Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
Wait, you already ate the cookie you are offering me?Metalmarsh89 wrote:Probably shortbread, because I had one this morning.
It's when you suddenly and vehemently suspect the person who posted before you.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What is "Linki"?
When you write a post, and then get that little notification that there are more posts in the interim, and you want to respond to one or more of them.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What is "Linki"?
A brain disorder contracted when people post too much.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What is "Linki"?
I want to hear more from you. I'm holding my vote for a reason - I'm not convinced I'm voting for you yet but I could.Soneji wrote:@Golden : You are misunderstanding why I voted Zebra. It has nothing to do with sympathy for JoH, I am not sure how you got that impression when I didn't compare the two of us or mention myself as having culture clash in those posts. My vote went to Zebra as I saw her interaction with DDL and JoH as being a forced "gotcha" where she puts forth Snow Dog's claim of not reading his role as mafia bait that they bit on.
My earlier post was based on skimming the discussion. I reread things in full now that it is D1 and found other factors that changed my view.
My default mindset is changeable votes.
Careful, Scotty got in trouble for that before.Metalmarsh89 wrote:I've been driving and posting illegally all day, but I'll be at a computer soon.
NoDrWilgy wrote:Are votes changeable?
I disagree. It is the best time to sit back, because it's the most easily excusable. "Well it was only Day 0, can't have any real suspicion or stance on Day 0. Day 0 is when the baddies are really sitting back, the civs usually lynch a civ with very little help from the baddies, and the baddies can get a feel for how to best direct the thread, who will be a threat, who will help keep attention off of them and so forth.Long Con wrote:So, who are those people? One counterpoint I would make is that it was just Day 0, so it's not as strong a viewpoint as it would be were it a later, meatier game day.Epignosis wrote:Spacedaisy's point of view here mirrors my own.Spacedaisy wrote:Ok, so I read everything. I voted east because I wanted to and am satisfied to see it winning.
That was a lot of pages of discussing Snow Dog's statement about not reading his role card. I thought not reading one's role card would be a foolish personal decision but it wouldn't be a scum tell in my mind. And I didn't find anything particularly useful in the back and forth to help identify any scum either, it seemed a lot more about playstyle influenced conversation than anyone trying to manipulate anything. I think the people who we should look at are probably the people who were reading it and not commenting or committing to any stance. They are the ones much more likely to be scum, because scum love letting civs go after each other over stupid playstyle arguments, it saves them a lot of work.
Just my two cents. Going to work now. Third shift, fun fun fun...
That changed with the end of Lost Again. Epi and I won, now I am tied with Elo and MM and Epi is leading the FEB list by 1 Baddie win.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Last time I checked she had the highest number of baddies wins in this site. Only tied with her husband and their pet marmot.Epignosis wrote:
As for Eloh, she doesn't know why a vanilla civilian would lie about having a power role.
That is exactly what I meant, yes.Sorsha wrote:I agree that this would be a good point to look at- those who were reading and not commenting- but how do you tell who exactly was reading and not commenting? Maybe posting in the thread with no comment on the subject is what you mean? I'm curious myself as to who that would be and I'll look into it later when I've got the time. I'm off to work in a few minutes.Epignosis wrote:Spacedaisy's point of view here mirrors my own.Spacedaisy wrote:Ok, so I read everything. I voted east because I wanted to and am satisfied to see it winning.
That was a lot of pages of discussing Snow Dog's statement about not reading his role card. I thought not reading one's role card would be a foolish personal decision but it wouldn't be a scum tell in my mind. And I didn't find anything particularly useful in the back and forth to help identify any scum either, it seemed a lot more about playstyle influenced conversation than anyone trying to manipulate anything. I think the people who we should look at are probably the people who were reading it and not commenting or committing to any stance. They are the ones much more likely to be scum, because scum love letting civs go after each other over stupid playstyle arguments, it saves them a lot of work.
Just my two cents. Going to work now. Third shift, fun fun fun...
^This! One thing I have had to adjust to here is that Snow Dog is SD (I used to be called SD on LP, TP even Rev) so it throws me off in a major way, lol. I think people call me Daisy more often here on The Syndicate though. Let's stick to calling me Daisy please, for clarity.Golden wrote:SD = snow dog = he?
SD = Spacedaisy = she?
Lets try to avoid using SD! So confusing.
He is our site's top FEB for a reason.Nachomamma8 wrote:I hope that Epi's scum game is half as good as he says it is!!
Not so weird when you know the history there. Glorf is genuinely one of the nicest guys on this site, and he is very honest, it's part of who he is and I respect it greatly. But it has gotten him in trouble because he won't lie even as bad. At least that's how I understand it. I don't find Zebra's comment weird at all knowing that history.Long Con wrote:You know, it is a weird damn thing to say. Didn't realize it fully until now.Glorfindel wrote:Unfinished business:Glorfindel wrote:I'm sorry, my dear friend... I'm probably a little slow at the moment (in the frantic lead up to the holiday season) but could you please explain for me what you meant by your remark above? I assure you that I've taken no offence at it and I trust you will take none for me asking - I just want to be certain I understood what you meanta2thezebra wrote:I'll be defending Glorfindel too unless I catch him unwilling to lie about something.
Hope you are willing to lie about something, Glor!
Glorfindel wrote:Aaahh, welcome back my friends to the 'Glorfindel Hour'
I've read the recent posts in this game and refuse any longer to be exploited as a potential distraction any further this game by certain players for their own ends. I will deal with this matter right here, right now!
By way of background (for those of you who were not involved) in my last game here (Mad Max) I was asked by Jay to directly and explicitly respond to a series of questions that he put to me that amounted to a declaration of my alignment in that game. His questions were prompted by statements that I'd made in previous games to the effect that I would not lie if asked a direct question as to my alignment in any Mafia game. I have included both his questions and my response to them here for your information.
Whilst (as I indicated in the post above) my decision to adopt this approach was made independent of my alignment in that game, I'm pretty sure only Jay actually understood what I meant there and every other player interpreted my response as simply a feeble and expedient means of dodging Jay's questions for that game.Spoiler: show
As I said in the coloured section of that post, I will no longer declare my alignment in any game I play on this site irrespective of my alignment then, now or in the future. Let me be crystal clear about this - if you are uncomfortable with me taking this approach or unwilling to accept my adopting it, then you should vote to remove me from this game, AND the next game AND the one after that because this is a matter of deeply held principle to me upon which I will not compromise.
You do you Glorf! I won't be asking you to do something that betrays a deeply held principle.I agree. It is clearly something that is important Glorfindel and we pride ourselves in not attacking people on a personal level. This is not a matter of baddie hunting, but questioning the principles that is important to him. We may not understand or agree, but I don't think it needs to be a discussion or debate.Dom wrote:I don't see the merit in the discussion.
HOLDEN! Don't mafia and drive! The game is not worth your life or that of anyone else on the road...Metalmarsh89 wrote:I've been driving and posting illegally all day, but I'll be at a computer soon.
Linki: who makes a batch of one cookie?
Any ideas here Epi? Or daisy since it was your comment originally....Sorsha wrote:I agree that this would be a good point to look at- those who were reading and not commenting- but how do you tell who exactly was reading and not commenting? Maybe posting in the thread with no comment on the subject is what you mean? I'm curious myself as to who that would be and I'll look into it later when I've got the time. I'm off to work in a few minutes.Epignosis wrote:Spacedaisy's point of view here mirrors my own.Spacedaisy wrote:Ok, so I read everything. I voted east because I wanted to and am satisfied to see it winning.
That was a lot of pages of discussing Snow Dog's statement about not reading his role card. I thought not reading one's role card would be a foolish personal decision but it wouldn't be a scum tell in my mind. And I didn't find anything particularly useful in the back and forth to help identify any scum either, it seemed a lot more about playstyle influenced conversation than anyone trying to manipulate anything. I think the people who we should look at are probably the people who were reading it and not commenting or committing to any stance. They are the ones much more likely to be scum, because scum love letting civs go after each other over stupid playstyle arguments, it saves them a lot of work.
Just my two cents. Going to work now. Third shift, fun fun fun...
I'll forgive you once you eat a hat.MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm sorry to the host and you all; I just do not have any time for this game until I'm back in San Antonio. I don't want to replace out though because that will be Saturday.
Voting myself for now because I don't want to be punished for missing it and I have not read anything.
I don't have long before I have to vote, that's all!Spacedaisy wrote:Working on that now Sorsh.
Glorf, were you part of the Monkey Island game in which the not reading the role card thing originated?
Linki: Geez y'all give me a bit here to evaluate. I'm going to be questioning a few people here having to do with this. Everyone's in such a rush.
We haven't played together in a while I think...I'm still trying to think of a way to make that a reality... lolGolden wrote:I'll forgive you once you eat a hat.MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm sorry to the host and you all; I just do not have any time for this game until I'm back in San Antonio. I don't want to replace out though because that will be Saturday.
Voting myself for now because I don't want to be punished for missing it and I have not read anything.
I was catching up in my own version of real time. I didn't know Snow Dog had clarified it himself for a while after I started catching up, but I'm not going to hold back on providing my own view of events.Spacedaisy wrote:Quin, you did not respond at all to Snow Dog's initial comment, you were present made some other jokey posts at the time, but no response at all to his original post. Then when he came back and said what he was doing, you quickly chimed in and said you thought that was what he was doing. Why no response to it immediately?
Golden, you had a similar thing, explained away Snow Dog's post after he had already explained what he was doing in that post. Any reason you felt the need?
I didn't respond to Snow Dog initially because I didn't think that his joke was worth the discussion. I didn't anticipate that it'd become such a hot topic. I was posting in catch-up when I put in my two cents, so I didn't know that he'd said anything about it since until I was practically finished.Spacedaisy wrote:Quin, you did not respond at all to Snow Dog's initial comment, you were present made some other jokey posts at the time, but no response at all to his original post. Then when he came back and said what he was doing, you quickly chimed in and said you thought that was what he was doing. Why no response to it immediately?
Golden, you had a similar thing, explained away Snow Dog's post after he had already explained what he was doing in that post. Any reason you felt the need?
This isn't true. I gave my input on both Luffy and zebra. And even then, I don't know why involvement in arguments about playstyles are a point of parity.Spacedaisy wrote:As of right now, my vote will not be going to JoH, Soneji, DDL, LC, or Zebra.
I can't say who might have been lurking without posting at all, but the people who posted without commenting on any of the various playstyle arguments that were going on hot and heavy during Day 0. But I can say that Quin posted without participating, as did Glorf and sprityo.
I'll look back to see if I mischaracterized your behavior during that particular period of time. And your answer is actually exactly the one I was looking for. When I read the initial reaction I had a knee jerk bad feeling about you surrounding it, but when I looked back at it I realized you had only a brief time in thread after Snow Dog's joke and then you came back right after he cleared it up.Quin wrote:I didn't respond to Snow Dog initially because I didn't think that his joke was worth the discussion. I didn't anticipate that it'd become such a hot topic. I was posting in catch-up when I put in my two cents, so I didn't know that he'd said anything about it since until I was practically finished.Spacedaisy wrote:Quin, you did not respond at all to Snow Dog's initial comment, you were present made some other jokey posts at the time, but no response at all to his original post. Then when he came back and said what he was doing, you quickly chimed in and said you thought that was what he was doing. Why no response to it immediately?
Golden, you had a similar thing, explained away Snow Dog's post after he had already explained what he was doing in that post. Any reason you felt the need?
This isn't true. I gave my input on both Luffy and zebra. And even then, I don't know why involvement in arguments about playstyles are a point of parity.Spacedaisy wrote:As of right now, my vote will not be going to JoH, Soneji, DDL, LC, or Zebra.
I can't say who might have been lurking without posting at all, but the people who posted without commenting on any of the various playstyle arguments that were going on hot and heavy during Day 0. But I can say that Quin posted without participating, as did Glorf and sprityo.
I officially suspect Golden for this post.Golden wrote:Yes, sorry, that was more clear after your clarification.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I'm going to disagree with your summary of my read on Zebra as "genuine."
I do not view the way she went about that as "genuine."
She saw a very weak attack on a player, mischaracterized the severity and completeness of the reasoning of said attack, put forth a nonsensical and unnecessary defense of what was probably a joke and then didn't answer multiple questions regarding her posts.
I don't view that as a townie trying their best.
@Snow
What did you think of Zebra's initial defense of you?
Well, I disagree very strongly about the characterisation that both you and soneji have put forward about zebra. I'd say zebra looked much more flexible than those around her. In particular I'd say that
1) The attack that you and DDL put on Snow Dog, far from being weak, was very strong and way overdone for what it related to. You said outright you wanted to lynch him. So did DDL. You claim the idea of it being town lying was so unlikely that it deserved outright dismissal. DDL argued for a policy lynch and said there was a 99% chance Snow Dog was bad if he was lying. To me, the attack was strong and sustained far beyond what is reasonable from anyone with a town mind set - DDL was worse, but I do not like your content much in the exchange either, particular after zebra weighed in.
2) I do not think zebra ever mischaracterised either the 'severity' or the 'reasoning' of said attack. To me, as I read it in real time, she responded to the only reasons that could be reasonably implied from your posting. If you had reasons in your head that you didn't write in your posts, it's not fair to expect people to infer that and characterise your reasoning as something you haven't said.
3) "Put forth a nonsensical and unnecessary defence of what was probably a joke"... a: you didn't consider it a joke at the time, b: zebras defence makes perfect sense, what about it is nonsensical? and c) Two people were bearing down hard on another person for literally nothing, and you call the defence unnecessary?
4) What possible motivation would zebra have for making an 'unnecessary and nonsensical defence' of Snow Dog?
Having said all of that, I don't suspect you. I find your thinking a bit no u/omgus, but the first time I ever played with Zebra I tunnelled her into the ground on day one for suspecting me because she does come across (to the person being attacked) as someone who ignores the facts that don't suit her and seems to hone in only on the bits she wants to. I was wrong, and I think I've been wrong every time I have suspected Zebra for those reasons. I guess I now see it as one form of her town game.
I do suspect soneji, because his vote to me seems to be, in essence, 'I'm making a statement for playstyle - Jack is like me. Therefore, voting zebra', which is a terrible reason for a vote. Plus he was laissez faire with an unchangeable vote.
Soneji is usually more aloof, especially in early game. He does better engaging in end game.Golden wrote:OK, I have to vote.
Soneji for me. I wanted him to come back and talk, but he didn't really (although his defence was fair, just brief). He feels more aloof than I'm used to.
My analysis of his posts didn't make me feel any better.
I don't see anything out of the ordinary for him here.You're the last person to suspect someone for that lmaoEpignosis wrote:I officially suspect Golden for this post.Golden wrote:Yes, sorry, that was more clear after your clarification.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I'm going to disagree with your summary of my read on Zebra as "genuine."
I do not view the way she went about that as "genuine."
She saw a very weak attack on a player, mischaracterized the severity and completeness of the reasoning of said attack, put forth a nonsensical and unnecessary defense of what was probably a joke and then didn't answer multiple questions regarding her posts.
I don't view that as a townie trying their best.
@Snow
What did you think of Zebra's initial defense of you?
Well, I disagree very strongly about the characterisation that both you and soneji have put forward about zebra. I'd say zebra looked much more flexible than those around her. In particular I'd say that
1) The attack that you and DDL put on Snow Dog, far from being weak, was very strong and way overdone for what it related to. You said outright you wanted to lynch him. So did DDL. You claim the idea of it being town lying was so unlikely that it deserved outright dismissal. DDL argued for a policy lynch and said there was a 99% chance Snow Dog was bad if he was lying. To me, the attack was strong and sustained far beyond what is reasonable from anyone with a town mind set - DDL was worse, but I do not like your content much in the exchange either, particular after zebra weighed in.
2) I do not think zebra ever mischaracterised either the 'severity' or the 'reasoning' of said attack. To me, as I read it in real time, she responded to the only reasons that could be reasonably implied from your posting. If you had reasons in your head that you didn't write in your posts, it's not fair to expect people to infer that and characterise your reasoning as something you haven't said.
3) "Put forth a nonsensical and unnecessary defence of what was probably a joke"... a: you didn't consider it a joke at the time, b: zebras defence makes perfect sense, what about it is nonsensical? and c) Two people were bearing down hard on another person for literally nothing, and you call the defence unnecessary?
4) What possible motivation would zebra have for making an 'unnecessary and nonsensical defence' of Snow Dog?
Having said all of that, I don't suspect you. I find your thinking a bit no u/omgus, but the first time I ever played with Zebra I tunnelled her into the ground on day one for suspecting me because she does come across (to the person being attacked) as someone who ignores the facts that don't suit her and seems to hone in only on the bits she wants to. I was wrong, and I think I've been wrong every time I have suspected Zebra for those reasons. I guess I now see it as one form of her town game.
I do suspect soneji, because his vote to me seems to be, in essence, 'I'm making a statement for playstyle - Jack is like me. Therefore, voting zebra', which is a terrible reason for a vote. Plus he was laissez faire with an unchangeable vote.
You don't think Jack is bad, but you're going to lecture him every which way from Sunday. What is the point of that?
Just going off time stamps so I can satiate your concerns; I wasn't mostly missing, I wasn't there full stop.Spacedaisy wrote:I'll look back to see if I mischaracterized your behavior during that particular period of time. And your answer is actually exactly the one I was looking for. When I read the initial reaction I had a knee jerk bad feeling about you surrounding it, but when I looked back at it I realized you had only a brief time in thread after Snow Dog's joke and then you came back right after he cleared it up.Quin wrote:I didn't respond to Snow Dog initially because I didn't think that his joke was worth the discussion. I didn't anticipate that it'd become such a hot topic. I was posting in catch-up when I put in my two cents, so I didn't know that he'd said anything about it since until I was practically finished.Spacedaisy wrote:Quin, you did not respond at all to Snow Dog's initial comment, you were present made some other jokey posts at the time, but no response at all to his original post. Then when he came back and said what he was doing, you quickly chimed in and said you thought that was what he was doing. Why no response to it immediately?
Golden, you had a similar thing, explained away Snow Dog's post after he had already explained what he was doing in that post. Any reason you felt the need?
This isn't true. I gave my input on both Luffy and zebra. And even then, I don't know why involvement in arguments about playstyles are a point of parity.Spacedaisy wrote:As of right now, my vote will not be going to JoH, Soneji, DDL, LC, or Zebra.
I can't say who might have been lurking without posting at all, but the people who posted without commenting on any of the various playstyle arguments that were going on hot and heavy during Day 0. But I can say that Quin posted without participating, as did Glorf and sprityo.
It's a point to me because my interest is in who was there during these intense exchanges, but did not engage in it at the time. I think baddies are more likely to lay low, especially on Day 0/1 and I am looking to cast my vote on one of these type players. Someone who is here but not fully engaging. Don't get your panties in a bunch, friend. I questioned you because I felt like you were someone who it applied to even though I didn't feel like you were a real suspect. I wanted to see how you answered just the same.
Ok, I checked back and I think you misunderstood what I was doing. I specifically was looking at the period of time between when Snow Dog made the initial joke and then when he clarified. I was looking at the conversation in that time. I think that once Snow Dog clarifies it, from that point forward anything said can pretty much be dismissed. It's easy for baddies to jump in and just say, oh yeah that's what I thought he was doing. Yes you did engage in the conversation afterwards, specifically about DDL and his part in the suspicion cast around about Snow Dog as a result of his joke. But this was outside the time frame I was specifically looking at which is why I included you. Again though, I think you were mostly missing during the most intense of it so I don't really consider you someone I would vote for.
I realize it's a flimsy excuse, but I only do it on the highway when there aren't cars around.Spacedaisy wrote:HOLDEN! Don't mafia and drive! The game is not worth your life or that of anyone else on the road...
Obviously I can't prove I wasn't just lurking offline, but at least you can take me out of the pool of those who 'posted without commenting'.Quin wrote:Just going off time stamps so I can satiate your concerns; I wasn't mostly missing, I wasn't there full stop.Spacedaisy wrote:I'll look back to see if I mischaracterized your behavior during that particular period of time. And your answer is actually exactly the one I was looking for. When I read the initial reaction I had a knee jerk bad feeling about you surrounding it, but when I looked back at it I realized you had only a brief time in thread after Snow Dog's joke and then you came back right after he cleared it up.Quin wrote:I didn't respond to Snow Dog initially because I didn't think that his joke was worth the discussion. I didn't anticipate that it'd become such a hot topic. I was posting in catch-up when I put in my two cents, so I didn't know that he'd said anything about it since until I was practically finished.Spacedaisy wrote:Quin, you did not respond at all to Snow Dog's initial comment, you were present made some other jokey posts at the time, but no response at all to his original post. Then when he came back and said what he was doing, you quickly chimed in and said you thought that was what he was doing. Why no response to it immediately?
Golden, you had a similar thing, explained away Snow Dog's post after he had already explained what he was doing in that post. Any reason you felt the need?
This isn't true. I gave my input on both Luffy and zebra. And even then, I don't know why involvement in arguments about playstyles are a point of parity.Spacedaisy wrote:As of right now, my vote will not be going to JoH, Soneji, DDL, LC, or Zebra.
I can't say who might have been lurking without posting at all, but the people who posted without commenting on any of the various playstyle arguments that were going on hot and heavy during Day 0. But I can say that Quin posted without participating, as did Glorf and sprityo.
It's a point to me because my interest is in who was there during these intense exchanges, but did not engage in it at the time. I think baddies are more likely to lay low, especially on Day 0/1 and I am looking to cast my vote on one of these type players. Someone who is here but not fully engaging. Don't get your panties in a bunch, friend. I questioned you because I felt like you were someone who it applied to even though I didn't feel like you were a real suspect. I wanted to see how you answered just the same.
Ok, I checked back and I think you misunderstood what I was doing. I specifically was looking at the period of time between when Snow Dog made the initial joke and then when he clarified. I was looking at the conversation in that time. I think that once Snow Dog clarifies it, from that point forward anything said can pretty much be dismissed. It's easy for baddies to jump in and just say, oh yeah that's what I thought he was doing. Yes you did engage in the conversation afterwards, specifically about DDL and his part in the suspicion cast around about Snow Dog as a result of his joke. But this was outside the time frame I was specifically looking at which is why I included you. Again though, I think you were mostly missing during the most intense of it so I don't really consider you someone I would vote for.
When I say point of parity, and I might be misunderstanding you, but your list of who you won't vote seems to be justified based on the fact that they engaged in arguments about playstyles. Can you elaborate more specifically on what exactly is motivating your reads there?
I don't even know what to do with my vote, let alone yours.Spacedaisy wrote:I will also not be voting Nacho, btw, or Snow Dog.
Leaning giving my vote to MM at the moment. Not sure yet though.
Getting him to see the light on what looked like a bad tunnel to me. No matter how genuinely held his zebra suspicion is or was, it was founded on poor logic.Epignosis wrote:I officially suspect Golden for this post.Golden wrote:Yes, sorry, that was more clear after your clarification.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I'm going to disagree with your summary of my read on Zebra as "genuine."
I do not view the way she went about that as "genuine."
She saw a very weak attack on a player, mischaracterized the severity and completeness of the reasoning of said attack, put forth a nonsensical and unnecessary defense of what was probably a joke and then didn't answer multiple questions regarding her posts.
I don't view that as a townie trying their best.
@Snow
What did you think of Zebra's initial defense of you?
Well, I disagree very strongly about the characterisation that both you and soneji have put forward about zebra. I'd say zebra looked much more flexible than those around her. In particular I'd say that
1) The attack that you and DDL put on Snow Dog, far from being weak, was very strong and way overdone for what it related to. You said outright you wanted to lynch him. So did DDL. You claim the idea of it being town lying was so unlikely that it deserved outright dismissal. DDL argued for a policy lynch and said there was a 99% chance Snow Dog was bad if he was lying. To me, the attack was strong and sustained far beyond what is reasonable from anyone with a town mind set - DDL was worse, but I do not like your content much in the exchange either, particular after zebra weighed in.
2) I do not think zebra ever mischaracterised either the 'severity' or the 'reasoning' of said attack. To me, as I read it in real time, she responded to the only reasons that could be reasonably implied from your posting. If you had reasons in your head that you didn't write in your posts, it's not fair to expect people to infer that and characterise your reasoning as something you haven't said.
3) "Put forth a nonsensical and unnecessary defence of what was probably a joke"... a: you didn't consider it a joke at the time, b: zebras defence makes perfect sense, what about it is nonsensical? and c) Two people were bearing down hard on another person for literally nothing, and you call the defence unnecessary?
4) What possible motivation would zebra have for making an 'unnecessary and nonsensical defence' of Snow Dog?
Having said all of that, I don't suspect you. I find your thinking a bit no u/omgus, but the first time I ever played with Zebra I tunnelled her into the ground on day one for suspecting me because she does come across (to the person being attacked) as someone who ignores the facts that don't suit her and seems to hone in only on the bits she wants to. I was wrong, and I think I've been wrong every time I have suspected Zebra for those reasons. I guess I now see it as one form of her town game.
I do suspect soneji, because his vote to me seems to be, in essence, 'I'm making a statement for playstyle - Jack is like me. Therefore, voting zebra', which is a terrible reason for a vote. Plus he was laissez faire with an unchangeable vote.
You don't think Jack is bad, but you're going to lecture him every which way from Sunday. What is the point of that?
Totally. And he scolded me for making an irrelevant point... in an even more irrelevant argument!!Epignosis wrote:You don't think Jack is bad, but you're going to lecture him every which way from Sunday. What is the point of that?
That is so cool. What did it for you? Was it my role analysis? If it was, I feel obligated to inform you that I do it as a Civ and a baddie.Spacedaisy wrote:As of right now, my vote will not be going to JoH, Soneji, DDL, LC, or Zebra.
How rare do you feel a successful policy lynch is?Sorsha wrote:I'm leaning DDL with my vote. The call for a policy lynch/vig kill on snow dog for starters. Then after that the arguing game theory just stands out more to me than anything else anyone else has done.
Was he arguing by himself?Sorsha wrote:I'm leaning DDL with my vote. The call for a policy lynch/vig kill on snow dog for starters. Then after that the arguing game theory just stands out more to me than anything else anyone else has done.
I don't recall ever seeing a successful one. It's not done here on the syndicate too much, at least not the games I've played.Long Con wrote:How rare do you feel a successful policy lynch is?Sorsha wrote:I'm leaning DDL with my vote. The call for a policy lynch/vig kill on snow dog for starters. Then after that the arguing game theory just stands out more to me than anything else anyone else has done.
I forgot about you. Second to MM you look the worst in hindsight. You defended my reasoning while defending the disingenuous opportunistic behavior from the others. Then when I clarified their positions you didn't say anything to me until I commented positively on Scotty's suspicion of you. Very bad looking.insertnamehere wrote:2 hours to go, and only 6 out of 25 players have voted.
this is gonna be a fun EoD
