Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
Hold up! Eloh - are you reading the thread? Did you know that the will DOESN'T say that BF would get a lot of money if I die? Cause that seems like a huge "mistake" to make and finding out from SVS the will didn't say that made a difference for me.Black Rock wrote:I don't think you're off base. It looks like an excuse to hide behind that wasn't needed at the time.Elohcin wrote:Epignosis wrote:I'll take a stroll with my lady down Archer Avenue and make sure Mr. Con doesn't try funny business.You know how archery does it for me.
This post form Zomba seems shifty to me. Does anyone agree or am I off base?Zomberella12 wrote:Just remember that the "super civ" Zomba that you are used to in Donner and Death Note got NK'd.S~V~S wrote:I voted Dearborn. I am in the middle of rereading The Dark Tower books, and that name figured in the books.
And BR, I know the point you were making. I think it is a 50/50 on Zomba BUT I think if she had the civ role, she would have said more, and said what she did say differently. I could be wrong
I'm bugged that BF said that the will said that killing me would give him lots of money and then jumped to the millionaire conclusion. Maybe my role is okay after all.
Did I miss the part where the thread tells us that all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average?Epignosis wrote:This is already reading like a Keeler work. Well done host.
I bet the real killer isn't even playing and won't show up until Day 17.
That may be the case, I'm willing to give you time to change my mind. This is one post that makes me think you are telling the truth. I shall be watching though.Zomberella12 wrote:Just writing that last post made me feel 100% better. Note that I will now be using the term "civ-weird' to describe someone who I think is a civ that is acting like I think a baddie would act.
linki @Eloh and BR - BF misrepresented what what in the will and I was REALLY upset because I thought that .... [can't really say] .... and I had to have some conversations with the host. Then when I found out what the will really said, from SVS, I realized that things were not how I thought. I'm sorry that you read it as bad because it isn't. It's just me being honest about what's going on without giving any info in the thread. If I were free to explain fully, I assure you that it would sound a lot less "shifty."
Maybe you think I'm being civ-weird. I'll try to stop. If you are baddies trying to set me up - then you stop.
That part was in all the civ role PM'sZomberella12 wrote:Did I miss the part where the thread tells us that all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average?Epignosis wrote:This is already reading like a Keeler work. Well done host.
I bet the real killer isn't even playing and won't show up until Day 17.
TH knows this, because he is actually all the civs.Turnip Head wrote:That part was in all the civ role PM'sZomberella12 wrote:Did I miss the part where the thread tells us that all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average?Epignosis wrote:This is already reading like a Keeler work. Well done host.
I bet the real killer isn't even playing and won't show up until Day 17.
Very interesting side-note, MM, actually.Metalmarsh89 wrote:I voted State St because my uncle lives just a few blocks away from there.
Side-note. Only 17 players remembered to vote in the lynch, yet 18 have already voted in this night poll.
And the bottom choice in Day Polls? :PZomberella12 wrote:I usually vote the top choice in night polls.
I can see exactly how it could be seen as you being the millionaire. BF stated that your name was on the will (which SVS has confirmed), and accused you of being the millionaire. Your immediate response was "BF ruined my role".Zomberella12 wrote:I am NOT the millionaire and I honestly don't see how what I said could possibly be an endorsement of BF's wild speculation. MM saying that people are talking about it feels like he's trying to stir up trouble. Who is talking about it MM besides you and Liz Keen and now Juliets and now me?juliets wrote:oh THAT post. So most people are reading it as her outting herself as the millionaire. I read that nuetrally, i.e., it could be either role but i see how it could be the millionaire role. I've had too much wine tonight and my smileys aren't working for me to find the right one. I need to look again at this issue tomorrow. Thanks for pointing it out though MM.
re: to sophie, yes it doesnt take long to get started.
Apparently the will doesn't even say that BF would have gotten a lot of money when I died. It just says that he would have gotten my stuff when I died. That makes BF's HUGE assumption that I'm the millionaire even more wacky.
I thought so too, considering the 72 hour day phase.Golden wrote:Very interesting side-note, MM, actually.Metalmarsh89 wrote:I voted State St because my uncle lives just a few blocks away from there.
Side-note. Only 17 players remembered to vote in the lynch, yet 18 have already voted in this night poll.
Sounds accurate to me.Epignosis wrote:I actually have my own theory about that. The more time you give people, the more likely they are to procrastinate and miss out.
I believe the exact same thing happened in Roger Rabbit.Epignosis wrote:Question for Mr. Con and Mme. JC:
Both of you voted for MM after he voted himself and after bf had five votes. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I can't recall anytime you two have ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting. I understand the reasoning, sure, but why now? Why today?
Mmm, no. "The exact same thing" did not happen in Roger Rabbit. Thank you for answering for them.Metalmarsh89 wrote:I believe the exact same thing happened in Roger Rabbit.Epignosis wrote:Question for Mr. Con and Mme. JC:
Both of you voted for MM after he voted himself and after bf had five votes. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I can't recall anytime you two have ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting. I understand the reasoning, sure, but why now? Why today?
Epig, do you think bf was lying in his original revelation about the will, or telling the truth?
Another question. Do you think SVS is lying?Epignosis wrote:Mmm, no. "The exact same thing" did not happen in Roger Rabbit. Thank you for answering for them.Metalmarsh89 wrote:I believe the exact same thing happened in Roger Rabbit.Epignosis wrote:Question for Mr. Con and Mme. JC:
Both of you voted for MM after he voted himself and after bf had five votes. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I can't recall anytime you two have ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting. I understand the reasoning, sure, but why now? Why today?
Epig, do you think bf was lying in his original revelation about the will, or telling the truth?
As for blindfaeth, I don't think he was lying. He had no reason to. I do, however, believe he was inflating an assumption, passing it off as truth, and shouting down anyone who disagreed with him.
No.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Another question. Do you think SVS is lying?Epignosis wrote:Mmm, no. "The exact same thing" did not happen in Roger Rabbit. Thank you for answering for them.Metalmarsh89 wrote:I believe the exact same thing happened in Roger Rabbit.Epignosis wrote:Question for Mr. Con and Mme. JC:
Both of you voted for MM after he voted himself and after bf had five votes. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I can't recall anytime you two have ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting. I understand the reasoning, sure, but why now? Why today?
Epig, do you think bf was lying in his original revelation about the will, or telling the truth?
As for blindfaeth, I don't think he was lying. He had no reason to. I do, however, believe he was inflating an assumption, passing it off as truth, and shouting down anyone who disagreed with him.
I feel very isolated, like Linus from Peanuts without his blanket. 
Yes he was quick to take action, and came to the conclusion that the person listed on the will is the millionaire.blindfaeth wrote:Well, my item isn't a will for me, it's someone else's will. Like, a specific player, not a role. And if they die, I inherit a large sum of money. That leads me to believe I know the identity of the millionaire. So I wouldn't mind lynching them if other people agree. But for the idea to work, we have to actually lynch them, since he gets stronger from votes that he survives.
I realize I'm probably more quick to take action because I get a benefit regardless, but what does everyone think?
SVS quickly responded that this person might be Oliver Oliver, another rich player. Then we have this amazing post from SVS.S~V~S wrote:That person can also be Oliver Oliver right?
Yes she did address blindfaeth's buddying right out of the gate, but agreed it didn't mean anything based on another event in a recent game. But as soon as blindfaeth introduces the will into the thread, SVS went into a hardcore defensive mode over the player who was yet to be revealed. She continued to defend it, and press blindfaeth throughout the day. Most interesting of this whole maneuver is that SVS voted for blindfaeth first, presumably so she could obtain the will. This was her post after the lynch.S~V~S wrote:OK, I saw something too
This is all before BF started discussing who he suspected, the will, and why he suspected who he suspected. He got my eye right out of the gate, tbh.
blindfaeth wrote:So, I already have a suspicion but I am keeping to myself until day 1 to see how everything plays out.
Golden, do you see what I see?blindfaeth wrote:He's my best fran in mafia.juliets wrote:bf, why did you ask Golden and only Golden that question?
Also we usually agree/see eye to eye.This whole section reads like buddying to me. Like BF is buddying up to Golden BIG TIME. Before the point where he started discussing his item and his suspects, all of his posts were either related to Golden, or bantering, like what do we call Sheepywolf and so forth.blindfaeth wrote:Mine is actually two individuals. Grammar naziGolden wrote:blindfaeth wrote:So, I already have a suspicion but I am keeping to myself until day 1 to see how everything plays out.
Golden, do you see what I see?
As I'm reading back through... because the way you've phrased it makes me now think we are possibly seeing different things.
Mine is definitely more an idea, a category of people, than a single person. But your phrase makes it sound like a suspicion of a particular individual... and that I'm not getting.
Fairly early on, I dropped this into the thread:
Golden addressed this in the next post he made at 2:15:S~V~S wrote:Weds, 5:51 AM
I am intrigued by BF & Golden. Positioning themselves as a Batman & Robin of sorts right out of the gate, sticking cred right onto each other. Then, as Epi pointed out, BF did the same in another game. That is still in progress, but Golden at least was civ there.
A minute later, 2:16, BF replies to Golden who had JUST replied to me, saying he was not sticking any cred on BF, and BF did not mention it AT ALL.Golden wrote:Hey... I'm not sticking any cred into bf.S~V~S wrote:I am intrigued by BF & Golden. Positioning themselves as a Batman & Robin of sorts right out of the gate, sticking cred right onto each other. Then, as Epi pointed out, BF did the same in another game. That is still in progress, but Golden at least was civ there.
All I'm doing is saying it is normal for bf to do it, which I think you would know. I don't think it's helpful for the town to go suspecting bf based on something he would do when civ. There is a big difference between saying 'thats normal bf and i don't suspect him for it' and 'thats bf's civvie game'.
He never addressed it.
Later (and I will make another post later more directly addressing the whole info/Millionaire thing) after listing his suspects:
I asked him:blindfaeth wrote:My eye was already on Bulls and turnip head. Was this your hunch? More on this later, I'm at work. But it does in my mind seem to coincide well already.Golden wrote:I disagree strongly with bullz statement.
I can't remember a time when the person lynched on day one didn't feel it was unfair, no matter what the reason. Day one lynches always suck.
Whats the difference between it being unfair because someone has a hunch that their item is a role hint, and it being unfair because someone sees some minutiae in the thread? I don't see one.
I don't like that it is being made some kind of moral issue. It's a host setting - either it's ok or it isn't. (and my eye is squarely on bullz for his comment).
And then he says "Both" and lauches into his cases against Bullz & TH. He only really addressed his consistent point of addressing all of his posts to Golden when Juliets asked him a direct question.S~V~S wrote:Can you tell us why, BF, or are you just talking to Golden?
Linki
This was the first thing that struck me; that BF was seriously buddying Golden. Then he brought up that Millionaire thing. The more I have gone over that, the less innocent it seems to me.
I want to hear what Splints thinks of this, as well as Golden. I could be reading more into this than there is. But that was what caught my eye.
Now this post doesn't match up with blindfaeth's statement. blindfaeth suggested he would inherit "a large sum of money". SVS stated that she would inherit "everything she has". SVS then confirmed that the "everything" meant items.S~V~S wrote:Also, I did receive the will. All it says is that if Zomba dies, whoever holds the will will get everything she has. It does NOT say she is wealthy. Just becasue she has a will does not mean she is rich. Normally I would not even post this, but since her name was already out there, I just want to confirm that BF was not lying, but that there is nothing that indicates a specific role holds the will. I thought BF might have been witholding something, but he was not.
You can address content that isn't directed at you, you know (as I have just done for Epig). :P But since you want it, I'd like your thoughts on the information I just brought forth.Golden wrote:Ever since bf died, no-one specifically asks questions of me any more
You are lying about what you can recall. Why?Epignosis wrote:Question for Mr. Con and Mme. JC:
Both of you voted for MM after he voted himself and after bf had five votes. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I can't recall anytime you two have ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting. I understand the reasoning, sure, but why now? Why today?
I am curious, why so?Golden wrote:It's because it happened in RR that I find it interesting
Because 'we just did that last game, it's nothing unusual' is a great distancing tactic. But as noted, your last post was quite substantive and that eases my fear slightly.Metalmarsh89 wrote:I am curious, why so?Golden wrote:It's because it happened in RR that I find it interesting
Nah, not lying. You're being evasive.Long Con wrote:You are lying about what you can recall. Why?Epignosis wrote:Question for Mr. Con and Mme. JC:
Both of you voted for MM after he voted himself and after bf had five votes. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I can't recall anytime you two have ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting. I understand the reasoning, sure, but why now? Why today?
Fantastic! Do you have anything to say about "this"?Turnip Head wrote:I like where this is going.
Probably.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Fantastic! Do you have anything to say about "this"?Turnip Head wrote:I like where this is going.
I realize this too. I won't drop the idea though, because of the potential. I believe there's a 50/50 chance either way.Golden wrote:I think you are wrong on SVS. Actually my whole vibe from her was the exact opposite - that she got on to the bf train early (and, possibly, may not have entirely bought the case, although she may have) to ensure that if bf was lynched, the will did not fall into baddie hands. That's the way I've been reading her all along.
The way I read bfs and SVSs different interpretation of the will is this - bf made svs have made different assumptions based on whatever wording they have got. Bf assumed money, SVS assumed items. Bf thought 'role', SVS thought 'practical'. In my experience with both of them, this very well matches up with the way their brains actually work.
But it does make me feel better about you, that you brought this case which I can see how you arrived at.
S~V~S wrote:Also, I did receive the will. All it says is that if Zomba dies, whoever holds the will will get everything she has. It does NOT say she is wealthy. Just becasue she has a will does not mean she is rich. Normally I would not even post this, but since her name was already out there, I just want to confirm that BF was not lying, but that there is nothing that indicates a specific role holds the will. I thought BF might have been witholding something, but he was not.
We both know that you already know the answer to this, so saying you can't recall it is a lie. Why don't you just get to the point you're trying to make, I'm not playing an Epig mind-game.Epignosis wrote:Nah, not lying. You're being evasive.Long Con wrote:You are lying about what you can recall. Why?Epignosis wrote:Question for Mr. Con and Mme. JC:
Both of you voted for MM after he voted himself and after bf had five votes. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I can't recall anytime you two have ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting. I understand the reasoning, sure, but why now? Why today?
How about you go ahead and answer the implied question: Have you ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting?
Long Con wrote:We both know that you already know the answer to this, so saying you can't recall it is a lie. Why don't you just get to the point you're trying to make, I'm not playing an Epig mind-game.Epignosis wrote:Nah, not lying. You're being evasive.Long Con wrote:You are lying about what you can recall. Why?Epignosis wrote:Question for Mr. Con and Mme. JC:
Both of you voted for MM after he voted himself and after bf had five votes. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I can't recall anytime you two have ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting. I understand the reasoning, sure, but why now? Why today?
How about you go ahead and answer the implied question: Have you ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting?
If I already knew the answer, I wouldn't be asking. But thanks all the same.Long Con wrote:We both know that you already know the answer to this, so saying you can't recall it is a lie. Why don't you just get to the point you're trying to make, I'm not playing an Epig mind-game.Epignosis wrote:Nah, not lying. You're being evasive.Long Con wrote:You are lying about what you can recall. Why?Epignosis wrote:Question for Mr. Con and Mme. JC:
Both of you voted for MM after he voted himself and after bf had five votes. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I can't recall anytime you two have ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting. I understand the reasoning, sure, but why now? Why today?
How about you go ahead and answer the implied question: Have you ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting?
Loaded questions are for children who hit their siblings and need something stronger than a yes/no question to be tricked.rabbit8 wrote:Why the accusations on LC then in your posts?
I don't understand what Epig is getting at, or why TH is jumping behind him right now. What is going on?rabbit8 wrote:Ok, I want to know. I feel left out and everyone knows I want to vote LC all the time. Let ME know!!!!
Epignosis wrote:Loaded questions are for children who hit their siblings and need something stronger than a yes/no question to be tricked.rabbit8 wrote:Why the accusations on LC then in your posts?
If you don't get my meaning, then please point me to these accusations in my posts.
Me? I hit my siblings to take their keys so they don't drink and drive.rabbit8 wrote:Epignosis wrote:Loaded questions are for children who hit their siblings and need something stronger than a yes/no question to be tricked.rabbit8 wrote:Why the accusations on LC then in your posts?
If you don't get my meaning, then please point me to these accusations in my posts.
Why do you hit your siblings? Offhanded accusations are easy to make and pointless. Take a stand, be a man.
I have a vote that says otherwise.rabbit8 wrote:Violence is never the answer.
Epignosis wrote:If I already knew the answer, I wouldn't be asking. But thanks all the same.Long Con wrote:We both know that you already know the answer to this, so saying you can't recall it is a lie. Why don't you just get to the point you're trying to make, I'm not playing an Epig mind-game.Epignosis wrote:Nah, not lying. You're being evasive.Long Con wrote:You are lying about what you can recall. Why?Epignosis wrote:Question for Mr. Con and Mme. JC:
Both of you voted for MM after he voted himself and after bf had five votes. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but I can't recall anytime you two have ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting. I understand the reasoning, sure, but why now? Why today?
How about you go ahead and answer the implied question: Have you ever voted someone because of chronic self-voting?
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't understand what Epig is getting at, or why TH is jumping behind him right now. What is going on?
Turnip Head wrote:I understand where you're going with this Epi, and I would like to hear LC's answer to the question.
