The Syndicate

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:17 pm**

Can we get anything out of nijuukyugou, Spacedaisy, or Tranq? Doesn't it feel like at this point in the game we should be able to have some sort of read on any of them? Hasn't Tranq not claimed business as an excuse, opposed to the other two of them?

Tranq wrote:
sig wrote:The people voting for me are either lurkers who voted for the largest lynch wagon or people I've suspected or Mac who thinks he can read my scum game but can't.
Did i vote for the wrong player?

Does this feel kind of sarcastic/mocking to anyone else? Do we have anything else to go off of regarding Tranq?

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:18 pm**

Long Con wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Long Con wrote:Llama is saying "buddying", and Sorsha is saying "intentional NK target". Pretty different accusations for the same thing. I just don't think Sorsha's is a thing.
You don't think baddies will paint targets on civs? Try to make them look like super civs so the other team might take them out?
No, I don't recall ever seeing that. The dynamic for an idea like that might be different for a game like this where NK'ed roles are revealed, but the way I see it, the reasons for baddies pointing out Civs in the thread are to do some buddying, and to get some cred after their role is revealed.

Trying to direct the other baddie team's kill by calling a Civ a Civ seems like it could backfire. Maybe the other baddie team will read it as YOU are a Civ who is doing bold things out there, and kill you instead.

I suppose.. there are different ways to look at it. I think it could be a tactic. Just like distancing oneself from a kill.

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:20 pm**

Boomslang wrote:Can we get anything out of nijuukyugou, Spacedaisy, or Tranq? Doesn't it feel like at this point in the game we should be able to have some sort of read on any of them? Hasn't Tranq not claimed business as an excuse, opposed to the other two of them?

Tranq wrote:
sig wrote:The people voting for me are either lurkers who voted for the largest lynch wagon or people I've suspected or Mac who thinks he can read my scum game but can't.
Did i vote for the wrong player?
Does this feel kind of sarcastic/mocking to anyone else? Do we have anything else to go off of regarding Tranq?

The only thing I have to go off of for Tranq right now is his meta. In the last game he was really quiet in the beginning and stepped it up at the end, by that time he was recruited to a baddie team but he started as a civ.

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:28 pm**

About to leave work, responding to just this for now...

FZ. wrote:I'm interested in your thoughts on Mac. The one game I played with him as bad, he was the baddie that fooled me the most in that game. So what does baddie Mac look like?

Mac is pretty aggressive and flexible no matter what his role is, so it's hard to completely fit him to a simple scum meta for me, but I'd say his cases don't look genuine to me this game. For example, I just gave the examples earlier about how with my supposed defenses of juliets, sig, and Matt, Mac quickly jumped to call me a scumbuddy of them every time. He didn't seem interested in arguing with my point, just trying to test the waters and see to whom a scum accusation would hold. Additionally, the things he was lambasting them for were all usual things that had already been said; sig was attacked for being unclear and confusing, juliets was attacked for being waffly/overly-cautious, etc. Mac is an attack dog even as town, but I don't buy much of anything he's said.

juliets wrote:I though Mac and Rico had a good point but does this make her bad? It might show us a little about her mood, but not necessarily that she is bad.

Looking at this, I think this is another point against Mac too. LoRab says "So that's 2... folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game", Mac acts as if he's completely certain she said "So that's 2... folks who have said they were the same role they were in a prior game" and blamed her for not being clear, which is the same kind of flak she would later take from Sorsha. I think the most cogent arguments Mac made were during day 0/1 with Zebra and Ricochet, and that's not a good look unto itself considering that if Mac is scum, it would explain them as fabricated.

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:36 pm**

Boomslang wrote:Can we get anything out of nijuukyugou, Spacedaisy, or Tranq? Doesn't it feel like at this point in the game we should be able to have some sort of read on any of them? Hasn't Tranq not claimed business as an excuse, opposed to the other two of them?

Tranq wrote:
sig wrote:The people voting for me are either lurkers who voted for the largest lynch wagon or people I've suspected or Mac who thinks he can read my scum game but can't.
Did i vote for the wrong player?
Does this feel kind of sarcastic/mocking to anyone else? Do we have anything else to go off of regarding Tranq?

Or possibly he was the victim of the Draconus curse on day two. Has anyone got it today?

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:42 pm**

Sorsha, how do you feel about Dom?

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:45 pm**

Tranq what are you thinking? Who are you suspicious of?

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:49 pm**

Golden what game was it when you totally got shafted for "putting a hit out" on somebody. I think llama?

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:51 pm**

Nice new profile pic Sorsha.

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:52 pm**

DharmaHelper wrote:Golden what game was it when you totally got shafted for "putting a hit out" on somebody. I think llama?

Nope it was G-Man in Recruitment mafia

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:56 pm**

DharmaHelper wrote:Golden what game was it when you totally got shafted for "putting a hit out" on somebody. I think llama?

Recruitment, and it was epi I was deliberately trying to set up. I don't actually know that me putting a target on epi actually had anything to do with the success, though, but I got lynched for admitting that it was what I was trying to do. I wouldn't say I got 'shafted', but I did get myself in a position where several people couldn't see any possible explanation for that except being bad.

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:57 pm**

DharmaHelper wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Golden what game was it when you totally got shafted for "putting a hit out" on somebody. I think llama?
Nope it was G-Man in Recruitment mafia

Not G-Man

I still owe G-Man a good turn for being Balaam to my Lot.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:05 am**

I'm getting a similar vibe from what Sorsha is saying regarding you intentionally putting a target on Fuzz as to what SVS said in Recruitment about you asking for that NK

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 12:06 am**

HamburgerBoy wrote:About to leave work, responding to just this for now...

FZ. wrote:I'm interested in your thoughts on Mac. The one game I played with him as bad, he was the baddie that fooled me the most in that game. So what does baddie Mac look like?
Mac is pretty aggressive and flexible no matter what his role is, so it's hard to completely fit him to a simple scum meta for me, but I'd say his cases don't look genuine to me this game. For example, I just gave the examples earlier about how with my supposed defenses of juliets, sig, and Matt, Mac quickly jumped to call me a scumbuddy of them every time. He didn't seem interested in arguing with my point, just trying to test the waters and see to whom a scum accusation would hold. Additionally, the things he was lambasting them for were all usual things that had already been said; sig was attacked for being unclear and confusing, juliets was attacked for being waffly/overly-cautious, etc. Mac is an attack dog even as town, but I don't buy much of anything he's said.

juliets wrote:I though Mac and Rico had a good point but does this make her bad? It might show us a little about her mood, but not necessarily that she is bad.
Looking at this, I think this is another point against Mac too. LoRab says "So that's 2... folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game", Mac acts as if he's completely certain she said "So that's 2... folks who have said they were the same role they were in a prior game" and blamed her for not being clear, which is the same kind of flak she would later take from Sorsha. I think the most cogent arguments Mac made were during day 0/1 with Zebra and Ricochet, and that's not a good look unto itself considering that if Mac is scum, it would explain them as fabricated.

I get that. I haven't been present in the thread as much as I would like so my play has lacked a certain lustre. I haven't been set off by as many people as usual either, probably because the collection of players we have in this game are all playing very tight and my style of scum hunting is based on expanding on tone and gut reads that I get. I haven't seen as many here. But even if I was bad, I would be genuinely hunting the other team so there's no reason for my arguments to not be genuine.

I said he is pinging me the same way Motel Room pinged me in Tree, which is asking questions that seem to serve no purpose. The post you quoted, Matt was asking questions that seemed to serve a purpose. He seemed very passionate about his retorts and iirc he was talking about something he had already elaborated on. I think there is a distinct difference between Matt's usual line of questioning and these out of context post script questions we're seeing here. I still don't feel like he had a good reason to prompt Golden and myself to discuss Epignosis and especially the way he loaded up my "disagreeing" with Epignosis regarding Lorab.

I'll try to be more productive if I make it to the weekend. This week at work I am at deadlines on a bunch of projects.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:09 am**

I wasn't attacking your productivity, I seem to see you posting every time I'm online, and then some. I think you've gone after plenty of people too; it's not a quantity issue I have. I don't agree that Matt's questioning was fake just because it seemed obvious. Here are some earlier-game examples prior to when he really started getting heat. Maybe it seems pointless, maybe it is pointless, but at worst you have a guy pretending to contribute while not, and imo it's more just his playful style to rib people a bit and make sure they're really certain about whatever Matt's probing them over. It's definitely not biggest-scumspect-of-day-3 material for me.

You're also operating on the assumption that there definitely is another team. If that's true then I'd expect anti-town team #1 to aim for team #2 and vice versa, yes, but then I'd also expect a bit more focus. A member of mafia team #1 obviously can't drop BTSC info both due to rule violations and outing themselves, but then I'd expect them to try and build a very detailed case against someone to convince others to join. Or, if I were in that position, maybe I'd just save it for my night kill and not risk outing myself at all. In A World Reborn I was probably a little more brazen in scum-hunting than my teammates, in part largely thanks to your help in identifying juliets as being on the other team, but iirc during a lot of the lynches they didn't want to let on too obviously that we were onto them. Vice versa was probably true too; I was nightkilled out of the blue that game, and most people had a civ read on me, but when the thread ended SVS said something happened that told them that I was Circle of Death (probably MetalMarsh's spirit animal telling him there was danger nearby when we shared BTSC). tl;dr dealing with an enemy scum team isn't always as easy as just hunting them like you would as a townie.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:17 am**

I have been less attentive and that is why you are seeing my cases as being somewhat phoned in. I may still have a significant post count but I can assure you that I have been less attentive than usual.

HamburgerBoy I'd like to hear Matt's defense of my points. He hasn't addressed them as far as I can see. Him letting you do all his defending is pinging the shit out of me and tbh it's making me feel better about you because I don't think a scum buddy would defend a scum buddy so hard. Him letting you is not what I would expect a civilian Matt to do. I would expect civilian Matt to be OMGUSing me.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:45 am**

I was pages behind due to exams today (and other bullshit like a burst pipe this morning under the house).

As I go along:

Matt wrote:Epignosis, please give a simple civ/baddie/indy/unsure response of the following players...

Golden, FZ, 3J, and Metalmarsh.

Thank you for your cooperation.

No.

You're welcome.

Matt wrote:Mac, I think Epig is quite possibly one of those Mafia folk. Because reasons. I'd like to see his response to my inquires before I go further.

I am quite possibly one of those Mafia folk. Good job.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis: I might be willing to join your LoRab crusade. I'd also like to know what you think of other matters in the game though, your read on her is the only one of yours that I could state without checking.

Might be willing? Why?

What other matters?

DharmaHelper wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote: Epi and I have two distinct, different styles of playing. What he finds suspicious and what I find suspicious differ in almost every game we play. I also clash frequently with his methods of going after his suspects. I don't want to get into another pitfall of me and Epi talking through each other for 50 pages.

You should still do it at least once per year.
It's played out. And more often than not just leads us both in a circle with adverse effects on everyone else.

You missed your period.

FZ. wrote:I would like to hear more from Epi and BR regarding other suspicions, as well as hear from Juliets about any suspicions now that Sig is dead.

I'm confident you are not bad. How's that?

Golden wrote:2) You keep overstating things. In epi's terms, this might be 'use of adverbs' but I'd also say adjectives and other intensifiers. Things like "Fuzz was obviously killed because...", "golden has repeatedly", "golden has heaped glowing praise". These intensifiers have the effect of making your points look like facts, when in reality they are overstating the facts (or, in some cases, assuming them entirely).

That doesn't apply to him. That's actually how llama talks in real life. And writes. I have one of his novels.

Despite that flaw, I mean to get his latest one because it sounded cool.

Golden wrote:The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.

Nope.

I carried the civilians in Talking Heads by making sure I was suspected off and on. I wasn't the main reason we won, but I was a critical periphery.

Finally, does anybody know how many people failed my little test? It's pretty sad.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:51 am**

@Epi I thought you were directing that specifically at HB. Had I known you were testing everyone I would have blatantly mocked you.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:53 am**

Eh, I come about and everybody fucks off somewhere else.

That's all right. I'll see you tomorrow. Exams exshmams.

DharmaHelper wrote:@Epi I thought you were directing that specifically at HB. Had I known you were testing everyone I would have blatantly mocked you.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 1:56 am**

Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.
Nope.

I carried the civilians in Talking Heads by making sure I was suspected off and on. I wasn't the main reason we won, but I was a critical periphery.

Were you more important than the other civilians who died instead because you had a powerful role, or merely because you are Epi?

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:02 am**

Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.
Nope.

I carried the civilians in Talking Heads by making sure I was suspected off and on. I wasn't the main reason we won, but I was a critical periphery.
Were you more important than the other civilians who died instead because you had a powerful role, or merely because you are Epi?

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:03 am**

Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.
Nope.

I carried the civilians in Talking Heads by making sure I was suspected off and on. I wasn't the main reason we won, but I was a critical periphery.
Were you more important than the other civilians who died instead because you had a powerful role, or merely because you are Epi?

Yes to both. It was a time when I had an amazing role and played it to the best of my ability. I am proud of my performance in that.

The point being, there is a mentality to staying alive even if civilians win as a group.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:27 am**

So, re-reading llama's post history, particularly the day 3 stuff, the biggest issue I have isn't what he's saying as much as how he's staying on this one "target painting" issue, not to mention focusing just on golden rather than considering that many people were leaning town on Fuzz after the early day 0 stuff. llama is at least consistent though; he pressed the same suspicion of golden day 1 so it's not like he came up with this view only just now. I still find Dom's day 0 intention to vote for llama among the most suspicious things against the latter. I don't trust Dom in this game, and that early stuff looked like transparent distancing/soft-bussing to me. The other thing would be the word of Syndicate players that know what town llama looks like; FZ and golden both look fairly sure, I'm not too suspicious of either of them, and I also trust both quite a bit when it comes to their meta-game. llama isn't my top pick, but I feel keeping my vote here for now isn't a bad idea.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:30 am**

Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.
Nope.

I carried the civilians in Talking Heads by making sure I was suspected off and on. I wasn't the main reason we won, but I was a critical periphery.
Were you more important than the other civilians who died instead because you had a powerful role, or merely because you are Epi?
Yes to both. It was a time when I had an amazing role and played it to the best of my ability. I am proud of my performance in that.

The point being, there is a mentality to staying alive even if civilians win as a group.

I agree. If I have a powerful role, I will play the game in a way I think might keep me alive.

But, lets say in that game, I called someone else 'my top town read'. Lets say, Fuzz. If you are the one with the amazing role, is it now in the civs interests that I did that?

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:34 am**

HamburgerBoy wrote:So, re-reading llama's post history, particularly the day 3 stuff, the biggest issue I have isn't what he's saying as much as how he's staying on this one "target painting" issue, not to mention focusing just on golden rather than considering that many people were leaning town on Fuzz after the early day 0 stuff. llama is at least consistent though; he pressed the same suspicion of golden day 1 so it's not like he came up with this view only just now. I still find Dom's day 0 intention to vote for llama among the most suspicious things against the latter. I don't trust Dom in this game, and that early stuff looked like transparent distancing/soft-bussing to me. The other thing would be the word of Syndicate players that know what town llama looks like; FZ and golden both look fairly sure, I'm not too suspicious of either of them, and I also trust both quite a bit when it comes to their meta-game. llama isn't my top pick, but I feel keeping my vote here for now isn't a bad idea.

It also goes to show that llama was well aware of how he could play this out if he killed Fuzz. And, to my way of thinking, makes the way he has played today look even more disingenuous, given he played the start of the day as if he didn't know who had called Fuzz civ and had to go reread the thread to find out.

That's a good find, I'd forgotten that llama had ever said that stuff.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:55 am**

Epignosis wrote:Might be willing? Why?

What other matters?

I spoke about my current suspicions in a recent post. Just click on the post history if you care, it's an ass pain for me to dig up on the phone.

I'm just trying to haggle for more data from you. I don't care what you talk about. Anything beyond what is already clear (your desire to lynch LoRab). Your previous post is a nice start.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:40 am**

I don't have much time today, so I'm not quoting

It would really help if we knew if there were two mafia teams or just one, for many reasons.

First' there's Lorab's reply to my accusation that her answer to Black Rock (that she is suspicious of HB) was not genuine. She claims that when she is bad, she buddies up to the civvies and defends them, which is what she thinks HB is doing. Since we don't know if there are 2 groups or 1, this is a weird reason to suspect someone. If there are two teams, even if HB is bad, he probably doesn't know if she is on the other team or not. Why would he defend her instead of trying to find the other baddies to look like he's the civviest of them all? Unless Lorab knows there's only one team, that reply does not do anything to make her look better.

Second, this whole painting a target on a civvie issue, again, has different view points depending on whether there are two groups or one. If a person paints a target on a player he does not know for sure is a civvie, it can backfire in many ways. So this whole conversation relies on the fact those involved knew Fuzz was definitely a civvie. I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think it's that likely either.

My biggest problem with llama, is not the issue of his suspicion of Golden, which I don't agree with (I can agree that sometimes, hammering that a person is a civvie might paint a target on his back, especially when there is one mafia group, but not this early on, and I definitely don't agree that it makes Golden look bad). I asked llama why he feels different to me than his normal civ game, and now I'll say what I think his civ game is like, and people can tell me if they see it or not.

Often, when llama is suspected he tends to disregard those accusations with a kind of condescending remark like "you don't scare me", and the likes. He similarly addresses his suspicions in that way as well. For example, I remember a game when he was very suspicious of me (I think it was death note), where he just said something like "nobody is buying what you're selling". When he builds a case, he quotes a lot and shows how those quotes lead to the person being bad. He tends to be cocky in his suspicions, thinking he can't be wrong, or even if he can be wrong, still push his suspicion until he gets his lynch, when he feels someone is bad.

I am not seeing any of that here. I've waited and waited, and even asked him if there's a reason he could think of, to why I don't feel he's being his usual civ. His answer that he's more busy does not explain the attitude. It can explain less posts and maybe less involvement, but I assume the attitude would still be there when he found something he didn't like. Right now, it just looks like he's leaning on what Golden says and replies to him, instead of leading the conversation and pushing him.

Can those familiar with llama's game please tell me if they see what I see?

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:41 am**

HamburgerBoy wrote:Sorsha, how do you feel about Dom?

I haven't noticed what I think is his civ tell yet.... that usually comes out when he's getting votes or is under a lot of pressures high he hasn't really been so far yet.

I don't have any issue with what he's said so far this game though.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:31 am**

Is my gif in the sig working? Tell me it's just my shitty S5. I'm at work and freaking out here!

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:32 am**

Ricochet wrote:Is my gif in the sig working? Tell me it's just my shitty S5. I'm at work and freaking out here!

I see your Death Grips.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:48 am**

Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Golden wrote:The game is 'whole team wins'. No civilian should care if they die for looking too civilian. I do not, personally, care about dying in this game if it ultimately is in the name of winning the civilians the game. The name of this game is not 'survive', its get your team the win. For this reason, figuring out who the civs are is important. Trying to keep to yourself any idea of what looks like civilian behaviour and why is directly harmful to the civilian cause.

There is literally no scenario I can fathom in this game in which the best interests of a civilian is not to call out who their civilian reads are.
Nope.

I carried the civilians in Talking Heads by making sure I was suspected off and on. I wasn't the main reason we won, but I was a critical periphery.
Were you more important than the other civilians who died instead because you had a powerful role, or merely because you are Epi?
Yes to both. It was a time when I had an amazing role and played it to the best of my ability. I am proud of my performance in that.

The point being, there is a mentality to staying alive even if civilians win as a group.
I agree. If I have a powerful role, I will play the game in a way I think might keep me alive.

But, lets say in that game, I called someone else 'my top town read'. Lets say, Fuzz. If you are the one with the amazing role, is it now in the civs interests that I did that?

Given that set of data alone, no. However, a number of people will have expressed their opinions on who is good, just as they have here. Kill any one of those, and does your rationale still hold up?

The entire "somebody killed Fuzz because I said he was my top town read" is based on speculation. Unless you are Mafia, you don't know why Fuzz was killed. Two other people got killed at the same time. When I'm bad, I kill people for the whole gamut of reasons: He was putting his nose where it didn't belong, I thought he was on the other team, nobody would trace the kill back to me, my teammates like that option better than my suggestion, it'll mess with their heads, I literally pulled his name out of a hat, or maybe just because I owed the bastard one.

So I'm not entertaining this business about Fuzz getting killed because someone said he was good. Y'all can keep up with that if you want to. I'm going to do work.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:55 am**

Also, RIP Severus Snape. Second death this week at the age of 69 due to cancer.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:03 am**

Golden wrote: NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.

Except someone did, so you're wrong.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:09 am**

Epignosis wrote:Also, RIP Severus Snape. Second death this week at the age of 69 due to cancer.

RIP Hans Gruber.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:17 am**

Also, am I the only one who noticed that Golden said civilians shouldn't care if they die? That might be the craziest thing I've ever heard anyone assert in a mafia game. I guess civ night powers mean nothing and don't contribute to the victory, and being able to post in the thread and vote is pointless.

I'm sorry, but that's just insane.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:23 am**

thellama73 wrote:Also, am I the only one who noticed that Golden said civilians shouldn't care if they die? That might be the craziest thing I've ever heard anyone assert in a mafia game. I guess civ night powers mean nothing and don't contribute to the victory, and being able to post in the thread and vote is pointless.

I'm sorry, but that's just insane.

That's not what he means.

A town full of survivalists does not win in this format barring extreme good fortune. Teamwork is needed, which implies openness and transparency (within reason depending upon role strength). Reading players as town, as a collective, drives process of elimination. Otherwise everyone is trying to solve the game on their own and it doesn't work.

In a game with survival win conditions it would be different.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:24 am**

thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.
Except someone did, so you're wrong.

If you're positive Fuzz died because of Golden calling him civ (wait, wasn't him buddying with Fuzz the issue earlier??).

This is starting to stink of Recruitement, when Golden was hounded for behaviour that others could not fathom. And the main hound was top bad...

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:25 am**

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.
Except someone did, so you're wrong.
If you're positive Fuzz died because of Golden calling him civ (wait, wasn't him buddying with Fuzz the issue earlier??).

This is starting to stink of Recruitement, when Golden was hounded for behaviour that others could not fathom. And the main hound was top bad...

Stupid mobile post writing.

if youre positive blabla ... prove it*

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:34 am**

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.
Except someone did, so you're wrong.
If you're positive Fuzz died because of Golden calling him civ (wait, wasn't him buddying with Fuzz the issue earlier??).

This is starting to stink of Recruitement, when Golden was hounded for behaviour that others could not fathom. And the main hound was top bad...

Of course I'm not positive. But the facts are hta several people, most prominently Golden, went on record as being extremely confident that Fuzz was civ, and the next night he died. Maybe there's no connection, but that's not what I believe. It's a shame SVS is hosting and not playing. She is usually the first to call people out for target painting and completely agrees with me on this. Right, SVS?

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:36 am**

Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Also, RIP Severus Snape. Second death this week at the age of 69 due to cancer.
RIP Hans Gruber.

That's the first I heard about this. This week really sucks

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:45 am**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Also, am I the only one who noticed that Golden said civilians shouldn't care if they die? That might be the craziest thing I've ever heard anyone assert in a mafia game. I guess civ night powers mean nothing and don't contribute to the victory, and being able to post in the thread and vote is pointless.

I'm sorry, but that's just insane.
That's not what he means.

A town full of survivalists does not win in this format barring extreme good fortune. Teamwork is needed, which implies openness and transparency (within reason depending upon role strength). Reading players as town, as a collective, drives process of elimination. Otherwise everyone is trying to solve the game on their own and it doesn't work.

In a game with survival win conditions it would be different.

I guess I just have a fundamental disagreement with you both about gameplay.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:45 am**

thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Golden wrote: NOONE WILL DIE BECAUSE I CALL THEM A CIV. And to suggest that this is in any way true is ridiculous.
Except someone did, so you're wrong.
If you're positive Fuzz died because of Golden calling him civ (wait, wasn't him buddying with Fuzz the issue earlier??).

This is starting to stink of Recruitement, when Golden was hounded for behaviour that others could not fathom. And the main hound was top bad...

Of course I'm not positive. But the facts are hta several people, most prominently Golden, went on record as being extremely confident that Fuzz was civ, and the next night he died. Maybe there's no connection, but that's not what I believe. It's a shame SVS is hosting and not playing. She is usually the first to call people out for target painting and completely agrees with me on this. Right, SVS?

Your previous post expressed no uncertainty.
As Epig pointed out, there were three kills. If a bad team or an SK had two kills, he had plenty of room for maneuver to pick his victims. Except the great Papryco. You're basically up to three kills prove a point about a single killing mentality. Com'on

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:46 am**

Stream done, sleep obtained. Posting to get to "All posts in this topic" because I'm lazy, beginning catchup process.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:47 am**

On the otheeer haaand

I've never seen Golden pull the gun so fast. Even in Recruitement he took the stabs and mostly bled out, until finally barking back at the hounders. This time he was just A-HA.

You know what let's lynch em both. We got two Days at our leisure for this.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:48 am**

RadicalFuzz wrote:Stream done, sleep obtained. Posting to get to "All posts in this topic" because I'm lazy, beginning catchup process.

WOWIE!!!

...wut

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:48 am**

My bad, I am dead, should've checked that first

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:58 am**

For what it's worth I think you should stay. You seem pretty cool.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:59 am**

Do I think consensus town reads are more likely to be night killed than a non-consensus town read? Yes, slightly. Just slightly. There are a ton of kill motives and that is one of them.

Do I think town benefits from a concerted effort to avoid that more than they suffer for it? Absolutely not.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:10 am**

We're 9 hours to the deadline and I'm set to be lynched.

That's dumb. Those who've voted for me or vote for me later bear an obligation to explain why, and if LC's case is a significant reason they need to show me why my response was inadequate. Anything less is opportunistic bullsuit. LC not included in this demand, I've already talked to him enough.

Posted: **Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:11 am**

thellama73 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Llama, what is your read on me?[/quote
Civ.

Based on what?

The Syndicate

Day 12 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions

Re: Day 3.0 ~ 2015 Game of Champions