Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
HamburgerBoy wrote:I mean, golden, if you had only started a bandwagon against Sorsha instead I would have been cool with that. You can't seriously look at my history and be surprised that I would vote Jimmy over LoRab.
No. If that is how you'd expressed it, then no, I wouldn't be suspicious of that at all. You didn't express it that way, though... I would call you a very vocal voice in getting JJJ lynched regardless of what other options were on the table.HamburgerBoy wrote:I mean, golden, if you had only started a bandwagon against Sorsha instead I would have been cool with that. You can't seriously look at my history and be surprised that I would vote Jimmy over LoRab.
Yeah, but that was when it visibly mattered to correct the wagons, the way HB put it.juliets wrote:I was gearing my comment to Ham Boys comment "Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote."Ricochet wrote:JJJ was already leading, why have you focused on "negating" someone's vote?juliets wrote:Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.HamburgerBoy wrote:Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.
In your defense, I have a bunch of fresh new scumspects to compete with you on the orange-red side of the rainbow.Sorsha wrote:HamburgerBoy wrote:I mean, golden, if you had only started a bandwagon against Sorsha instead I would have been cool with that. You can't seriously look at my history and be surprised that I would vote Jimmy over LoRab.
Perhaps you should.Ricochet wrote:But again, I don't care about vouches that a 0-post 0-reasoned vote is "standard", "typical", "to be expected", "in need of time", "intentionally ambiguous".
yikesjuliets wrote:Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.HamburgerBoy wrote:Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.
juliets wrote:JJJ I agree with you 100%. I also think the exchange reads genuine on both sides thus it doesn't lead me to believe either of the two are bad. If something else happens that causes me to come back and re-look at this down the road I will. Right now I'm more focused on neither of these two (no chance for Golden) being lynched. Or JJJ either. There are too many people I am leaning good on, i need to find the baddies.
You said you wouldn't vote him but now voted him based off another person';s read. Are you that sold on LoRab being town?juliets wrote:I am about to read Boomslang as I am not looking at a JJJ vote or a llama vote (though I'll wait to see what Golden says). I will also wait to hear what Boomslang says about the latest thoughts about him.
Yeah but I do that all the time. I had a day 1 ping on MP in Star Wars and ended up defending the shit out of him on the day I voted him and he ended up flipping scum. Dude I have no idea how to play this game I am just pretending that I do.Golden wrote:No. If that is how you'd expressed it, then no, I wouldn't be suspicious of that at all. You didn't express it that way, though... I would call you a very vocal voice in getting JJJ lynched regardless of what other options were on the table.HamburgerBoy wrote:I mean, golden, if you had only started a bandwagon against Sorsha instead I would have been cool with that. You can't seriously look at my history and be surprised that I would vote Jimmy over LoRab.
But, people are calling, for example, FZ suspicious when she was completely open and up front that her vote was a direct comparative vote (for suspicious of LoRab than JJJ).
So is mine... I was looking for a target of one person, any person, who I suspected was bad who I could actually get lynched instead of someone I strongly believe is town. JJJ is, in fact, my strongest town read
I think the wagon on JJJ is the one that is wack. The person I'm most amazed about is, in some ways, Mac... who, if you recall, was preaching on day zero about how amazing his initial instincts are, and how bad LoRab was, but isn't voting for her right now.
A lead of one is nothing. Think of all the vote manip roles we have seen - people's whose votes are worth 3 or have extra votes for some other reason.Ricochet wrote:Yeah, but that was when it visibly mattered to correct the wagons, the way HB put it.juliets wrote:I was gearing my comment to Ham Boys comment "Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote."Ricochet wrote:JJJ was already leading, why have you focused on "negating" someone's vote?juliets wrote:Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.HamburgerBoy wrote:Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.
Please re-read my day 3 history again. My first post to even name Jimmy explicitly said I was leaning against lynching him, and I voted for llama. I even posted a justification for voting llama that you said you missed and agreed with. I wanted to wait and see where a town Jimmy would decide to place his case; the one on Boomslang was not what I was looking for, in terms of justification (the effort was still 100% there of course).Golden wrote:No. If that is how you'd expressed it, then no, I wouldn't be suspicious of that at all. You didn't express it that way, though... I would call you a very vocal voice in getting JJJ lynched regardless of what other options were on the table.
But, people are calling, for example, FZ suspicious when she was completely open and up front that her vote was a direct comparative vote (for suspicious of LoRab than JJJ).
So is mine... I was looking for a target of one person, any person, who I suspected was bad who I could actually get lynched instead of someone I strongly believe is town. JJJ is, in fact, my strongest town read
I think the wagon on JJJ is the one that is wack. The person I'm most amazed about is, in some ways, Mac... who, if you recall, was preaching on day zero about how amazing his initial instincts are, and how bad LoRab was, but isn't voting for her right now.
Another person who has more experience playing with JJJ than anyone in the game. If he fooled me, then he fooled me and I learned a lesson about his play. But he sounded genuine and sure to me. I don't know JJJ hardly at all, i've maybe been in a couple of games with him.motel room wrote:yikesjuliets wrote:Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.HamburgerBoy wrote:Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.juliets wrote:JJJ I agree with you 100%. I also think the exchange reads genuine on both sides thus it doesn't lead me to believe either of the two are bad. If something else happens that causes me to come back and re-look at this down the road I will. Right now I'm more focused on neither of these two (no chance for Golden) being lynched. Or JJJ either. There are too many people I am leaning good on, i need to find the baddies.You said you wouldn't vote him but now voted him based off another person';s read. Are you that sold on LoRab being town?juliets wrote:I am about to read Boomslang as I am not looking at a JJJ vote or a llama vote (though I'll wait to see what Golden says). I will also wait to hear what Boomslang says about the latest thoughts about him.
Are you trying to manipulate me into making a crazy gambit?Golden wrote:It's ironic, Mac, because for me your night zero ping on LoRab is still one relevant factor as to why I'm willing to vote her. Your instincts in that setting have often been good.
but why him over LoRab?juliets wrote:Another person who has more experience playing with JJJ than anyone in the game. If he fooled me, then he fooled me and I learned a lesson about his play. But he sounded genuine and sure to me. I don't know JJJ hardly at all, i've maybe been in a couple of games with him.motel room wrote:yikesjuliets wrote:Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.HamburgerBoy wrote:Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.juliets wrote:JJJ I agree with you 100%. I also think the exchange reads genuine on both sides thus it doesn't lead me to believe either of the two are bad. If something else happens that causes me to come back and re-look at this down the road I will. Right now I'm more focused on neither of these two (no chance for Golden) being lynched. Or JJJ either. There are too many people I am leaning good on, i need to find the baddies.You said you wouldn't vote him but now voted him based off another person';s read. Are you that sold on LoRab being town?juliets wrote:I am about to read Boomslang as I am not looking at a JJJ vote or a llama vote (though I'll wait to see what Golden says). I will also wait to hear what Boomslang says about the latest thoughts about him.
I'm aware of the history. It's part of the reason I was surprised at how vocally against Jimmy you've been in this end day. Like I say, I would have completely understood your perspective if it had been framed more comparatively.HamburgerBoy wrote:Please re-read my day 3 history again. My first post to even name Jimmy explicitly said I was leaning against lynching him, and I voted for llama. I even posted a justification for voting llama that you said you missed and agreed with. I wanted to wait and see where a town Jimmy would decide to place his case; the one on Boomslang was not what I was looking for, in terms of justification (the effort was still 100% there of course).Golden wrote:No. If that is how you'd expressed it, then no, I wouldn't be suspicious of that at all. You didn't express it that way, though... I would call you a very vocal voice in getting JJJ lynched regardless of what other options were on the table.
But, people are calling, for example, FZ suspicious when she was completely open and up front that her vote was a direct comparative vote (for suspicious of LoRab than JJJ).
So is mine... I was looking for a target of one person, any person, who I suspected was bad who I could actually get lynched instead of someone I strongly believe is town. JJJ is, in fact, my strongest town read
I think the wagon on JJJ is the one that is wack. The person I'm most amazed about is, in some ways, Mac... who, if you recall, was preaching on day zero about how amazing his initial instincts are, and how bad LoRab was, but isn't voting for her right now.
Mac joining my side does have me suspicious, especially since he OMGUS'd me day 2 for my Jimmy suspicion. I don't trust him, but I don't mind having him on my side this vote.
How does that answer motel's question?juliets wrote:Another person who has more experience playing with JJJ than anyone in the game. If he fooled me, then he fooled me and I learned a lesson about his play. But he sounded genuine and sure to me. I don't know JJJ hardly at all, i've maybe been in a couple of games with him.motel room wrote:yikesjuliets wrote:Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.HamburgerBoy wrote:Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.juliets wrote:JJJ I agree with you 100%. I also think the exchange reads genuine on both sides thus it doesn't lead me to believe either of the two are bad. If something else happens that causes me to come back and re-look at this down the road I will. Right now I'm more focused on neither of these two (no chance for Golden) being lynched. Or JJJ either. There are too many people I am leaning good on, i need to find the baddies.You said you wouldn't vote him but now voted him based off another person';s read. Are you that sold on LoRab being town?juliets wrote:I am about to read Boomslang as I am not looking at a JJJ vote or a llama vote (though I'll wait to see what Golden says). I will also wait to hear what Boomslang says about the latest thoughts about him.
Because I feel bad about Black Rock and Sorsha, I disagree with the significance of the cases against her (from them and Epi), and I think she's the easiest-button counterlynch and that it built so easily today shows it.Golden wrote:Why do you feel good about LoRab?
This difference in perspective makes a lot of sense.HamburgerBoy wrote:Because I feel bad about Black Rock and Sorsha, I disagree with the significance of the cases against her (from them and Epi), and I think she's the easiest-button counterlynch and that it built so easily today shows it.Golden wrote:Why do you feel good about LoRab?
It wasn't direct, but you placed your day 2 vote on me shortly after I started suspecting Jimmy and I took it as an OMGUS and defensive. At least, I think that's how it went down; I can't find the post right now.MacDougall wrote:Linki: When did I OMGUS you for suspecting Jimmy? That doesn't even make sense.
OMGUS is used to describe when someone starts "suspecting" you for voting for them. Just so you know.HamburgerBoy wrote:It wasn't direct, but you placed your day 2 vote on me shortly after I started suspecting Jimmy and I took it as an OMGUS and defensive. At least, I think that's how it went down; I can't find the post right now.MacDougall wrote:Linki: When did I OMGUS you for suspecting Jimmy? That doesn't even make sense.
This is fishy.Ricochet wrote:feeling like carp.
I am unsure about Lorab. As you may recall, I pulled my vote from her back when people were trying to lynch her and I haven't seen anything since that made me think she was bad. My only niggle is BR saying she is bad, but BR did not come out with the strident tone and certainly that Mac did when it comes to Jimmy. I'm fully prepared that I may be wrong but at least I wasn't afraid to vote my gut after he made that post. And just to make sure I'm not misinterpreted, if Jimmy is good it was my bad decision to vote for him not Mac's bad for expressing what he thinks.Ricochet wrote:How does that answer motel's question?juliets wrote:Another person who has more experience playing with JJJ than anyone in the game. If he fooled me, then he fooled me and I learned a lesson about his play. But he sounded genuine and sure to me. I don't know JJJ hardly at all, i've maybe been in a couple of games with him.motel room wrote:yikesjuliets wrote:Hmmmm - Mac who has played with Jimmy in over 50 games see's his behavior as scum. I said I wasn't going to vote for JJJ but Mac is pretty persuasive. And I don't mind changing my mind at the last minute so ok - I will negate Tranqs vote by voting Jimmy.HamburgerBoy wrote:Place it where it matters, vote Jimmy to negate Tranq's vote.juliets wrote:I am taking the position that Tranq is not silenced. I mean, who would silence him he's been silent all game. Now he comes in and votes for Lorab after being in no conversation about the dynamic of this lynch. I am voting him.juliets wrote:JJJ I agree with you 100%. I also think the exchange reads genuine on both sides thus it doesn't lead me to believe either of the two are bad. If something else happens that causes me to come back and re-look at this down the road I will. Right now I'm more focused on neither of these two (no chance for Golden) being lynched. Or JJJ either. There are too many people I am leaning good on, i need to find the baddies.You said you wouldn't vote him but now voted him based off another person';s read. Are you that sold on LoRab being town?juliets wrote:I am about to read Boomslang as I am not looking at a JJJ vote or a llama vote (though I'll wait to see what Golden says). I will also wait to hear what Boomslang says about the latest thoughts about him.
It's interesting that I suspected you being in cahoots with Boomslang way back then, because you (and me ironically) just defended the shit out of him.MacDougall wrote:Actually Zebra I have a thought.
Boomslang and HamburgerBoy have both inferred that I am playing like Ricochet, which is actually a suggestion that I am playing like what many perceive my general meta to be. HamburgerBoy has experience with my general meta but Boomslang does not. As you have observed I am not actually playing like what they are insinuating I am playing like, they are resting on a perception of what I usually do play like without having noticed that I am not playing like that at all (which both Golden and you have noticed). This sounds to me like HamburgerBoy has been talking about me in their chat and Boomslang has picked things up that he wouldn't otherwise know about my meta.
Speaking of which there are some falsities being spoken of as fact here about my "meta". Like it's normal for me to play chaos. It's actually not normal at all. The only time I've actually played chaos on TS was as a caught scum in TH and as an independent role that absolutely justified it in Reborn. In Star Wars, Dune and Tree I played like I am here for the most part. There were times in Star Wars that I got melodramatic but that was in context I've yet to find here (an argument with someone who is scum reading me, who I am scum reading), though we are approaching this point with Boomslang.
In fact if you analyse my RYM history, the majority of my "chaos" performances were as scum and they are renowned because I won while doing so. The only chaos you see out of me as a civilian is early game to provoke discourse and when I am engaging in a firefight.
It's 7 minutes and we have another day immediately. Stick around, the start of day 3.1 will be fun.Ricochet wrote:I'm going to bed on purpose and under the influence of my nose suddenly leaking like a faucet since this afternoon and feeling like carp. Too much already. Plus, if the flip turns out good for us, then congratulations on steering the phase the right way, those who did so. If not, I don't feel like witnessing the flop.
As for Tranq, if he was/is in any way constrained from posting/reasoning his vote toDay, then I apologise for everything I said. If he is not, I apologise for slipping on a no-no word, otherwise criticising such moves is what I always do, so that's that.
Also, I am like 90% determined right now to pull another Omerta in the next game I'll ever play and make no contributions in my play or offer no reasoning behind my votes. You have my word. Call me "standard" and "intentionally ambiguous", too. Then again, we all know already what treatment I get when I do it...
I wouldn't expect so.HamburgerBoy wrote:For Syndicaters, is it usually in the case of a double-day that any effects (e.g. silencing) on day X.0 would carry over to X.1?
Yes, I was cursed in Flash Mafia, and it carried over from Day 4.1 to Day 4.2.HamburgerBoy wrote:For Syndicaters, is it usually in the case of a double-day that any effects (e.g. silencing) on day X.0 would carry over to X.1?
HamburgerBoy wrote:For Syndicaters, is it usually in the case of a double-day that any effects (e.g. silencing) on day X.0 would carry over to X.1?
Are you ok, marmot? You seem to have a massive gash on your head...Metalmarsh89 wrote:Yes, I was cursed in Flash Mafia, and it carried over from Day 4.1 to Day 4.2.HamburgerBoy wrote:For Syndicaters, is it usually in the case of a double-day that any effects (e.g. silencing) on day X.0 would carry over to X.1?
Yes, I believe I'm still Sane.Golden wrote:Are you ok, marmot? You seem to have a massive gash on your head...Metalmarsh89 wrote:Yes, I was cursed in Flash Mafia, and it carried over from Day 4.1 to Day 4.2.HamburgerBoy wrote:For Syndicaters, is it usually in the case of a double-day that any effects (e.g. silencing) on day X.0 would carry over to X.1?
HamburgerBoy wrote:Jimmy
A moment ago, your vote for Jimmy was primarily comparative, in that you'd perhaps have voted for others (eg sorsha) before voting for him.HamburgerBoy wrote:Jimmy
Rickman Um he never said that he would have voted for sorsha before voting for him.Golden wrote:A moment ago, your vote for Jimmy was primarily comparative, in that you'd perhaps have voted for others (eg sorsha) before voting for him.HamburgerBoy wrote:Jimmy
So why are you immediately voting for him again?
linki @marmot Oh, Bowie
Nope, but I think you might be.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden, are you a member of mafia?
Because Jimmy was leading and if he's scum and his team can stop a lynch, why not this one?Golden wrote:A moment ago, your vote for Jimmy was primarily comparative, in that you'd perhaps have voted for others (eg sorsha) before voting for him.HamburgerBoy wrote:Jimmy
So why are you immediately voting for him again?
linki @marmot Oh, Bowie
Golden wrote:Nope, but I think you might be.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden, are you a member of mafia?
And if he is civ and his ability is to survive a death, why not survive this one?HamburgerBoy wrote:Because Jimmy was leading and if he's scum and his team can stop a lynch, why not this one?Golden wrote:A moment ago, your vote for Jimmy was primarily comparative, in that you'd perhaps have voted for others (eg sorsha) before voting for him.HamburgerBoy wrote:Jimmy
So why are you immediately voting for him again?
linki @marmot Oh, Bowie