The Syndicate

So when SVS's vote was forced, why did she vote immediately? And baddies, did you just happen to be around at the moment that happened and improvised?

Scotty wrote: The toughest cookie to crack was DFaraday. He didn't want to share anything with me in BTSC, which everyone else did so thoroughly (except timmer, who told me he was Michael and that lynching him would give him "power." So we made sure to not lynch him after that). I figured out DF was Darryl however right after I asked him about items and he answered in some weird metaphorical riddle about not possessing items that it just clicked.

I really didn't know how far I could go discussing items, but I did figure out it was you in there pretty easily. And you said the lanyard I sent you never did anything; I guess that one was a dud.

Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:congrats baddies, btw. we didnt stand a chance.
If by this you mean the civvies squandered every single chance they had, yes you are right.

Hey, I was trying to make my items as powerful as you'd let me. :P

LoRab wrote:
DFaraday wrote:If Enrique doesn't bother showing up again I think we're done. And Timmer is pretty hit or miss.
you know you posted this after the lynch ended, right?

Yeah, I wasn't dead yet at the time, so why not?

And wow, we really didn't stand a chance. Good work baddies, and good job fighting the good fight, DB.

If Enrique doesn't bother showing up again I think we're done. And Timmer is pretty hit or miss.

DFaraday wrote:Whatever guys, I'm out. Civvies, please try to focus.

THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A GIF

Get Lorab and Epi. They're not even hiding it anymore.

Whatever guys, I'm out. Civvies, please try to focus.

LoRab wrote:There are items in the game that come with powers. I don't discount the use of those in any event in this game.

And you seriously think SVS was bad? I find that incredibly disingenuous for someone who has played with her as much as you have.

Yes, there are items. I think I've had more experience with them this game than you have.

I don't care much about meta. I don't file away what I think a player's style will result in, because I don't pay that close attention, and they could change it anyway.

Guys, if you all don't show up and I get lynched, you have to lynch Lorab next. She's got to be one of the last baddies.

But it sure would be nice if someone had a lynch stop right about now.

LoRab wrote:
DFaraday wrote:Lorab, ask yourself why the baddies would force a vote onto one of their own team members at such a critical juncture of the game. That would be a seriously stupid move.

And where is everyone? Timmer, say?
Baddies do things for all sorts of reasons. Also, targets aren't always intentional. So, there being an apparent forced vote against you doesn't make you seem any less suspish to me.

Oscar is dead, so you're positing that there's another undiscovered power redirector in this game? You seem to be going out of your way to discount the most obvious explanations for everything this game, and that, combined with how incredibly opportunistic your vote looked, is making me more and more convinced that you are one of the last baddies.

Epignosis wrote:
DFaraday wrote:Lorab, ask yourself why the baddies would force a vote onto one of their own team members at such a critical juncture of the game. That would be a seriously stupid move.

And where is everyone? Timmer, say?
Do you think S~V~S was bad?

Do you think Turnip Head was bad?

Do you think DrumBeats is bad?

Yes.

No.

No.

Lorab, ask yourself why the baddies would force a vote onto one of their own team members at such a critical juncture of the game. That would be a seriously stupid move.

And where is everyone? Timmer, say?

LoRab wrote:
DFaraday wrote:I went ahead and put a vote on Epi for now to make sure we don't have another SVS/Quin situation. Although now that TH flipped civ, I need to reevaluate the players we have left for connections.

TH flips civ, and you vote Epi to make sure there isn't another early end day? I'm not sure I see the logic. And I'd think if the baddies were doing another Quin situation, they'd already have gone forth with their plans.

That said, I'm finding you increasingly suspish and I'm going to vote for you, for now at least. Since you seem to be up on voting early, you surely understand.

I voted early because DB voted extremely early with zero explanation, which is obviously reminiscent of the SVS debacle. If the vote hadn't been on me, of course I wouldn't have felt the need. You're seriously saying you wouldn't be on edge if someone immediately votes you with no reasoning in a game where someone instantly died as a result of that? Yeah, they probably would have done it already, but I was occupied during the 15 minutes or whatever between DB's vote and the time I saw it, so I reacted as soon as I could. I voted Epi because even though TH has been cleared, Epi still has been distinctly unhelpful lately, and I'm not at all convinced that he's good.

And if you have other reasons for finding me suspicious, please elaborate.

I went ahead and put a vote on Epi for now to make sure we don't have another SVS/Quin situation. Although now that TH flipped civ, I need to reevaluate the players we have left for connections.

I figure anyone who died after the Strangler was lynched is almost certainly cig, so I'll vote Juliets because she is always a nice presence in games.

Epi, why did you vote Bea rather than DB, since your issues seem primarily to be with him?

I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

TH and Epi both are looking pretty bad, so I'll go ahead and vote TH.

I just wanted to let everyone know that I will be entirely absent from the game for the next three days (I'm helping out with a church retreat). Since I only have a few minutes, I'll just say that I still suspect Bea and Lorab, and slightly espers. It's possible his team has been letting him coast the entire game, since that seems to be working for him.

I thought we had another hour, luckily I decided to check in. I never got to do a full review of Daisy, but I figure either she's falsely claiming to save herself (very plausible), or she's an Indy, in which case we're still better off than lynching a civvie. *votes Daisy*

Scotty wrote:
DFaraday wrote:
Scotty wrote:I'm very behind as usual.

Epignosis wrote:
DFaraday wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
DFaraday wrote:Epi, correct me if I'm wrong, but your only case on me seemed to be the notion that Splints and I were baddie teammates. Now that's been disproved, do you have anything for me to work with beyond the notion that INH and I are baddie teammates?
Talk to me about today's lynch.
I suspect all 4 baddies are still alive, so I'm going to try to figure out what combinations would make sense later today. Off the top of my head, I'd guess it's a mix of Daisy, Espers, Timmer, Bea, and Lorab. But that's without any actual analysis, I'll get to that in a bit.
So after the fingersplints lynch, does INH still feel genuine to you? It seems that way, since you didn't name him off the top of your head.
This statement sounds like you are certain there are 4 baddies. I mean, I made that argument that at least 1 is probably dead, but why do you sound so certain that there's 4?
Because there are four baddies listed on the first page...
The Scranton Strangler is not there either. Doesn't mean that role doesn't exist.

Oh, I was reading your statement backwards. Of course there could be more, but just going off of what I saw I figured, "Okay, there are four baddies listed and probably only one kill from the Strangler, so he may very well have not hit any of them."

Espers, why did you vote Timmer? You don't seem to have mentioned him at all before, and you've said before you have some actual suspicions.

I looked over Bea and Espers, and although there wasn't much, I did notice that Bea seems to have been subtly implicating Splints throughout much of the game.

bea wrote:kk I'm srrsly honest on thisl.

TH- follow up because I'm sure I can't -

Lorab, indi, Spinltsy were all non voices in the eternal night of svs dying.

bea wrote:
fingersplints wrote:Do you understand where Bea is going? Why am I required to see SVS exactly as she does?
Not required. I just want to hear more from you. I don't feel like I have a decent feel for you yet and I'm a bit troubled by that. Where was your day 0 suspish again? I am fail at remembering.

bea wrote:RIP Indi. I'm sad you didn't get the chance to jump into the game like I know you could have.

fingersplints wrote:
Serge wrote:I'm definitely not acting new. Weak sauce.
I don't think it's weak. I think it's possible. I've seen players win games by acting more confused than they actuall are. I personally have won games by acting more confused than I actually am. It allows players to lay low. I don't know for sure that is what you are doing... which is why I also answered your questions to help... But it does make me concerned. I'm not giving anyone a pass, and I need the revisit everyone.

There have been several weird kills that I'm still trying to make sense of. I know if I were bad, indiglo and SVS wouldn't have been top choices of mine given they had attention on them. It makes me wonder if it's they were on to something, a setup of someone, someone who knows them well (I'm looking at you sweet Bea ), or something else like target changing.
See...it's funny - because my paranoia kicked in with a N1 kill of wabbit, followed by the whole SVS did it frame job thing, then her death, now Indi is dead.

I start thinking in my head, this looks like someone is trying to take out the HV crew. And let's be honest, I'm the easiest mark to blame for that. That's why I was sketched out last cycle about like - you and lorab and indi and sorsha. Cuz the way this kill pattern is going, it looks like a great old skool Bea frame job.

Here's the thing though, I'm not the same Bea as I was then. Look in your heart, deep deep in your heart. Do you REALLY think I would kill wabbit, try and fail to frame svs, kill her anyway then kill indi? When *you* are playing the game? How is that kill pattern not setting up a big red flag saying SPLINTSY!! I'M BAD!! Do you really think I'm that ballzy of a player? Do you really think I would do that to those players or would I rather try and fail *yet again* to try to out smart them? What do *you* think bad Bea would do now? From everything you know about me, which goal is more important to baddie Bea. Being a good baddie or getting a win?

I'd give you the "I totes believe Bea would NK wabbit N1." Cuz that shit's always funny. I'd say you and I were both in an equal position here. But from there out, does this really sound like a plan I would follow if I were bad knowing that you are playing and you know our history as well as you do?

For everyone else, this is a WIFOM argument. I'm posting this for splintsy.

In the above she elaborately details a hypothetical where someone is specifically targeting the HV players for some reason, and that Bea wouldn't do that because Splints would call her out and get her lynched, but someone is trying to frame her, or something. It felt weirdly overreactive to an offhand comment from Splints.

bea wrote:TH - I read your case on DF - I can see what you are saying. I'm just gun shy about it. My paranoia kicks in and I start thinking, well, he made a decent point there.

I have pretty decent feels about INH and I've come around to feeling much better about lorab. Her posts are ringing more true to me the more we go along. I feel good about you and scotty.

Everyone else I'm pretty up in the air about. If I were a good mafia player and not the suck one I've been for ages now, I'd want to look a little closer at Enrique just to see if I'm justified in my I trust him but don't trust him, I think he might be buddying me to keep me from looking at him vibes I've had, but those are just vibes and nothing concrete.

I go back and forth on literally every other player in the game. Some posts feel civ to me others don't. I wish I could say which ones are which for each player but I can't. I haven't been alloted that kind of RL time.

I'm soo so sorry you guys. Running 2 stores is killing me. I worked a 20 hour day Thurs. NO joke. Started at 8 am got home at 3 am. Had a family emergency yesterday morning so my sleep was limited - stuck at work till almost 4 am yesterday.

I'm just getting coffee now and I know I am going to be late for my shift that starts in an hour and a half. I set an alarm on my phone so that I can get back in time to vote.

I'm supre lame. I'm super sorry.

If anyone were inclined to rainbow read or point out more specific things they want an opinion on like TH has that would be super helpful to me.

Then, after mentioning Splints multiple times before, she brings up suspecting me, and makes no mention of Splints in this long post, but then randomly switches back to voting Splints without warning. I don't want to fault someone for not voting me, but it's possible she wanted to blend her vote with an indistinguishable pack (since around here, not suspecting civvies who get lynched is often seen as suspicious).

Bea made no real cases on anyone, but seems to subtly have been bringing up suspicion of Splints consistently, only capitalizing on it once the train was in full swing. It makes her more likely to be one of the baddies, in my estimation.

I looked over Esper's posts and he had none for 8 days straight, which seems unlikely for someone with BTSC, so he moves a little lower on my list. In the morning I'll look at the other three I mentioned.

Scotty wrote:I'm very behind as usual.

Epignosis wrote:
DFaraday wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
DFaraday wrote:Epi, correct me if I'm wrong, but your only case on me seemed to be the notion that Splints and I were baddie teammates. Now that's been disproved, do you have anything for me to work with beyond the notion that INH and I are baddie teammates?
Talk to me about today's lynch.
I suspect all 4 baddies are still alive, so I'm going to try to figure out what combinations would make sense later today. Off the top of my head, I'd guess it's a mix of Daisy, Espers, Timmer, Bea, and Lorab. But that's without any actual analysis, I'll get to that in a bit.
So after the fingersplints lynch, does INH still feel genuine to you? It seems that way, since you didn't name him off the top of your head.
This statement sounds like you are certain there are 4 baddies. I mean, I made that argument that at least 1 is probably dead, but why do you sound so certain that there's 4?

Because there are four baddies listed on the first page...

Turnip Head wrote:
DFaraday wrote:Epi, correct me if I'm wrong, but your only case on me seemed to be the notion that Splints and I were baddie teammates. Now that's been disproved, do you have anything for me to work with beyond the notion that INH and I are baddie teammates?
Talk to me about today's lynch.

I suspect all 4 baddies are still alive, so I'm going to try to figure out what combinations would make sense later today. Off the top of my head, I'd guess it's a mix of Daisy, Espers, Timmer, Bea, and Lorab. But that's without any actual analysis, I'll get to that in a bit.

Epignosis wrote:
DFaraday wrote:Epi, correct me if I'm wrong, but your only case on me seemed to be the notion that Splints and I were baddie teammates. Now that's been disproved, do you have anything for me to work with beyond the notion that INH and I are baddie teammates?
You called INH good and fingersplints bad. Any reasoning behind that?

I thought she was coattail riding, and he has just felt genuine to me.

Epi, correct me if I'm wrong, but your only case on me seemed to be the notion that Splints and I were baddie teammates. Now that's been disproved, do you have anything for me to work with beyond the notion that INH and I are baddie teammates?

Sorry Splints. I was way off base about you.

LoRab wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:If TH + Lorab get DF lynched, and he flips civ, they're gonna be my top two suspects for tomorrow.

Just putting that out there.
I voted the player I suspected most. I stand behind my vote. I don't have a baddie vibe from Splints, so I didn't vote there, although she seems to have the clear majority.

Why would disagreeingon suspicion make someone your top suspect?

DFaraday wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:If TH + Lorab get DF lynched, and he flips civ, they're gonna be my top two suspects for tomorrow.

Just putting that out there.
I actually think TH feels sincere, if misguided. LR's vote and reasoning came off half-hearted to me.

EBWOP: Timmer, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
Neither my reasoning (which, did I miss where you responded to it?) nor my vote, based on that suspicion, which I didn't see disputed by you or anyone else, were half hearted. Sorry if they seemed that way.

I didn't respond. I looked back over your posts and all I could find was where you said I have more original thoughts when civ. I guess I typically do, but that's pretty much all the responding I can do with that.

insertnamehere wrote:If TH + Lorab get DF lynched, and he flips civ, they're gonna be my top two suspects for tomorrow.

Just putting that out there.

I actually think TH feels sincere, if misguided. LR's vote and reasoning came off half-hearted to me.

EBWOP: Timmer, you are a scholar and a gentleman.

Epignosis wrote:
DFaraday wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
DFaraday wrote:
fingersplints wrote: Wouldn't you say this is a bit hypocritical though given that you are now mentioning suspicion of me after Epi pointed it out?
One big difference is though that TH asked what everyone thought on his case, and I responded... Whereas Epi mentioned me and you "latched onto it."
Not really. You were accused of latching on three separate occasions, whereas you've only brought up the once with me. Although you now say you don't suspect me, which is weird after your post indicating that my BWT vote was suspicious.
You two have danced around suspecting each other.
I've said before I think she's bad. I definitely want to hold onto my vote for self-preservation's sake though.
I voted you just to make sure.

Yep.

Votes are still changeable. Why are you holding your vote?

Habit, actually. I sometimes forget that votes are changeable since I came up with non-changeable votes. My only reason for holding would have been in case it came down to me and some other train which formed at the last minute. But now I'm voting Splints.

Epignosis wrote:
DFaraday wrote:
fingersplints wrote: Wouldn't you say this is a bit hypocritical though given that you are now mentioning suspicion of me after Epi pointed it out?
One big difference is though that TH asked what everyone thought on his case, and I responded... Whereas Epi mentioned me and you "latched onto it."
Not really. You were accused of latching on three separate occasions, whereas you've only brought up the once with me. Although you now say you don't suspect me, which is weird after your post indicating that my BWT vote was suspicious.
You two have danced around suspecting each other.

I've said before I think she's bad. I definitely want to hold onto my vote for self-preservation's sake though.

fingersplints wrote: Wouldn't you say this is a bit hypocritical though given that you are now mentioning suspicion of me after Epi pointed it out?
One big difference is though that TH asked what everyone thought on his case, and I responded... Whereas Epi mentioned me and you "latched onto it."

Not really. You were accused of latching on three separate occasions, whereas you've only brought up the once with me. Although you now say you don't suspect me, which is weird after your post indicating that my BWT vote was suspicious.

fingersplints wrote:
DFaraday wrote:TH, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't follow my principles as a baddie, but it's way off base. And not only has Splints latched on to the new suspicion of me, she's acting as if she's not been doing that the whole game.
I haven't latched on to shit. I wasn't even voting you. Try again.

You only mentioned any suspicion of me after someone else made a case on me. As Epi pointed out, you've done this several times throughout the game, but reviewing your vote history, you haven't actually voted any of the people you said that about. I'll need to review your posts to see whether that's a good thing.

TH, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't follow my principles as a baddie, but it's way off base. And not only has Splints latched on to the new suspicion of me, she's acting as if she's not been doing that the whole game.

fingersplints wrote:
DFaraday wrote:I'm *voting BWT*. He's the worst-looking of the 3 I was looking at (although DB is also giving me pause), and I see no reason for leetic to be lynched.
I don't think this vote looks great for him either.

Can you elaborate?

Turnip Head wrote:I think DFaraday might be bad, and here's a few reasons why.

DFaraday wrote:Finally caught up.

I don't necessarily find Quin's statements/actions suspicious, since I get what he was trying to say. It can be beneficial to the town to do things besides directly lynching baddies. In this particular case I don't think Quin's fixation on Pam is particularly helpful, but I don't find him overtly suspicious because of it.

I will be *voting Wilgy* because his voting logic was weak and the follow-up with INH has left me feeling that INH was more genuine. Also, it's been brought up that this is apparently reminiscent of baddie Wilgy in earlier games.
Voting for someone because their voting logic is weak isn't really a reason to vote for someone because weak logic isn't a baddie trait. DF's last sentence here is just groupthink. "People said something about Wilgy, it must be true." I can't be arsed to find links from other games, but I feel like civvie-DF is against this type of metagaming, especially when he's just parroting other people's conclusions about it and not explicitly agreeing with those findings, simply bringing it up as part of his vote.

Weak voting logic isn't necessarily bad, no, but Wilgy's line of reasoning felt less genuine to me than INH's did. And it's not civvie DF who's generally against meta-gaming, it's me in general. I probably just tacked that on to seem like I had more to say about Wilgy.

DFaraday wrote:Both the Epi voters and the leetic voters are pinging me a bit, as I haven't seen any reason to suspect either of them. Although it's possible that Bea and Splints could be forced by Meredith.

What's more noticeable to me is the shift in attitude of the Day 1 Quin voters:

S~V~S wrote: I was out all weekend and had to read Quin in ISO; would it surprise you to hear that his output during the night period made me feel much better about him? Would it surprise you to hear that his vote made me feel even better?

DrumBeats wrote: Also would not surprise me to hear that the night made you feel better about Quin, I feel a bit better about him myself. The vote making you feel better surprises me a bit, but whatever floats your boat

birdwithteeth11 wrote: I know I definitely am not. We're less than 24 hours away from Day 2 ending, Quin's posts since after the Day 1 lynch have started to make me feel better about him, and I'm currently catching up and have zero suspicions on anyone. Although part of that may be because this is a very large game and most large games take me a bit longer to start to sink in and get more concrete ideas.
3 of the 4 Quin voters now feel good about him (DB even listed Quin as civ) with basically no reasoning for this shift beyond, "His posts made me feel better about him." BWT's especially strikes me as an easy way to springboard off of what the others said without offering any new thoughts on Quin. I'll be looking at these three for the remainder of the phase to see if anything else stands out to me.
Why is "His posts made me feel better about him" not enough reason for DF? He seems oddly attentive to this issue, as if he was paying attention to who suspected Quin and now he's bummed that they've changed their minds. What exactly did DF think was at play here when he made this point? Did he think Quin's accusers were his teammates? Not likely, because DF had defended Quin himself until this point. This is a contrived reason to look at these three players, IMO.

I brought it up because three players used almost identical wording to say the same thing, without even giving a particular reason for it. Not only does it ping me when someone changes their mind about a player out of nowhere, it felt like at least one player was just aping what the others had done.

DFaraday wrote:I agree with DB that this scenario presents a huge benefit for the Mafia. Since the day phase was so short, we're essentially in three straight night phases, where the baddies can keep killing unchecked. Add in Quin's death, and the Mafia basically get 4 kills in a row while we're sitting ducks. Not to mention, by the time this long night is over, we'll probably have a very divisive argument over whether SVS should be lynched, potentially stalling things in the baddies' favor even longer. It absolutely seems worth it for a Mafia member to risk themselves for what amounts to an extended period of thread domination and kills free of reprisal.

Besides, the reasons for SVS being civ are all more convoluted than her being bad. The whole "No baddie would risk themselves like that!" angle is pure WIFOM, and the scenario in which SVS just happened to vote super early, and the baddies just happened to know she would vote super early, and just happened to be around to send in a PM fast enough that no other players had even left a placeholder vote all strains credulity more than the notion that SVS is complicit.
Here's the biggest piece of evidence for me. It's clear that in this post, DF's premise is that SVS is bad and took out Quin to get the neverending night. But I want to call attention to one sentence in particular:

DFaraday wrote:Not to mention, by the time this long night is over, we'll probably have a very divisive argument over whether SVS should be lynched, potentially stalling things in the baddies' favor even longer.
If SVS is bad as DF presumes, then "a divisive argument over whether she should be lynched" does not "stall things in the baddies' favor"; on the contrary, it keeps the spotlight focused on one of their own and forces the rest of the team to take a stance on her. That doesn't work in the baddies' favor. DF's argument in this sentence doesn't fit the premise of the rest of his post, which makes me think he's just bullshitting to justify a contrived opinion. Read this sentence over again. I argue that what he says here makes no sense and shows that DF doesn't actually believe SVS is bad.

What I was getting at is that, as we saw in the Eternal Night, there were more people supporting SVS than not. So what I thought might happen is we'd have a day spent debating SVS, but then she doesn't get lynched, so then the next day phase we keep debating about her. It would keep the focus away from actually looking for other baddies and provide the baddies with yet another night for an NK.

DFaraday wrote:
Enrique wrote:What do you think, DF? Was she bad, was she good? Who killed her?
I was inclined to think bad before the NK, and I'm rather unsure at this point. I'm not ruling out that she was killed by her team, since that's more plausible than you seem to think.
Earlier DF took a hard stance on SVS, saying the case for her being civ was more convoluted than the case for her to be bad, and now that she's dead, he's not ruling out that her own team killed her. Again this doesn't fit the premise of DF's earlier post about the benefits of SVS's move if she's bad, so it feels like more bullsuit.

Weren't you just saying it's not suspicious for someone to change their mind suddenly and without reason?

And I never took a hardline stance. I was always leaning bad on SVS, but I think I at least humored the possibility that she might be good. As I mentioned repeatedly, I've seen firsthand baddies inexplicably kill their own teammates, so I would never put that past a team. If I were on a bad team with SVS, I certainly wouldn't kill her, because keeping attention on her would be more beneficial to the team, but I know that others would kill her.

DFaraday wrote:I think DB makes a good point about Matt wanting to know about the Night phases, and as Matt doesn't seem interested in defending himself, I'll go ahead and *vote Matt*
Matt's lack of defense is not a reason to vote for him, it's an excuse to vote for him. His only other mention of Matt before this vote on Day 4 was back on Day 0, where he hedged his bets:

DFaraday wrote:The only one who looks at all shady here is Matt, but every game I think Matt is suspicious for his weird gameplay, so I don't want to read too much into that just yet.
That was on Day 0 and it's hardly damning, and there's no mention of Matt again until he votes for him on Day 4. DF was looking for an easy vote here and he found it.

Yeah, I was. I was feeling lazy that day and didn't have time to bother making a real case. I guess you could say I had weak voting logic, not that that's a reason to vote someone.

DFaraday wrote:I actually agree with INH. I don't see much value in GTH, and I certainly wouldn't base suspicion off of what anyone put in their GTH.
I just thought this was funny because 20% of DF's posts are participating in the GTH exercise

Meh, I was free at the time.

These are just the highlights, but DF's ISO is a breezy 26-post read. I suggest everyone take a look at his full posts to grasp the overall context of DF's contributions to the game, and let me know if you're seeing what I'm seeing. In general, I find his reasoning for his votes to be somewhat contrived and some of his opinions to be likewise contrived.

I'm placing my vote on DF for now.

Occasionally I do strain to find reasons for voting because I haven't had time to catch up, or I just wasn't playing well and didn't have any good suspicions. But I stand behind everything I said re: SVS, and given the circumstances, I'm fine with all of my votes in this game except Matt's, which was the sort of lazy bandwagoning I typically decry.

I actually agree with INH. I don't see much value in GTH, and I certainly wouldn't base suspicion off of what anyone put in their GTH.

DrumBeats wrote:GTH:

Spacedaisy

timmer

Juliets

Good

Good

Good

DrumBeats wrote:GTH:

Scotty

Serge

Turnip Head

Good

Bad

Good

DrumBeats wrote:Humor them INH.

GTH

espers

insertnamehere

LoRab

Bad

Good

Bad

DrumBeats wrote:GTH:

enrique

Epignosis

fingersplints

Good

Indy

Bad

Great outcome! Although, I assume she was an SK or something similar, so we still don't have much information to build upon.

DrumBeats wrote:Gun to Head:

bea

DFaraday

Drumbeats

Good

Good

Good

Enrique wrote: Bea suspecting me feels pretty natural but it's wrong. It's interesting that the Hedville players are being targeted, but I'm not sure I understand the motive? I was in Hedville and all, but I wouldn't think of myself as belonging more there than LP/Piano/others. There's a lot of new folk here and I do like playing with familiar people

That's how it feels to me as well. You all HVers were just as active on LP, RM, Piano, etc. And the majority of players in this game (myself included) were never on HV, so I don't buy that someone would try to frame a player by targeting players that were on one of the same sites as them a long time ago. If anything, it felt like Bea spent too much space defending herself against that one offhand comment from Splints.

I think Timmer is being truthful re: being busy, and I do know he's at his best when analyzing data, so I don't feel confident voting him. Nor do I see the case on Sorsha. For now I'll vote Serge because it feels like he's trying to avoid putting out too much suspicion or make bold claims.

Sorry Matt.

Scotty wrote: Drum, the situation is different here. In the game I referenced, LongCon was all but confirmed as bad, and he was going to get lynched the next day. SVS was still a huge question mark.

The same thing happened in WWE Mafia, when the lynch outcome was not at all clear. This situation reminds me a lot of that one, which is why I'm not discounting that possibility.

Enrique wrote:
DFaraday wrote:I'm not sure why people are trying to figure out Epi's alignment based on SVS' remarks. It seems she only said he was bad once during the Eternal Night, and with very little reasoning given. I don't see that as cause for a frame-up or a kill to protect Epi.
What do you think, DF? Was she bad, was she good? Who killed her?

I was inclined to think bad before the NK, and I'm rather unsure at this point. I'm not ruling out that she was killed by her team, since that's more plausible than you seem to think.

I think DB makes a good point about Matt wanting to know about the Night phases, and as Matt doesn't seem interested in defending himself, I'll go ahead and *vote Matt*

I'm not sure why people are trying to figure out Epi's alignment based on SVS' remarks. It seems she only said he was bad once during the Eternal Night, and with very little reasoning given. I don't see that as cause for a frame-up or a kill to protect Epi.

Sorsha wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Sorsha wrote:Also TurnipHead. His constant defense of SVS reminds me of AWR when we had quite a few circumstantial pieces of evidence that SVS was bad and he still refused to believe it. (She was bad, so were TH and I, on the opposite team, ftr). I'll be keeping an eye on him for now, if SVS were lynched and came back civ he would jump up to #1 for me.
I forgot to respond to this. I don't really understand the connection you're drawing. I'm sure I've defended SVS just as often as I've accused her, I'm probably batting .500. I feel okay about your motives though so feel free to keep an eye on me
It means I question your ability to read SVS and I feel like you lean civ on her a bit more than is warranted.

ripiywg SVS... it's not unheard of for the mafia to kill one of their own. Especially if they thought she would be getting lynched today, plus it saves her team from having to defend her. And it makes everyone go WTF.
Is mafia killing their own common here? Can someone provide me with some games when this has happened?
My team did it in Downton Abbey mafia. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... =27&t=1002

I thought someone else mentioned another time here in this thread but I don't remember who or what game it was.

I wouldn't say its common here... We only did it because Long Con was toast anyway and it made the civs all

I brought up WWE, where a team NKed one of their own, the reasoning being so that nobody could make connections between the one under suspicion and her team. Except she was by no means the center of attention like SVS has been in this game. I wonder whether that happened here, to prevent any connections being made between SVS and her teammates.

Turnip Head wrote:There could be another role that forces votes on even nights. Or the role is made up a la GoC 2015. I see plenty of ways around it, though I realize I'm starting to sound like I'm in denial.

TL;DR making conclusions based off an incomplete list of roles is foolish.

The game definitely has at least two vote controllers already; I think it's very unlikely that there would be three. Since SVS doesn't meet the criteria for Meredith or Jo, the most plausible explanation is that she was not forced.

As for JJJ, I thought he was civ, and unless the baddies missed their kill or were redirected I don't see why he'd be baddie. But then I always remember WWE Mafia where one team inexplicably decided to NK one of their own team members on Night 2 and then I remember that Mafia can make really weird decisions.

S~V~S wrote:I am appalled that anyone thinks I am enough of an idiot to do this. I mean, I can be an idiot, but I am a player whose best use to a bad team is via manipulation & talking in thread, not out of self sacrifice. But whatevs, if you want to lynch me Drum, go for it. You will be dissappointed if you really expect me to flip bad.

Also, re the use of the word "forced"; has it occurred to you that I am not allowed to directly say I was targeted?

What other factual checkable statement would you like me to make?

Linki @Faraday, what do you think of my factual remarks? We have 2 nights in a row for Pam to check me. What factual questions would you like to ask me?

You've made a few solid checkable remarks, but I don't think it proves much since a) Pam can't share with the thread what she learns, and b) we don't even know if Pam is alive, or will be by the time this Eternal Night Phase ends.

But for sportsmanship's sake:

Why did you vote immediately?
Were you aware of the day-ending ability?

Search found 62 matches