Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
Ezekiel is probably dead.a2thezebra wrote:State your case, MM.
Duncan Idaho was my role from Dune. Apparently he was really cool and good and died in a fight where he took out like a million enemies before going down and then they made a replicant version of him that was also awesome. The role was a bulletproof with a one shot vig activated after the bulletproof was used.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Ezekiel is probably dead.a2thezebra wrote:State your case, MM.
Xander Crews is an asshat.
Finn is a Spy, and cannot be trusted.
I have no idea who Duncan Idaho is (but Idaho is pretty cool).
Watari has a mustache.
Ezekiel will L I V E E T E R N A L L YMetalmarsh89 wrote:Ezekiel is probably dead.a2thezebra wrote:State your case, MM.
Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
What is with this exchange?Long Con wrote:Phew! I thought I dun got meself lynched Day 1 already!MacDougall wrote:No, sorry I was agreeing with you. I was referring to Boomslang's post.Long Con wrote:What, were there "too many quotes" for your taste?MacDougall wrote:Weird post. Do not like.Long Con wrote:What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.Epignosis wrote:It wasn't a slip. It was Tranq being a nub. Hence my opening post.Boomslang wrote:Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.
However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.
How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?MacDougall wrote:Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
...DharmaHelper wrote:I wonder if 48 hours is enough time or not enough time.
Each one of Long Con's posts within this quote box raises an eyebrow.bcornett24 wrote:What is with this exchange?Long Con wrote:Phew! I thought I dun got meself lynched Day 1 already!MacDougall wrote:No, sorry I was agreeing with you. I was referring to Boomslang's post.Long Con wrote:What, were there "too many quotes" for your taste?MacDougall wrote:Weird post. Do not like.Long Con wrote:What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.Epignosis wrote: It wasn't a slip. It was Tranq being a nub. Hence my opening post.
However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.
Long Con, why even mention this?
Which part are you asking why I'm mentioning? I would normally assume it is the latest statement, but, as seen within the quoted exchange, that assumption is sometimes wrong.bcornett24 wrote:What is with this exchange?Long Con wrote:Phew! I thought I dun got meself lynched Day 1 already!MacDougall wrote:No, sorry I was agreeing with you. I was referring to Boomslang's post.Long Con wrote:What, were there "too many quotes" for your taste?MacDougall wrote:Weird post. Do not like.Long Con wrote:What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.
However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.
Long Con, why even mention this?
Jesus, how many eyebrows do you HAVE?a2thezebra wrote:Each one of Long Con's posts within this quote box raises an eyebrow.bcornett24 wrote:What is with this exchange?Long Con wrote:Phew! I thought I dun got meself lynched Day 1 already!MacDougall wrote:No, sorry I was agreeing with you. I was referring to Boomslang's post.Long Con wrote:What, were there "too many quotes" for your taste?MacDougall wrote:Weird post. Do not like.Long Con wrote:What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.
However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.
Long Con, why even mention this?
Yes may I assist you?bcornett24 wrote:...DharmaHelper wrote:I wonder if 48 hours is enough time or not enough time.
Sorry what? You postulated that the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won. I thought you meant that people literally were those roles. Be clearer about what you mean if you don't want to be misconstrued.LoRab wrote:How would I know that? No, I'm not the same role. Nor am I suggesting that everyone (or really anyone) is the same role--just that roles that folks had previously with which they won are the roles in this game. Are you being purposely dense in misunderstanding me in order to paint the ideas I throw out as nefarious? Or are you just saying that you are a role that you had before?MacDougall wrote:Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
Enough time for what?DharmaHelper wrote:Yes may I assist you?bcornett24 wrote:...DharmaHelper wrote:I wonder if 48 hours is enough time or not enough time.
For Night 0.bcornett24 wrote:Enough time for what?DharmaHelper wrote:Yes may I assist you?bcornett24 wrote:...DharmaHelper wrote:I wonder if 48 hours is enough time or not enough time.
Far too many, I'm afraid.Long Con wrote:Jesus, how many eyebrows do you HAVE?a2thezebra wrote: Each one of Long Con's posts within this quote box raises an eyebrow.
I should clarify on this. A lot of people are saying "yep, she's like her, sounding like her, doing her twirly thing."Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.
You're the pressure cooker. I'm just a toaster oven.Epignosis wrote:I should clarify on this. A lot of people are saying "yep, she's like her, sounding like her, doing her twirly thing."Epignosis wrote:Lorab is my number 2 suspect. She is too comfortable.
She cracks under pressure.
So somebody apply pressure. Now.
This part. It makes no sense to me. Why even bother to post it? This looks like a scum team on the surface but it is probably not what it actually is it is just what it looks like on the surface? What? Your followup is even more messed up than the original post?Long Con wrote:Which part are you asking why I'm mentioning? I would normally assume it is the latest statement, but, as seen within the quoted exchange, that assumption is sometimes wrong.bcornett24 wrote:What is with this exchange?Long Con wrote:Phew! I thought I dun got meself lynched Day 1 already!MacDougall wrote:No, sorry I was agreeing with you. I was referring to Boomslang's post.Long Con wrote:What, were there "too many quotes" for your taste?MacDougall wrote:Weird post. Do not like.Long Con wrote:What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.
However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.
Long Con, why even mention this?
Long Con wrote:Oh. Well, that is pretty crappy for those of us whose speakers are currently dead... or for people on phones with no headphones... or for people playing in church... or about a thousand other reasons why listening to audio can complicate things for people.
When am I not superfluous and adding nothing to the conversation? That's pretty much me days 1-4ish... Sometimes even longer.Epignosis wrote:My top suspect is Sorsha. I found her Ricochet comment superfluous and without adding anything to the conversation (not that the bar was set real high).
My suspect #14 is Epignosis, for not letting players comment on me and suspect me as they please.Epignosis wrote:My top suspect is Sorsha. I found her Ricochet comment superfluous and without adding anything to the conversation (not that the bar was set real high).
Ahem, what. You were bad in the last game we played and I don't remember you suspect me at all. Only killing me on N2.Elohcin wrote:My top suspect is Ricochet. But I think I suspected him early on in the last game we played together and I was wrong. I can't remember. Damn memory.Epignosis wrote:My top suspect is Sorsha. I found her Ricochet comment superfluous and without adding anything to the conversation (not that the bar was set real high).
In case you really don't remember the Champies mechanics in previous years (which I doubt, but whatever), then it is near certain the roles (characters) in this game are a mashup of roles (characters) that appeared in the games played throughout 2015.LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
What is LoRab supposed to know the answer to? Maybe she was given a role from a game in which she didn't even play.MacDougall wrote:Wouldn't you know the answer to this Lorab? Are you a role that you have been before?LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
Oops, my bad. I think I meant to say Ezekiel was not a winning role, but then I converted it into civilian loss, because of putting him along with Xander and Watari.Golden wrote:The civs did too win biblical! Long Con should know, if he could remember what affiliation he actually was in that game.
You're trying waaaaaaaaaay too hard to put in """""""effort""""""" so early in the game. In Day 0 / Night 0 / Day 1 there's a difference between trying to get things going to gauge reactions and simply trying to look as ridiculously town as possible.Ricochet wrote:Zebra and b24 have posted for the first time within 30 minutes of each other. Confirmed baddies biding their time.
I endorse such discussion. Preferably by filling out this form I posted yesterday. Here it is again.Sorsha wrote:When am I not superfluous and adding nothing to the conversation? That's pretty much me days 1-4ish... Sometimes even longer.Epignosis wrote:My top suspect is Sorsha. I found her Ricochet comment superfluous and without adding anything to the conversation (not that the bar was set real high).
What I was hoping for with my useless Rico comment was some discussion about him and why he's acting like this, if he's been like this before (I don't recall him being so), etc.
| Ease in reaching out | |
| Timely response to your inquiry | |
| Friendly & courteous service | |
| What level of civvieness would you rate his services? | |
| What level of baddieness would you rate his services? | |
| How satisfied are you with his products or services? | |
| What aspect of his product or service could be improved? | __________ _ __ ____ |
| Overall experience |
Not sure what role you are referencing.Golden wrote:It appears to me that the person who had my role the first time around isn't even playing this game, if that is of any use.
I think anyone who has hosted this year has the best insight into how hosts may have selected the roles, although to be sure it is very little insight. I've been waiting to see how Epi votes, since he hosted many of these games.
What does that have to do with you being caught on making a later appearence alongside your other inactive teamie?a2thezebra wrote:You're trying waaaaaaaaaay too hard to put in """""""effort""""""" so early in the game. In Day 0 / Night 0 / Day 1 there's a difference between trying to get things going to gauge reactions and simply trying to look as ridiculously town as possible.Ricochet wrote:Zebra and b24 have posted for the first time within 30 minutes of each other. Confirmed baddies biding their time.
I'd hope not, because I'm not trying to out myself. I'm just trying to say any theory about all the roles in the game originally being from players who played the game seems flawed, to me, because I think my role was originally played by someone who isn't playing.Ricochet wrote:Not sure what role you are referencing.Golden wrote:It appears to me that the person who had my role the first time around isn't even playing this game, if that is of any use.
I think anyone who has hosted this year has the best insight into how hosts may have selected the roles, although to be sure it is very little insight. I've been waiting to see how Epi votes, since he hosted many of these games.
I didn't host any game this year. I will be making my disastrous debut later this year.
It was LoRabs theory.LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
It has nothing to do with it and I didn't imply that it did. You indirectly addressed me so I responded with my thoughts on you. I can't defend against what you're accusing me of because it's too absurd to defend against and you know it is.Ricochet wrote:What does that have to do with you being caught on making a later appearence alongside your other inactive teamie?a2thezebra wrote:You're trying waaaaaaaaaay too hard to put in """""""effort""""""" so early in the game. In Day 0 / Night 0 / Day 1 there's a difference between trying to get things going to gauge reactions and simply trying to look as ridiculously town as possible.Ricochet wrote:Zebra and b24 have posted for the first time within 30 minutes of each other. Confirmed baddies biding their time.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
You're not putting any effort, by comparison, and I remember you having put more effort in early THM stages.
