The Syndicate

Hi all, this is me checking in! I'm at work, excited for this game!

I liked that ave plus I'm taking my kids to music lessons tonight so bam , picked it.

Tranq wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:15 pm

LoRab wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:27 am Can I suggest that we change the vote word from aubergine to something that is not one of the role names? I mean, if the point is to be easily searched, then it seems to me it would make it easier if it were a word that isn't likely to come up. Also, lol to the hosts for putting that in there.

This aubergine thing sounds silly. Why is there a need to have a vote word?

I agree with this, I've never understood this new aubergine thing.

Yin and yang, back from the dead?

I hate Day 1. I don't know how you guys do it. I hate so much the voting and trying to make cases based on so little that Day 1's just make me twitchy. As of this moment, I am mostly on the lookout for people who seem to eager to make something out of nothing. Luna's vote fits the bill, for instance.

Actually, to be more clear, Luna's vote seems fine. I was trying to reference this POST of hers: "Sorry, but that is not a god reason to vote someone. Anything Jack has done this game to make you suspect him?"

I don't like when people try to make big deals out of anyone's day 1 vote, because frankly, to me they ALL are weak votes. Why call one specific one out?

Lunalee wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:30 pm

S~V~S wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:46 pm

Lunalee wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:42 pm

MacDougall wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:39 pm

Lunalee wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:33 pm

nutella wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:52 pm Screw it let's get this over with early or I'll be uneasy for the rest of the game [VOTE: jackofhearts] aubergine

Sorry, but that is not a god reason to vote someone. Anything Jack has done this game to make you suspect him?

It's day 1. Nobody has a good reason to vote anyone. Why did you pick nutella to attack? Is it because Jack's your scum teammate? Got eem.

I have a good reason to vote Colin. Point invalid.

What does your valid suspicion of Colin have to do with Macs question about your attack (and your post did feel rather aggressive to me) on nutella?

I am going to drop a vote on you for now. I don't believe that I (like Sorsha, who you noted had not played with you) have ever played with you. Perhaps this is your normal tone, and if so others will point it out, and then that might give me BOTD. But for now your tone has pinged me enough to vote on it.

[VOTE: Lunalee] aubergine

Hey SVS, I don't know if I've played with you before, but I've seen you around and sort of know about you. My valid suspicion of Colin shows that day one can contain valid suspicions. Mac doesn't think so, and therefore thinks I "attacked" nutella for no reason over her (in my opinon) completely invalid Jack suspicion. Does that clear things up for you?

(Just bugging, I like any excuse to use that meme)

Lunalee wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:30 pm
Hey SVS, I don't know if I've played with you before, but I've seen you around and sort of know about you. My valid suspicion of Colin shows that day one can contain valid suspicions. Mac doesn't think so, and therefore thinks I "attacked" nutella for no reason over her (in my opinon) completely invalid Jack suspicion. Does that clear things up for you?

Out of curiosity, what do you sort of know about S~V~S?

I'm a fan of epigs read of sloonei. Better than anything else over seen today.

I've. Stupid phone.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:19 am

timmer wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:12 am I'm a fan of epigs read of sloonei. Better than anything else over seen today.

Which part do you like best about it?

The parts Epig said? Like, I can repeat each part and add a "yeah!" If you'd like? It starts with a weird choice of qualifier and then gets way too distracted. He makes valid points.

You spend too much time talking about other things, instead of what you say is a genuine suspicion. Your aim gets distracted, as if it wasn't all that important.

Just reread it. You say you have a case but then the next sentences are all qualifiers and concerns about side angles which serve to weaken it. You spend more time on the side stuff that concern you about it than your actual suspicion. I don't know how else to explain your post to you, lol. I'm heading to bed, g'night. Hopefully you will see things clearly soon.

And to be clear, because written English can be silly, I was telling YOU to reread it, not saying I just reread it.

Turnip Head wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:04 am G-Man's not as loosey goosey as I remember

I actually loved that big post of his. It kind of captures how I like to handle the first few days of a game, better than I could have written it.

Sloonei, I went to sleep kind of bothered by your reaction to my agreeing with Epig... I've been thinking about it, and i think it comes down to terminology. I really don't like putting cases forward until I feel like I've got some meat on the bone, so it's why in the early game I don't tend to try to lead as I don't sniff out the things that some people do early on. So when I saw your post, mentioning a genuine read, i perked up because from my pov, if *I* announced I had a genuine read, it would mean like, dudes, I actually noticed something significant. So then when your post descended into a series of concerns and other angles that seemed to show a lack of faith in your genuine read, it made no sense to me. But, I think it mostly made no sense because *I* wouldn't use those words in that position, so it seemed pingy to me. I'm still not a huge fan of it, to be clear. DH's color scheme actually showed much better the depth of what i tried to call distraction from your point.

But it's Day 1. I'm not sure why you seemed to take my agreement kind of personally (throwing phones, etc.). When I agree with a post on Day 1, it's a day 1 agreement, you know? Soemthing like that wouldnt hold as much water on, say, Day 5. And note i haven't voted you. I just simply liked what Epig and later DH, pointed out.

i hope that makes sense.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:19 pm Ugh. Less than an hour to go and I need to shower...

Water damage...missing the lynch...whatever damage...

Wat? I think we have lots of time left?

So, rereading Colin's ISO, I'm prob not voting him today. Most of his output seems more flippant than baddie, like he's goofing, and the kicker for me is that he said he wouldn't be around today, and I can't jump on a bandwagon against a guy who won't be here to defend himself. I'm at work, so I'm going to sporadically ISO people as work flow permits.

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:18 pm As in shes being bloodthirsty so a better look for Luna then svs. Buuuuut, I can't read SVS.

And yeah that's a good description of how I'm feeling about mac. I'd rather not lynch him today though.

Bloodthirsty?

So I guess if when sig said bloodthirsty, he meant aggressive, I can sort of see what he is seeing in SVS' posts, she did escalate to a vote against lunalee pretty quickly. Thing is, I remember SVS being like that, taking a stand and landing it firmly, so I'm not seeing a baddie inclination here. Also, SVS has asked several times for people to clarify whether this sounds like civ luna, and no one has responded, which echoes for me back to my last game where I had a lot of new faces to figure out and kept asking for advice on metas.

So I'm not suspecting SVS, but I at least see what sig had noticed.

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:21 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:19 pm

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:18 pm As in shes being bloodthirsty so a better look for Luna then svs. Buuuuut, I can't read SVS.

And yeah that's a good description of how I'm feeling about mac. I'd rather not lynch him today though.

My beef with sig's "bloodthirsty" descriptor for SVS is that SVS wasn't really in a position to be bloodthirsty. I used the same word to describe Luna for her part in this exchange. Luna was latching onto an established bandwagon (Colin), so her behavior struck me as bloodthirsty because it could be opportunistic, supplying momentum to a vulnerable player.

SVS, on the other hand, went after a player (Luna) who had no pre-existing suspicion against her. She's creating an entirely new dialogue about Luna, whereas Luna was tacking onto something that was already there. I do not see that as bloodthirsty behavior; there was no blood to be thirsty toward. I am confused by sig's application of that word and concerned that he was misrepresenting things from a dishonest perspective.

Oops yeah I switched those around, I thought you said that about SVS, though I’d still say svs seemed to have been a bit agreessive.

Can you sort of reset this ? How did you first notice thur posts of Svs and Luna, and where did your thoughts kind of start being?

Being=brewing, fuck this phone.

What is cbob generally like? I don't think I know him.

juliets wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:31 pm I'm confused about the bloodthirsty comment. @sig were you saying that about S~V~S or Luna?

@DharmaHelper, I'd really like to hear about your cbob suspicion.

I think you and I are equally confused, lol. I need sig to sort of start over and explain his thoughts from the start.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:58 pm I do not currently see myself voting for cbob.

sig may have thrust himself to the top of my list. His recent mix up between SVS and Luna is confusing and alarming, and a quick glance at his brief ISO raised a couple other smaller red flags. I'll share those in a separate post.

I'm kind of there with you, I'm just waiting for him to establish a clear thought pattern on it all to see if I've misunderstood anything.

colonialbob wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:55 pm

ColinIsCool wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:58 am I didn’t say what I voted for but it was the Become More, sorry.

I like Epi’s post re: DDL’s role speculation.

This was the main ping. Up to this point he had asked a mechanics question and said he voted for the N0 poll randomly. His first engagement with the actual game was to say he liked Epi's post on DDL, with no elaboration or follow up. Since I was going to be out of pocket all day, I figured I would rather have my vote out there and doing something than locked up tight and useless, so I voted. I didn't want to say my reason, because it gives him an easy out if he's mafia to make the suspicion go away. I wanted to see a response not based on my suspicion, and sure enough I got it. Not giving a reason also sort of forces people who jump on the wagon to supply their own reasoning, rather than just saying "yep I agree." D1 I think that's particularly valuable.

Apparently people liking Epig's posts becomse a thing people notice

I'm curious about this line of reasoning. It's early Day 1, someone liked someone else's post, and you vote them to await their response, but... like, what response would you expect? I feel like this is a similar thing to me n Sloonei last night, sometimes a guy just likes a post, right? So... what response to your vote would have made you back off of him, vs. what response to your vote would have solidified him as a baddie and left your vote in place?

Hmm, I can see that as an angle to take. I've never been an early pressure vote to see what happens type.

Still waiting on Sig...

@DH, is your vote stemming from your color-coded breakdown of Sloonei's post from last night? Or something more?

Enrique wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:07 pm [VOTE: Enrique] aubergine

Thanks for coming out.

So now I'm torn. Sig's explanation could clearly be the truth, it makes sense. Too much of this relies on finding a difference between the words bloodthirsty and aggressive, etc. However, I will note that sig used the word aggressive AFTER I did, so if he is bad it could be argued that he borrowed some of my language to help his defense?

The flip side is that sloonei seems to be pushing sig quite hard, more than the case seems to warrant, and I'm wondering if this is legit feeling or trying to deflect from dh's continued attention, as of course the clock is ticking.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:15 pm If we’re all lukewarm at best on sig, how are we feeling about Colin? He’s been a suspect all day long, but other subjects have come up to block him from being the center of attention. Where do we all stand on him right now?

I thought you were heading off to write a paper?

I see Colin has having a goofy kind of Day 1, which isn't alignment-y to me.

@Tranq, are you still feeling that Sloonei reads as civ? How do you feel about the posts last night by both DH and Epig ?

tHEN WHY SAY MOSTLY?

Oops, sorry, work computer always has caps on.

Tranq wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:50 pm

timmer wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:30 pm @Tranq, are you still feeling that Sloonei reads as civ? How do you feel about the posts last night by both DH and Epig ?

Sloonei so far yeah. I don't have time to go back and reread everything but i have no reason to suspect Epig and i'm not gonna bother with DH just yet.

Who would you vote for if you had to right now?

I think Sloonei. This morning's posts backed me off a bit, but the last few hours have felt a bit like Sloonei NEEDS to feel like the thread is heading towards a different lynch, and we've gone sig-colin-luna in a real hurry.

So Sloonei, I just feel like you aren't sticking to your thoughts, and swerving as the mood of the thread changes.

Yes, you have mentioned suspicions of players like luna, and sig. None of your votes or posts have come out of the blue.

But after Wilgy was mentioned you were like "yeah, if I had to vote a low poster I could vote Wilgy"

but then sig happened and you were all hey, sig is suspicious.

But then enrique self-voted and you started feeling out how people who react to an enrique vote.

But then you mentioned quite clearly that even in the face of sig getting lislynched a lot, you were on him.

but then you voted Epig.

And then you just dropped sig because people weren't following you and tried to start colin back up.

and then you voted LUNA.

Like dude, you are all over the place. And why aren't you sticking to your guns? If Sig is your #1, why not leave your vote there?

Why does it seem like you NEED to be on the lynch? Your posts today are leaving me dizzy.

I thought I saw an epig vote mixed in there, maybe I misread?

I guess what I'm stuck on is... why not leave your vote on sig, who you seem pretty strong on, relative to it being day 1, WHILE you talk up other candidates?
Don't you weaken your own ideas by removing your vote from your #1 guy? You and me both know that a number of people will show up in the last few hours and vote with little thought, and they will do so using the current votes as a sort of weaksauce guide.

I'm going to reread Luna, I haven't given her posts their due, yet.

I appreciate the posting, I'm terrible at remembering how people play, so I'll take this and Quin's endorsement and mull things over.

Quin wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:52 pm sorry the quitting thing was a joke i just remembered people got in trouble for saying that in hogwarts lol yikes

Read over, Luna, her posts are aggressive(!) lol, but I'm not reading baddie. I'm heading home from work now so ironically I'll be posting less for the rest of the day.

I put a vote on Wilgy. I didn't find his posts early on very suspicious before because I assumed he would eventually come in and start posting but he's really just left things as is, which feels a bit worse.

Ugh, not liking that vote. There isn't enough on wilgy yo feel good about that vote. I need a better target.

MacDougall wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:19 pm Is there a Wilgy case or is it day 1 lynch a lurker?

Yeah I put a vote to see how it feels but lynching him doesn't feel right. Most be able to too do better than lynching an absent player.

[VOTE: speedchuck] aubergine

Made an early vote on DDL for what appears to be no reason and has only really posted fluff lately. Or am I missing something?

Does anyone have thoughts on my soeedchuck vote? It's a very quick iso to read

But it's thoughts on game mechanics only.

For the record, if we end up on an Enrique lynch I'll be ok with that.

I'm not moving my vote. I wish people would read speedchuck s posts and see what I see. Talking only about game mechanics and goofing.

MacDougall wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:46 pm I hadn't given any consideration to juliets being mafia because I just assume hosts assign juliets town roles every game like I do and her posts every time I've seen them have just been like "oh hey it's juliets again".

You deliberately give certain people certain alignments when running a game? I didn't realize people did that, I thought it was always random.