The Syndicate

bea wrote:RIP Teefies. I'm sorry you dieded. on the plus side, you can point and laugh at sockhost now while he stresses out and you enjoy your vaca!

HamburgerBoy wrote:I should have paid attention to the Long Con/bea/BWT corner earlier, this one seems to be juicier than the other cases so far. Long Con's supposed "gotcha" doesn't make any sense to me, I'd really like him to explain how it was supposed to trap anyone. I could have "fallen" for that trap tbh; I agree with it, actually, mentioning townspects but not scumspects can be another way to be non-committal but look like you're playing the game.

Additionally, while BWT did use a somewhat different argument, it didn't seem so distinct as to nullify any trap value. "Day 1 is random, pings are mild, who cares" is only a step worse than "Day 1 is random, pings are mild, just some townspects nothing more". His reply to motel/aokiji is especially suspect; considering that BWT certainly has some involvement in the dealings of LC, and how he just stated at least an opinion on LC's posts, to then cap it off with "Because I don't have much of a read on him right now" is really ringing non-committal scum bells for me. The vote on sig seems convenient too.

Switching to birdwithteeth11 for my vote.

Sorsha wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Matt F wrote:Have to leave for work. It's a short day, I'm off about an hour before the poll ends, but I don't know whether or not I'll be home, so voting now.

I'd still like Rbz to clarify his comment about Roxy. I'd especially like to hear his take on Roxy saying they have never been friends on any site and how that reconciles him being able to describe a "classic Roxy" to defend her...

Despite this, I'm placing my vote for BWTtoday.

Early in the Dusk 0 poll, he invited people to vote for him, and in return, he would not vote for them in any lynch for the rest of the game. That isn't townie behavior. In addition, he was the final vote for Dr Wilgy after switching his vote, despite not every player having the chance to vote yet. It doesn't feel like civvie behavior to switch your vote to declare a winner when not every player has had a chance.

If I'm home before the poll ends, I'll see if Rbz has responded and go from there.

Peace

Well to be fair, I did say I wanted to play a zanier game than normal. I think it's because I've had too many games in the past where I get so obsessed with trying to win at the expense of having fun. And I decided that I would rather be goofy and enjoy this game instead of getting all worked up and upset over wanting to win.

So far I've enjoyed this game and had a blast on Day/Dusk 0. If my erratic behavior getsemail lynched on Day 1, than it is what it is. I've had fun regardless.

I know you didn't use LC's case as the basis for your bea vote but, knowing now that he used his "case" as bait, do you still find bea as suspicious as before?

Ehhhh. Sleeping on it and having time to reflect on it, not so much. At the time I felt she was giving a cop-out reasoning for Day 1's not being productive. But I think I was nitpicking at a difference in philosophy. I will be changing my vote later tonight based on what else develops. But if I had to switch my vote right now, it would be for sig for reasons I previously stated.

Looking back on your posts I see that you did have a few comments supporting your suspicion of sig before your bea suspicion/vote came up. Why didn't you vote for sig when you were suspicious of him but you DID vote for bea, in an instant, when you were suspicious of her?

motel room wrote: Feels pressured and gross. Long Con's wording on his vote for bea was so confident. This feels like backpedalling.

Sorsha wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Matt F wrote:Have to leave for work. It's a short day, I'm off about an hour before the poll ends, but I don't know whether or not I'll be home, so voting now.

I'd still like Rbz to clarify his comment about Roxy. I'd especially like to hear his take on Roxy saying they have never been friends on any site and how that reconciles him being able to describe a "classic Roxy" to defend her...

Despite this, I'm placing my vote for BWTtoday.

Early in the Dusk 0 poll, he invited people to vote for him, and in return, he would not vote for them in any lynch for the rest of the game. That isn't townie behavior. In addition, he was the final vote for Dr Wilgy after switching his vote, despite not every player having the chance to vote yet. It doesn't feel like civvie behavior to switch your vote to declare a winner when not every player has had a chance.

If I'm home before the poll ends, I'll see if Rbz has responded and go from there.

Peace

Well to be fair, I did say I wanted to play a zanier game than normal. I think it's because I've had too many games in the past where I get so obsessed with trying to win at the expense of having fun. And I decided that I would rather be goofy and enjoy this game instead of getting all worked up and upset over wanting to win.

So far I've enjoyed this game and had a blast on Day/Dusk 0. If my erratic behavior getsemail lynched on Day 1, than it is what it is. I've had fun regardless.

I know you didn't use LC's case as the basis for your bea vote but, knowing now that he used his "case" as bait, do you still find bea as suspicious as before?

Matt F wrote:Have to leave for work. It's a short day, I'm off about an hour before the poll ends, but I don't know whether or not I'll be home, so voting now.

I'd still like Rbz to clarify his comment about Roxy. I'd especially like to hear his take on Roxy saying they have never been friends on any site and how that reconciles him being able to describe a "classic Roxy" to defend her...

Despite this, I'm placing my vote for BWTtoday.

Early in the Dusk 0 poll, he invited people to vote for him, and in return, he would not vote for them in any lynch for the rest of the game. That isn't townie behavior. In addition, he was the final vote for Dr Wilgy after switching his vote, despite not every player having the chance to vote yet. It doesn't feel like civvie behavior to switch your vote to declare a winner when not every player has had a chance.

If I'm home before the poll ends, I'll see if Rbz has responded and go from there.

Peace

DrWilgy wrote:

sig wrote:@motel go ahead vote for me, as long as i'm number two it's all good. I however, will be voting for you am I being serious or is it just a random vote who knows?

Also if a point seems misguided (which in my opinion it isn't) why go after me and not the one who originally said it? I agreed with Epi I didn't piggyback off of him, using the term piggybacking is a way to make it seem like I'm scum for agreeing with him, even if he isn't scum, this seems like a very scummy thing for you to do. I'm a weaker player and easier to get lynched, multiply people have voiced suspicions against me, and making it seem that I've been budding up to a stronger player and "piggybacking" off them will justify a Day 1 lynch against me.
find it interesting that out of everything this is what you zero in on especially since I'm not the first to say this about the RVS.

linki: Wigly the Siggiest Sig post ever(I must admit I giggled at that) Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Well, considering that you are civilian almost every game we have played together, I would have to say it's a good thing.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:In order to preform my job as well as possible, I will not be voting for JJJ unless absolutely needed.

I'm not voting for JJJ either (today) but what does this even mean?

DrWilgy wrote:So as I'm browsing it seems there isn't much worth quoting. Disagreements in play style seem to be at large here. I find it amusing and wonder where it will take us. I'll place a vote on BWT for now, until I have further information about what was stated day 0, and why it was stated. I'm with the others on abolishing RVS, and I won't be voting for JJJ, Epi, Diiny, or Choutas.

Your unflinching confidence in not voting for certain people is utterly bizarre to me. Can someone (you, preferably) explain to me if this is in-character for you and if so, why?

Wilgy, being followed by a pinto bean man, approaches Zebra, introduces them to one another, hands Zebra a note, then walks away. The note reads: It's a thingy I took from MM, he's my friend. I've noticed that he marks off players that he won't vote for based on the days events. I learned that my normal trigger happy playstyle wouldn't work here (on syndicate) a few games ago, so I'm trying to adopt something similar to this. Find players I like, and keep them around until we obtain more information. Based upon what these players have said, I think they would be very good for our team if they are good. This is why I'm willing to keep them around.

Choutas wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Choutas wrote:The sheer fact that you're in Sweden and play mafia instead of enjoying life proves you're nefarious. Definitely not a guy I'd trust.
That being said don't you find DrWilgy's post too much fluff with little substance?

I'm not in Sweden yet, but I will be in a few days. When I'm there, mafia will definitely take a back seat to seeing the world. My posting rate will probably plummet to the bare minimum. I'm actually picking my friend up at the airport in London today so it might plummet even sooner.

I didn't have that impression about Wilgy's post at a glance, no. I don't entirely remember everything in it though so I'll look again. Have you already stated what about it you found fluffy?

Also, I don't think you were terrible as momokuro. You were just killed too early to make your mark.

He has only post that isn't complete roleplaying this http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 50#p181650 his posts are mostly questions or mentioning Metas, the worthwhile part imo is this "So as I'm browsing it seems there isn't much worth quoting. Disagreements in play style seem to be at large here. I find it amusing and wonder where it will take us. I'll place a vote on BWT for now, until I have further information about what was stated day 0, and why it was stated. I'm with the others on abolishing RVS, and I won't be voting for JJJ, Epi, Diiny, or Choutas." He votes someone without giving reasons or claiming it's RVS and then says his supports the abolishment of RVS and that he won't vote for some of the guys without explaining why.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it?

Good sir! re-read my post. I'm just wanting some feedback about BWT regarding Day 0. I would like to now know from you, is there something wrong with pulling up questions and meta?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Before any quotes, I'd like to point out an initial suspicion. It never sits right with me when someone claims that they will be changing and/or playing with a different style after role cards have already been distributed. This applies to Rico, and BWT. I'm not going to go back and try to quote the comment because I'm pretty sure it was Day 0. Rico stated that he'd be more zany and BWT followed suit, almost immediately after Rico. I do not recall BWT's reasoning for claiming a more zany (zanier? zaniest? are those actual words? they don't sit right with me.) and would like to hear about this. Also, someone correct me if my memory of Day 0 events are failing me.

I believe a factor of the "zaniness" is the ongoing contest with the prize going to the person who uses the most Talking Heads in their posts. Zanier and zaniest sit fine with me, as the comparative and superlative forms of 'zany'.

BWT was on the chopping block for eight consecutive days in Recruitment, but was finally lynched Day 9 and flipped as a harmless civilian. He subbed back in for another player on Day 10, and was immediately lynched on Day 11, and flipped civilian.

His intention to play zanier/est doesn't surprise me much.

I see, I didn't think about that. Normally players stating that they will be doing something different after roles have been delivered is a scum flag for me. If a player has the intention to change their style and it's not mid game yet, why not declare it in the signup page pre-role distribution?

I'd like to hear BWT's thoughts on what I have said.

linki: Ty Rico, I will also not be voting for you today. (did I liki right? can someone give me an exact definition? I've used context to figure it out up until this point)

bcornett24 wrote: Now to focus on this post, I think this vote is easy, too easy. This is a convenient chance to direct attention in a very specific direction. This also feels like an attempt to buddy up to jay. Based on this post, I'm assuming that you don't care for or participate in RVS making this a very serious vote. Based on that I am not sure what purpose this is supposed to serve. This feels like a combination of forced interaction as well as suspicion direction.

There have been a few questionable statements made by people thus far but none that have truly hit a cord with me, not like this post here.

bea wrote:Rox and others - tend to Day 1 Day 1. We recognise that ALL arguments are based on very little. The weakest of pings. And lacking anything concrete to go on, we reserve the right to random vote.

thellama73 wrote:Question for the group:
Was Bea's reaction to one early, changeable vote an overreaction or an appropriate reaction?
Discuss.

Current track: Brian Eno - Sparrowfall (3) (1:24)

sig wrote:

Long Con wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

sig wrote:

Matt F wrote:

sig wrote:...I understand it is Day 1 and we have little to go on but this seems kinda very weak.

Not sure how I feel about Rbz's theory, however, if you are civ, then shouldn't this read "...but this IS very weak" as opposed to "seems" and "kinda" ?

Also It could read is very weak, but it isn't very weak it just seems kinda weak. Writing is very weak is more confrontation in my opinion as well as implying it was meant to be weak. While seems kinda weak is just that is seems weak but it might not be.

This is quibbling over something very small, why if I'm civ would I right it the first way instead of the second way?

This might be small, but I've seen people get lynched for wordplay on Day 1 enough in the past.

Same as it ever was.

I agree, in that Mafia have more need to "craft" their posts than Civvies. Sig's accidental reveal that he was going back over his post before posting it to make sure it's just right is a little suspicious to me.

I always read through my posts as I'm sure you've seen my spelling and grammar skills aren't always the best when typing, especially when I type quickly. It seems as if your trying to find more reasons to find me suspicious, I've played as mafia before and while I'm not great I wouldn't have done something quite so stupid.

This is also all in regards to my wording of Seems/Kinda/Very which I've already said was a mistake on my part. This seems to me to be a desperate attempt to get me lynched.

Also this was all started by Bernie Sanders and honestly what does he know about spelling he is a socialists? (I only kid no offense intended)

rundontwalk wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Posting because the host tells me I will be a non-participant if I don't.

I will read up throughout today and try to say something intelligent.

Why are you going to put so much thought in what you post? Trying to hide something? Just post your gut reads whether they are intelligent or not.

Diiny wrote:

Roxy wrote: Dii - get used to it

Your excuse for not actually really playing mafia is 'get used to it?' If you keep playing the way you're playing you're getting a vote. I want to see something solid, meaningful and accountable by day 1 standards from you. I'm not getting used to scumminess, and, if I understand you correctly, that you're asking me to is making me very uncomfortable

Diiny wrote:I'm also extremely unhappy with Roxy's off topic to mafia ratio. I won't be happy if you randomise at all. Day 1 is about MAKING concrete evidence through stirring shit and provoking reactions, not just waiting for it to happen and throwing your vote onto random people.

sig wrote:Rbzmncaeaei I find you suspicious that you find it suspicious that I find you suspicious for thinking I'm suspicious.

Your counter argument is very good, though I don't believe there is any connection. I might have come off as being overly defense, but in my experience it is better to be proactive in defending oneself then being accused of ignoring what others have said about you. As I said Matt I didn't mean to keep the very there it just kinda happened.

When I mentioned bcornett24 I was unaware that we were allowed to change votes this game, this makes his early vote less strange.

linki: Interesting our day 0 poll was about different abilities such as option one does so and so.

sig wrote:

Matt F wrote:

sig wrote:...I understand it is Day 1 and we have little to go on but this seems kinda very weak.

Not sure how I feel about Rbz's theory, however, if you are civ, then shouldn't this read "...but this IS very weak" as opposed to "seems" and "kinda" ?

Also It could read is very weak, but it isn't very weak it just seems kinda weak. Writing is very weak is more confrontation in my opinion as well as implying it was meant to be weak. While seems kinda weak is just that is seems weak but it might not be.

This is quibbling over something very small, why if I'm civ would I right it the first way instead of the second way?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:@MM On my part or his?

On his part. Let me pull up some Syndicate statistics.

Economics Mafia, Jay had 769 posts.
Bullets over Broadway, Jay had 294 posts, but he subbed in Day 6.
Recruitment Mafia, Jay had 458 posts, but was killed Night 6.

Not your run-of-the-mill minimal poster.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Don't make me regret my vote.

thellama73 wrote:BWT, I'm disappointed. Now you don't get to call my NKs....if I'm bad.

DrWilgy wrote:I sure do hope BWT keeps his word. Would be bad businesses for the company...

*Wilgy can be seen around the corner concealed slightly by a shadow. A red glimmer bounces off his eye as he slaps the head of a baseball bat against his palm. An e-mail appears on BWT's work computer. The message is rather straightforward*
...there was someone who voted for bwt before llama.

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Okay, here's my offer.

I will let anyone who votes for me choose my night kills for me, if I am bad.

Why would you even entertain such an idea?

Unless you're bad.

I'm not bad, so it's a pretty worthless incentive package, but if I am, you get to choose my first NK! Lucky you!

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Since MM upped the stakes once already (ONCE IN A LIIIIFETIIIME!), I would like to provide a counter-offer.

Anyone who votes for me will be exempt from getting my vote in any lynch for the duration of the game.

Since I already voted for you, is that retroactive?

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Since MM upped the stakes once already (ONCE IN A LIIIIFETIIIME!), I would like to provide a counter-offer.

Anyone who votes for me will be exempt from getting my vote in any lynch for the duration of the game.

Absolutely! No votes for you!
Since I already voted for you, is that retroactive?

thellama73 wrote:Okay, here's my offer.

I will let anyone who votes for me choose my night kills for me, if I am bad.

Epignosis wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I'd like to recommend myself for the Syndicate CEO assistant position. Facts are I'm well-versed in music, with an acquired taste in significant eclectic genre.

As for who I'm voting, I'd like to hear some pitches first. Give me some insight into your music preferences, stuff you're passionate about, etc..

linki: Deflecting the question, ey, Marshy?

Kansas is the greatest band ever.




















I am disqualified, aren't I?

Matt F wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:At the end of the game, Sloonei and I will be awarding the "Live Wire" award to the player with the most entertaining and intriguing usage of Talking Heads lyrics in their posts throughout the entire game.

I suspect MP and Ricochet are in cahoots.