The Syndicate

Hear my voice, hear my voice, It's saying something and I hope you're concentrated.

Anywho, I've said my case.

Not reposting all that, I'd prolly mess it up again. This is way much more then "wild theories". This is in thread evidence at it's finest. I also apologize that 73% of my case is based off what the Mafia did...maybe next time ask your teammates not to defend you so much (LC, Mac) or tell the thread how super awesome your posts are (Black Rock).

Matt F wrote:Anywho, I've said my case.

Not reposting all that, I'd prolly mess it up again. This is way much more then "wild theories". This is in thread evidence at it's finest. I also apologize that 73% of my case is based off what the Mafia did...maybe next time ask your teammates not to defend you so much (LC, Mac) or tell the thread how super awesome your posts are (Black Rock).

Help us loose our minds.

Ricochet wrote:From this point onwards, until I die or you come to your senses with your obstinate turd throwing and making apophenia tarts out of every single detail, you are receiving lyrics and nothing else.

MacDougall wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

MacDougall wrote:
linki: "Nervous backtracking" was really just the vibe you gave to me. A three paragraph response to something that was quite a flippant and unnecessary accusation reads like you are taking it more seriously than it deserves to be taken.

Not really. First reply I did was asking him where I said I "asked mods to modkill" and clarifying my statements.

I got a "lol" for that, after which I got a multiple-point serious second point. I addressed all of those points.

If you found Matt's accusation flippant and unnecessary, why don't you challenge it as such? I'm on the other end of such an accusation and when that happens, I'll defend myself.

Well I'm kind of killing two birds with one stone by just talking to you about it and ignoring the poop throwing monkey.

It's funny when multiple scum use the same language to describe me. Also, awesome that MacD called me that while having a convo with you, Rico.

Matt F wrote:

Ricochet wrote:From this point onwards, until I die or you come to your senses with your obstinate turd throwing and making apophenia tarts out of every single detail, you are receiving lyrics and nothing else.

MacDougall wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

MacDougall wrote:
linki: "Nervous backtracking" was really just the vibe you gave to me. A three paragraph response to something that was quite a flippant and unnecessary accusation reads like you are taking it more seriously than it deserves to be taken.

Not really. First reply I did was asking him where I said I "asked mods to modkill" and clarifying my statements.

I got a "lol" for that, after which I got a multiple-point serious second point. I addressed all of those points.

If you found Matt's accusation flippant and unnecessary, why don't you challenge it as such? I'm on the other end of such an accusation and when that happens, I'll defend myself.

Well I'm kind of killing two birds with one stone by just talking to you about it and ignoring the poop throwing monkey.

It's funny when multiple scum use the same language to describe me. Also, awesome that MacD called me that while having a convo with you, Rico.

I move it around a lot, but I don't care.

Epignosis wrote:
There are a few other posts like this...

Bullzeye refuses to vote for Golden, because Bullzeye thinks Golden is a civilian. This is Day 3. Bullzeye replaced sanmateo Day 2 and had 27.5 pages to read. Why would Bullzeye think Golden is a civilian at this stage?

If you had read my posts you'd have seen the part where I abandoned catching up because it was pointless and would only make me further behind overall. I thought Golden was civ because I didn't think a baddie would be so pushy and coercive in trying to make people lynch him. That left me to think he had to be a civ. Therefore I didn't want him dead.

Epignosis wrote:How did Bullzeye go from suspecting Golden on the same Day so quickly?

He was defending LC, which made me suspicious of him. Then he did his ridiculous self-outing thing and I decided I didn't think a baddie would act the way he was doing.

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Yay, 2-ish pages is much easier to catch up on. Welcome to the game Fuzz, I don't envy your catchup at all. I will probably be changing my vote today, as I feel more reasonable about Sorsha. However I was going to move it to Epi until he came in being all genuine and making so much sense. He won't be getting my vote either. Nor will Golden. I don't know what game he's playing but it's ridiculous and disruptive and I don't see why a baddie would ever do such a thing so blatantly. I don't think he's bad and I won't take whatever bait he thinks he's thrown out there.

That is the only explanation offered. When bea gets lynched, Bullzeye mocks Golden:

Bullzeye wrote:So Golden's big scheme that we should've all gone along with or be considered suspicious was... to kill a civvie? Good work!

What does this mean?

What do you think it means? I have already explained why I said it: Golden, in my opinion, sacrificed a civ in order to gain status within the thread. I didn't find that to be something worthy of praise.

Epignosis wrote:Why did Bullzeye answer this? As far as I can tell, he's the only one who did.

A question was asked. I saw it and answered it.

Epignosis wrote:The Day MacDougall got lynched, Bullzeye was the sole voter for bcornett24.

Now this is something I want to emphasize: In my experience, when Bullzeye is called bad, his retorts can be caustic and nerve-wracking to the accuser. I went against him a few times and he breathed fire through the Internet.
Here, MacDougall has been calling Bullzeye bad, but Bullzeye just shrugged it off:

For the past few days I've barely been reading along because I haven't had time, I've been getting 2-3 hours a day of free time and I'd have to spend half of it catching up and the other half playing if I wanted to keep afloat in this game. I've been voting for my own suspects and often not even checking the poll before I do so.

I think everyone knows I'm easily frustrated. When I become frustrated, I have a tendency to snap at people. I'm sorry if this has traumatised anyone in the past. It is why I've tried to be more positive in the past two games. Breathing so much fire has done a real number on my throat. Generally you will note that I get annoyed when cases either make no sense or are incredibly flawed but people accept them anyway and ignore my defences, when someone has offended/upset me through their actions (Holy Grail), or when extenuating circumstances irl are adding to my stress (Flash - in which I was very ill and genuinely just wanted to be gone but a replacement couldn't be found. I dropped out of your Biblical game early due in part to the same illness). I don't just fly off the handle and start screaming and shouting at people for no reason.

I've not cared at all about Mac because all he was doing was flinging my name out with no substance. I basically ignored him. At one point I said I'd not seen a case on me worth taking seriously, he is one of the people I was referring to along with Golden and Cornett.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I reviewed your case on Bullzeye, Epi. I think you raise good points, particularly Bullzeye's awkward piggybacking of my Day 2 (?) beef with Golden. It's inconsistent with his prior stated civ read on Golden, and it also makes no sense for him to have the same mindset about Golden that I had when my mindset was completely based on my own interaction with Golden. Bullzeye can't exist inside my head.

Looking back I think I just meant the fact Golden had been defending LC. I was waffling a little perhaps. It also can't be inconsistent with something that hadn't happened yet. Opinions can change over time. I thought he looked bad and then he started trying to draw/force attention onto himself. As far as being tame towards Mac, I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat that I just didn't think he was worth taking seriously.

Russtifinko wrote: I have played with Bullz a number of times, and mainly when he's been a baddie, I believe. The one thing I remember well is that he gets HYPER defensive over relatively little things, and generally over defends himself and convinces everyone he's bad. Iirc he's had some pretty spectacular flameouts as a baddie.

I very much disagree with this summary of my character.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:I have played with Bullz a number of times, and mainly when he's been a baddie, I believe. The one thing I remember well is that he gets HYPER defensive over relatively little things, and generally over defends himself and convinces everyone he's bad. Iirc he's had some pretty spectacular flameouts as a baddie.

Has he had any spectacular flameouts as a townie?

Harry Stephen Keeler rings a bell.

As you pointed out, I was bad in that game. Besides, I only got annoyed with Rabbit and that was for two reasons: He claimed I was lying about how busy I was and using uni as an excuse, and his entire case hinged on him making judgements of how I would act as if he knew me well when we'd played once together several years ago.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: What do you make of Bullzeye being pretty subdued in his treatment of Mac, who accused him often?

It seems like a scumtell, especially considering the history behind Bullzeye as mafia.

Maybe I just don't want a reputation as being emotional and dramatic and overreacting to everything. Apparently that's too late though.

Epignosis wrote:Flash was unconventional, but Bullzeye and I had a good back and forth (I was "bad", but I don't consider Flash a true Mafia game).

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 2&sr=posts

Last Man Standing was another unconventional one (again, not a true Mafia game), but:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 5&sr=posts

My point in all this is that Bullzeye seemed perfectly fine with MacDougall calling him bad.

That's unlike him if he's a civilian, from my experience.

LMS isn't a relevant example. It was last man standing. You were the biggest threat to me, since you'd decided to try to push my lynch. So I decided to try to get you killed. Cost both of us the game in the end.

If I'd have gone crazy at Mac for accusing me I'd have been accused of overreacting and being bad for caring about it. Because I didn't I'm being called bad for not doing it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Flash was unconventional, but Bullzeye and I had a good back and forth (I was "bad", but I don't consider Flash a true Mafia game).

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 2&sr=posts

Last Man Standing was another unconventional one (again, not a true Mafia game), but:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 5&sr=posts

My point in all this is that Bullzeye seemed perfectly fine with MacDougall calling him bad.

That's unlike him if he's a civilian, from my experience.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 041#p87041

Monty Python. Here's a normal mafia game (closed setup). Bullzeye is mafia, and Long Con is his teammate. Long Con says Bullzeye is info-dumping, but Bullzeye "shrugs it off", even while he is heatedly calling Boogs a liar for his accusations.

Boogs is probably one of my closest mafia friends. He knows how much I hate infodumps and how they've ruined so many games for me. He still chose to pretty much out me as bad despite all that. At the time I also genuinely believed he was responsible for silencing me the same day he decided to come out with info. So I was very upset with him. Water under the bridge now but at the time I was hurt by his actions. The infodump LC suggested had happened was a genuine misunderstanding. As you'll probably remember, roles were revealed as they died in MP. I had been told the name of the role that silenced me one night. Bea(?) was later lynched and revealed as that role but the post must have taken a while to be updated with her abilities, I assumed it already had been since I didn't check because I knew already.

I'm not sure why I've even bothered with all this. I'm not bad, but my death probably wouldn't mean anything at all at this point. I'm going to be incredibly busy all week, I would be spending half of my free time just catching up if I tried to keep properly into this game. I don't want to die and I do want to play, but it's only going to get more difficult.

MacDougall wrote:I think it's entirely fair to say that at this point anybody who has their vote on me is obvious scum, and anybody who has suggested that MattF is anything other than bewilderingly insane is also obvious scum.

So there is actually like a 15 player scum team.

You are all cum.

Took me awhile. But you're right, he didn't call me delusional. It was "bewilderingly insane". M'bad.

Matt F wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I think it's entirely fair to say that at this point anybody who has their vote on me is obvious scum, and anybody who has suggested that MattF is anything other than bewilderingly insane is also obvious scum.

So there is actually like a 15 player scum team.

You are all cum.

Took me awhile. But you're right, he didn't call me delusional. It was "bewilderingly insane". M'bad.

I guess I must be having fun.

Bullz is here! Bullz, look at my case on Rico. A lot different then my "wild theories", am I right?

It certainly isn't wild. Or crazy. Some of it is even reasonable. I dunno how I feel about it personally though, I like and dislike it. I would have to think on it more to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Bullzeye wrote:It certainly isn't wild. Or crazy. Some of it is even reasonable. I dunno how I feel about it personally though, I like and dislike it. I would have to think on it more to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

You're killin' me smalls.

Matt F wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:It certainly isn't wild. Or crazy. Some of it is even reasonable. I dunno how I feel about it personally though, I like and dislike it. I would have to think on it more to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

You're killin' me smalls.

Well, I mean, I know Crazy Matt very well. Sane Matt I'm not as familiar with. The fact I think your case isn't Crazy must mean something right? I expected you'd be happy that I don't think you're insane for a change.

Chou... Chou... Where did you go?

You lost your wanking hand and now I miss you.

Are my accusations on Chou "bad accusations" as he called it?

Night 9 rainbow list

Epignosis
Metalmarsh89

JJJ
motel room

Strawhenge
bcornett24
Diiny
RadicalFuzz

DrWilgy
Ricochet(I am revisiting the first half of the game and how I viewed him as scum originally)
Matt F
Russtifinko

Bullzeye

I wasted around three or four hours rereading old posts. I feel so tired right now. Tomorrow I'll start explaining the orange and the red ones unless somehow I get to enjoy myself on a national holiday.

DrWilgy wrote:Are my accusations on Chou "bad accusations" as he called it?

Way too tired to ball. Let's talk tomorrow k?

Choutas wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Are my accusations on Chou "bad accusations" as he called it?

Way too tired to ball. Let's talk tomorrow k?

Yes! Someone from RYM can ball!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:JJJ, I'd agree with you that it looks somewhat bad. And I am pretty sure your perspective on this is obvious, since you voted for Fuzz yesterday. But I'd think that you of all people would be interested in when a candidate looks TOO bad. I mean, you're telling us you're civ, and you were neck deep in Mac defense.

In the case of those RadicalFuzz responses, which is it?

Sure, it isn't uncommon for someone to do something that looks so bad that it is a town tell. This is obviously dangerous WIFOM territory, but I've made reads like that before. I don't understand why you're making mention of this now though -- have I made an accusation in recent memory against a player that suits the notion of looking "too bad"? You've made an assertion that my content can be described in a specific way, but without specific examples you've said very little.

Russtifinko wrote:I was also a little surprised at you telling Rico you wouldn't IMMEDIATELY crucify him after today's result (implying that you might crucify him later if you didn't like his explanation). The past few days, I've felt like you're much more interested in finding easy people to lynch over yourself instead of finding baddies. You're still posting quality content, don't get me wrong, but it seems like you're picking on weaker targets and that you're going more with the flow of suspicions than you were before.

Yellow: This is, as I see it, common sense -- both my approach to Rico's lynch-deciding vote and your parenthetical implication. Yes, I am inclined to think things through before I raise my pitchfork and torch. Rico made a vote that can be perceived as less than ideal, and I prompted him to describe what brought him to make that vote. If I am to judge his vote fairly, he should have the opportunity to express himself. Moreover, this game has featured quite a lot of knee-jerk scumhunting and it's truly begun to grate on me. So I thought conveying a level head might promote a healthier discussion in general.

As for the parenthetical: if I don't like Rico's explanation then yes I would be more likely to take a harder stance against him. If I don't like anyone's explanation for anything I would be more likely to take a harder stance against them. Isn't that the whole point of this thing we do called Mafia?

Orange: This is quite an accusation to make. You're telling me that I am trying to press the easy button in my suspicions for the sake of my own survival -- but again you haven't given me an example that suits that accusation. Who are the weaker targets that I have picked on? What makes you call them "weaker"?

I don't think your accusation reflects my content. On Day 7, my vote was always going to end up on either Floyd or Seaside simply because of self-preservation, and I was too exasperated by being Public Enemy #1 to try to push a case myself (who would have followed me then anyway?). On Day 8, I engaged in a bunch of different discussions, voiced my suspicions as ever before, and ended up deciding the lynch with my vote -- Floyd over MM. That's not "going with the flow" -- that's shouldering a heavy load and taking responsibility for an action that'd significantly affect the game for better or for worse.

On Day 9, "going with the flow" is the complete opposite of what I did, and the fact that you make that observation now really strikes me as disingenuous. I couldn't have possibly "gone with the flow" when I pursued a RadicalFuzz lynch, because I built the case against him myself. I drove that train. I didn't openly oppose a sig lynch because he was also a suspect of mine, but I made it clear down to the final minutes of the day phase that I wanted to lynch Fuzz based upon my own analysis of his content. He wasn't an "easy target" either, because prior to Day 9 he was a near-consensus town read.

Now it's Night 9 and I still think Fuzz is an important player to be discussed. So I'm continuing that discussion. What else would you expect of me under the circumstances?

As for the first part, my impression was that you were trying to get RadicalFuzz lynched. Is that not the case? If not, I interpreted your intent wrong. I'm saying that, if you are trying to get Fuzz lynched, I'm wary because it seems too easy. Regarding the second part of the post, where I accused you of going after easy targets:

Based on your response, I think I worded the previous post too strongly. I should have made this more clear - I'm not saying there's a baddie motivation behind you going after easy targets. I still have a slight town read on you. I'm just saying that civs have 2 priorities: 1) stay alive and 2) get baddies, and I'm concerned you're focusing too much on #1 and not enough on #2.

Per the underlined, you admit you went with the flow Day 7 because of self-preservation. That's fair - you have to survive to win. Still fits my point, but if I'm being fair we should disregard it for these purposes.

It's true, on Day 8 you considered a number of people. sig and Fuzz were other notable ones you didn't mention in the post above. Again, I'm not arguing that your content has gotten worse. And you did cast the deciding vote to get a baddie in a lynch, so credit where credit's due.

I'd argue Floyd was an easy target, being new and quiet, but since he was bad I'm willing to throw out any argument about that. Yesterday you went after Fuzz when he said he'd be out of town, which I and someone else (who?) disagreed with. That's fine, if you think someone's baddie you vote for them, I get it. But yesterday (real time, not game time), you out out there that you're looking hard at Bullzeye....right after he says he's going away for a few days. And Fuzz is an easy target because his play looks atrocious. I'm saying, quite possibly too atrocious to be bad. Yes, you did build the case, but after he himself acknowledged that he looked bad, and after people (Again, who? Sorry I don't remember.) said that he always looks atrocious as civ. It's possible he really is that bad at being bad, and that people are wrong about his meta like you were about Mac's. Maybe all the baddies are actually being super obvious and relying on us thinking they'd be more clever to win. But I don't think that's the case, and I'm trying to convince you that looking less at very obvious stuff and more at subtler things has value.

The Rico thing to me just seemed lightly hypocritical. When you explain it, it sounds super reasonable, though.

Matt F wrote:Sonovabitch

Yeah, you can't embed spoilers in spoilers. It's a shame.

Addendum to what I just wrote: Bullzeye, just like Fuzzy, said he was leaving and then came back unexpectedly?

Typically, looking at other current games doesn't interest me as far as finding evidence one way or another for someone's towniness or scumness, however I saw this post in Long Con's current game...

reywaS wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:

reywaS wrote:hello hello hello

'Ello governor, how are you?

awesome! Nice to meet you, Floyd.

...and thought "So either this clears the hell out of Fuzzy" or "Those baddies got some super scheming up their sleeve." Tbh, I could go with either.

Anyway, as I said, nothing can really be done besides speculate one way or the other, but I found that exchange interesting.

I got pulled into a conference call during the lynch yesterday and then had a bunch of shit back to back. You know, in case anyone missed me.

motel room wrote:I got pulled into a conference call during the lynch yesterday and then had a bunch of shit back to back. You know, in case anyone missed me.

[lyricsmodeoff]

Matt F wrote:Typically, looking at other current games doesn't interest me as far as finding evidence one way or another for someone's towniness or scumness, however I saw this post in Long Con's current game...

reywaS wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:

reywaS wrote:hello hello hello

'Ello governor, how are you?

awesome! Nice to meet you, Floyd.

...and thought "So either this clears the hell out of Fuzzy" or "Those baddies got some super scheming up their sleeve." Tbh, I could go with either.

Anyway, as I said, nothing can really be done besides speculate one way or the other, but I found that exchange interesting.

It is not customary to step outside the microcosm of a particular game and judge interactions happening in any other games as having any bearing to the possible interactions in this one. That is not what multiple games running at the same times are for on this website.

This, of course, should normally make sense to anyone who doesn't happen to be a paranoid nitpicking wordtwister wall, but just sayin'.

[/lyricsmodeoff]

Well, on the off chance it is super awesome scheming by baddies, then I would say it is relevant to our thread as well. Also, as I said, I can't recall a circumstance where I've reached into another game to do that, but the specific "nice to meet you" piqued my curiosity.

But I'm glad you're back to responding as opposed to ignoring the multi-point case against you by posting lyrics.

Let me ask you, if you weren't the suspect of that case, and we switched the name to someone else, what would you think of it? Not just any one point, either, but all of it as a whole. You're right, though, a lot of it is based on baddie behavior (and not yours), and I've yet to ISO you focusing on the other Mafia.

Matt F wrote:Well, on the off chance it is super awesome scheming by baddies, then I would say it is relevant to our thread as well. Also, as I said, I can't recall a circumstance where I've reached into another game to do that, but the specific "nice to meet you" piqued my curiosity.

But I'm glad you're back to responding as opposed to ignoring the multi-point case against you by posting lyrics.

Let me ask you, if you weren't the suspect of that case, and we switched the name to someone else, what would you think of it? Not just any one point, either, but all of it as a whole. You're right, though, a lot of it is based on baddie behavior (and not yours), and I've yet to ISO you focusing on the other Mafia.

Doctor, doctor, tell me what I am.

Matt, I'm going to level with you.

If you are a civilian, you stink.

You load the thread with inconsistent things. 3J and I are scum buddies yesterday and Rico's gotta be lynched next.

Bottom line:

No one takes you seriously.

There's a reason for that. You are all over the place.

I might be wrong, but I think it's against standard site rules to talk about one ongoing game within a different ongoing game. It certainly should be against the rules.

Epignosis wrote:No one takes you seriously.

That's not true. I pick and choose what I respond to and address.

Linki: you are spot on Jay.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:No one takes you seriously.

That's not true. I pick and choose what I respond to and address.

/quote]

Do you take Matt F seriously?

Epignosis wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:No one takes you seriously.

That's not true. I pick and choose what I respond to and address.

/quote]

Do you take Matt F seriously?

Yes and no.

Again, some of the things he posts are useful. Some of the things he posts are bonkers.

Epignosis wrote:Matt, I'm going to level with you.

If you are a civilian, you stink.

You load the thread with inconsistent things. 3J and I are scum buddies yesterday and Rico's gotta be lynched next.

Bottom line:

No one takes you seriously.

There's a reason for that. You are all over the place.

There's nothing wrong with having multiple suspicions. Nothing at all, really. I've also spoken, frequently btw, on who I believe to be civvie or anti-mafia in this game, it isn't simply pointing fingers. Who do you find suspicious, Epignosis? Do you have any ideas or do you just plan on tearing people down who do?

Speaking of inconsistent, what do you make of Ricochet's nine different votes in nine different day phases? Is that consistent in your eyes?

However, I do keep coming back to these two posts (and I haven't bothered to post it yet because it is a really far off theory), but since you labeled me inconsistent, I feel like I should share what I've been thinking here...

MacDougall wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MacDougall wrote:It also makes JJJ extremely unlikely to be scum since he was pushing the shit out of it.

And 3J keeps stressing how civilian you are.

I noticed that, too.

I guess that makes you guys literate. Congrats.

MacDougall wrote:You cracked the case guys. Jimmy has been publicly orchestrating town lynches on purpose while maintaining a vocal town read on a teammate and we both bussed Long Con on day 2 because he asked us to.

Or we are both townies who have a town read on each other and both had a scum read on a scum player.

And in a twist of fate you two are our teammates.

Now in these posts, you and Ricochet are "noticing how much 3J has painted Mac town". Then later MacD jokes "you cracked the case blah blah blah and in a twist of fate you two are our teammates."

Usually this could just be taken with a grain of salt, but let's not forget way earlier in the game, MacDougall and his scum friend Long Con could be seen talking about Long Con's role and LC making that comment about "only this role and their teammates know about this role", while openly discussing it with his teammate.

So yes, even if YOU don't like it Epig, my suspicions on who are bad are staying consistent. Right now I like the three of you a lot better then I like motel room or strawhenge (or any other suspish I've had this game).

What do you make of Rico's voting record? What do you make of the rest of the case I laid out?

Linki - 3J - If you think I've broken a rule, I suggest you ask the host either in PM or through the thread, but I assure you, I've done my homework.

Matt F wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Matt, I'm going to level with you.

If you are a civilian, you stink.

You load the thread with inconsistent things. 3J and I are scum buddies yesterday and Rico's gotta be lynched next.

Bottom line:

No one takes you seriously.

There's a reason for that. You are all over the place.

There's nothing wrong with having multiple suspicions. Nothing at all, really. I've also spoken, frequently btw, on who I believe to be civvie or anti-mafia in this game, it isn't simply pointing fingers. Who do you find suspicious, Epignosis? Do you have any ideas or do you just plan on tearing people down who do?

I don't care about multiple suspicions. But you are all over the place.

I've expressed my ideas in a concise manner. I have helped lynch two Mafia. You have accused damned near everybody with OMG GUYS LYNCH HIM TOMORROW KTHKS BAI

It's not helpful.

Stop doing it.

Look at the evidence and decide who is bad based on that. You look embarrassing- I know I'm not taking what you have to say seriously.

I said a long time ago why I don't think Rico is Mafia. Your big ass "case" convinces me none. Look at what *I* said, and then make up your mind. Start listening. You talk to goddamn much.

Matt F wrote:So yes, even if YOU don't like it Epig, my suspicions on who are bad are staying consistent.

Tell that one again. You'll be famous.

I do spitball quite frequently and I apologize if that upsets you.

As you have seen, btw, whenever I do post a "Let's lynch this person, guys!", it doesn't work out. I wanted MacDougall Day 5, we lynched espers instead. Wanted Floyd Day 7, we lynched seaside. I did want Sorsha for several days, and I do apologize for that one, but even then, I doubt it was because I asked for it. So in that regard, what is your problem with it? It's not as if I'm leading lynches here and getting civilians killed. That was you on Day 7 when 3J was pretty much done for, and you started the train on seaside.

Matt F wrote:I do spitball quite frequently and I apologize if that upsets you.

As you have seen, btw, whenever I do post a "Let's lynch this person, guys!", it doesn't work out. I wanted MacDougall Day 5, we lynched espers instead. Wanted Floyd Day 7, we lynched seaside. I did want Sorsha for several days, and I do apologize for that one, but even then, I doubt it was because I asked for it. So in that regard, what is your problem with it? It's not as if I'm leading lynches here and getting civilians killed. That was you on Day 7 when 3J was pretty much done for, and you started the train on seaside.

Uh, no.

I wanted MacDougall.

Eloh wanted MacDougall.

You wanted espers.

MacDougall
2
Elohcin (19), Epignosis (21) 6%

espers
8
Russtifinko (18), motel room (20), JaggedJimmyJay (22), RadicalFuzz (23), Metalmarsh89 (30), Diiny (31), Ricochet (32), Matt F (34) 24%

Don't give me that shit. If you want a guy's head VOTE FOR HIM AND NO ONE ELSE.

I had my vote on Mac all day, and when I got home from work, I switched my vote, in fact I asked several players who they thought I should switch to because I wanted to have an impact on the outcome and wasn't sure which was the better of the leading candidates, when 3J says to me "If you trust me, vote espers". I still don't know what that means, "if you trust me", I guess he knew something but it didn't quite work out?

Anyway, yeah, I wanted Mac all day that day, I came home and it wasn't happening, so I wanted to make a difference in the last few minutes. Sorry I don't hide my votes where it won't count and I can sit there looking safe.

Epignosis wrote:I have helped lynch two Mafia.

Much better! Thanks! :cheers:

Choutas wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Are my accusations on Chou "bad accusations" as he called it?

Way too tired to ball. Let's talk tomorrow k?

OH GOD WHY SET DEATH FLAGS!?!?!

Chou that's like saying "I'll marry her when I get back from the war."

But sure let's talk it over then.

Night 9 has ended.

bcornett24 has been killed by Thank You for Sending Me an Angel.
Epignosis has been killed by Psycho Killer.
Matt F has been killed by Psycho Killer.

It is now Day 10. You have 48 hours to lynch someone.

Order of operations:

Lynch Metalmarsh
Lynch Choutas
Celebrate a town victory

Lol at Epig and Matt getting NK'd by Psycho Killer.

RIP y'all if you were good guys. I guess I don't have to do that Matt case now. :P

That's a serious loss of contribution in one fell swoop. We're all going to have to pick up the slack in their absences. If you're town, you have the ability to show that by drowning the remaining baddies in overwhelming effort. The more action this thread sees, the more difficult we make their lives in the late game. Even if you don't trust me, this is fundamental mafia and I assure you this is the time to play your hardest. I will do my part -- if those guys that just died were town, they deserve to win with the town. The poured themselves into this game.

Strawhenge wrote:Order of operations:

Lynch Metalmarsh
Lynch Choutas
Celebrate a town victory

How are we to know you're not a scum player pretending to have damning evidence on people which you can use to generate multiple errant lynches and push the game towards LyLo?

I think I am going to try to clean slate everyone and fully reassess with all known information in hand. There aren't that many names left and I don't think any reads are clear cut right now.

Gotta do my laundry for the first time in two weeks first though. :P