The Syndicate

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:28 pm**

Me am Bizarro in this scenario. If that was clear.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:38 pm**

I have a long day of making delicious dinner stuffs, watching my favorite old movie and getting drfunk ahead of me. Voting Arkham. My second choice would have been Wayne mannor, but it looks like the Arkham train done left the building eons ago.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:18 pm**

You think three and one word responses are being adamant?

People speak about factions in the third person. Happens all the time. This is a ridiulous "slip" to call.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:31 pm**

O. I was skimming and completely misunderstood the context of TH's "slip." Turns out it's even more ridiculous than I thought. How is that a slip exactly?

sig I see no reason to assume Gotham would start at 100%? The game would practically be gifted to them at that point.

I am still looking to vote for no/low-posters for day 1, like usual. Because it's still too early for me to accuse.

It's still early, but this isn't a terrible idea. I don't want another game where everyone participating gets picked off.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:33 pm**

Enrique wrote: sig I see no reason to assume Gotham would start at 100%? The game would practically be gifted to them at that point.

Epi answered this already

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:34 pm**

You've got two hours to get where it is you're going. Don't miss the bus. Gotham can be...unfriendly toward pedestrians.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:34 pm**

Enrique wrote:You think three and one word responses are being adamant?

People speak about factions in the third person. Happens all the time. This is a ridiulous "slip" to call.

I was referring to Zebra being adamant that it's not a slip to the point of saying "amen". Strikes me as unnecessarily over-reactive to the play as well as quite a sidestep from her dust up with Matt. I don't think it's ridiculous tbh. I have noticed lately that many players dismiss the notion of scum slips as "never happens" yet in the GoC (and every time I am mafia tbh) I slipped quite a few times, and if the TS meta was to actually pay attention to them I'd have been lynched much sooner than I was.

To elaborate on my read of the play; Turnip Head's original post, referring to the civilians as "we" is the suspect post and his subsequent post affirms it. His natural inclination (and I believe anybody who isn't being cautious with their words) would have been to use the word "they" in the context but he chose to use the word we, which went above and beyond the point of his post. He was "laying it on thick" ensuring that his point would be not just what he intended but also include the very non subtle subtext of "and I am civilian" which was unnecessary. He later added that he had paused as he wrote it and expected someone to attack him over it, yet did so anyway. Would a civilian actually even be wary of the potential of being attacked over referring to oneself as a civilian? If true, which I believe it is, that is to my eye indicative of the mindset of a cautious anti-town player.

To those that have been simply saying "not a slip" I have some questions.

What is not a slip? The second post?

Do you understand the suspicion being made here? It is slightly more complex than what "not a slip" could be capable of addressing.

Is it "not a slip" because you have a civilian read on Turnip Head?

Does it being "not a slip" make him a civilian in your mind?

Can he be mafia and it not be a slip?

Does nothing about the original post in question pique your interest?

Why do you feel the need to defend Turnip Head from such accusations on day zero?

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:38 pm**

Wow, I see that I am considerably late to this party, but I will be your moderator for the game. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me for anything whatsoever. Even if you're just lonely, or worried that Donald Trump might be the next president. PM me and I will try to help. Happy hunting, y'all!

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:41 pm**

Typhoony wrote:
Enrique wrote: sig I see no reason to assume Gotham would start at 100%? The game would practically be gifted to them at that point.
Epi answered this already

Yeah, weird question.

Mac you'll have to give me a bit before I can properly sit down and answer, but I just really don't see it. I was talking about his second post then, hadn't seen the first, but to me that only makes it clearer. You called him out on something, he changed it. I don't see that as civ or bad behavior but just... not wanting to deal with shit, lol.

But what you're calling him out on originally is just talking about himself as a civvie? Again, where's the slip?

Or maybe with slip you've meant his second post all along idfk I'll get back to you later.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:42 pm**

Do you actually expect anyone to answer those question Mac?

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:45 pm**

I'm not compelled to defend any particular players, Mac. People disagree in Mafia, but what, I shouldn't give you my take?

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:46 pm**

You'd think if I was a baddie being so careful with my words that I would continue to be careful with my words because my wording was already under attack.

I said we the first time because I was specifically including myself in the statement I was making. You call it laying it on thick, I call it speaking my mind. My natural inclination was to use "we" in one post with one context and "they" in another post with another context, regardless of what you might think is correct civilian behavior.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:47 pm**

Nerolunar wrote:Probably won´t be a mislynch though.

Nerolunar dropping the bomb!

Dayum!

I read this post and got super hype for some reason. I'm imagining TH just enjoying a nice drink, writing a post on his phone stating "welp looks like this is it for me" and then Nero walks in and just slaps the phone out of TH's hand, while staring right in his face, tellin him to get that shizznip outa here "dawg" (Nero's words not mine).

Also hi everyone.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:48 pm**

My answer to your questions is basically that I see it as a non-event. Nothing happened.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:49 pm**

Are we going to have another discussion about whether or not a single word uttered by zebra indicates a strong view as opposed to normal agreement?

I thought we'd already established she can say things that sound more certain than she is. So do I. And so do you, Mac.

I find myself defending zebra a lot this game. Not because I have any particular civ read on her, but because I think that some of the things lobbed her way have read in a lot more than is there.

Enrique wrote:I'm not compelled to defend any particular players, Mac. People disagree in Mafia, but what, I shouldn't give you my take?

Two thumbs up for Enrique.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:52 pm**

juliets wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:OK just caught up and I can remember who else said something about my tone but if someone could tell me how my tone has seemed bad this game that would be real helpful.
Bass, Mac made a post about your tone that provided some examples, unless what you're asking for is more examples from other people.

Yeah I saw that thanks .

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:40 pm**

a2thezebra wrote:
Dom wrote:I think TH slipped tbh.
I don't.

Cool.

I think the "we" was suspicious. I was on my way out when I posted that and didn't realize there was a discussion on "they". "They" is less suspicious to me than the "we" was.

Golden wrote:
Enrique wrote:I'm not compelled to defend any particular players, Mac. People disagree in Mafia, but what, I shouldn't give you my take?
Two thumbs up for Enrique.

This I agree with. Mac's painting of TH's "defenders" doesn't read genuine to me. People can't disagree?

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:45 pm**

Dom wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Dom wrote:I think TH slipped tbh.
I don't.
Cool.

I think the "we" was suspicious. I was on my way out when I posted that and didn't realize there was a discussion on "they". "They" is less suspicious to me than the "we" was.

Golden wrote:
Enrique wrote:I'm not compelled to defend any particular players, Mac. People disagree in Mafia, but what, I shouldn't give you my take?
Two thumbs up for Enrique.
This I agree with. Mac's painting of TH's "defenders" doesn't read genuine to me. People can't disagree?

I disagree. People are incapable of disagreement. Wait, shit.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:11 pm**

Enrique wrote:
Typhoony wrote:
Enrique wrote: sig I see no reason to assume Gotham would start at 100%? The game would practically be gifted to them at that point.
Epi answered this already
Yeah, weird question.

Mac you'll have to give me a bit before I can properly sit down and answer, but I just really don't see it. I was talking about his second post then, hadn't seen the first, but to me that only makes it clearer. You called him out on something, he changed it. I don't see that as civ or bad behavior but just... not wanting to deal with shit, lol.

But what you're calling him out on originally is just talking about himself as a civvie? Again, where's the slip?

Or maybe with slip you've meant his second post all along idfk I'll get back to you later.

I did not say it was a slip. Dom said it was a slip, and others claimed it was not. I have only affirmed that Turnip's use of the word "we" was a ping.

I frequently catch people on tone like this early in the game. Invariably the fact that these cases are based on such minor details ... that they are so specific in nature, leads people to consider me a crackpot, ignore me and overlook them. There are certain players I do not read well, Golden ... Juliets. But the majority of people I tone read very well, and I am pretty confident with this one.

Typhoony wrote:Do you actually expect anyone to answer those question Mac?

I see no reason why people who said that it wasn't a slip, the likes of Enrique, Zebra, Metalmarsh etc., cannot answer them? Of course I expect them to answer the questions.

Enrique wrote:I'm not compelled to defend any particular players, Mac. People disagree in Mafia, but what, I shouldn't give you my take?

You are welcome to give me a take, and individually there is no doubt you are allowed to do so. I am unsure where you have come up witht eh perspective that I did not wish for you to offer your opinion. From my perspective however, there was quite a nice little volume of people quick to dismiss the read. You, unlike the other few, actually discussed it. There are some who chose to just say that it was not a slip in their opinion. People are entitled to play how they like, but it is suspicious to me.

DharmaHelper pointing out that he went on to say "they" in the very same context later, indicates to me that I was right to suspect his initial choice of words and that my reasons for suspecting it were accurate. The they post is not suspicious, the they post affirms Turnip Head's usual linguistic preference in that context, which further emphasizes the suspicious nature of the "we" post.

Turnip Head wrote:You'd think if I was a baddie being so careful with my words that I would continue to be careful with my words because my wording was already under attack.

I said we the first time because I was specifically including myself in the statement I was making. You call it laying it on thick, I call it speaking my mind. My natural inclination was to use "we" in one post with one context and "they" in another post with another context, regardless of what you might think is correct civilian behavior.

What does "correct civilian behaviour" have to do with this point? The simple fact is that, in my opinion, your use of the word we in the original post is an unnatural choice of words. I feel like you were trying to subtly and unnecessarily civ claim. Your later use of "they" is the more natural use of words. Could you please explain to me in greater detail, how the contexts were different enough for you to feel the need to use different pronouns? I feel like the contexts were more or less the same.

Enrique wrote:My answer to your questions is basically that I see it as a non-event. Nothing happened.

Well this is objectively false. Something did happen, if you disagree that the something that happened is suspect, that is fine but a something occurred. I think it was suspicious and I back myself to read the intention behind comments well, especially when mafia aligned players are settling into a rhythm. This part of the game is my bread and butter. Didn't I call you scum on day 0 in Star Wars for similarly bewildering reasons Enrique? You probably feel like I just lucked out and my reasons were dumb then, and here you are again, yet I was right then, as I often am. I would appreciate some benefit of the doubt as for those who have been paying attention would be aware that my strike rate on my day zero tone reads is about 90% at the moment.

Golden wrote:Are we going to have another discussion about whether or not a single word uttered by zebra indicates a strong view as opposed to normal agreement?

I thought we'd already established she can say things that sound more certain than she is. So do I. And so do you, Mac.

I find myself defending zebra a lot this game. Not because I have any particular civ read on her, but because I think that some of the things lobbed her way have read in a lot more than is there.

Enrique wrote:I'm not compelled to defend any particular players, Mac. People disagree in Mafia, but what, I shouldn't give you my take?
Two thumbs up for Enrique.

There is a difference between making statements of fact when they are opinion, and big upping players for dismissing day zero ping reads. What is the purpose of such behaviour? It is buddying. It is emotive manipulation and it is antithetical to the fact that Zebra knows I am adept in these situations.

Dom wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Dom wrote:I think TH slipped tbh.
I don't.
Cool.

I think the "we" was suspicious. I was on my way out when I posted that and didn't realize there was a discussion on "they". "They" is less suspicious to me than the "we" was.

Golden wrote:
Enrique wrote:I'm not compelled to defend any particular players, Mac. People disagree in Mafia, but what, I shouldn't give you my take?
Two thumbs up for Enrique.
This I agree with. Mac's painting of TH's "defenders" doesn't read genuine to me. People can't disagree?

Yes, the "we" is the suspect post, not the "they". The they is the natural sounding post.

What am I painting exactly, and how is it not genuine? Please point out where I said that people are not entitled to disagree.

If people weren't so obsessed with engaging in one on one shit fights on day zero, we would catch mafia on tone far more frequently. These wallpost contests serve to discourage reading of the thread which helps Mafia get through the awkward first few pages far too easily.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:14 pm**

Mac - Here are reasons I think X is suspect
Gerber Baby Poster - Nah I think u wrong
Mac - Okay let me elaborate some. I think I am right for these reasons. How bout now?
Gerber Baby Poster - WHAT!? AM I NOT ALLOWED TO DISAGREE?!

Bowls and bowls of dicks right here. Come and get your warm dick bowls. Chow down.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:17 pm**

Whenever I need to cheer myself up I read the Jimmy post in my sig and smile.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:19 pm**

MacDougall wrote:What does "correct civilian behaviour" have to do with this point? The simple fact is that, in my opinion, your use of the word we in the original post is an unnatural choice of words. I feel like you were trying to subtly and unnecessarily civ claim. Your later use of "they" is the more natural use of words. Could you please explain to me in greater detail, how the contexts were different enough for you to feel the need to use different pronouns? I feel like the contexts were more or less the same.

Because I was specifically including myself in the point I was making to Matt. If I said "they" my meaning would not have been clear and might have come off as an insult rather than a constructive discussion. It was the most natural choice of words for what I was trying to communicate.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:23 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:
MacDougall wrote:What does "correct civilian behaviour" have to do with this point? The simple fact is that, in my opinion, your use of the word we in the original post is an unnatural choice of words. I feel like you were trying to subtly and unnecessarily civ claim. Your later use of "they" is the more natural use of words. Could you please explain to me in greater detail, how the contexts were different enough for you to feel the need to use different pronouns? I feel like the contexts were more or less the same.
Because I was specifically including myself in the point I was making to Matt. If I said "they" my meaning would not have been clear and might have come off as an insult rather than a constructive discussion. It was the most natural choice of words for what I was trying to communicate.

So you did make a conscious decision to include the word we to affirm your point?

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:28 pm**

Yeah man I already said as much when you first brought this up.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:35 pm**

To which location will you travel this evening?

Poll ended at Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:34 pm

Arkham Asylum
11
Bass_the_Clever (2), ekeknat (5), sprityo (8), Matt (9), Scotty (10), MovingPictures07 (15), Nerolunar (17), Golden (25), Equivocate (26), juliets (28), bea (31)
35%

Wayne Manor
4
Metalmarsh89 (7), DFaraday (13), Bubbles (24), Bullzeye (29)
13%

Wayne Enterprises
2
Sorsha (12), sig (19)
6%

Fish Mooney's
1
DharmaHelper (4)
3%

The Docks
2
a2thezebra (14), Typhoony (18)
6%

Gotham City Police Department
6
Turnip Head (3), S~V~S (11), DrWilgy (20), Dom (21), MacDougall (22), LoRab (30)
19%

City Hall
1
Glorfindel (27)
3%

Park Row
0
No votes

Blackgate Penitentiary
1
Enrique (16)
3%

Gotham City General Hospital
0
No votes

Gotham Zoo (The Host, the Non, the Dead)
3
Epignosis (1), Long Con (6), JaggedJimmyJay (23)
10%

Total votes : 31

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:38 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Civvie behavior is hard to define because we pretty much always act irrationally.
You went out of your way to write "we" here.
No I didn't.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:40 pm**

MacDougall wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Civvie behavior is hard to define because we pretty much always act irrationally.
You went out of your way to write "we" here.
No I didn't.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:40 pm**

I didn't go out of my way, it was exactly what I wanted to say :shrug 2:

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:41 pm**

This isn't going any further. You're a red skittle. If people disagree after this I'm not gonna convince them based on this point. Moving on.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:42 pm**

Anyone who wants to vote for me because of this should do so right now because I don't plan to spend anymore time defending myself over it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:42 pm**

Looks like we're on the same page then

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:43 pm**

We should do the worlds first 31 way tie.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:44 pm**

WILL GOTHAM SURVIVE THIS LATEST ORDEAL?

Gotham City is reeling as a number of its most dangerous threats escaped from Arkham Asylum. To add to the concerns of the people, there is a prodigious fear that not all police are honest, and that the criminal organizations hold more sway than the innocence of the citizens. And then there is the Batman: Savior, or Menace?

It is now Day 1. You have 48 hours to lynch someone.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:48 pm**

Waiting for MM to confirm whether votes are changeable.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:49 pm**

Epignosis wrote:13. Votes are not changeable.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:49 pm**

TH, why did you frame Enrique's argument for him?

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:52 pm**

Dom wrote:TH, why did you frame Enrique's argument for him?

You've already asked me this and I've already answered it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:53 pm**

Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:13. Votes are not changeable.

Epignosis is a known liar. I trust MM to confirm these poll schemes.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:05 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:Anyone who wants to vote for me because of this should do so right now because I don't plan to spend anymore time defending myself over it.

Turnip Head wrote:Looks like we're on the same page then

Haha indeed. This case is already believe it or don't. It'll go nowhere else.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:20 pm**

Just for posterity, my last post on the subject.

1. Turnip Head said he didn't go out of his way to use "we" instead of they.

2. When asked if he made a conscious decision to use the word we, he said that he in fact did.

3. His defense to this is my use of the phrase "went out of his way". So we are to believe that at the time had I said "you made a conscious decision to use we instead of they here" his response would, apparently, have not been "no I didn't".

I think it's a slam dunk.

I expect everyone will just say things like "yeah Mac I'm just not feeling it" or "I don't get it" or "it's just based on nothing". So go ahead and lynch Matt or something while I shake my head in disbelief.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:24 pm**

I don't think your case is rubbish or based on nothing, Mac. I don't think it is a slam dunk either. I think it is somewhere in between the two - the kind of thing that sometimes is right on and entirely meaningful, and other times is picking on something that was genuinely nothing. I'm looking for more than just that.

Do you think Matt would be a bad choice of lynch?

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:30 pm**

Golden wrote:I don't think your case is rubbish or based on nothing, Mac. I don't think it is a slam dunk either. I think it is somewhere in between the two - the kind of thing that sometimes is right on and entirely meaningful, and other times is picking on something that was genuinely nothing. I'm looking for more than just that.

Do you think Matt would be a bad choice of lynch?

Matt is a slight scum lean to me right now.

How do you propose to resolve the fact that Turnip Head said that he didn't go out of his way to use the word we instead of they, then had a big old explanation for why he did it that included that indicates that in fact, he did put quite a lot of thought into his use of that word. Focus less on the content and more on the fact that he was caught bullshitting his explanations. Who gets caught bullshitting their explanations for things? Why did he say "no I didn't" instead of "nah I thought about saying they but I didn't want to sound like a hypocrite", if that was in fact the truth.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:31 pm**

Time to catch up:

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:35 pm**

Golden wrote:I don't think your case is rubbish or based on nothing, Mac. I don't think it is a slam dunk either. I think it is somewhere in between the two - the kind of thing that sometimes is right on and entirely meaningful, and other times is picking on something that was genuinely nothing. I'm looking for more than just that.

Consider what people usually get lynched for on day zero. Show me one example of a successful day 1 lynch that came from what you would consider more slam dunk cases than what we have here?

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:37 pm**

You were clearly implying that I "went out of my way" because I was a baddie trying to claim civ. As a civvie it was easy for me to refute that interpretation with a "No I didn't". When you pressed me further I TOLD you in my next post that I consciously said it.

After all this I maintain that you missed the point of my post completely, and in fact are proving my point that civvies suspect each other because they can't understand each other's actions. A deeply ironic self fulfilling prophecy.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:42 pm**

Get me lynched if you must Mac, I'm not gonna stress over this. Just know that you're wasting your time. Everything I've done has been genuine.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:42 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:You were clearly implying that I "went out of my way" because I was a baddie trying to claim civ. As a civvie it was easy for me to refute that interpretation with a "No I didn't". When you pressed me further I TOLD you in my next post that I consciously said it.

After all this I maintain that you missed the point of my post completely, and in fact are proving my point that civvies suspect each other because they can't understand each other's actions. A deeply ironic self fulfilling prophecy.

I wasn't reading your posts context so I didn't miss the point of it. I didn't even try to understand it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:44 pm**

Right, you saw one word and focused on it solely from the perspective that it was disingenuous. Lol.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:44 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:Get me lynched if you must Mac, I'm not gonna stress over this. Just know that you're wasting your time. Everything I've done has been genuine.

Why would it be a "must" for me? I have no interest in lynching you as a person. I have an interest in lynching people who are likely to be bad. You have done things that are indicative of said fact. How exactly is my trying to figure out if you are bad "wasting my time".

If everything you have done has been genuine then with my good grace go forth and find us some mafia players and ignore when I talk to other people about my read on you. I won't hold it against you.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:45 pm**

Turnip Head wrote:Right, you saw one word and focused on it solely from the perspective that it was disingenuous. Lol.

The Syndicate

Arkham Mafia [ENDGAME]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Arkham Mafia [POLLS]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 0]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]

Re: Arkham Mafia [Day 1]