The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:As fun as these vocaroo posts are, they are no longer a legal form of posting. How else are people supposed to play mafia while shirking their work duties?

I believe JJJ mentioned something about people locking themselves in the bathroom to record or listen. That could work.

Epig and Fuzz, you still haven't voted. Vote Watari, we could use some advantage.

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote: Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

BOTD'ing someone simply because of patterns repeating themselves? Hmm.

*checks how low on the red scale Draconus was placed*

not low enough, it seems

Why is that bad?

MacDougall wrote:

Draconus wrote:Hello again! I am here But not quite I promise! Just entered super busy season for work, but I'm going to try and keep up. Sooooo.... FWIW, Here are the people I won't be voting for on day 1 so far:

Radical Fuzz: He's a strange one. But I see what he's trying to do with his initial post.

Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

I did not realize how short this list would be when I started it. I'm also surprised to see how many people have little to know content in this game (myself included )

So you immediately refute two major candidates, offer none of your own, and then recant under pressure from Wilgy pressing his smallpeen up against you in a crowded room and apparently now you will vote for Fuzz.

U bad. So bad.

Who's recanting under pressure? I'm still not voting for Fuzz unless better reasons come to light. And all I'm doing here is eliminating possibilities for my Day 1 vote.

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote: Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

BOTD'ing someone simply because of patterns repeating themselves? Hmm.

*checks how low on the red scale Draconus was placed*

not low enough, it seems

Why is that bad?

Because if X draws baddie role this time (or any future time), X could bank precisely on you feeling that you're seeing the same stuff he did back when he was civvie.

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote: Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

BOTD'ing someone simply because of patterns repeating themselves? Hmm.

*checks how low on the red scale Draconus was placed*

not low enough, it seems

Why is that bad?

Because if X draws baddie role this time (or any future time), X could bank precisely on you feeling that you're seeing the same stuff he did back when he was civvie.

This is what is called meta.

What Draconus really said is, the behaviour people are finding suspicious conforms to LoRab's civilian meta, so isn't inherently suspicious. Don't you think that is a valid point? Or do you think judging people based on their meta is as a rule not helpful because people are able to reproduce their civilian meta when bad?

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote: Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

BOTD'ing someone simply because of patterns repeating themselves? Hmm.

*checks how low on the red scale Draconus was placed*

not low enough, it seems

Why is that bad?

Because if X draws baddie role this time (or any future time), X could bank precisely on you feeling that you're seeing the same stuff he did back when he was civvie.

I understand that. But does being uncomfortable with voting for Lorab after lynching her as a civ in the last game we played together for the same reasons being brought up now make me bad? I'm sure I'm missing punctuations in that sentence

Linki: Precisely.

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote: Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

BOTD'ing someone simply because of patterns repeating themselves? Hmm.

*checks how low on the red scale Draconus was placed*

not low enough, it seems

Why is that bad?

Because if X draws baddie role this time (or any future time), X could bank precisely on you feeling that you're seeing the same stuff he did back when he was civvie.

This is what is called meta.

What Draconus really said is, the behaviour people are finding suspicious conforms to LoRab's civilian meta, so isn't inherently suspicious. Don't you think that is a valid point? Or do you think judging people based on their meta is as a rule not helpful because people are able to reproduce their civilian meta when bad?

I don't think it's that much of a valid point, given the person we're talking about - but I'm not particularly interested in exploring this subject right now.

Not sure I fully understand your second question, but I can acknowledge a player's meta, but when that meta is implacable, what previously confirmed the player as genuinely civilian could easily be a easy facade to use when baddie. So meta becomes a weak analytical weapon.

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote: Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

BOTD'ing someone simply because of patterns repeating themselves? Hmm.

*checks how low on the red scale Draconus was placed*

not low enough, it seems

Why is that bad?

Because if X draws baddie role this time (or any future time), X could bank precisely on you feeling that you're seeing the same stuff he did back when he was civvie.

I understand that. But does being uncomfortable with voting for Lorab after lynching her as a civ in the last game we played together for the same reasons being brought up now make me bad? I'm sure I'm missing punctuations in that sentence

Linki: Precisely.

Your post read more like "I'm seeing nothing that I haven't seen before and it turned out civ, so not looking at it any differently now" rather than addressing whether to vote someone or not.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote: Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

BOTD'ing someone simply because of patterns repeating themselves? Hmm.

*checks how low on the red scale Draconus was placed*

not low enough, it seems

Why is that bad?

Because if X draws baddie role this time (or any future time), X could bank precisely on you feeling that you're seeing the same stuff he did back when he was civvie.

This is what is called meta.

What Draconus really said is, the behaviour people are finding suspicious conforms to LoRab's civilian meta, so isn't inherently suspicious. Don't you think that is a valid point? Or do you think judging people based on their meta is as a rule not helpful because people are able to reproduce their civilian meta when bad?

I don't think it's that much of a valid point, given the person we're talking about - but I'm not particularly interested in exploring this subject right now.

Not sure I fully understand your second question, but I can acknowledge a player's meta, but when that meta is implacable, what previously confirmed the player as genuinely civilian could easily be a easy facade to use when baddie. So meta becomes a weak analytical weapon.

I'm not saying meta is necessarily a great analytical weapon. But you aren't disagreeing with Draconus' point because you find it weak. You are calling Draconus bad for pointing out LoRab's civilian meta (as he knows it). I don't understand or see your thought process on that at all.

Let me put it another way. The way I see your posts is this. You agree with (or do not directly refute) Draconus' assertion that LoRab is conforming to her civ meta. But you think either LoRab, or Draconus, or both could be bad because 'just because LoRab reproduces her civ meta does not mean she is civ'. How does this make sense? The same could be said of any person.

Why do you find Draconus bad for stating his perspective of LoRab's meta? What is suspicious or pingworthy about that?

Hey everyone , wow 7 pages in night zero. I'm voting for the only role I recognize.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Hey everyone , wow 7 pages in night zero. I'm voting for the only role I recognize.

You played Death Note but don't recognize Watari?

Just caught up on a few pages.....

Not finding LoRab's behavior this game suspicious... So far anyway.

The point on Fuzz is a little ping worthy atm, something I'll keep in mind for day one.

Stop with the vocaroo. This is not a vocaroo Mafia.

I have no new suspicions to speak of right now, watching a few more recent developments before I weigh in though.

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote: Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

BOTD'ing someone simply because of patterns repeating themselves? Hmm.

*checks how low on the red scale Draconus was placed*

not low enough, it seems

Why is that bad?

Because if X draws baddie role this time (or any future time), X could bank precisely on you feeling that you're seeing the same stuff he did back when he was civvie.

This is what is called meta.

What Draconus really said is, the behaviour people are finding suspicious conforms to LoRab's civilian meta, so isn't inherently suspicious. Don't you think that is a valid point? Or do you think judging people based on their meta is as a rule not helpful because people are able to reproduce their civilian meta when bad?

I don't think it's that much of a valid point, given the person we're talking about - but I'm not particularly interested in exploring this subject right now.

Not sure I fully understand your second question, but I can acknowledge a player's meta, but when that meta is implacable, what previously confirmed the player as genuinely civilian could easily be a easy facade to use when baddie. So meta becomes a weak analytical weapon.

I'm not saying meta is necessarily a great analytical weapon. But you aren't disagreeing with Draconus' point because you find it weak. You are calling Draconus bad for pointing out LoRab's civilian meta (as he knows it). I don't understand or see your thought process on that at all.

Let me put it another way. The way I see your posts is this. You agree with (or do not directly refute) Draconus' assertion that LoRab is conforming to her civ meta. But you think either LoRab, or Draconus, or both could be bad because 'just because LoRab reproduces her civ meta does not mean she is civ'. How does this make sense? The same could be said of any person.

Why do you find Draconus bad for stating his perspective of LoRab's meta? What is suspicious or pingworthy about that?

I don't think Draco is "pointing out LoRab's civilian meta", I think he says he ain't gonna lend an ear to her sussers, because what he sees is what he saw in a previous game and that's that. Again, it mostly depends on the players themselves, but in the case, in Draco's place, I would not rush to the same conclusion, because of what I said one quote above: what I saw in a previous game as "civilian meta" could work just as well as smokescreen for any future times the player would be bad. So I can't rely on this meta in particular.

So I guess what I'm basically finding Draco bad for is taking an easy way out of a debate, bwahaha.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Hey everyone , wow 7 pages in night zero. I'm voting for the only role I recognize.

HIGUCHIIIIII

DharmaHelper wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Hey everyone , wow 7 pages in night zero. I'm voting for the only role I recognize.

You played Death Note but don't recognize Watari?

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Draconus wrote: Lorab: I went after her in A World Reborn for the exact reason people are looking at her now. I regretted it. Nuf said.

BOTD'ing someone simply because of patterns repeating themselves? Hmm.

*checks how low on the red scale Draconus was placed*

not low enough, it seems

Why is that bad?

Because if X draws baddie role this time (or any future time), X could bank precisely on you feeling that you're seeing the same stuff he did back when he was civvie.

I understand that. But does being uncomfortable with voting for Lorab after lynching her as a civ in the last game we played together for the same reasons being brought up now make me bad? I'm sure I'm missing punctuations in that sentence

Linki: Precisely.

Your post read more like "I'm seeing nothing that I haven't seen before and it turned out civ, so not looking at it any differently now" rather than addressing whether to vote someone or not.

Well, I can't exactly say you're wrong there. Couldn't lynching someone twice in a row for the same reason expecting a different result be classified as insane, though? I'm not saying she is definitely 100% civ because she's doing the same thing she did in the last game. That's not it. I'm saying I want new evidence, a new reason to vote for her if/before I do vote for her.

Linki: But.... that was pointing out her metta... Just not in so many words.

Sorsha wrote: Stop with the vocaroo. This is not a vocaroo Mafia.

This. Some of us are in places where we can't play sound, and it's not fair to hide your content from us in that way. Very suspish.

Ricochet wrote:Epig and Fuzz, you still haven't voted. Vote Watari, we could use some advantage.

Oh, huh. What?

I'm sorry, I'm still listening to atrociously recorded bullshit.

Why, yes I am working on the third Epignosis album. Why do you ask?

Epignosis wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Epig and Fuzz, you still haven't voted. Vote Watari, we could use some advantage.

Oh, huh. What?

I'm sorry, I'm still listening to atrociously recorded bullshit.

Why, yes I am working on the third Epignosis album. Why do you ask?

"Watari" option. Click on that. Click submit.

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Epig and Fuzz, you still haven't voted. Vote Watari, we could use some advantage.

Oh, huh. What?

I'm sorry, I'm still listening to atrociously recorded bullshit.

Why, yes I am working on the third Epignosis album. Why do you ask?

"Watari" option. Click on that. Click submit.

Watari going to do?

I'll also add that Rico has my attention, not sure what to think of him so far but he's a bit pingy with the antics so far.

Sorsha wrote:I'll also add that Rico has my attention, not sure what to think of him so far but he's a bit pingy with the antics so far.

I can do this all game long.

Sorsha wrote:I'll also add that Rico has my attention, not sure what to think of him so far but he's a bit pingy with the antics so far.

Why else wouldn't he have your attention? He's practically on a chainsaw juggling tricycles.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I like MacDougall. Some thoughts about LoRab.

Quotes referenced:

Spoiler: show

Quote 1:

LoRab wrote:I need to wrap my brain around this game. I don't think I've played a champions game before--although I did co-host one. Cupcakes FTW!! Just got back from vacation...way too tired to think through what roles are included and how that decision may have been made. Will ponder after sleep. To do so earlier would be scandalous.

Quote 2:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:The trick to day 1 is... don't read the posts, read the tone. Lorab especially reads tone bad. I can feel the backspaces she wrote as she second guessed her way into a fumbly first post. She bad, def bad.

Linki: I also analysed those options in Star Wars. I got no beef with you analysing the options, but you dived in so dramatically and are taking it so seriously. It's hard to say where my magical day 1 pings come from, but they are definitely magical.

I not, def not. That was painful to type.

You've never played a game with me bad--how do you know how to read my tone? Oh, and wait, you thought I was bad last game, too. And were wrong. Just saying.

Quote 3:

LoRab wrote:Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.

I enjoyed the format, but see the points against it. And, relatedly, can't remember what I was going to say in response to this because I can't look back at the quote. But, in general, I'll say that I write for a living--about 3/4 of my job is writing. I'm generally careful with language, or at least I try to be. This has come up a few times now, but it doesn't make me bad. It's just how I write. Like in every game I play, the suspicions against me are incorrectly reading my posts. But, eye me all you want. *twirls* (oh, and I think the green things are scarves)

DFaraday wrote:All these posts are making me hate the word "scandalous." :P

LoRab wrote:Deciding not to overthink and just vote. Especially because votes are changable.

Voted Ezekiel because rabbi--I mean, he's in the bible, and even in the half of it I believe in as sacred text.

The Old Testament is closer to 2/3 of the Bible in terms of books/pages. I just wanted an excuse to use Pedantic Pink.

I tend not to over think these polls, but I think the point LoRab made that the role included would likely not be a Mafia role is a good one, unless this poll has no reward attached, in which case it wouldn't matter if the baddies knew about the role.

I don't think I've ever played with RadicalFuzz before, but he is definitely acting weird here.

Also I voted for Finn because that was the only one of these games I played.

But the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament are not identical; there are books that are included in OT that are not in a Hebrew Bible (that's the actual definition of apocrypha...I won't even get started on pseudepigrapha.

Long Con wrote:Oh. Well, that is pretty crappy for those of us whose speakers are currently dead... or for people on phones with no headphones... or for people playing in church... or about a thousand other reasons why listening to audio can complicate things for people.

I'm now going to start imagining that all of my congregants are checking mafia during services. Thanks./orange

Epignosis wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I'll also add that Rico has my attention, not sure what to think of him so far but he's a bit pingy with the antics so far.

Why else wouldn't he have your attention? He's practically on a chainsaw juggling tricycles.

I bet he has a saw butt.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Hey everyone , wow 7 pages in night zero. I'm voting for the only role I recognize.

You played Death Note but don't recognize Watari?

I have the worst memory.

I'm okay with vocaroo but only if metalmarsh is the only one allowed to use it.

Ricochet wrote:A current update of my rainbow list, hopefully less bloated and arbitrary this time.

Ricochet

DharmaHelper

MacDougall

thellama73

DharmaHelper

JaggedJimmyJay

Epignosis	a2thezebra	Hamburger Boy	Bass_the_Clever
Boomslang	bcornett24	Spacedaisy	Draconus
dfaraday	LoRab	Sorsha	nijuukyugou
Metalmarsh	Juliets	RadicalFuzz	Dom
sig	Matt	Tranq	Dr. Wilgy
Golden	Timmer	Elohcin

Black Rock

Long Con

DharmaHelper

Cute

Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

I only agree to this plan if Metalmarsh is included.

Update #tree

oopsie

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

I only agree to this plan if Metalmarsh is included.

Lynch 4 players on day 1? Yes please.

Mods?

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

I only agree to this plan if Metalmarsh is included.

You already know where my vote's going on Day 1.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

I only agree to this plan if Metalmarsh is included.

You already know where my vote's going on Day 1.

Inconsequentially onto a random player for no apparent reason?

Matt post more scum guy so I can convince everyone u bad.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Hey everyone , wow 7 pages in night zero. I'm voting for the only role I recognize.

You played Death Note but don't recognize Watari?

I played Death Note and had no freaking clue what was what.

Lamest Game of Champions Night 0 ever.

Fixed.

Ricochet wrote:Update #tree

Metalmarsh89

MacDougall

DharmaHelper

thellama73

DharmaHelper

Epignosis	a2thezebra	Hamburger Boy	Bass_the_Clever
Boomslang	bcornett24	Spacedaisy	RadicalFuzz
dfaraday	LoRab	Sorsha	nijuukyugou
Ricochet	Juliets	Draconus	Dom
sig	JaggedJimmyJay	Matt	Tranq
Golden	Timmer	Elohcin	Dr. Wilgy
Black Rock	Long Con	DharmaHelper

Linki: Guess again, MacDougall.

Well, I'm off for the night, too tired and have too many discussion and chat tabs open to be able to stay focused.

Ricochet wrote:Well, I'm off for the night, too tired and have too many discussion and chat tabs open to be able to stay focused.

Rico has mafia chat open confirmed.

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

I only agree to this plan if Metalmarsh is included.

Or we could just lynch Metalmarsh and be done with it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Fixed.

Ricochet wrote:Update #tree

Metalmarsh89

MacDougall

DharmaHelper

thellama73

DharmaHelper

Epignosis	a2thezebra	Hamburger Boy	Bass_the_Clever
Boomslang	bcornett24	Spacedaisy	RadicalFuzz
dfaraday	LoRab	Sorsha	nijuukyugou
Ricochet	Juliets	Draconus	Dom
sig	JaggedJimmyJay	Matt	Tranq
Golden	Timmer	Elohcin	Dr. Wilgy
Black Rock	Long Con	DharmaHelper

Linki: Guess again, MacDougall.

Turnip Head?

Epignosis wrote:Lamest Game of Champions Night 0 ever.

Really? Wow Game of Champions Night 0s must generally be awesome.

Epignosis wrote:Lamest Game of Champions Night 0 ever.

That's acceptable, since this is the first ever (and thus only) Game of Champions Night 0. :P

So what you're saying is that Epi=bad and that it is confirmed?

Black Rock wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

I only agree to this plan if Metalmarsh is included.

Or we could just lynch Metalmarsh and be done with it.

What's a Syndicate game if I'm not lynched Day 1 and you aren't killed Night 1?

Linki: Not really. His statement was accurate, since no other Game of Champions Night 0 has been more lame than this one.