Re: Day 1~ 2015 Game of Champions
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:01 pm
What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.
Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
Some of you can read most of it.Black Rock wrote:What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.
In short: you're bad, three of your teamies have also been caught.Black Rock wrote:What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.
You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.Ricochet wrote:So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?LoRab wrote:I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).Ricochet wrote:First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.
And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.
Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.
Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.
Ricochet wrote:In short: you're bad, three of your teamies have also been caught.Black Rock wrote:What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.
By me, the great Papryco.
How can I deny and accept something at the same time? Doesn't make much sense. I have never done anything except deny there being anything to the idea of people mentioning me. It can't be waffly if I'm, in fact, very adamant about it. Eye me all you want.LoRab wrote:You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.Ricochet wrote:So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?LoRab wrote:I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).Ricochet wrote:First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.
And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.
Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.
Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.
Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.
You seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.
And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.
It is a good fluff post isn't it? I'm quite proud of it one of my better jokey/fluff posts.DharmaHelper wrote:Nice fluff post here, broseph.sig wrote:I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!
So I read the back and forth between Ricohet, Mac, and Zebra and honestly most of it went in one ear and out the other. I think Llama raises an interesting point about Mac, Zebra seems to be acting like Zebra. Rico seems to be posting a good amount of stuff.
What does everyone think of JJJ? He posted those voice messages, but after I raised my concern of them I don't recall anymore of his posts.
Mac has a role from the TH game,MacDougall wrote:Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.or I'm getting my old people bands mixed up? :P
thellama73 wrote:I think that you think that I take myself more seriously than I actually do. Yes, I identify as a girl, no, I'm not going to antagonize anyone that doesn't agree.[/quotea2thezebra wrote:thellama73 wrote:Zebra (who is a girl)
Zebra (who is a girl)
I'll be the judge of that.
Well I mean she hasn't threatened to sue you, or accuse you of using improper pronouns, or kidnap you, lock you in a hole, keep you there for about 3 to 5 days, hang you from her second story house when she tells you that she is taking you upstairs to get a shower, and then after hanging you skin you to make a man suit for her to wear. (I in no way mean to be offensive so I hope nobody takes it that way, I truly doubt Zebra is a Serial Killer, BUT if she is I just want you to know Zebra I wouldn't make a very good victim at all and I'd never turn you in to the police when Llama's skinned body turns up in a river with a cocoon shoved up his throat)
So I'd say she was okay.
So I didn't take Dh post that serious, however know llama has also brought it up. What is wrong with some fluff day 1? I see lots of fluff day 1 this is quite suspicious to me. If I were to vote I'd consider Llama.thellama73 wrote:Right now I want to vote for SIg though, for that obvious fluff I pointed out earlier, and DH is pointing out now.
It's a very large post that says absolutely nothing. On the surface it appears contributory, but it is not contributory. Classic baddie.sig wrote:It is a good fluff post isn't it? I'm quite proud of it one of my better jokey/fluff posts.DharmaHelper wrote:Nice fluff post here, broseph.sig wrote:I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!
So I read the back and forth between Ricohet, Mac, and Zebra and honestly most of it went in one ear and out the other. I think Llama raises an interesting point about Mac, Zebra seems to be acting like Zebra. Rico seems to be posting a good amount of stuff.
What does everyone think of JJJ? He posted those voice messages, but after I raised my concern of them I don't recall anymore of his posts.
Mac has a role from the TH game,MacDougall wrote:Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.or I'm getting my old people bands mixed up? :P
thellama73 wrote:I think that you think that I take myself more seriously than I actually do. Yes, I identify as a girl, no, I'm not going to antagonize anyone that doesn't agree.[/quotea2thezebra wrote:thellama73 wrote:Zebra (who is a girl)
Zebra (who is a girl)
I'll be the judge of that.
Well I mean she hasn't threatened to sue you, or accuse you of using improper pronouns, or kidnap you, lock you in a hole, keep you there for about 3 to 5 days, hang you from her second story house when she tells you that she is taking you upstairs to get a shower, and then after hanging you skin you to make a man suit for her to wear. (I in no way mean to be offensive so I hope nobody takes it that way, I truly doubt Zebra is a Serial Killer, BUT if she is I just want you to know Zebra I wouldn't make a very good victim at all and I'd never turn you in to the police when Llama's skinned body turns up in a river with a cocoon shoved up his throat)
So I'd say she was okay.
So I didn't take Dh post that serious, however know llama has also brought it up. What is wrong with some fluff day 1? I see lots of fluff day 1 this is quite suspicious to me. If I were to vote I'd consider Llama.thellama73 wrote:Right now I want to vote for SIg though, for that obvious fluff I pointed out earlier, and DH is pointing out now.
You deny it in a way that doesn't sound like yo'ure not fully denying it. As if you are saying well, XY isn't true, when you are leaving open the possibility that Z is true. Like you're keeping to truth so that you can't be caught by a lie detector, but that something similar is true and you leave open that possibility. In short, your denial doesn't seem fully honest.Ricochet wrote:How can I deny and accept something at the same time? Doesn't make much sense. I have never done anything except deny there being anything to the idea of people mentioning me. It can't be waffly if I'm, in fact, very adamant about it. Eye me all you want.LoRab wrote:You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.Ricochet wrote:So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?LoRab wrote:I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).Ricochet wrote:First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.
And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.
Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.
Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.
Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.
You seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.
And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.
Nobody said anything about my coin flip post. Is this, therefore, your own reason for suspecting me? Yet you previously said you don't have reasons of your own. And I am contributing, I caught four baddies. How many baddies do you have? Eye me all you want.
No idea what you mean. Eye me all you want.
Sounds good, but you'll find nothing in your re-read. I'm not bad and I've proven it.
If you actually read your post, it isn't contributory. However at a glance the size of the post makes it seem as though you have something to say. If people skim, or do not read it at all, their immediate impression is "Sig is posting big posts, he must be in the thick of things" which is untrue.sig wrote:I see, I wouldn't' say it appears contributory at all, minus my one line about Llama. I mean the entire post was basically about Zebra and a book series. I have however, made a few on topic posts. Not many, but when I saw something worth pointing out I did. Which was mainly the video thing, besides that I can't think of anything else big. This phase has been fast with lots of pages, but a good portion doesn't seem to be note worthy. So the fact you point out one fluff post of myself when several people have fluff posts or almost no posts is strange.
DharmaHelper wrote:If you actually read your post, it isn't contributory. However at a glance the size of the post makes it seem as though you have something to say. If people skim, or do not read it at all, their immediate impression is "Sig is posting big posts, he must be in the thick of things" which is untrue.sig wrote:I see, I wouldn't' say it appears contributory at all, minus my one line about Llama. I mean the entire post was basically about Zebra and a book series. I have however, made a few on topic posts. Not many, but when I saw something worth pointing out I did. Which was mainly the video thing, besides that I can't think of anything else big. This phase has been fast with lots of pages, but a good portion doesn't seem to be note worthy. So the fact you point out one fluff post of myself when several people have fluff posts or almost no posts is strange.
Don't read it tbh.Black Rock wrote:Now that I have quoted the post deleted the twirls and previewed it I can be satisfied.
Interesting back and forth between Rico and LoRab.
I haven't read the 11 pages before page 20, and I won't be unless I think I missed something important. Ricos posts don't count.
My opinion is all though Rico has been distracting and posting a lot of crap (all the way up to page 8) I don't find him that suspicious. Would he really want that much attention? I was thinking he had a neutral role, if those exist in this game.
He did have a point about LoRabs original post. Seemed easy and even her Matt points were wishy washy at best. Not the best example of LoRabs mafia play. Is she bad? or just not that into it?
I'm clarifying. Sig admits that the content of his post is not and does not look to be contributory. I'm saying that by virtue of it being a sizeable post, with quotes, etc, it looks contributory at first glance regardless of the actual content.Black Rock wrote:DharmaHelper wrote:If you actually read your post, it isn't contributory. However at a glance the size of the post makes it seem as though you have something to say. If people skim, or do not read it at all, their immediate impression is "Sig is posting big posts, he must be in the thick of things" which is untrue.sig wrote:I see, I wouldn't' say it appears contributory at all, minus my one line about Llama. I mean the entire post was basically about Zebra and a book series. I have however, made a few on topic posts. Not many, but when I saw something worth pointing out I did. Which was mainly the video thing, besides that I can't think of anything else big. This phase has been fast with lots of pages, but a good portion doesn't seem to be note worthy. So the fact you point out one fluff post of myself when several people have fluff posts or almost no posts is strange.
Are you two arguing the same point?
This is obviously a starting fluff, if anything it would make people skip the rest of my post.sig wrote:I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!
Another obvious fluff portion. Anyone skimming would see the quotations breaking up the post and at the very least I'd think they would read what I was quoting. Then another quote this time from Llama, and his thing with Zebra, which was done in good fun.sig wrote:Mac has a role from the TH game,MacDougall wrote:Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.or I'm getting my old people bands mixed up? :P
Two can play at this game, you fart.sig wrote:I still disagree with this DH, even if a player skims my post which I'd say isn't that big they'd see the first line.This is obviously a starting fluff, if anything it would make people skip the rest of my post.sig wrote:I want an apology also, I'm not sure what I want it for, but by God I want one!
I had a few OT lines then this.
Another obvious fluff portion. Anyone skimming would see the quotations breaking up the post and at the very least I'd think they would read what I was quoting. Then another quote this time from Llama, and his thing with Zebra, which was done in good fun.sig wrote:Mac has a role from the TH game,MacDougall wrote:Yes Ricochet is most certainly bullshitting hard. This is not my beautiful Ricochet.or I'm getting my old people bands mixed up? :P
So I highly doubt anyone skimming my post would think it had any OT stuff since the OT stuff was between much more noticeably fluff.
Not to mention like I said in my above post it was Night 0 and like many people I was messing around. I still find it very odd that you single out this post, and make it seem like a bigger deal then it is. Not to mention the fact that Llama quickly agrees with you about it.
I mean he could just be doing that since I made light of a post which he didn't want me to joke about and he was mad that I did this, however I don't know his personality enough to know if that is the case or not, and I doubt a mature adult would get pissy that I made a joke about how he was referring to Zebra. This leads me to think he is either budding up to you for an unknown reason, he is mafia and thought this was good to mention, or he wanted to appear like he was more involved in the game and this was a safe way to do so.
I think it is semi likely that either DH or Llama are mafia.
I also still have some reservations about DH/JJJ for the audio posts.
I notice DH mentions my fluff post after I brought up the points about the audio posts, I don't recall him ever directly answering me about my theory on this while I do remember JJJ doing so. This is another ping for DH in my book.
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'll go BTSC him to show his face. He's checked in there.
Metalmarsh89 wrote::PMetalmarsh89 wrote:Supatown (red)Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Hey guys, since kneel2justice complained about we focusing too much on the same few players, and I kind of agree with him, I propose a little exercise.
Anyone who has time for it: tell us what you think of the following people. Those are all people I have seen little talk about in this game, so they could potentially be slipping under everyone's radars.
Drwilgy - He is only mentioned when people are referring to the Sig/Simon debacle, but what do people actually think about him?
FZ. - Epi said he thought she was town. Does anybody else have any opinion about FZ?
kneel4justice - Ironically, he is a good example of what he said himself. I don't think anyone has said anything about him in this game. Come on, people.
Metalmarsh - Okay this is Metalmarsh so people ignore him and his antics by default... but maybe we shouldn't?
I've skipped the ones who have little to no posts, since not talking about them is excusable, but all those players I mentioned have a lot of game presence but very little discussion about them.
Boss
Boss
Top bloke, good egg
I'll take a look at them though.
Guys, I think 3J's trying to tell us something.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
No one tell him....Ricochet wrote:Long Con wrote:Ricochet wrote:Nevermind, I used whilst twice, I'm going blind.So you admit it!
![]()
The cool thing about this post is that it did nothing to address the content of the post and only served to rebuff the accusation and discredit DH.thellama73 wrote:The cool thing about these games is that different people can interpret the same text differentlyDharmaHelper wrote:Still catching up and this post jumped out at methellama73 wrote:Wow, okay, there is a lot of noise to cut through in this thread. Weirdly, I don't have bad feeling about Ricochet this game, although I do enjoy the back and forth between him and Zebra (who is a girl).
The person I a starting to have bad feelings about is MacDougall. He started off basically accusing a bunch of people of being bad, including Ricochet, in a jokey fashion, which felt like a distractionary tactic, and then he allowed his jokey attack on Rico to morph into a real one, joining Zebra (who is a girl). It feels like opportunism to try to eliminate a dangerous rival early, and I'm not reading his attacks as wholly sincere.
But then again, it's not even day one yet, so all this could change.
1. aGREENed, lots of crap to trudge through for what is essentially a waiting period.
2. Orange you certain this is what you meant? Sounds like you got those two players confused.
3. YELLOW? Anyone home? This is exactly what Rico has been doing. Seriously, take Mac's name out and put Rico's in and tell me that doesn't fit.
![]()
3.
Don't read it. I wish I hadn't.Black Rock wrote:What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.
I would lynch him just to spare myself the bullshit of reading about coin flips. If he wants to flip coins, let him sign up for Arkham in a few days and hope he draws Two Face.Black Rock wrote:My opinion is all though Rico has been distracting and posting a lot of crap (all the way up to page 8) I don't find him that suspicious. Would he really want that much attention? I was thinking he had a neutral role, if those exist in this game.
I believe you meant "half-heartedly try to" rebuff and discredit, etc.Dom wrote:No one tell him....Ricochet wrote:Long Con wrote:Ricochet wrote:Nevermind, I used whilst twice, I'm going blind.So you admit it!
The cool thing about this post is that it did nothing to address the content of the post and only served to rebuff the accusation and discredit DH.thellama73 wrote:The cool thing about these games is that different people can interpret the same text differentlyDharmaHelper wrote:Still catching up and this post jumped out at methellama73 wrote:Wow, okay, there is a lot of noise to cut through in this thread. Weirdly, I don't have bad feeling about Ricochet this game, although I do enjoy the back and forth between him and Zebra (who is a girl).
The person I a starting to have bad feelings about is MacDougall. He started off basically accusing a bunch of people of being bad, including Ricochet, in a jokey fashion, which felt like a distractionary tactic, and then he allowed his jokey attack on Rico to morph into a real one, joining Zebra (who is a girl). It feels like opportunism to try to eliminate a dangerous rival early, and I'm not reading his attacks as wholly sincere.
But then again, it's not even day one yet, so all this could change.
1. aGREENed, lots of crap to trudge through for what is essentially a waiting period.
2. Orange you certain this is what you meant? Sounds like you got those two players confused.
3. YELLOW? Anyone home? This is exactly what Rico has been doing. Seriously, take Mac's name out and put Rico's in and tell me that doesn't fit.
![]()
3.
Don't read it. I wish I hadn't.Black Rock wrote:What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.
I'll vote Rico or Llama. Exhausted from this catch up.
I don't believe that you think vocaroo posts are suspicious for the reason you insinuate. It seems like a made up reason. It's too weak.sig wrote:semi as in I'm not quite certain, but am more certain then just a scum lean. I already said in an early post why I found making vocaroo posts suspicious, based around my own thoughts and the recent game I played on RYM.
linki: I wasn't going as hard at you until you mentioned my post that is true. However, I found that both you and then Llama said my post were suspicious to be suspicious. So I organized my thoughts about you and recalled my early ping about the audio post. I might vote for you in spirit, but I don't I'll actually vote for you. Especially since I really don't have a case just a few pings.
and I'm not a fartYOU'RE A FART :P
I had a criticism of Boomslang's post much earlier, and he's who I'm casting a vote for right now.DharmaHelper wrote:Question: Does anyone think this is too defensive? Follow up question: Does anyone remember any other contribution Tranq made to Night 0? Anything at all?Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh there are already three pages. Which is great from an info perspective, bad from a I'm-drinking-Manhattans-and-wasn't-ready-for-this perspective.
But I like this poll. Lots of different interpretations: what roles people liked, which ones they actually think are in the game. Another theory: could this poll actually be determining the role of one player? It could be like a play-in game in the NCAA tournament, as it were. I don't know how closely the roles have been imported, but if they are faithful, that'd seem to hint against Watari, because there were so many role interactions going on in Death Note.
Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.
Lorab says "seem," which is a strange word choice.LoRab wrote:You seem to be denying and yet accepting that there is something to the idea of you trying to get people to mention you. Your posts about that read as intentionally waffly.Ricochet wrote:So you normally vote without having any reasons of your own? As for the rest, abstract talk. What valid points? What posts of mine?LoRab wrote:I don't believe in making up reasons. Others have made valid points about your posts. I see the point they are making. I don't have any solid suspicions of my own (other than Matt being odd).Ricochet wrote:First time I'm hearing about it. Can't you make up your own reasons for voting me?LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.
And I'm curious about Matt's vote for MM. MM's self-vote was also odd. But Matt's suspicion seems to have come out of nowhere--am I missing something there? The whole thing looks suspicious to me, and the rules imply that there is a vote forcer n the game (generally a baddie power); as Matt's posts on MM go back to before day 1, I can't help but wonder if Matt knows something about that.
Sounds like prepping up a comfy bandwagoning, what you're doing. And bandwagoning is frowned upon.
Plus, I'm not bad. Eye me all you want.
Your rainbow posts and the coin flip post seem like a great way to appear to contribute without really contributing.
You seem to be confusing interpretation with fact in a way that doesn't read honestly.
And I will eye you all I want. I'll re-reread you tomorrow when I'm more awake. Not ready to vote yet.
What is it about Ricochet that others have pointed out that Lorab "definitely" sees? With Ricochet being the author of almost a quarter (!) of the thread's posts, this is as unspecific as it gets.LoRab wrote:I definitely see what others have pointed out about Rico. May vote there.
What is with the you and Wilgy stuff?RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy
Zebra that wasn't a statement about any given case in this game, it was a generalized statement about how to present suspicion of someone who disagrees with you. It sounds more legitimate to say "this case is logical, and you disagree with it, so you are illogical and wrong" than "you disagree with me so you are illogical and wrong."
Dharma, Faraday did expound a little bit when I requested him to. Elo, as I had said then, didn't add anything but reiteration to Faraday's suspicion against me.
This is a good point.Epignosis wrote:
Lorab has interacted more with Ricochet than any other person so far, so why does the possibility of her vote hinge on what others have pointed out? Her stance is disingenuous. That's why.
I don't know.MacDougall wrote:What is with the you and Wilgy stuff?RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy
Zebra that wasn't a statement about any given case in this game, it was a generalized statement about how to present suspicion of someone who disagrees with you. It sounds more legitimate to say "this case is logical, and you disagree with it, so you are illogical and wrong" than "you disagree with me so you are illogical and wrong."
Dharma, Faraday did expound a little bit when I requested him to. Elo, as I had said then, didn't add anything but reiteration to Faraday's suspicion against me.
It doesn't seem familiar to you?RadicalFuzz wrote:I don't know.MacDougall wrote:What is with the you and Wilgy stuff?RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy
Zebra that wasn't a statement about any given case in this game, it was a generalized statement about how to present suspicion of someone who disagrees with you. It sounds more legitimate to say "this case is logical, and you disagree with it, so you are illogical and wrong" than "you disagree with me so you are illogical and wrong."
Dharma, Faraday did expound a little bit when I requested him to. Elo, as I had said then, didn't add anything but reiteration to Faraday's suspicion against me.
It's common on JTM for players to vote for me, whether jokingly or with intent to lynch, for no reason. His doing it here doesn't really tell me anything aside from he wants this to be an issue this game. He usually manipulates me well, which might lean towards scum, but it's Wilgy so his tendency to screw with people cancels that out. I'm content to reciprocate his vote and mostly ignore him aside from that.Long Con wrote:It doesn't seem familiar to you?RadicalFuzz wrote:I don't know.MacDougall wrote:What is with the you and Wilgy stuff?RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy
Zebra that wasn't a statement about any given case in this game, it was a generalized statement about how to present suspicion of someone who disagrees with you. It sounds more legitimate to say "this case is logical, and you disagree with it, so you are illogical and wrong" than "you disagree with me so you are illogical and wrong."
Dharma, Faraday did expound a little bit when I requested him to. Elo, as I had said then, didn't add anything but reiteration to Faraday's suspicion against me.
So this is the post that started my suspicion of you LoRab. I did have to read through it more than once to actually understand what you meant here. I think your posts are usually well thought out, easy to follow and I can pretty much see what you mean or how you came to your conclusions. This post isn't so much like that. After reading it a second time I could figure out what I think you meant, but its not really as clear as I'd expect some theory from you to be.LoRab wrote:So that's 2 (I think, may have missed another) folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game. Perhaps the game roles are the roles that people had in the game in which they won? Not necessarily the same powers/alignments (I'm still not necessarily thinking these are the same) but the same role names? Can anyone else say if they were one of the roles in this poll?
Well, I can't be blamed for not covering every possible extension of the accusation in this universe of concepts. I work with what material I have. Epignosis brought up my "sad, poor attempts" at getting a high post count, I dismissed it. JJJ (and Golden?) brought up the mention count side of things, I dismissed it. I haven't left any opening. Furthermore, I wrote nothing in the style of evading any lie detection; I don't even worry about such a thing, when I post/play Mafia. In short, your suspicion here is a bit extreme, unfounded and not my problem, since I'm not bad.LoRab wrote: You deny it in a way that doesn't sound like yo'ure not fully denying it. As if you are saying well, XY isn't true, when you are leaving open the possibility that Z is true. Like you're keeping to truth so that you can't be caught by a lie detector, but that something similar is true and you leave open that possibility. In short, your denial doesn't seem fully honest.
And my point about your coin flip post was the same point as the rainbow posts. So, not entirely my own reason, no. And how do you know you've caught any baddies?
And I will enjoy the reread. Also, cute to negate everything I say by poking at and teasing me by mocking an aspect of the way I defend. It truly is witty. And a great way to deflect accusations by hinting that they are not valid due to my using that line on accusations of me that are inaccurate assessments of my posts. It also doesn't feel like an honest rebuttal as a result. And, yeah, that one is an original thought.
Baddie Empress please. Everything I posted was with purpose for the civvie cause. It just doesn't suit you, because you're bad. Don't go calling my contribution crap, k?Black Rock wrote:Now that I have quoted the post deleted the twirls and previewed it I can be satisfied.
Interesting back and forth between Rico and LoRab.
I haven't read the 11 pages before page 20, and I won't be unless I think I missed something important. Ricos posts don't count.
My opinion is all though Rico has been distracting and posting a lot of crap (all the way up to page 8) I don't find him that suspicious. Would he really want that much attention? I was thinking he had a neutral role, if those exist in this game.
He did have a point about LoRabs original post. Seemed easy and even her Matt points were wishy washy at best. Not the best example of LoRabs mafia play. Is she bad? or just not that into it?
You should eat more Iron E, your levels seem low today.Dom wrote:No one tell him....Ricochet wrote:Long Con wrote:Ricochet wrote:Nevermind, I used whilst twice, I'm going blind.So you admit it!
![]()
Don't vote llama, he civ.Dom wrote: I'll vote Rico or Llama. Exhausted from this catch up.
Black Rock wrote:Ricochet wrote:In short: you're bad, three of your teamies have also been caught.Black Rock wrote:What happened? I left off on page 8 and I just got back to page 20. Most of me does not want to read all of that.
By me, the great Papryco.
Oh my, what is a girl to do.
That can be read in monotone.
Nothing you said is true, but heya2thezebra wrote:I'm voting for you because you're using your post count to control the direction of the thread, and you're using your attitude as an excuse for any suspicious things you might happen to say. Your wrap-up post above seems like a genuine effort, but in the greater context of your ISO it can't be trusted as genuine. And your gimmick seems to have even fooled some of the players. Black Rock for instance made the point that as a baddie you wouldn't have a decent reason to call so much attention to yourself. I know the reason. To get as many people as possible to think just that, that you wouldn't be so "reckless" as a baddie to perform the way you have. I'm not perfect but I like to think I'm pretty decent at being able to tell the difference between civ WIFOM and mafia WIFOM, and you reek of the latter.
Ricochet wrote:Don't vote llama, he civ.