The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:
juliets wrote:Epi I missed your post while I was posting. Since there is no case would you mind sharing your thoughts on why you voted nutella? I am looking for a good reason to pull my vote off of sig since so many of you think I am misreading him.
I think it would be better if you read nutella and decided for yourself. Why must your reason for voting sig, or nutella, or anybody else come from another person?

There is no reason my reason has to come from anyone else. You have been trying to convince me not to vote sig and I thought you might be helpful in finding an alternative.

@nutella - I have read through your posts several times and I don't see a response as to why you gave Bubbles a chance to respond but you didn't give Sorsha a chance. I see the part where you voted Sorsha first and then saw the Bubbles comment but that still doesn't answer the question as to why not give Sorsha the same chance you were giving Bubbles.

sig, I presume you are holding your vote for the end but it you could vote anywhere you wanted on the first half of the poll who would it be?

Canucklehead wrote:
juliets wrote:Did you read my response Canuck? I did indeed ask sig a question, "I'm about to vote for you, tell me why I shouldnt". Epig just missed it in his review. Otherwise, what do you think is so off about my posting? Half of my posts have been questions which is normal for me.
"Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you" is not the kind of question you ask of someone you are genuinely interested in having your mind changed about. "Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you" is not a request for information, it's a demand that someone prove themselves. Very, very different. Also, it doesn't look to me like Epi missed that post, it looks like he disagrees that it was a "question" asked in good faith (but I'll let Epi answer that himself)

And, as I already mentioned in the post to which you are responding, what is "off" about your posts is what Epi pinpointed....which is why I said exactly that in my previous post. Now, however, I'll add to that a very concerted effort on your part to misunderstand/ignore other people's posts. The tactic of (unconvincingly) dismissing the reason someone suspects you, then asking why they "otherwise" suspect you is not a winning one. There is no "otherwise", lol. I supspect you for exactly the reasons I stated (via a quote from another player), and for no others. I don't need an "otherwise".

I don't know what posts I have misconstrued or misunderstood or ignored so if you would like to point them out I can respond to them individually. Just making a sweeping statement does not help me with what you are talking about. I'm already willing to admit I might have misunderstood the sig sincerity issue and am asking questions to determine if i can find someone more suspicious. So if thats what you're talking about I am aware that issue exists.

Epi I missed your post while I was posting. Since there is no case would you mind sharing your thoughts on why you voted nutella? I am looking for a good reason to pull my vote off of sig since so many of you think I am misreading him.

I have gone back and looked at Matt's case on nutella. Basically, though nutella contributed during the day it took her only 8 minutes to decide to throw her vote on Sorsha. This is ironic because at the same time she said she wanted to give Bubbles a chance to respond to the allegations against her. Why not, then, let Sorsha have an opportunity to respond? In addition, there was a 4 - 4 - 4 tie on Dom, Bugla and Banana. She avoided getting involved in that tie vote.

I would like to hear what Epi and Golden say about their thoughts on nutella. I might consider her as an alternative to sig since i have Epi, HamBoy, Golden, TH all saying I am not reading sig correctly in the genuineness of his sincerity and I don't know him at all.

Did you read my response Canuck? I did indeed ask sig a question, "I'm about to vote for you, tell me why I shouldnt". Epig just missed it in his review. Otherwise, what do you think is so off about my posting? Half of my posts have been questions which is normal for me.

lol zebra!

Epignosis, did you ever make a case on nutella? I don't remember reading it but there has been so much I may have forgotten.

Epignosis wrote:I didn't say you never spoke to sig, and I didn't say you never asked any questions.

I said you have not asked sig a single question.

So you see I did ask sig a question. "Tell me why " is asking for information just like a statement with a ? at the end.

TH, I would be willing to vote for someone else if there was a much more compelling case in group 1. I acknowledge that though I think sig screwed up it is not a 100% probability. Also, I acknowledged he sounded sincere but the fact remains I have seen many, many baddies in my time that have sounded sincere but were really bad. So do you have a more compelling case on someone that would pull me away from voting for sig?

@ Epignosis:

This is the post where I spoke directly to sig

juliets wrote:sig, i am ready to vote for you. Tell me why I should not.

Also I don't know who's posts you have looked at but I asked 27 questions after day 0 until this point.

I agree i don't know sig but all I can go on is my perception of what he said and then what happened afterwards. He sounds sincere but I do not know him, as I just said, and can't cast my suspicions aside because you say he is sincere. I have no idea how well you know him. I have thought a lot about the sig vote and unless something much more compelling comes to my attention I will leave my vote there today.

linki TH i will read after i post

Given the evidence presented by Sorsha and Golden (Sorsha more so really) I'm going to put my second vote today on Tiny Bubbles. I hope she comes into the thread prior to the last two hours of the lynch and says something for herself. I am not married to this vote but i don't see anyone else in Group 2 that I'm tempted to vote for at this point in time.

Epig i saw your list of suspects. Can you share with me what I've said or done that causes you to be suspicious of me?

Epi I don't know what you're trying to say but sounding sincere is something anyone can do, baddies do it all the time.

Epignosis wrote:
juliets wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
juliets wrote:Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.
Comparing Long Con's "sincerity" with sig's sincerity is disingenuous.
Why?
Without meaning to cause offense to sig, Long Con is a far more experienced player than him, and far more accomplished in the art of deception. When sig is telling the truth, he looks like the worst of liars.

If anyone can dig his own grave, sig can dig two. You judging sig based on facts you didn't name because you got burned by Long Con stinks.

I don't know anything at all about sig or how accomplished he is in the art of deception. If the comparison doesnt fit because of what you say then just strike it from the sentence. The point still stands, sincerity does not equal civvness.

Turnip Head wrote:
juliets wrote:Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.
What are the facts of the case, juliets?

sig made a post that read to me like he had knowledge of one of the baddies team, specifically their strategy for kills. He was then asked about that post and in my opinion he overreacted to what was being said about him. The argument grew into words that he thought another person used - Bullz I think - that he didnt think meant the same as his words (I disagreed - I saw these things as acceptable paraphrases). These overreactive defenses looked baddie in nature as imo most overreactive defenses looked. As I look at his whole behavior through this period my opinion is he is likely bad. I'm sure I've left something out but that is the nutshell of the case for me.

Epignosis wrote:
juliets wrote:Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.
Comparing Long Con's "sincerity" with sig's sincerity is disingenuous.

Why?

Sig, I'm not sure what you want me to comment on other than to say I do believe you sound sincere but the facts of the case for me come down on the side of you being bad. I have been fooled by sincerity before (LC is shaking his head yes) and this time I'm going with the facts I get out of the posts.

Sorry Canuck I missed your post in linki.

Canuck, I sympathize with not having good reads on people until later in the game. Unfortunately though, you have to vote for people in the process of getting to that place. Have you any idea who you will vote out of the two groups we have today?

EBWOP: I went ahead and put a vote on sig.

Nice analysis Bullz. I agree with you on almost everything. I'm currently looking at sig for my group 1 vote and not sure for group two. I did put some questions out to Tiny Bubbles and Canuck though because I need to get a little bit better read on both of them. They are both considerations for my vote in the group 2 category.

TinyBubbles wrote:rip zebra, and surprised you're still alive sig
im behind on the thread, but in response to golden's belief about me being bad, wrong~! he of ALL PEOPLE would be able to tell if i was mafia and the fact that he's accusing me as well as nutella makes me believe he's shady and nutella is at least not his teammate and probably not mafia

Tiny Bubbles why do you say Golden OF ALL PEOPLE should be able to tell if you're mafia? And why does his accusation of nutella make you believe he's shady?

Golden, I know Bubbles does not come around a lot so I'll also ask you - do you have any idea why she said you of ALL PEOPLE would be able to tell if she's mafia. Maybe I missed this answer as I went through but I looked and couldnt find it.

Canucklehead wrote:Sorry I missed the vote. Probably would have voted for Mac.
Not particularly caught up thus far....still in the too much going on phase of the game, so nothing for me to really sink my teeth into yet. But I did find the back-and-forth with Epi and a2z quite humourous.....

Canuck, I know you are probably quite busy but do you have any reads on any of the other people that have been talked about? A great deal has been said about several people and I'd like to hear your thoughts on whatever has caught your eye even if you haven't been able to sink your teeth in yet.

RIPIYWG zebra, I hope you will come back and play with us again.

So let's ask Tiny Bubbles unless she's already been asked and I missed it: Why did you choose Timmer out of all the quiet people that you wanted to hear more from?

fingersplints wrote:
juliets wrote:
Golden wrote:It's really hard to make a better case on nutella than what already exists.

I read the role card midway through that day, and saw there was a lie detector role.
I figured, hey, mafia probably have seen that and are scared of it, why don't I ask a whole lot of questions and see what I get back.
Nutella and bubbles avoided answering the question 'are you civ aligned'. I think mafia would have deliberately avoided it.

Nutella made a distancing post about bubbles
Bubbles made a distancing post before timmer's death about wanting to see more from timmer, despite there being HEAPS of very quiet people (including her)

I believe Nutella and bubbles are both bad, and are together on the team that killed timmer.
Golden, now that we know timmer was a civ does that shift bubbles off of your suspect list since you are talking about her post that seemed to be a distancing post from timmer? Or do you think her supposed avoidance of the 'are you civ aligned' question leave her on your suspect list? I'm not denying bubbles is bad I just want to know how you feel about your evidence now that timmer was revealed as good.
I don't think he is accusing her of being timmers teammate. I think the point was that he thinks she killed timmer, and distanced from it in the thread by saying she would like to hear more from him. I think Golden makes good points on this, and am curious what TinyBubbles reasoning is for wanting to hear more from timmer as opposed to all the other quiet players.

I completely misread his post. THanks for clearing it up.

Golden wrote:It's really hard to make a better case on nutella than what already exists.

I read the role card midway through that day, and saw there was a lie detector role.
I figured, hey, mafia probably have seen that and are scared of it, why don't I ask a whole lot of questions and see what I get back.
Nutella and bubbles avoided answering the question 'are you civ aligned'. I think mafia would have deliberately avoided it.

Nutella made a distancing post about bubbles
Bubbles made a distancing post before timmer's death about wanting to see more from timmer, despite there being HEAPS of very quiet people (including her)

I believe Nutella and bubbles are both bad, and are together on the team that killed timmer.

Golden, now that we know timmer was a civ does that shift bubbles off of your suspect list since you are talking about her post that seemed to be a distancing post from timmer? Or do you think her supposed avoidance of the 'are you civ aligned' question leave her on your suspect list? I'm not denying bubbles is bad I just want to know how you feel about your evidence now that timmer was revealed as good.

I know, right? I have a headache.
Last pet was a kitty so I vote Cats
Welcome back Timmer

sig wrote:I wasn't really trying to get zebra lynched in the last few posts, it was two things I was trying to ever so stealthy say something but it kinda flew over her head and I was messing around it doesn't seem we will be lynching someone today so I'm joking around slightly more then usually but most of even these posts have points to them.

Or maybe she knows what I was trying to say and is really scum right know I'm leaning scum on her but we will see soon enough if my hunches are correct.

There is a very slim possibility she could get lynched with fewer votes but if I was trying to change the lynch I would push Mac/juilets they are more likely to get last minute lynched then

Linki: juliets this whole wagon was started based on a small word choice to when I posted why I thought Timmer was killed. I was accused of giving horriblhy defense etc but keep in mind I've been being pushed and forced to defend myself for an entire phase, with multiply people accusing me and jumping on my wagon very early. I've had few other people chime in for me and has had multiply people attack me rather aggressively those that havent have dropped votes and that was it. This is a scum wagon I don't think your post is genuine but if it is think about it from my perspective. I've made long posts defending myself pieces of those posts were then nitpicked at to find more "evidence" against me. People DEFENDING Bulls when he twisted and changed the words then said I said them. When I mentioned this and actually made posts not only defending myself but also looking at other peoples post to prove it was made by scum and prove when people mainly Bulls changed my wording and made it seem more sinister my points were ignored. If you can't see this is a scum created wagon then vote for me.
I have the feeling you already decided to vote for me though and am simply asking this to look better if I flip civ.

sig your post gives me pause because it sounds so sincere but as the day ends and after looking through your posts especially the ones in these last few hours you look like you are really scrambling. So at the end of it all I'm going to take my chances that this is not a scum wagon and if it is I will take my punishment.

sig, i am ready to vote for you. Tell me why I should not.

Because both zebra and Golden have been compelling in their arguments and I didn't want to drum up Floyd. It's like a wasted vote in my mind because I knew i couldnt get people to follow. I don't generally push in lynches. Anyway I think I'm going to vote for sig based on zebras push (no, I am not putting it on her shoulders this is my decision) and sig's coming into the thread and trying to drum up some zebra votes.

linki but i'll read it after i post.

How would you like me to contribute to the hunt MAc? I'm trying to make a final decision for a vote so what people are saying is very important to me.

MacDougall wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:juliets
Yes. You are my hero.

Why did you vote for me Turnip Head?

Turnip Head wrote:juliets who are you going to vote for?

I don't know yet. I'm hoping something will convince me about one of the main contenders. Otherwise I might vote for floyd based on Tranq's line of thought. That's really my last resort though.

MacDougall wrote:Stop making non juliets related posts. She didn't even argue when I called her scum. She is definitely scum. I can tell because I am the Mac Daddy.

My point was I don't think there is anything I can say to convince you I'm not scum. I'm not, but you arent giving me anything specific to work with in terms of your accusations. i don't know how you expect me to argue when you've given me nothing but basically "I have a feeling".

MacDougall wrote:
juliets wrote:
MacDougall wrote:If I am forced to choose between sig and nutella I couldn't care less. Juliets is scum though.
What makes you think that?
You just are. I think everyone feels it too.

No hard feels though. Your posts just have that faux contributive feel about em. You are lovely and all but yeah I think u got dat scumcard. Do you enjoy playing as a big bad?

Imma vote you and I hope some others do too.

You sound pretty set on it so I don't know what I can say to change your mind. I will say I just think you don't know me well enough. My mo is to ask questions looking for why people do the things they do, why they vote the way they vote. Thats how I scum hunt. I'm also very deliberative. And I've even been lynched for being too nice. This is just the way i am in every game.

MacDougall wrote:If I am forced to choose between sig and nutella I couldn't care less. Juliets is scum though.

What makes you think that?

Luke, I did the best i could to make Tranqs question easier for you to understand but that didn't work. I don't know what else to do but go with the answer you have already given. Also, you still havent answered my questions and they are from yesterday but I'm no longer expecting that you will.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
juliets wrote:I think my baddie vibes come from Matt's case on her (baddie vibes imo usually come from something even if its small). She answered fairly well but it's still lingering with me. It's not a meta thing because i haven't played that much with nutella or enough to have a meta. I am probably not going to vote for her because I just don't have enough.
Matt's case seems largely dependent on the assumption that Sorsha is also scum, and that nutella's vote was not genuine but a way of avoiding the 4-4-4 (or at least that's how I'm reading it; correct if wrong Matt). I note that you haven't addressed the Sorsha side of things at all so far this game, except to ask for specifics on nutella's claim of inconsistencies in Sorsha's posts (which I believe nutella had already addressed; she was focused on Sorsha fairly early due to the day 1 "lynch Matt F" thing). So, what do you think of Sorsha then?

I have no suspicions of Sorsha at this time. I didnt see anything wrong with her posting an answer in both threads (this came up at the beginning) and I liked her post walking through the times of her posts and how she had been at work etc. There hasn't been anything else she has said that has given me qualms.

a2thezebra wrote: on juliets. That last post did not seem genuine.

really? Can you elaborate at all?

HamburgerBoy wrote:
juliets wrote:Is there one thing that dominated your decision to vote nutella? I've been reading her and have bad vibes but bad vibes arent really enough to vote on.
I'd like to ask the same about your bad vibes. Is it a meta thing, and if so could you say what to expect from a town nutella vs this bad-vibing nutella?

I think my baddie vibes come from Matt's case on her (baddie vibes imo usually come from something even if its small). She answered fairly well but it's still lingering with me. It's not a meta thing because i haven't played that much with nutella or enough to have a meta. I am probably not going to vote for her because I just don't have enough.

Epignosis wrote:I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Is there one thing that dominated your decision to vote nutella? I've been reading her and have bad vibes but bad vibes arent really enough to vote on.

TheFloyd73 wrote:
juliets wrote:
Tranq wrote:TheFloyd73's vote for BUGLABUSH stands out to me. Matt F brought up his vote here:

TheFloyd73 wrote:
Matt F wrote: However, I do have a question for you Floyd. You invited your friends to play in this game, yet you voted for Bug on Day 1. Why?
Anyone who votes for someone wth the excuse "he bad" is more than likely scum. Perhaps he's trying to (very vaguely) convince us that Zebra's scum.
At this stage, I'm not convinced that Zebra is on one specific side of the (civ-scum) spectrum (in other words, I'd call him neural). I'll need to re-read his posts.
Looks to me BUGLABUSH's post was a response to getting a vote from a2thezebra:

a2thezebra wrote:To BUGLABUSH it is.

BUGLABUSH wrote:I voted for a2thezebra because he bad
Floyd, i don't see how a no u-vote makes BUGLABUSH 'more than likely' bad. Could you elaborate on this? Looks like you two know each other irl so i'd understand a joke Day 1 vote, but given your response to Matt F, this doesn't appear to be that.
Floyd, you were online this afternoon at 3:32, an hour after Tranq made this post and after I made mine. Can you explain why you did not address this issue? Your behavior regarding these questions makes me believe you are bad. This isn't your first game, you know better.
I was only able to get a quick glance at the thread, I didn't have time to make a post because I was going out somewhere.
How exactly can it be elaborated on? I do know BUGLABUSH in real life, but I'm still going to treat him (and the other people I know IRL) like any regular player.
My point is that a vague reason is always a suspicious reason.

Buga's vote was a no u vote. How did that make him seem bad? Tranq may have more questions out of what he said but this is the main one.

Tranq wrote:TheFloyd73's vote for BUGLABUSH stands out to me. Matt F brought up his vote here:

TheFloyd73 wrote:
Matt F wrote: However, I do have a question for you Floyd. You invited your friends to play in this game, yet you voted for Bug on Day 1. Why?
Anyone who votes for someone wth the excuse "he bad" is more than likely scum. Perhaps he's trying to (very vaguely) convince us that Zebra's scum.
At this stage, I'm not convinced that Zebra is on one specific side of the (civ-scum) spectrum (in other words, I'd call him neural). I'll need to re-read his posts.
Looks to me BUGLABUSH's post was a response to getting a vote from a2thezebra:

a2thezebra wrote:To BUGLABUSH it is.

BUGLABUSH wrote:I voted for a2thezebra because he bad
Floyd, i don't see how a no u-vote makes BUGLABUSH 'more than likely' bad. Could you elaborate on this? Looks like you two know each other irl so i'd understand a joke Day 1 vote, but given your response to Matt F, this doesn't appear to be that.

Floyd, you were online this afternoon at 3:32, an hour after Tranq made this post and after I made mine. Can you explain why you did not address this issue? Your behavior regarding these questions makes me believe you are bad. This isn't your first game, you know better.

Good point Tranq. I have already been after Floyd for not responding to something I asked him so it will be interesting to see if he answers you either.

Well stupid me!

Golden wrote:
nutella wrote:The fact that Bubbles hadn't stated that she was civ was particuarly notable since that is her signature MO.
I completely agree with this. It's why I found bubbles suspicious and didn't really find it notable that you missed the question, at first. If it had pinged me the first time around I would have been saying I was suspicious of you at the time. It was only, all the things adding up together, you know what I mean?

I honestly don't know what to do with my vote today. Luke's vote for sig feels most bandwagonny, but it's not like a newbie vote worked out for us yesterday... not that I'm saying it wouldn't today. There is the possibility the banana vote was a save, but if so... I wonder if bugla is the likelier option than dom.

Golden, you voted for Bubbles yesterday are you considering voting for her today? If so, for the same reason or is there something additional?

Mac, was it DF's quick vote that raised your antennae or is there something else about DF that causes you to place a vote there?

I'm having difficulty with today's vote. I havent found anyone that absolutely pulls me in. Floyd still hasn't answered my question from yesterday even though he's been on but that kind of vote didnt work out for me yesterday.

ok. Thanks!

HamburgerBoy wrote:
juliets wrote:@Hamburger Boy - I disappeared because it was Halloween and I went to hand out candy. I am considering all sides of all the cases out there. I don't know what you mean about "left to watch things". I'm of course considering everything everyone is posting.
Fair enough. When I say "left to watch things" I meant more relative to LoRab, who also took interest but got pretty involved in the argument with sig.

Oh now I understand. I think you're just seeing a difference between mine and Lorab's style.

This is unrelated but related to sig: did someone (maybe you) allude to the fact that english is not sig's first language? I thought that was implied some where but I can't find it.

@Hamburger Boy - I disappeared because it was Halloween and I went to hand out candy. I am considering all sides of all the cases out there. I don't know what you mean about "left to watch things". I'm of course considering everything everyone is posting.

Search found 119 matches