during Night 3, it could elect to use that power immediately at the start of Day 4 if such a power were immediately applicable.

Ah, but it must find out the role first, right? Was the Mafia deprived of finding out K4J's role on Night 1, because of Angel executing the kill?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Hosts, does "following the vote" in Uh-Oh's case means for the order to be specifically Uh-Oh followed by its seduced?

Uh-Oh must vote the player first, then the seduced must follow.

However, this does not refer to final tally, but a follow at any time. So if Uh-Oh votes MovingPictures07, for example, and then the seduced player votes for MovingPictures07 after Uh-Oh and Uh-Oh's vote is cast on MovingPictures07 at that time, that's it. If either Uh-Oh or seduced or both moves his or her vote thereafter, it is irrelevant to the fact that the seduced player already followed Uh-Oh's vote.

Well, I have Golden voting b24 earlier than bea, even if his final vote was after bea. So it sticks.

Ricochet wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Hosts, can Angel use his one time dead role power steal at any point during phases or only during the Nights?

At any point.

For example, if Angel were to find out a player's role during Night 3, it could elect to use that power immediately at the start of Day 4 if such a power were immediately applicable.

Ah, but it must find out the role first, right? Was the Mafia deprived of finding out K4J's role on Night 1, because of Angel executing the kill?

That is correct.

When Angel executes the night kill, it does not learn the role of its target, and consequently cannot steal that player's role power.

Well then. I'm feeling a little better about Golden.

I have some errands I have to go trudge zombie-like through the city to complete. One of them includes caffeine and a bacony/eggy breakfast. I'll catch all of you on the flipside. Of a Talking Heads album. Because

Ricochet wrote:Well, I have Golden voting b24 earlier than bea, even if his final vote was after bea. So it sticks.

Can you provide the posts where Golden voted for b24 and then bea did? If this is the case, then I'll stop my questioning on Golden.

Can you, though? Thanks

MP - Thanks for the clarification.

Golden wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:This lynch is frustrating me because there's so many ways to interpret what happened.

This is ludicrous.

There is only one way to interpret what happened, you know exactly what it is, and everyone who says they want to vote for me tomorrow should be treated with utmost suspicion.

Absolutely not. It is always good to question role claims, and analyze, and see what's what. I'm not going to simply take your word for it.

However, while I'm searching for them myself, if Rico can provide the posts I asked for, then we're good to go.

Matt F wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Well, I have Golden voting b24 earlier than bea, even if his final vote was after bea. So it sticks.

Can you provide the posts where Golden voted for b24 and then bea did? If this is the case, then I'll stop my questioning on Golden.

Can you, though? Thanks

MP - Thanks for the clarification.

Golden first

bea second

Ricochet wrote:

Matt F wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Well, I have Golden voting b24 earlier than bea, even if his final vote was after bea. So it sticks.

Can you provide the posts where Golden voted for b24 and then bea did? If this is the case, then I'll stop my questioning on Golden.

Can you, though? Thanks

MP - Thanks for the clarification.

Golden first

bea second

In that case, Golden would've had to target Bea Night 1.

I'll search his posts Day and Night 1 to see his thoughts on Bea.

Right now, though, looking pretty good, Golden. Don't agree with your approach, though, especially saying people are sus for simply questioning you.

@Matt F - get a load of Bullzeye's posts on me, and ask yourself 'does Bullzeye suspect golden, or is he more interested in discrediting him'.

I'm also looking at someone like Zebra who seems to understand completely, but then wavers about like there are so many explanations... after one possible scum explanation is raised and more or less immediately discredited.

I'm also looking at Devin who said my behaviour reminds me of him when he played a patricular game and was civ... but then continues to want to vote me.

You, I feel completely happy about. I think you are civ and have for a long time. It's not merely suspecting me thats the problem, I just think people should be looking at those who suspect me with a critical eye because I think some of that suspicion is opportunistic and insincere.

Matt F wrote:If Golden is not able to defend his position because of infodumping rules, fine, but I would seriously like to hear everyone's thoughts on my reservations about the role claim.

I have not role claimed or infodumped and I don't intend to.

I will, however, happily help discredit any scum explanations for beas death.

Golden wrote:@Matt F - get a load of Bullzeye's posts on me, and ask yourself 'does Bullzeye suspect golden, or is he more interested in discrediting him'.

See, I obviously don't suspect you. I'm not so much interested in discrediting you as I am saying you don't have much credit in my eyes. I didn't like the attitude with which you pushed this idea we should all lynch you and anyone who didn't want to needed to be looked at as suspicious. I disliked it even more when your genius plan got a civ killed. I'm leaving it at that though, I don't have anything else to say on the matter.

[quote="Bullzeye:]I didn't mean to imply that that had been his intention, but it was undeniably the outcome.[/quote]


You have absolutely intended to imply that several times now.

Golden wrote:@Matt F - get a load of Bullzeye's posts on me, and ask yourself 'does Bullzeye suspect golden, or is he more interested in discrediting him'.

I'm also looking at someone like Zebra who seems to understand completely, but then wavers about like there are so many explanations... after one possible scum explanation is raised and more or less immediately discredited.

I'm also looking at Devin who said my behaviour reminds me of him when he played a patricular game and was civ... but then continues to want to vote me.

You, I feel completely happy about. I think you are civ and have for a long time. It's not merely suspecting me thats the problem, I just think people should be looking at those who suspect me with a critical eye because I think some of that suspicion is opportunistic and insincere.

First, I'd like to apologize for being so open about my questioning in the thread. I legitimately felt like you were playing the town. My bad.

Yeah, I don't know if you saw, but Bullz' post definitely caught my eye, I even quoted and questioned him on it.

I have RBZ pegged as anti-Mafia because of him and LC's "argument" earlier in the game, but that could've been staged. I can see your point.

I don't have a read on Devin, he hasn't posted much. Though you aren't the first to question Devin, I'll go back and reread him.

Golden - What is your honest opinion on Sorsha? Am I tunneling? Should I stop? I feel like I should, but then...I dunno, I don't like it but the town seems to be disagreeing with me, and I don't want to continue that route if it's going to just be a distraction. What are your thoughts on her?

Bullzeye wrote:See, I obviously don't suspect you.

Oh, I do think it is true that you don't suspect me. But only because I think you are scum. It doesn't stop you posting over and over about what a terrible person I am, and how I should never be trusted.

OH, really. You think I'm a civ, but I should never be trusted again because I convinced people to lynch a civilian. Has that never happened before? To you? To anyone? Has it never happened that I've also led lynches on a whole lot of baddies, in games you've played?

"Lets never trust golden, who is clearly a civilian, because of one lynch"...

You have a whole lot of posts to that effect, including before the lynch.

Bullz, I played yesterday the way I did because I absolutely do believe it was the way to break the game open. The way people responded to me and my gambit has created a huge amount of content. The scum had a massive advantage yesterday - they had seven people who knew I wasn't bad and my guess is that they had probably more or less figured out what the outcome of yesterday was going to be, and I'm sure it parlayed into specific behaviours around that lynch.

linki @Matt F - My view on Sorsha is legitimately what I said yesterday. I think the evidence is good - in terms of Dr Wilgy's analysis of her voting patterns etc. I think thread Sorsha sounds civilian. She wouldn't be my first choice to pursue, and there is a reason I had her as 'town' in my gun to head read (my gut says good) but I also can't begrudge tunnelling on her because, as I say, the voting evidence is strong. But voting evidence isn't always necessarily the best evidence...

As proven by Wilgy putting every person through his massive formula, and giving me the most scum points.

I think scum are wise to not getting too many scum points (ie visible tells of being teammates), and if you were to look at Wilgy's formula I am willing to bet the bulk of the scum are in the middle somewhere.
Your behaviour, before and after, was easily the most bothersome to me.

Also, bullz, if you do believe I'm civ, then what is the civilian value of your posts towards me post-lynch?

Golden wrote:Your behaviour, before and after, was easily the most bothersome to me.

Are you speaking to me or Bullz with this? I'm guessing Bullz, but just wanted to clarify.

I'm going to give Devin a read right now.

Golden - What's your gut say about Roxy?

This Must Be The Place (Naive Melody) - Help Golden out tonight, hmmm?

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:See, I obviously don't suspect you.

Oh, I do think it is true that you don't suspect me. But only because I think you are scum. It doesn't stop you posting over and over about what a terrible person I am, and how I should never be trusted.

I've mentioned the whole situation four times since the lynch, three of which have been as replies to other people talking to me about it. You're really overreacting to my opinion. I've not said either of those things.

Golden wrote:OH, really. You think I'm a civ, but I should never be trusted again because I convinced people to lynch a civilian. Has that never happened before? To you? To anyone? Has it never happened that I've also led lynches on a whole lot of baddies, in games you've played?

"Lets never trust golden, who is clearly a civilian, because of one lynch"...

You have a whole lot of posts to that effect, including before the lynch.

I referenced you four times in the day, mostly questioning your logic and saying I didn't want to follow you. Not once in the day did I accuse you of malicious intent. The closest I got to criticism was saying that you weren't acting in anybody's best interests. I'm also not saying you should never be trusted again.

Golden wrote:Bullz, I played yesterday the way I did because I absolutely do believe it was the way to break the game open. The way people responded to me and my gambit has created a huge amount of content. The scum had a massive advantage yesterday - they had seven people who knew I wasn't bad and my guess is that they had probably more or less figured out what the outcome of yesterday was going to be, and I'm sure it parlayed into specific behaviours around that lynch.

What I am saying is that if you truly are the role people have attributed to you, then you are directly responsible for the death of a civ and should accept blame. You should accept that your actions were not beneficial to the town by the simple fact they reduced our numbers. You either believed she was bad, and were wrong, which is forgiveable but still not something to celebrate, or you willingly sacrificed a civilian in order to further your own agenda. That isn't cool with me at all.

I think you're seriously overreacting to what I've said and exaggerating it to fit your own beliefs about how people should be acting toward you. My initial comment in the night was designed to provoke you to explain yourself and admit fault. Nothing more, nothing less.

Golden wrote:Also, bullz, if you do believe I'm civ, then what is the civilian value of your posts towards me post-lynch?

Does there have to be a civilian value? Can I not be saying things for my own benefit? I do believe you're a civ, I'd have to be blind not to see it. That doesn't mean I'm pleased that you killed a civ to earn status.

Strawhenge wrote:

Golden wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:The only role I'm seeing that could possibly be what you mean is Uh-Oh, Love Comes to Town, which would mean that you 'seduced' bea to the RYM side. So, since you were lynched, bea died in your place.

well it turns out this wasn't hard at all if you aren't actively trying to slow town down like some are

Ricochet wrote:Also, are we actually allowed to talk about Uh-Oh and/or Golden in such specific manner?

i have to look at this suspiciously after you had a go at me for not knowing the rules and using it as a cover up
i don't get why or how you'd ever think we cant even mention someones possible roles!
but you've really held up town here and for no good reason.
and you wonder why i've been frustrated!

woops i messed up that quote. i wrote the thing that golden is credited as writing there and strawhenge wrote what rbz wrote.

Golden wrote:I'm also looking at someone like Zebra who seems to understand completely, but then wavers about like there are so many explanations... after one possible scum explanation is raised and more or less immediately discredited.

Again, get off your high horse. I was talking about the lynch in general. Just because you had something to conceal does not mean you are the one possessing the most information. You are not an encyclopedia and the game does not revolve around you.

seaside wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:

Golden wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:The only role I'm seeing that could possibly be what you mean is Uh-Oh, Love Comes to Town, which would mean that you 'seduced' bea to the RYM side. So, since you were lynched, bea died in your place.

well it turns out this wasn't hard at all if you aren't actively trying to slow town down like some are

Ricochet wrote:Also, are we actually allowed to talk about Uh-Oh and/or Golden in such specific manner?

i have to look at this suspiciously after you had a go at me for not knowing the rules and using it as a cover up
i don't get why or how you'd ever think we cant even mention someones possible roles!
but you've really held up town here and for no good reason.
and you wonder why i've been frustrated!

I am not Matt F.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

seaside wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:

Golden wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:The only role I'm seeing that could possibly be what you mean is Uh-Oh, Love Comes to Town, which would mean that you 'seduced' bea to the RYM side. So, since you were lynched, bea died in your place.

well it turns out this wasn't hard at all if you aren't actively trying to slow town down like some are

Ricochet wrote:Also, are we actually allowed to talk about Uh-Oh and/or Golden in such specific manner?

i have to look at this suspiciously after you had a go at me for not knowing the rules and using it as a cover up
i don't get why or how you'd ever think we cant even mention someones possible roles!
but you've really held up town here and for no good reason.
and you wonder why i've been frustrated!

I am not Matt F.

I don't understand. Do you believe I've been holding up the town?

Reads lists, anyone?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Reads lists, anyone?

I have Golden and Elohcin down as civvie.

RBZ as maybe anti-Mafia.

RussT as definitely anti-Mafia.

I'm not sure on anyone else in the game, either way. I'm going out to eat in a few, but will make a list soon, I promise.

Btw Golden, unless you really don't want to, can you tell me who your top three suspects are, please? I'd really like to know that before the Night is over. Thank you!

Matt F wrote:I don't understand. Do you believe I've been holding up the town?

Nah I was just pointing out that seaside attributed a quote to me that was in fact yours.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Reads lists, anyone?

During the night phase? Fuck no.

Matt F wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Reads lists, anyone?

I have Golden and Elohcin down as civvie.

RBZ as maybe anti-Mafia.

RussT as definitely anti-Mafia.

I'm not sure on anyone else in the game, either way. I'm going out to eat in a few, but will make a list soon, I promise.

Btw Golden, unless you really don't want to, can you tell me who your top three suspects are, please? I'd really like to know that before the Night is over. Thank you!

What's the difference between anti-Mafia and civvie? The only non-civ non-Mafia is the SK, who is anti-everyone.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Reads lists, anyone?

During the night phase? Fuck no.

---

Hosts, is the seduced by Uh-Oh informed by you that he's been seduced?

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

Matt F wrote:I don't understand. Do you believe I've been holding up the town?

Nah I was just pointing out that seaside attributed a quote to me that was in fact yours.

Looked at his quote, and if that's not your quote, that's cool, but I don't think it's mine, either. I did bring up Uh Oh, but not the way seaside quoted. Not that it matters either way, just want to clarify.

Bullz - anti-Mafia means possibly civvie, possibly SK

My bad, I could've sworn it was you.

Matt F wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

Matt F wrote:I don't understand. Do you believe I've been holding up the town?

Nah I was just pointing out that seaside attributed a quote to me that was in fact yours.

Looked at his quote, and if that's not your quote, that's cool, but I don't think it's mine, either. I did bring up Uh Oh, but not the way seaside quoted. Not that it matters either way, just want to clarify.

Bullz - anti-Mafia means possibly civvie, possibly SK

Right. So you don't think they're baddies but haven't ruled them out as being the indy? I hope you don't consider the SK pro-civvie though?

Matt F wrote:

Golden wrote:Your behaviour, before and after, was easily the most bothersome to me.

Are you speaking to me or Bullz with this? I'm guessing Bullz, but just wanted to clarify.

Yes, Bullz.

As for Roxy - my gut is good, but I think she would have gotten equally snippy at Diiny early on no matter her alignment. For Roxy, her self-governing rules for how she plays are two things... 1) they are genuinely her doing things the way she thinks is right to play (like looking after newbies, for instance) and 2) They are a great way to remain reasonably consistent regardless of alignment.

@zebra - my horse is the perfect height. It's you who keeps claiming I think everything revolves around me, but what is it about that lynch that you see so many explanations for? I didn't see your explanation for that post before my two posts about it, but now that I have - I'd like to know more. Because I agree with you that there is a lot of material around it to analyse, and I think that's a good thing.

My top 3 scum picks right now, not in any particular order:

Bullz, Choutas, Devin.

Bullzeye wrote:

Matt F wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

Matt F wrote:I don't understand. Do you believe I've been holding up the town?

Nah I was just pointing out that seaside attributed a quote to me that was in fact yours.

Looked at his quote, and if that's not your quote, that's cool, but I don't think it's mine, either. I did bring up Uh Oh, but not the way seaside quoted. Not that it matters either way, just want to clarify.

Bullz - anti-Mafia means possibly civvie, possibly SK

Right. So you don't think they're baddies but haven't ruled them out as being the indy? I hope you don't consider the SK pro-civvie though?

The SK certainly can be considered pro-civvie at least until the end of the game.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Matt F wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

Matt F wrote:I don't understand. Do you believe I've been holding up the town?

Nah I was just pointing out that seaside attributed a quote to me that was in fact yours.

Looked at his quote, and if that's not your quote, that's cool, but I don't think it's mine, either. I did bring up Uh Oh, but not the way seaside quoted. Not that it matters either way, just want to clarify.

Bullz - anti-Mafia means possibly civvie, possibly SK

Right. So you don't think they're baddies but haven't ruled them out as being the indy? I hope you don't consider the SK pro-civvie though?

The SK certainly can be considered pro-civvie at least until the end of the game.

Not in my book. SKs are only pro-civvie when they know you've caught them out and they're desperate to be allowed to live.

Bullzeye wrote:Right. So you don't think they're baddies but haven't ruled them out as being the indy? I hope you don't consider the SK pro-civvie though?

Well, considering I use the term "anti-Mafia" as opposed to "civvie" or "pro-civvie", no, I do not consider the SK pro-civvie.

What's with this line of questioning? You think I'm the SK, Bullz?

Golden - Much appreciated on your thoughts on Roxy, as well as your scum picks.

Off to eat, I'll be back in about an hour or so.

Peace!

Matt F wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Right. So you don't think they're baddies but haven't ruled them out as being the indy? I hope you don't consider the SK pro-civvie though?

Well, considering I use the term "anti-Mafia" as opposed to "civvie" or "pro-civvie", no, I do not consider the SK pro-civvie.

What's with this line of questioning? You think I'm the SK, Bullz?

Golden - Much appreciated on your thoughts on Roxy, as well as your scum picks.

Off to eat, I'll be back in about an hour or so.

Peace!

I don't think you're the SK, I think you're too smart to trust the SK. I just wanted to make sure.

Golden wrote: @zebra - my horse is the perfect height. It's you who keeps claiming I think everything revolves around me, but what is it about that lynch that you see so many explanations for? I didn't see your explanation for that post before my two posts about it, but now that I have - I'd like to know more. Because I agree with you that there is a lot of material around it to analyse, and I think that's a good thing.

I thought you had finished contradicting yourself, but I guess not. First you use my post suggesting that there is a lot of ways to interpret what's going on as a means to suggest that I might be scum for implying that your gambit was a fraud, and now you're in agreement with me.

Anyway, this is not something I would like to elaborate on until some time has passed.

linki @Bullzeye - So why do I often see players discuss games that have been over for months discussing their SK roles and claiming that at least in their minds, they were pro-civvie? I don't agree with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality myself, but picking a side is in the SK's best interest. Whether that side is good or bad is relative, and no alliance is eternal.

Trust no one. It's cliche but it is the truth.

@zebra - "I didn't see your explanation for that post before my two posts about it".

You had to explain your post for me to understand you were not talking about me. Now that I understand that, yes my perception of that post has completely reversed. Would you prefer that I tunnel?

Why do you continue with posts like that last one? What are you trying to achieve? Do you actually want me to understand your posts and talk about them? Or are you more interested in just throwing shade around?

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Reads lists, anyone?

During the night phase? Fuck no.

Who cares? The killers will kill whoever they want, and if any lists townies might make influence their choice then good. I love dictating baddie kills as a townie.

Whatever though, I'm too lazy to play right now. Still recovering from last night's dissertation.