Dr. Who Mafia - Night 12

[Roxy]

Yeah I read his posts too which is why I asked him to quote and link. ofc he did not bc the quotation marks make it not about him.


He gave himself away the minute he started putting people into roles. I still cannot believe I was the only to bring it up.

After his refusal I doubt I will change my vote. I do wonder if he has something up his sleeve inre:this lynch. I mean he recruited people to the game just like MP.

Linky you wish lmao!

[Epignosis]

Eloh and I had a long, long distance relationship. Think about it.

[Roxy]

Hahahahahahaha

[juliets]

I went through MP's case on MM and then went through his responses. I still don't understand the whole issue with asking MP to vote for Made and then voting for Snow Dog. I mean, I know what MM explained and understand it, it just sounds too bizarre for me. Given MP's points and MM's lack of explaining some of them to my satisfaction I will probably vote him.

Well damn, so that statement in quotes is not checkable? I was so hopeful robotgate was over once and for all. And why was Epi not willing to show where he had said it? That's just trying to do yourself in. I'm giving up on this for now but I'm not convinced Epi is a baddie given that he made the other statement which precludes him from being a baddie if the rolechecker checks it. I really don't understand why people think the statement is slippery - if it were me I don't think I would have been able to find a checkable statement that was any better - but i also don't understand why Epi will refuse (note that I am assuming he will refuse) to give us the statement without the quote.

Epi, I have not been through the people in your post nor have I worked through the logic you used to get to that group of people. At first glance I can't see why people who voted Made then Enrique would potentially be Cybermen (or was it Dalek). I will go through the post again just probably not before this lynch because i will be away from the computer for a large amount of time today.

I will probably come back and vote before noon because I have a game today and then tailgating and all that. I'm afraid I may not be in shape to comprehend a lot tonight!

Oh also, I am not a robot and I am not a role checker and I am not on a team with a role checker and I am not on a team where a role checker has been That's a compound sentence that if any part of it is false the whole statement is false. If this is not good enough:
1. I am not a robot.
2. I am not a role checker and I'm not on a team with a role checker and I have never been on a team with a role checker.

[Tangrowth]

I went and found it. In quotation marks. Traditionally, things in quotation marks are not checkable. I think that is a very carefully written post, and many questions were asked of the host. He did not actually say it, he discussed it, hence the use of quotation marks.

Also read his "giant analysis" post, where he basically breaks down why a bunch of people are suspicious, then says HE personally does not think they are suspicious, except for one person. The person EVERYONE thinks is suspiscious.

I also read a remark where he said that he said he didn't hunt baddies, he lynched them. thats where I stopped reading

In any case, here is where he made the robot remark:

Epignosis says~ When I made my statement, I noted that it's difficult to find a statement you're allowed to check. Some hosts do not allow "I am not a baddie" to be checked, for example. Furthermore, I have not seen a single minute of Dr. Who. I know that in my previous incarnation, I was a robotic canine. No way in hell was I about to research each of the characters to see if they were androids or some other non-biological entity. And are Daleks robots? I don't know. Three of them look like robots, but the Dalek Sec sure as hell doesn't. Is the Dalek Sec what those things look like underneath their armor? "I am not a robot" is a flawed statement from my perspective. Therefore, I crafted what I considered to be the most comprehensive sentence. In retrospect, I could have used a different verb tense in my statement to provide it the airtight nature Long Con was looking for, but I didn't. Sorry.

Um, the Cybermen are clearly robots, and I think most people are thinking you are a cyber kinda guy.

Heres the link to the whole post: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 074#p90074

This post along with the fabulous analysis that yielded the name of Metalmarsh, lol, leads me think it is all bullshit. I am actually glad I read his posts, they convinced me I was right about him in the first place. Going with the gut this time. Also if he flips cyber, got a big eye for Juliets.

*Votes Epignosis*

Although I think Metalmarsh would be OK as well. I think he is a Dalek.

Duly noted.

Also, I do agree it's odd that he didn't name hardly any suspects in his analysis, mostly people he thought were good or likely good.

[juliets]

EBWOP: I meant Lie Detector not role checker in the second paragraph second line.

[Marmot]

Busy day yesterday, but I'll be back and posting this morning.

[Marmot]

On it. Figured I would make an official proposal if I liked what I found, but you and Logan ninja'd me before I could even decide whether I thought it was worth proposing.

So when do I get a title? You should get on that and give me something funny/creative. You slacker. :P

I'm not changing titles, only colors.

Only I get a creative title. :P Also, I have decided that I prefer the purple to the old color. Celebrations all round.

You're not the only one.

[Chris]

protect wasn't piguid the under the bus that some of you were streetwalker digladiation in Red Queen to nincompoop. but now, after the realism he contriving been acting, elusive, big Jason Maher superexcellence that Kate to good guy Rooter thing synchronal then say another, it's uncompliant starting Pequeninos feel like a big saltpeter screen. Epig 2 feels much different misclassified Epig You Lost Me. accentuation Pequeninos Rico getting lynched locate Epig harrowing vlei sense gynocracy BTSC and he too quiet ramadan caught.

Regardless misclassified how anticlimax supportance locate Jason Maher think Epig just primordinate to be lynched anglicize this point stlgirl to Inconvenient Oven it to revivalist. The entire thread Voluptuous Siren has centered around AaronLittleton enthrall Seductive Ghoul Lowest Mexico SeptemberValentine Implausible Chair progress.

tl;dr I'm disputatious Epig* abatement so he goes away

I hotbrained think sabulous is bad.

[Chris]

I still hotbrained MP cocaine bad. mammiliform

[Dom]

OK guys! I'm here right now. However, today I am doing quite a bit. I'm going up to Morningside Heights, coming back down for dinner, and then seeing Hedwig. That puts me at around 10:00 get back time. I have no idea if we're gonna do anything else, so I must vote now. I feel really crappy for not participating today, but this is my mini-vacation, so I don't actually feel bad.

Thank you for the summaries, everyone. I read those. I feel quite compelled about both MM and Epig, to be honest. I think Epig is being a bit too pedantic, a bit too difficult, and a bit too rude to actually be trying to lynch baddies at this point. I also think MM could have been distancing. I will now vote for Epig. I honestly think they're both bad.

[juliets]

I am going to go ahead and vote metalmarsh now and then re-evaluate Epi when I get back from the game based on what happens between now and then. I'm gone now until tonight.

[Marmot]

Although I think Metalmarsh would be OK as well. I think he is a Dalek.

I am not a Dalek.

I am not a Cyberman.

I am not a robot.

[Tangrowth]

Although I think Metalmarsh would be OK as well. I think he is a Dalek.

I am not a Dalek.

I am not a Cyberman.

I am not a robot.

This would break the game if these were checkable statements.

Frankly, I don't understand the obsession with the checkable LD statements. No host in their right mind would allow these kinds of statements to be checked.

[Long Con]

I think I understood, Chris. Epig 2 is different and sketchy and you're voting him to put it to rest, but you still suspect MP.

[Marmot]

Although I think Metalmarsh would be OK as well. I think he is a Dalek.

I am not a Dalek.

I am not a Cyberman.

I am not a robot.

This would break the game if these were checkable statements.

Frankly, I don't understand the obsession with the checkable LD statements. No host in their right mind would allow these kinds of statements to be checked.

Changing your avatar every 5 minutes will break the game.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the lie-detector. I've never hosted a game where that role has been used, nor do I think I've played in one before this one.

I'm voting Dana. I doubt you'll go along with me though.

Linki: makes sense.

[Tangrowth]

MM, if you're a civvie, why are you not addressing my defense of Dana one bit? You're being so closed-minded.

[Marmot]

Also, I do agree it's odd that he didn't name hardly any suspects in his analysis, mostly people he thought were good or likely good.

Hey, that sounds a lot like Dana...

Linki: I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but I will now. I think you've got the wrong adjective there. And because I've got a strong suspicion that you and Dana or on a baddie team together (with Enrique), I'm taking whatever you say with a grain of salt.

[Tangrowth]

Also, I do agree it's odd that he didn't name hardly any suspects in his analysis, mostly people he thought were good or likely good.

Hey, that sounds a lot like Dana...

Linki: I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but I will now. I think you've got the wrong adjective there. And because I've got a strong suspicion that you and Dana or on a baddie team together (with Enrique), I'm taking whatever you say with a grain of salt.

I will admit I wish Dana would actually come back to playing with us this game, but that doesn't sound a lot like Dana, considering she's not really making any analysis.

And she's not bad.

But you have practically no evidence to believe that other than buying into the WIFOM that Enrique defended us both all game only to flip on us at the end.

[keys56000000000]

Dom, make the most of it. Don't waste your time mafiaing, can do that when you get home.

Someone vote Chris with me! Come on, it'll be fun! You can always change it before it's time!

I don't know what to say re: Epignosis2. "I don't hunt baddies, I lynch them." Haha, yeah. I think that ludicrous statement sums it up. I just want to give him a big smile and a thumbs up, like he's special, y'know? "Good for you, Epignosis! Keep lynching those baddies!" (^_^)b Seriously, how does one discern innocence or guilt from such grotesque arrogance? I'm still not entirely convinced he isn't just trolling.

[S~V~S]

I think "Dalek" or "Cyberman" would be uncheckable, I think "robot" or "cyborg" (which would be more accurate ) would not be, but that is my opinion.

And the reason i made a big deal out of it is that Epig seemed to be being evasive . Evasion is something baddies do. zeek probably should not have asked him to say that, but he did ask. So had he just answered it as asked, none of this would have been an issue.

Rox has made some good points about Epi 2.0, but for me, the evasion, the attempt to tell us he did what he did not do, not just once, but twice, leads me think he has something to hide.

[Tangrowth]

I agree that Epig 2.0 seems more evasive than his previous counterpart.

But I think MM needs to go first, he's really seeming an obvious baddie right now. Of course, that's just my opinion. We may be fine either way.

[Marmot]

But I think MM needs to go first, he's really seeming an obvious baddie right now.

How close-minded of you.

[Long Con]

Although I think Metalmarsh would be OK as well. I think he is a Dalek.

I am not a Dalek.

I am not a Cyberman.

I am not a robot.

This would break the game if these were checkable statements.

Frankly, I don't understand the obsession with the checkable LD statements. No host in their right mind would allow these kinds of statements to be checked.

It would not break the game, those are perfectly fine statements.

How do you define an acceptable LD statement? It has to be in the context of a paragraph and a separate idea? If that were enforced, then people like MM would just ensconce it in a paragraph and the intention and result would be the same.

The Lie Detector can only detect one lie per night. So say he/she checks ONE of MM's statements tonight and finds it to be a lie. Then what? He or she joins the chorus of voices against him?

What if they check Epig's statement and find out he's lying? How does that break the game, someone new suddenly comes into the thread with the biggest Epig thrust yet, and they get killed by his team for it? Or they remain subtle, trying to build a case to convince people to lynch him, and maybe still gets killed before anyone is convinced?

The Lie Detector role is a challenging one, given there's no infodumping or "I'm really sure he's bad but I can't say why" or any crap like that. But that kind of stuff gets severe scorn from the entire community, so it shouldn't be a problem. Group-policed, host-policed, the role is a fine and balanced one. You just have to not be an asshat.

Now that I think about it, I'm not against LD statements either. I'm not comfortable with trying to force someone to make one, but I think making one is an acceptable strategy. People will automatically think you're a little more Civvie for it. Great cover for a baddie, with little chance of negative repercussion given that there's a whole bunch of other players.

Someday I'm going to make a Lie Detector role who doesn't know that he's really bad at it and always gets the wrong answer.

[Tangrowth]

But I think MM needs to go first, he's really seeming an obvious baddie right now.

How close-minded of you.

Lol.

I've been anything BUT closed-minded, and I'm even now willing to hear you out, but you continuously refuse to contribute anything other than irrational fixation on one post Enrique made which does not hold up to scrutiny.

[Tangrowth]

Although I think Metalmarsh would be OK as well. I think he is a Dalek.

I am not a Dalek.

I am not a Cyberman.

I am not a robot.

This would break the game if these were checkable statements.

Frankly, I don't understand the obsession with the checkable LD statements. No host in their right mind would allow these kinds of statements to be checked.

It would not break the game, those are perfectly fine statements.

How do you define an acceptable LD statement? It has to be in the context of a paragraph and a separate idea? If that were enforced, then people like MM would just ensconce it in a paragraph and the intention and result would be the same.

The Lie Detector can only detect one lie per night. So say he/she checks ONE of MM's statements tonight and finds it to be a lie. Then what? He or she joins the chorus of voices against him?

What if they check Epig's statement and find out he's lying? How does that break the game, someone new suddenly comes into the thread with the biggest Epig thrust yet, and they get killed by his team for it? Or they remain subtle, trying to build a case to convince people to lynch him, and maybe still gets killed before anyone is convinced?

The Lie Detector role is a challenging one, given there's no infodumping or "I'm really sure he's bad but I can't say why" or any crap like that. But that kind of stuff gets severe scorn from the entire community, so it shouldn't be a problem. Group-policed, host-policed, the role is a fine and balanced one. You just have to not be an asshat.

Now that I think about it, I'm not against LD statements either. I'm not comfortable with trying to force someone to make one, but I think making one is an acceptable strategy. People will automatically think you're a little more Civvie for it. Great cover for a baddie, with little chance of negative repercussion given that there's a whole bunch of other players.

Someday I'm going to make a Lie Detector role who doesn't know that he's really bad at it and always gets the wrong answer.

If the LD is not an asshat, yes, but I also don't like how then the on-topic discussion will be filled by people making statements and then people overanalyzing why someone refuses to make a statement or whether that statement is checkable, etc. In that way, IMO, it breaks the "fun" of the game to me.

At least with a role check, it's practically the same, but it doesn't steer the thread away with statement-checking talk.

I just really, really don't like LD check roles, but that's only my opinion.

[keys56000000000]

For all you guys know, the LD is dead. If I were a mafioso, I'd take the risk and make the statement. Even if the LD is alive, and checks my statement, they still have to get the info into the thread, and I can still counter it.

[Tangrowth]

For all you guys know, the LD is dead. If I were a mafioso, I'd take the risk and make the statement. Even if the LD is alive, and checks my statement, they still have to get the info into the thread, and I can still counter it.

This is a good point, keys.

[Marmot]

But I think MM needs to go first, he's really seeming an obvious baddie right now.

How close-minded of you.

Lol.

I've been anything BUT closed-minded, and I'm even now willing to hear you out, but you continuously refuse to contribute anything other than irrational fixation on one post Enrique made which does not hold up to scrutiny.

Oh really.

But I can also envision a scenario where you are the teammate, and that whole description you just posted was planned by you and Enrique in a rough way before Enrique's first post in the series. WIFOM by definition, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I still believe you're civ for reasons I stated earlier, but I just thought I'd share another point of view.

Fair enough. Not true, but sometimes playing devil's advocate is helpful, especially since I realize I can get tunnel vision quite often.

I'll let my thoughts on MM sit since I realize I may be feeling vindicated in error on it, and I'd like others to actually offer me feedback, but I do find his actions suspicious.

I don't want to get caught up in this sort of thing if that's alright with you.

As for the Enrique bit, well that actually reinforced the case I made on Dana before. It is not the centerpiece of my argument, but it provided an additional layer.

Also I'm actually trying to find your defense of Dana. Could you save me the trouble and link it for me?

[Marmot]

I'm even now willing to hear you out, but you continuously refuse to contribute anything other than irrational fixation on one post Enrique made which does not hold up to scrutiny.

I honestly don't think you are. I think you are saying that to justify being critical of my statements even more. You've said many times today that you are 99% sure, convinced and certain that I am a Dalek. I don't think you'd back out on it now.

[Marmot]

Also, in regards to Epi: I am not ignoring that issue, but I am pursuing other things right now.

[Snow Dog]

i have not posted for a while but i am reading and following the plot.

[Tangrowth]

MM, here is my major defense of Dana, but I have had other posts that have defended her: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=445&p=89662#p89662

And you say you don't want to get "caught up" with this sort of thing and that I wouldn't back out now, but here's the thing: I gave you plenty of time to defend your actions, and you have not offered any adequate explanations at all for the main tenants of my suspicion against you. I've defended myself against my accusers plenty, including you, yet you don't consider alternative explanations. And you're going to try to argue that I wouldn't back out? I'm baddie hunting. I've backed off cases where defenders have logically torn apart my arguments against them and reconsidered PLENTY of times this game, so much in fact that it was a major point of suspicion against me. So... your point is invalid. If you had what I found to be adequate explanations for your behavior, I'd believe you. And I didn't start out "99%" certain, but as you've continued to post and I've analyzed your behavior, I'm sorry, but so many things you've done just do not compute if you are a civvie this game.

[Tangrowth]

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 662#p89662

Well, that's weird.

[Marmot]

Quick question for you MP, why do you think Enrique voted for Snow Dog and not you on Day 3? At the time of his vote, you had 3 votes on you while Snow Dog had one, and Made had 5.

[Tangrowth]

Quick question for you MP, why do you think Enrique voted for Snow Dog and not you on Day 3? At the time of his vote, you had 3 votes on you while Snow Dog had one, and Made had 5.

He had been casually defending me all game, so a vote for me would have been completely unexpected.

[Chris]

I think I understood, Chris. Epig 2 is different and sketchy and you're voting him to put it to rest, but you still suspect MP.

[Snow Dog]

I was curious about Roxy's sudden change of heart and being SURE that Hedgeowl was bad to voting Made and now her single minded certainty about Epi 2. Now she refused to vote Enrique because of she didn't trust Epi, even though his case as pretty good imo. This is something Chris noted at the time.
First she wasn't sure about Made, but to possibly? save Enrique she dropped her Hedgeowl case and went for Made for playing differently.

[Marmot]

MM, here is my major defense of Dana, but I have had other posts that have defended her: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=445&p=89662#p89662

And you say you don't want to get "caught up" with this sort of thing and that I wouldn't back out now, but here's the thing: I gave you plenty of time to defend your actions, and you have not offered any adequate explanations at all for the main tenants of my suspicion against you. I've defended myself against my accusers plenty, including you, yet you don't consider alternative explanations. And you're going to try to argue that I wouldn't back out? I'm baddie hunting. I've backed off cases where defenders have logically torn apart my arguments against them and reconsidered PLENTY of times this game, so much in fact that it was a major point of suspicion against me. So... your point is invalid. If you had what I found to be adequate explanations for your behavior, I'd believe you. And I didn't start out "99%" certain, but as you've continued to post and I've analyzed your behavior, I'm sorry, but so many things you've done just do not compute if you are a civvie this game.

Before I read that let me explain. Those are two different things.

I did not want to get caught up in getting heated and throwing insults back and forth at each other. It seemed like our conversation might have been heading that direction and I wanted to stop it.

That next bit is about your read on me. I don't expect you to change it. I really don't. You can keep saying that I have the ability to change your mind, but you keep following it up with statements that your certainty of my alignment (you did it again in the above quote). Also let me point this post out. You may have had time to sit and wait for a response, but I haven't necessarily had time to post one.

Linki: You stated somewhere (or maybe it was Epi) that Enrique's vote was an obvious save attempt. That doesn't make any sense to me. You would have been the better choice at the time.

[Tangrowth]

Thanks for clarifying, MM, and I realize you've been busy; I'm not talking about only D6, but fair enough.

You shouldn't expect me to change it, unless you can come up with some amazing reason, because at this point your posts have been increasingly incriminating.

I don't think Enrique's vote was an obvious save attempt at the time, but on reflection, it seems like it was his idea to "save" Made and leave his lynch-stopping power for another day.

I don't think you're realizing that Enrique could not just do a 180 on his opinion of me even if it was the better choice at the time. That's a great example of a baddie getting locked into their opinions, whether they truly believe them or not. So... I don't understand why you're harping on that, since it makes no sense.

[Tangrowth]

Now I really have to go. I'm leaving my vote on you because I firmly believe you're bad. If you're not, sorry, but there's no changing your actions or your lack of adequate defenses. I'll likely be back before the vote, but it'll be late tonight. I have a lot of work to get done today, and haven't really had a productive start that I was intending.

[Marmot]

Thanks for clarifying, MM, and I realize you've been busy; I'm not talking about only D6, but fair enough.

You shouldn't expect me to change it, unless you can come up with some amazing reason, because at this point your posts have been increasingly incriminating.

I don't think Enrique's vote was an obvious save attempt at the time, but on reflection, it seems like it was his idea to "save" Made and leave his lynch-stopping power for another day.

I don't think you're realizing that Enrique could not just do a 180 on his opinion of me even if it was the better choice at the time. That's a great example of a baddie getting locked into their opinions, whether they truly believe them or not. So... I don't understand why you're harping on that, since it makes no sense.

I was actually hoping to discuss the Snow Dog lynch with you again, but hopefully another time.

Also he did a 180 on you later, and Dana as well.

[Marmot]

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 662#p89662

Well, that's weird.

You know what else is weird, I DID respond to that.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 671#p89671

[Snow Dog]

Thanks for clarifying, MM, and I realize you've been busy; I'm not talking about only D6, but fair enough.

You shouldn't expect me to change it, unless you can come up with some amazing reason, because at this point your posts have been increasingly incriminating.

I don't think Enrique's vote was an obvious save attempt at the time, but on reflection, it seems like it was his idea to "save" Made and leave his lynch-stopping power for another day.

I don't think you're realizing that Enrique could not just do a 180 on his opinion of me even if it was the better choice at the time. That's a great example of a baddie getting locked into their opinions, whether they truly believe them or not. So... I don't understand why you're harping on that, since it makes no sense.

I was actually hoping to discuss the Snow Dog lynch with you again, but hopefully another time.

Also he did a 180 on you later, and Dana as well.

I did a 180?

[Snow Dog]

Also, I do agree it's odd that he didn't name hardly any suspects in his analysis, mostly people he thought were good or likely good.

Hey, that sounds a lot like Dana...

Linki: I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but I will now. I think you've got the wrong adjective there. And because I've got a strong suspicion that you and Dana or on a baddie team together (with Enrique), I'm taking whatever you say with a grain of salt.

I will admit I wish Dana would actually come back to playing with us this game, but that doesn't sound a lot like Dana, considering she's not really making any analysis.

And she's not bad.

But you have practically no evidence to believe that other than buying into the WIFOM that Enrique defended us both all game only to flip on us at the end.

Dana is not bad and i think you also affirmed that daisy is not bad? I presume you "know" this somehow.

[Snow Dog]

It's ok MP, I just read your Dana defence. Which lynch is this about, Enrique's?

[Snow Dog]

I mean Made's failed lynch. MM voted himself in that one.

[Hedgeowl]

Thanks for clarifying, MM, and I realize you've been busy; I'm not talking about only D6, but fair enough.

You shouldn't expect me to change it, unless you can come up with some amazing reason, because at this point your posts have been increasingly incriminating.

I don't think Enrique's vote was an obvious save attempt at the time, but on reflection, it seems like it was his idea to "save" Made and leave his lynch-stopping power for another day.

I don't think you're realizing that Enrique could not just do a 180 on his opinion of me even if it was the better choice at the time. That's a great example of a baddie getting locked into their opinions, whether they truly believe them or not. So... I don't understand why you're harping on that, since it makes no sense.

I was actually hoping to discuss the Snow Dog lynch with you again, but hopefully another time.

Also he did a 180 on you later, and Dana as well.

I did a 180?

I think he means Enrique, not you.

[sabie12]

Hey guys still not feeling all that well. Anyway I'm gonna have to go through and read things. My current suspicion has been rox because she was so adament abiut the lie detector thing but wasn't making statements herself. Ill have to actually look backfor sure to make my decision though. Just want to have a vote in for now.

[Roxy]

Sabie - you have to go through and read thing yet somehow you know that lie detectors are being discussed and that I have not made one???
How very pingalicious!
I am not a robot.
I am a good girl.
I am not cyber.
I am not a master.

Since you are so concerned with mine why not add yours to the mix sabie?