The Syndicate

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 3:18 pm**

G-Man wrote:

Nobody thinks you're cursed anymore bub. The jig is up!

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 3:18 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 3:19 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 3:20 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 3:23 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 3:24 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 3:25 pm**

This is fun.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 3:42 pm**

What the Hell. I'm going to sleep.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 3:46 pm**

G-Man wrote:

So... Do you want me to vote you right now, or after you try to explain why you have been trolling us for the entire game?

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 3:54 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 4:01 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:07 pm**

How much later?

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:10 pm**

If I wake up tomorrow and don't see a decent explanation, he's getting my vote.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:15 pm**

MovingPictures07 wrote:Golden 2.0:
- While I think you had some interesting thoughts/analysis on Roxy, and thank you for that, you did not note that Roxy has done the same thing as she did to you (Golden was civ!! How could you guys not tell?) with both TinyBubbles and splints (directed to me) as well. What do you make of that?

I don't feel it was the same thing, at least the TB stuff specifically doesn't make me feel icky. It's more in the 'neutral' part of my read. What really bugs me about Roxy's stuff about me, reading it back, is the incredulity she demonstrated after I died, like everyone else who knew me was stupid for not defending me, especially given I actually felt people who knew me actually had stuck up for me, almost all if not all. With TB she never really had that, she just defended her while alive. With splints, obviously she is not dead, but it still feels off to me (I actually did address the splints stuff, but looking back now I see it is somehow INSIDE the quote box of all the JJJ stuff - quote fail, so anyone who reads my case on Roxy please note a whole lot of stuff inside that box is actually my commentary).

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:16 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:18 pm**

MovingPictures07 wrote:Before I talk about some other ideas I've had regarding players, I have some questions for all of you guys.

Everyone:
- How are you reading G-Man, under the assumption that he is cursed somehow to post in only pictures?
- How do you read G-Man, if instead you were to find out with certainty that he is NOT cursed to post in only pictures, that it was self-inflicted?

G-Man's discussion with DDL yesterday are a big part of why I'm now intending to look a lot more firmly at DDL. I think G-Man caught him red-handed in a contradiction, and I did not like DDL's responses to that at all. But I'm going to do a reread of that.

Mostly, my view on G-Man comes from the fact that his vote timing for BR makes him look good.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:19 pm**

fingersplints wrote:I am not angry or distressed and I am still getting suspicion. So not sure why you say I am only calm when I am not getting suspected. I don't think you know me well enough to keep generalizing my behavior like this. There is a shit ton of my posts that haven't been 'emotional' as well.

I completely disagree with your last paragraph. Why would it benefit a mafia to appear irrational in the thread?

No, I don't know you, which is why I'm trying to make a read on you. It's the only way.

I'm just saying what I perceive. You seem to be pretty quick to get angry when people are suspecting you, most of the time.

And as for the last question, depends on how it's done. A full emotional breakdown wouldn't do mafia any favors. But looking angry when suspected may be useful to make the mafioso look legit.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Regarding fears of me being alive:

I don't think my "rep" has any meaning in this game, where only a quarter of the players know me. Otherwise i'm just a guy with a lot of posts and average involvement in one mafia lynch.

I think it's less about your rep and more about the way you're playing. You are pretty much leading the game.

G-Man wrote:
]

Don't you think this would require a glorious level of bussing from my part?

acrosstheaether wrote:It's funny how in this game my side is the direct opposite of my political ideology IRL.

Tell me about it. I wasn't even sad when they told Hayek was thrown out of a window. The bastard had it coming.

I mean Hayek, not Golden.

#teamkeynes

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:20 pm**

MovingPictures07 wrote:I also have some doubt about Golden 2.0, not sure what to make of him.

Please, ask questions.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:21 pm**

Golden wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Before I talk about some other ideas I've had regarding players, I have some questions for all of you guys.

Everyone:
- How are you reading G-Man, under the assumption that he is cursed somehow to post in only pictures?
- How do you read G-Man, if instead you were to find out with certainty that he is NOT cursed to post in only pictures, that it was self-inflicted?
G-Man's discussion with DDL yesterday are a big part of why I'm now intending to look a lot more firmly at DDL. I think G-Man caught him red-handed in a contradiction, and I did not like DDL's responses to that at all. But I'm going to do a reread of that.

Mostly, my view on G-Man comes from the fact that his vote timing for BR makes him look good.

While you're at that, please tell me what you think about the wall of text I wrote about you.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:22 pm**

G-Man wrote:

James T. Kirk hates in-laws.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:24 pm**

Take your time, G-Man. Real life is sacred.

But you better have a really good explanation because right now you're somewhere between the "scummier than scum" and the "kill it before it lays eggs" tiers of my imaginary rainbow list.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:25 pm**

as i suggested before in a failed OT text post, i'll be unable to say much for a while. but i'll be following along while i deal with my other business, so if anyone has a question for me or something just get my attention. maybe post my full username in all caps and a bright color or something.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:36 pm**

TH

Spoiler: show

Turnip Head wrote:First of all Golden, I am in agreement with basically all of your "Against" and "Neutral" points about Roxy.

Golden wrote:In favour

She did seem reasonably consistent in her suspicion of BR, but didn't vote that way.

After my read back, the one thing that I think is very much in roxy's favour is that I did not notice anything which was inconsistent. In fact she has been very consistent, even to the extent of several pings where she has mentioned the same people several times. My impression of Roxy is that if she had a rainbow list it would barely have shifted over the course of the game. I'd be most interested to know if her view on TH has changed today.
You have these in your "In favour" portion of analyzing Roxy, but I have them in my "Against" pile. Roxy did comment on how BR was acting suspiciously unlike herself, but what she didn't do is pursue it with any of the sort of aggression that you saw her have when making other points (which, as I'm about to demonstrate below, is mostly defending players she thinks are civs and accusing their accusers).

As for the second point quoted here, it's again another thing I think is suspicious of Roxy. She is very consistent, too consistent. She's saying all the right things, but sometimes at the wrong times. It's why I think she's holding a few more cards than the rest of us. It's something I did myself when I was bad in the Champs game.

Let me take you back to Day 1, Golden 2.0, because this all was actually something I tried to discuss with you back then that I think you had missed.

(First quote is from Day 1, it's in spoiler tags because of length but I needed to quote the whole thing for context)

Spoiler: show
Roxy wrote:
Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:My thoughts so far - a few newbies (DDL, JJJ, sanmateo, sloonei) are running straight into a drive by lynch of one of them. Not that I support that, I just feel like it's what you risk by generating so much discussion here on day one.
if our conduct to this point has been that unusual by Syndicate standards, i would urge caution in those who'd perceive it negatively by default. "generating so much discussion on Day 1" is honestly exactly how i'd describe the most productive town approach (indeed, i truly struggle to imagine it being perceived as inherently suspicious). if it's abnormal here, very well. i look forward to seeing the reception we get from the other regulars.
I agree that discussion is the most productive approach. But I didn't mean people would find it inherently suspicious, and don't want to discourage it from occurring. Rather, just that drive by votes can happen here (especially on day one), and visible people are easier targets to manufacture a case on. Right now, I think you guys are already in a place where it would be very easy for others to come in and make the day one conversation only about the four of you, and guarantee by doing that that one of you would be lynched.

I just wanted to get in and discourage that from occurring before it did. If others come in and begin to form opinions about the four of you, perhaps it will begin to help us all form opinions about a wider range of people.
I agree and I will not vote for a new player on Day 1.
I do not see the harm in discussing them though obv.

Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:i am finding myself liking DDL's defenses, particularly the most recent. he is earnestly trying to describe a Day 1 strategy that is inherently a bit volatile but potentially highly productive for a townie. i am particularly familiar with what he is describing because i employ a similar approach myself. i like that he is willing to play a little dangerously, because dangerous play generates controversy and thus meaningful and readable content from others. it isn't terribly townie behavior, in my opinion, to play tentatively merely for the sake of alleviating suspicion upon oneself. welcoming a little suspicion with the promise to create a bonafide Mafia game right away in Day 1 is good play.

good strategy doesn't imply innocence of course. but i like that he is open about his methods, and his descriptions do seem to reflect both his posts so far and the way others have perceived him.
Do you want to know what I look for?

Sockit2me - I agree with everything you said about playing on other sites and it refeshing your spirit for you home site. It is true. New people/New styles really energize my mafia play.

Black Rock wrote:How is Gman cursed already?
Idk if it is what is happening here but I play on a lot of different sites and Day 1 curses (in fact all game curses) do exist. Maybe Russ has picked up some new stuff for his game. I played a game where the player could only say 'I am Groot' for the entire game - it was insanity - no smileys or images were allowed.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Metalmarsh, why do you think I'm your main scum candidate? I see you quoting a lot of people and making quick agreements/disagreements on them, but I'dlike to see what YOU think. In your opinion, what makes you think me as a mafia?

i'm saying this because I'm seeing a slowly bandwagon forming on me, and if that's true, I might as well try to spot the mafiosos who are likely being part of it. Now, some players, like sanmateo and Epi, have attacked me directly. But other, like you, Sloonei, cross and Elohcin, seem to be content in just agreeing with them and slowly join the bandwagon without elaborating much. That is, in my opinion, a prime scum behavior.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:It's true. Unfortunately, at the Syndicate, you cannot win a game as a civilian unless you survive to the end of the game, or you have some other secret win condition that is fulfilled. Thus, survival is important to civilians, as well as finding mafia.
Wait, what? This is terrible lol. This completely goes against the spirit of the game, imo. Which is that townies should work together to find scum and prioritize the team's victory over their own survival. If this is true, then I suppose it probably encourages the people on this site to be the game badly.

I mean, if all my effort to catch scum will be rendered moot since I might get day 1 lynched for putting myself in the spotlight, then I might as well shut up and try not to be too productive instead, if only to maximise my chances of survival. Seriously, this is beyond terrible.
Of the 4-5 players that got this game rolling, I found your comments to be more fluffy than some others'. JJJ is on my radar too, but for different reasons. I don't know why he thinks that he should be suspected for the same reasons as you. You are twp different players playing two different games. I don't see a corollation in your games at all.

And I agree about the win conditions. I am not a fan, but I will say that not every host does it. There is a little discretion involved sometimes, but that is the usual practice. Some hosts, like MovingPictures07, will include secret win conditions in every players' role, so that they can still be met even if the player dies. It's not unlike your win condition in Monogatari Mafia, if I remember correctly.
In almost every game I host every townie wins if the town wins. splints can correct me if I am misremembering.

Sloonei wrote:It's not that high posters "have less to hide", it's that people should have less room to hide if they're being forced to talk and answer questions they don't want to answer.
I disagree in a nice way bc you are new.

High posters make it harder to find their true thoughts in walls-o-texts epsecially if they just pull quotes and slap a couple of sentences after each to make it seem like they are trying. Making a reread far less likely to happen by some players. Low posters have nothing to hide behind in their few posts and usually respond when directly questioned. So feel free to question any player and guage them on their responses and not the quanity of their posts. Quality > Quanity any day imo.

Turnip Head wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think it's pretty dangerous that people are taking the notion that one of the 5 players to kickstart the game MUST be scum as a foregone conclusion. That encourages a narrower focus of suspicion not only in Day 1, but in all ensuing days until the alleged scum is identified.

There's more to Mafia than mere probability.
I agree.

Consequentially, I'm voting for Golden. I think he's bad news this game.

This vote vote twitched my nose badly - its still twitching :o
This is your second in game post and the first on topic post. You have given no. reason or clarity for your vote - classic drive by - why?
Note that she starts the post by agreeing with Golden - it was a small point, about not voting for new players on Day 1. Then ends the post talking about how I gave no reasoning for my vote for Golden.

This is the next post that both me and Roxy make on the topic of my Golden vote:
Roxy wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I guess the difference is I'm being obviously un-TH like and Golden feels like he's trying to hide it.

I can elaborate when I get home tonight but if you're interested in looking into it just read his filter.
I for one cannot wait for this elaboration.
I feel the opposite about Golden.
I thought this was a strongly worded reaction for how she felt about Golden given only a handful of posts had occurred up to this point in time. Now yes, as the Day wore on Golden looked more and more civvie, but this was early in the game, right after my early vote. At many points in this game, Roxy has felt like she's playing with TMI about players. Golden 1.0 was firmly a civ in her mind after only one or two posts.

Here's where I asked Golden 1.0 about Roxy's attitude towards him:
Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:So, why does that make me bad enough to vote for?
Weird way to phrase the question but anyways...

It doesn't make you bad enough to vote for. It just makes you enough to vote for on Day 1 to get some reactions. I think we've gotten a few, haven't we?

If you had to vote right now for the person you most think is bad, who would you vote for?
Epignosis. He reminds me of Keeler Epi, and that's the only person I can fit plum into a previous experience of them being bad.
The thing is that Epi makes these same sorts of moves just as often when he's a civ. He'll dissect dinner excuses and root out the baddie lie, even if it isn't there.

I don't mind being on the hook. My vote was certainly bold.

What did you think of Roxy's strong defense of you? She said she was feeling just the opposite as I was, that this was regular Golden we're seeing... have you looked at her comment from her point of view re: your meta, just as you analyzed my POV re: your meta?
Roxy's vote for me:
Roxy wrote:I am torn betwixt TH and Metalspammer.

I have not previously spoken about the Spamming Newt so I will be laying a vote on TH. I did not like his vote or reasoning he later expressed.

I have zero time til. I am home
Interesting that she voted me over MetalMarsh because she "had not previously spoken" about him. Also interesting that MM died that very night, and so she never had to elaborate.

But what's also interesting to take away from this is that she voted for me because she disagreed with me.

This happened again here, shortly after Night 3 started (Roxy missed the BR lynch):
Roxy wrote:Sorry to have missed the vote I had work and family issues to resolve.

splints made her case from the begining - some said she had tunnel vision otherssaid she was not actively pursuing baddies now suddenly she is bussing someone????

Does anyone read my posts about her?? I am sooooo surprised at MP, he knows her as well as me and should know that this is her civ game. I am not liking what he is saying.
Splints has given us our first mafia in a lynch and you all think she is bad after gunning for BR since Day 1!
on anyone who srsly ursues her for lynch.
Roxy defends splintsy strongly against MP, with vague wording like "this is her civ game", and that others should know it. Roxy then heaps all of the credit for the BR lynch into splintsy's lap, and gives the eye to anyone who disagrees with her.

The whole suspecting people she disagrees with stands out to me, as I think it's an easy way to generate fake reads, especially in a game this talkative.

First things first - I dunno why I put the BR thing in 'for' - other than it being late and my brain being tired. I completely agree it's against.

I also agree with the fact her suspects are people who disagree with her.

And looking back at her 'please elaborate' post in context - it came before I'd even had a chance to respond to your vote, so yes I definitely see where you are coming from on that. My memory was that this came after I'd done the 'what does TH know about my meta' post but it came before.

Yeah, I can't see me voting anyone but Roxy today. You've put your finger on some of the 'gut' stuff that makes me feel she is bad well.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:43 pm**

MovingPictures07 wrote:Lastly, I got a bit of a chuckle at Rox painting my posts as "hostile" and isn't sure whether she deserves it. I don't sincerely believe she thinks that, and I'm all the more ready to vote for her, but I'll at least give her a chance to defend herself tonight.

Idc if you do not think it read as hostile it was hostile and even a bit rude. (shall I pull the quotes?) and more over I am done just lynch me and then lynch you next. I am tired of explaining when all you have to do is read my posts then the roles. Something you are not capable of. All you are capable of is drowning out others with your 1000 questions in your million posts.

I am hot and tired and Idngaf about mafia when people are acting like bullies on a playground instead of playing a GAME that is supposedly fun. Well this game lost its fun so I am done.

Please vote and lynch me.

Thanks and good bye

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:49 pm**

Roxy wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Lastly, I got a bit of a chuckle at Rox painting my posts as "hostile" and isn't sure whether she deserves it. I don't sincerely believe she thinks that, and I'm all the more ready to vote for her, but I'll at least give her a chance to defend herself tonight.
Idc if you do not think it read as hostile it was hostile and even a bit rude. (shall I pull the quotes?) and more over I am done just lynch me and then lynch you next. I am tired of explaining when all you have to do is read my posts then the roles. Something you are not capable of. All you are capable of is drowning out others with your 1000 questions in your million posts.

I am hot and tired and Idngaf about mafia when people are acting like bullies on a playground instead of playing a GAME that is supposedly fun. Well this game lost its fun so I am done.

Please vote and lynch me.

Thanks and good bye

To me this feels like a baddie thats been caught red handed and just doesn't care anymore.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 5:57 pm**

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:bwt was my number 2 suspect on Day 3. One of the reasons was because of his somewhat inconsistent activity. Then he got replaced, which gave him the perfect alibi for not being active. I still think his Day 2 vote, combined with his explanations of it and what I perceived as hipocrisy in his analysis of others made him really suspicious. But some of the suspicion has to be reduced now that I know I was dealing with an inactive player.

Golden has been a lot more active. And maybe too active. It seems to be he took a complete 180º from the playing style he had on day 1, which I was calling inefficient myself. Here, he's suspecting people left and right, posting rainbow lists and looking like he wants to contribute a lot. That looks like townie behavior, but I can't help but find it weird how different it is from his day 1 style. That may be an early/later game pattern common to his meta, though (stays on the fence in the beginning then unleashes his game later), which I've seen other players doing.

I had something like 84 posts when I was lynched. I was never inactive. Sorry I can't speak to BWT's behaviour, but I can speak to mine... and once again so can those who know me.

This isn't about 'early/late' - THIS is the game that some people (like TH) were calling me out for not playing on day one, but it's because I genuinely didn't see anything to go on in day one yet.

Once again, I know people don't like to do this, but I'll suggest a read of Roger Rabbit would do you good if you want to understand my civilian meta a bit better.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:05 pm**

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:One thing I also found to be sketchy was his help on defending and proving my theory, and then suddenly stopping talking about it. It's like he saw the possibility of a Bass lynch and wanted to jump on board, but then after sanmateo and a few others argued against it, he realized it was unlikely to bear fruit and jumped away from it. Seems like he is very eager to help, but isn't very consistent about it.

I get where you are coming from on this, but what I did was not because "I wanted to hop on board" a bass lynch, it's because I love evidential theories (vote analysis being the prime example) for two reasons: 1) I think proving them or otherwise suits the way my brain words and 2) I think proving them or otherwise is far more reliable than gut reads. It was actually your 'invisible hand' thing which sealed the deal for me that this could be evidential. For what it's worth, I know hosts who have give hints as to aspects of what went down in the host posts, rabbit8 being the one I can think of easily, so I actually buy that the invisible hand thing could have been a hint. Not necessarily, but I still think you could have been on to something with that.

Ironically, you moving away from that and arguing against the invisible hand being meaningful is in large part why my eye is looking at you today.

(Also, thanks for the no u! Although it does read as legit.)

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:20 pm**

I've only played one game by a host that gave hints like that.

It was an incredibly shitty and inbalanced game. It was the first mafia game I played in the internet, and it made me question my decision of playing mafia in the internet.

So excuse me if I don't see host hints with good eyes.

I still think the theory is valid, but it was never because of the Invisible Hand thing. If you think it's because of that, then I suppose your experiences are just different than mine.

I also tried to look more at Bass's posts and focus on why I think he could be baddie, since it became obvious to me that my theory alone isn't getting anyone to lynch him.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:23 pm**

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Roxy wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Lastly, I got a bit of a chuckle at Rox painting my posts as "hostile" and isn't sure whether she deserves it. I don't sincerely believe she thinks that, and I'm all the more ready to vote for her, but I'll at least give her a chance to defend herself tonight.
Idc if you do not think it read as hostile it was hostile and even a bit rude. (shall I pull the quotes?) and more over I am done just lynch me and then lynch you next. I am tired of explaining when all you have to do is read my posts then the roles. Something you are not capable of. All you are capable of is drowning out others with your 1000 questions in your million posts.

I am hot and tired and Idngaf about mafia when people are acting like bullies on a playground instead of playing a GAME that is supposedly fun. Well this game lost its fun so I am done.

Please vote and lynch me.

Thanks and good bye
To me this feels like a baddie thats been caught red handed and just doesn't care anymore.

My thoughts exactly. There was plenty of valid points brought up by me and Golden that Roxy could have responded to, but instead she latched onto MP's tone (which I saw no problem with tbh) in order to not respond to anything and play the victim card.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:24 pm**

Golden wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Before I talk about some other ideas I've had regarding players, I have some questions for all of you guys.

Everyone:
- How are you reading G-Man, under the assumption that he is cursed somehow to post in only pictures?
- How do you read G-Man, if instead you were to find out with certainty that he is NOT cursed to post in only pictures, that it was self-inflicted?
G-Man's discussion with DDL yesterday are a big part of why I'm now intending to look a lot more firmly at DDL. I think G-Man caught him red-handed in a contradiction, and I did not like DDL's responses to that at all. But I'm going to do a reread of that.

Mostly, my view on G-Man comes from the fact that his vote timing for BR makes him look good.

LOL, having now caught up to here I realise how out of date this view is.

It's been hilarious, by the way, and if MP has legitimately just unmasked the whole baddie team then wow :o but I'm definitely on board for lynching Roxy today first.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:24 pm**

Golden wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:bwt was my number 2 suspect on Day 3. One of the reasons was because of his somewhat inconsistent activity. Then he got replaced, which gave him the perfect alibi for not being active. I still think his Day 2 vote, combined with his explanations of it and what I perceived as hipocrisy in his analysis of others made him really suspicious. But some of the suspicion has to be reduced now that I know I was dealing with an inactive player.

Golden has been a lot more active. And maybe too active. It seems to be he took a complete 180º from the playing style he had on day 1, which I was calling inefficient myself. Here, he's suspecting people left and right, posting rainbow lists and looking like he wants to contribute a lot. That looks like townie behavior, but I can't help but find it weird how different it is from his day 1 style. That may be an early/later game pattern common to his meta, though (stays on the fence in the beginning then unleashes his game later), which I've seen other players doing.
I had something like 84 posts when I was lynched. I was never inactive. Sorry I can't speak to BWT's behaviour, but I can speak to mine... and once again so can those who know me.

This isn't about 'early/late' - THIS is the game that some people (like TH) were calling me out for not playing on day one, but it's because I genuinely didn't see anything to go on in day one yet.

Once again, I know people don't like to do this, but I'll suggest a read of Roger Rabbit would do you good if you want to understand my civilian meta a bit better.

It wasn't your inactivity in terms of posts that made me suspect you on day 1 (sorry I'm not doing a good jog at distinguishing you from bwt), it was your whole approach to how your posted. I have to recognize I failed hard on that analysis, though.

But right now, I'm in a situation where it's hard for me to get to any conclusion since I still don't know your meta, and don't know where exactly the "Golden playing town at his full" stands. it could be you right now, but you could still be faking it.

I suppose the fact no one called you out on your meta this phase does speak good of you. I guess I'll have to save that thought for later until I see more evidence against you.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:26 pm**

it's certainly noteworthy that G-Man decided to pull the "i'm not really cursed" thing the moment he finally comes under heavy pressure.

instead of the first time someone suggests he's cursed.

or the twenty-fifth.

MP's dogpeeing may have been warranted.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:28 pm**

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Roxy wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Lastly, I got a bit of a chuckle at Rox painting my posts as "hostile" and isn't sure whether she deserves it. I don't sincerely believe she thinks that, and I'm all the more ready to vote for her, but I'll at least give her a chance to defend herself tonight.
Idc if you do not think it read as hostile it was hostile and even a bit rude. (shall I pull the quotes?) and more over I am done just lynch me and then lynch you next. I am tired of explaining when all you have to do is read my posts then the roles. Something you are not capable of. All you are capable of is drowning out others with your 1000 questions in your million posts.

I am hot and tired and Idngaf about mafia when people are acting like bullies on a playground instead of playing a GAME that is supposedly fun. Well this game lost its fun so I am done.

Please vote and lynch me.

Thanks and good bye
To me this feels like a baddie thats been caught red handed and just doesn't care anymore.

That's the "throwing a tantrum and ragequitting" I was talking about before. Is there anything we can do in face of a post like that other than lynching the person?

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:30 pm**

MP's dog peeing made my morning! So funny!!!

I can see a scenario where DDL is bad and trying to push the vote on to G-Man off Roxy (actually because I already viewed the DDL/G-Man thing as DDL being sus and GMan being civ, its not so surprising I see it that way), so I'm definitely preferring a roxy lynch to a g-man one.

But I can admit I could be wrong about that one, I do understand the case on G-Man.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:32 pm**

i'll wait for G-Man's promised explanation before i make that call. no idea how he could explain something like this, but he seems to have something in mind.

Mafia is a fascinating business. splints was public enemy number one, and now she's absent from most mafia theories (including my own).

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:43 pm**

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
Golden wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:bwt was my number 2 suspect on Day 3. One of the reasons was because of his somewhat inconsistent activity. Then he got replaced, which gave him the perfect alibi for not being active. I still think his Day 2 vote, combined with his explanations of it and what I perceived as hipocrisy in his analysis of others made him really suspicious. But some of the suspicion has to be reduced now that I know I was dealing with an inactive player.

Golden has been a lot more active. And maybe too active. It seems to be he took a complete 180º from the playing style he had on day 1, which I was calling inefficient myself. Here, he's suspecting people left and right, posting rainbow lists and looking like he wants to contribute a lot. That looks like townie behavior, but I can't help but find it weird how different it is from his day 1 style. That may be an early/later game pattern common to his meta, though (stays on the fence in the beginning then unleashes his game later), which I've seen other players doing.
I had something like 84 posts when I was lynched. I was never inactive. Sorry I can't speak to BWT's behaviour, but I can speak to mine... and once again so can those who know me.

This isn't about 'early/late' - THIS is the game that some people (like TH) were calling me out for not playing on day one, but it's because I genuinely didn't see anything to go on in day one yet.

Once again, I know people don't like to do this, but I'll suggest a read of Roger Rabbit would do you good if you want to understand my civilian meta a bit better.
It wasn't your inactivity in terms of posts that made me suspect you on day 1 (sorry I'm not doing a good jog at distinguishing you from bwt), it was your whole approach to how your posted. I have to recognize I failed hard on that analysis, though.

But right now, I'm in a situation where it's hard for me to get to any conclusion since I still don't know your meta, and don't know where exactly the "Golden playing town at his full" stands. it could be you right now, but you could still be faking it.

I suppose the fact no one called you out on your meta this phase does speak good of you. I guess I'll have to save that thought for later until I see more evidence against you.

That's true, but you can at minimum take my 1.0 posts on my meta at face value, so that could be a good place to start.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:49 pm**

Golden wrote:MP's dog peeing made my morning! So funny!!!

I can see a scenario where DDL is bad and trying to push the vote on to G-Man off Roxy (actually because I already viewed the DDL/G-Man thing as DDL being sus and GMan being civ, its not so surprising I see it that way), so I'm definitely preferring a roxy lynch to a g-man one.

But I can admit I could be wrong about that one, I do understand the case on G-Man.

What do you do when someone has been confortably standing on a pedestal that excuses them from trying as hard as others, and then they suddenly tell you the pedestal didn't actually exist?

People have been calling G-Man town for his "effort" the whole game. What are we supposed to call that now?

I'm all for hearing G-Man's explanation for the sake of fairness, but right now I can't see how he can be anything other than public enemy #1.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:54 pm**

I don't really have much else to say until we hear from Gman.

If he is bad, he is effectively squashing discussion with this announcement.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 6:57 pm**

Also, today is my anniversary. My wife's idea of a good time? Spring cleaning the house - and then going out for the evening. I'll try to pop in, but I doubt I'll be able to contribute a heap more today. The poll closes for me on Sunday morning, so I'll get it in before church.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 7:04 pm**

If we were to vote, I'd vote G.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 7:22 pm**

Roxy, never have I ever had any intention of being hostile, and if you really have a problem with a tone I clearly didn't intend, then I'll be more than happy to resolve it without you outside the thread, since that's what the Mod on Duty is for. You and I are buds, mafia will never change that.

Otherwise, your defense is not much of a defense, so I'll give you until tomorrow to provide a real one, or you will be receiving my vote.

I can't possibly believe anything that G-Man is going to say, but I'm intrigued nonetheless.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 7:22 pm**

Golden wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I also have some doubt about Golden 2.0, not sure what to make of him.
Please, ask questions.

Much bigger fish need frying.

But I will definitely ask if they come to mind.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 7:23 pm**

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Take your time, G-Man. Real life is sacred.

Also, this.

On that note, back to studies.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 7:26 pm**

fingersplints wrote:I don't really have much else to say until we hear from Gman. If he is bad, he is effectively squashing discussion with this announcement.

Okay, I couldn't help myself, one more comment. :P

Which is exactly what he's intending, while he scrambles to come up with the most believable possible fabricated response.

Even if he does try to argue that he is a civilian switching up his game, clearly his actions can never be argued to come from a civilian mindset, since he cracked under pressure, instead of being honest with us from the beginning.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 7:30 pm**

Go study MP.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 7:48 pm**

So I finally had the courage to read all of JJJ's interaction analysis of Black Rock.

I don't have much to say about them, other than the fact I noticed Golden said he was gonna do one of those between BR/JJJ, but it doesn't seem him or anyone else ever did it. Someone point it out to me in case I'm wrong.

Do you still intend to do it, Golden? Or anyone, for that matter? I'd really like to see that post, but I'm too lazy to do it myself.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 8:09 pm**

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 8:10 pm**

it probably wouldn't be as daunting a task as it looks like it'd be. i am always so open about my reads that it wouldn't be hard to at all to find interesting posts. i'll give y'all a head start:

earlier in the game i gave BR a slight town nod. in limited activity i liked her from a tonal standpoint. i think it was Day 2 when my perspective changed significantly, whenever i first ISO'd her during/after Night 1. my read became a negative one and stayed that way until i joined TH against her on Day 3.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2015 8:17 pm**

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:So I finally had the courage to read all of JJJ's interaction analysis of Black Rock.

I don't have much to say about them, other than the fact I noticed Golden said he was gonna do one of those between BR/JJJ, but it doesn't seem him or anyone else ever did it. Someone point it out to me in case I'm wrong.

Do you still intend to do it, Golden? Or anyone, for that matter? I'd really like to see that post, but I'm too lazy to do it myself.

Yes. But I can only do so many things at once. I still intend to do that AND a case on you, probably in the opposite order. But I don't have time to get to them today.

The Syndicate

Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 7]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 1]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]

Re: Death and Taxes: An Economics Mafia [DAY 4]