The Syndicate

Golden wrote:
LoRab wrote:I see some talk of recruitments? Is there any indication that there are recruitments?

As for Dom, I think he's likely civ. Possibly civ-friendly indie. I haven't seen baddie Dom in this game.
Yes. The role of Living Statue is overtly recruitable.

Right. Forgot about that. But the role is just as likely to become civ.

I see some talk of recruitments? Is there any indication that there are recruitments?

As for Dom, I think he's likely civ. Possibly civ-friendly indie. I haven't seen baddie Dom in this game.

Matt F wrote:My bad, 12 hour shift, I'm zonked. Anyway, so what, ya all think Wilgy was Trickster?

Golden, you think the Statue is evil now? I feel like that is a strong possibility, actually, or the Statue is dead.

So I'm going to want to lynch MM again tomorrow probably. Maybe another look at Lorab. And Dom, def Dom.

What does everyone think of Dom?

Please do take a look at me. Why do you find me suspicious?

I am civ. Eye me all you want.

voted e because it's my name.

linkitis: I read that backwards. So, he used wasted his power instead of saving it for when he needed it. Or, eloh did (I can't remember when he subbed in--and I think it's eloh he came in for).

Hmmm. I need to sleep.

Golden wrote:In favour of Wilgy being legitimately that role, he was not on the poll until day 4.

But wouldn't he have taken himself off this lynch? when odds were strongly in favor of him being next to be voted?

And if he comes back civ, then I'm going to be of the belief that he's whatever the Seemer role is called in this game.

Golden wrote:I've been thinking very hard about Wilgy over the last couple of hours.

I still believe I have a lot of evidence that he is on Witherdeath. I find this scenario far more likely than him being on the circle of decay. His vote for me, given team Witherdeath ought to have relatively unique knowledge of my poisoning, only reinforces this further for me.

I don't see any evidence linking him to team circle. I think I'd find it slightly more likely that he is town than circle. But if he was circle, it would be fantastic to take one out.

It's tough to link someone to a team that we haven't lynched anyone from. I agree with you that he's more likely Witherdeath. I just don't see it likely that he's civ.

DrWilgy wrote:Beware the LoRab...

Why is that?

As for feral pixie and the note, assuming a benevolent pixie, maybe the puppet master (whom I am assuming is evil or at least evil indie), used the pixie's power at some point and left the note with nefarious purposes.

Also votes can't be changed this round, it would seem.

Voting the doc

Matt F wrote:RIP Mac and HBoy

Well then.

Do we believe that Wilgy has to be invited to vote somewhere before he votes? Is that something Long Rock would do? If it is, do we think that would be a civ, baddie, or indy thing?

I ask because this is my first LC/BR game, and I don't think I've ever heard of such a rule for a role before.

Like a vampire?

Doesn't sound practical. And has someone invited him in every round?

Also (and sorry for the plethora of posts), I am hesitant to make conclusions about TH based on Dr D. It doesn't make that much sense for that role to be on a baddie team, as that would--it would seem--potentially give them an extra kill. I'd guess the role to be indy. That said, I'm not sure I see your logic in suspecting TH because that role targeted him. Can you explain?

And...looking more at the golem role and kill. Logic is telling me that it has to be that the person the golem was protecting has died, and that's why the kills have started--and that the person didn't have any/many votes, which is why killing wasn't happening earlier. So looking at recently dead players: Possible that the role was protecting floyd, but my read of every other night initially was that it would have the first night as the other, but thinking it through, it could be that night...could be Juliets...could be DF...could be Typh...seems unlikely they were earlier than that. The question is, what living player would choose one of those players to be connected to and would then kill Mac.

Golden wrote:
I still think Wilgy could be the last Witherdeath, but on the other hand they don't get a kill tonight.

Also, I agree with this. Well, the first part. The question is if we put of lynching someone we believe is bad because they don't kill tonight in favor of a bunch of players that we are completely unsure of. And if we wait a day, and this is correct, then the other team likely inherits the kill, so it doesn't really matter what day we lynch him on. Seems risky and impractical in this particular game to count on blocking him on kill nights. Normally, I would say to hold off on lynching, but in this particular game structure, I'm leaning towards thinking we should lynch someone that we believe is bad, regardless of which team.

Sorry, up in the middle of the night with insomnia, so not sure how much sense I'm making.

fingersplints wrote:Lorab - I figured she was elusive because she could only be seen by those in the same square.

Yes, likely. I just take very little that this particular host says for granted or at face value. My thinking is better phrased as most likely she is civ, but there is a small glimmer of doubt that allows for doubt in my mind.

Golden wrote:My thoughts are pulling me in a lot of directions today.

I still think Wilgy could be the last Witherdeath, but on the other hand they don't get a kill tonight.
I think splints could have been responsible for that beacon, and I think that feels like the actions of a baddie.
And I'm tempted to vote TH, to start figuring out this Dr Dre thing, because in some ways it feels to me like it could be the most malevolent threat. As I've thought about it more over the last couple of days, TH's 'the role was civilian last game' could be him providing the most information, but it could also be him intentionally misleading.

They feel like the three I'm most suspicious of right now... so I could see my vote going any of those ways. I'm going to start with TH for now.

@Lorab - I'm also really interested to start having some convo with you today - I feel like I haven't been doing much of that yet, and I'm interested in your thoughts on the Feral Pixie, your thoughts on Mac's death - those two things in particular.

Feral pixie it certainly sounds like lc is indicating is civ. But tricksy host is tricksy and the word elusive could be making his words more ambiguous. I would say the role is either civ or Indy. And if Indy, then more civ friendly Indy

Mac's death...well, I thought he was bad, obviously, so I'm not crushed to see him gone. But he was a fun adversary, so sorry to see him gone as a player. I'm interested that golem killed him. As th pointed out, it's the first kill from that role. Does that mean that the player that role was protecting is now dead and the role is neutral? Or did the person they are watching over only recently have Mac vote for them (although I think he voted juliets the last couple of lunches, so less likely). I need to go look at the lunch polls.

Golden wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Golden wrote:Yes, sorry LoRab, I did realise that I just thought everyone would understand that is what I meant.

Before I was wondering whether someone died, but I think perhaps the event was destroying the square rather than hurting any person.
Also possible it would have killed anyone on G9/G10, but no one was on either space at the time?

Do I extrapolate correctly that you are assuming that the person who caused the beacon knew what would happen?
Yeah, I'm assuming the person who caused the beacon would know what would happen.

Thanks for clarifying/confirming.

I'm not sure that's the case, but I guess we'll see.

MacDougall wrote:Could also be a pre-determined game mechanism that that particular even was to occur after a certain amount of time, or as a result of a certain event being trigger.

Could also be an on the fly adjustment made by the mods to maintain game balance.

I think it's too big a thing to be an on the fly adjustment. I think these and the other ideas discussed are all possible.

MacDougall wrote:Could also be a pre-determined game mechanism that that particular even was to occur after a certain amount of time, or as a result of a certain event being trigger.

Could also be an on the fly adjustment made by the mods to maintain game balance.

Golden wrote:Yes, sorry LoRab, I did realise that I just thought everyone would understand that is what I meant.

Before I was wondering whether someone died, but I think perhaps the event was destroying the square rather than hurting any person.

Also possible it would have killed anyone on G9/G10, but no one was on either space at the time?

Do I extrapolate correctly that you are assuming that the person who caused the beacon knew what would happen?

Golden wrote:I just looked at the map and noticed square G9 looks blown up. I think this was likely a deliberate action by a baddie, if the function of the square no longer exists. It was probably a square that baddies felt could be used against them in some way.

I think that was a result of the beacon of light explosion.

No need to apologize. My skin is thicker than that. I just like when people acknowledge things. So, thanks.

MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:That you said forumula implies definitive, as that is a mathematical term.

Even so, I continue to disagree with your general principle that baddies tend to do various things--or at least strongly disagree with those things that you seem to think baddies do. There are some baddie riffs that are repeated in posts--but they tend to be behavioral in a way that is conveyed through tone and in posts.

Again, I have the advantage of knowing that anything you think of my posting as being a 90% chance that I'm bad, I know that you're entirely wrong. And since you base that on what you consider baddie behaviors, yeah, I disagree with you.

Based on the games that I've played, I firmly believe that it is through reading posts and analyizing reactions that one learns the most about other players. I realize that there is also a mater of The Maths in terms of probability and what numbers of players there may be. I don't think that there are forumulae, as you suggest.

And if you were not trying to sound condescending, then I suggest examining your wording. Your post certainly sounded that way. Perhaps because of "as if that's not actually true," which implies that any experienced mafia player would know that.
Come on now we've both been snarky to each other. It comes with the territory.

Anyway if your argument to my points is "I know you're wrong about me so that means you're wrong about others" then I guess ditto.

My argument is that you're wrong about me so I know you're theory of baddie forumlae is flawed.

And I'm not denying snark. But you straight out said you weren't being condescending and I was responding to that comment. I've never denied that I've been snarky and sarcastic. There's a difference.

That you said forumula implies definitive, as that is a mathematical term.

Even so, I continue to disagree with your general principle that baddies tend to do various things--or at least strongly disagree with those things that you seem to think baddies do. There are some baddie riffs that are repeated in posts--but they tend to be behavioral in a way that is conveyed through tone and in posts.

Again, I have the advantage of knowing that anything you think of my posting as being a 90% chance that I'm bad, I know that you're entirely wrong. And since you base that on what you consider baddie behaviors, yeah, I disagree with you.

Based on the games that I've played, I firmly believe that it is through reading posts and analyizing reactions that one learns the most about other players. I realize that there is also a mater of The Maths in terms of probability and what numbers of players there may be. I don't think that there are forumulae, as you suggest.

And if you were not trying to sound condescending, then I suggest examining your wording. Your post certainly sounded that way. Perhaps because of "as if that's not actually true," which implies that any experienced mafia player would know that.

MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:I actually find floyd more suspicious with his desire to be replaced. I feel like a newer player who was civ would go with the flow and argue that they weren't bad, but a baddie is more likely to not know how to defend, and steps out. I would consider changing a vote there.
This one single post is the entire extent of LoRab's ISO referring to Floyd.
Yes, I hadn't read him carefully earlier, and even having read him now, I don't see much either way. This itself struck me as suspicioius. So I pointed it out.

He has not been, nor does he continue to be, one of the players I'm most concerned about. What the crowd is doing isn't interestig to me, but isn't how I make decisions. Never has been. Yeah, I know, it makes me hard to read. And you're probably going to say it reads suspish to you. Well, it's you, so you're probably going to say it's scummy--I'm not used to playing with people who use that language, so it's not my default for examples. And I'm still getting used to reading it without cringing.

I'm sorry if I didn't find other things supicious earlier to fit into your little box of what people are supposed to do. I don't tend to fit into little boxes.

linkitis: It's so sweet that you think that there are definitive forumulae as to how baddies act. While I agree that Dr W is bad, it's not for the same reasons. But, go along.
You seem more interested in talking about me and/or defending yourself than actually doing much in the way of genuine scum hunting. I believe it's because it's the only genuine analysis you've really invested yourself in. Like this post is really just designed to sarcastically belittle me for instance. You probably think I'm scum on the other scum team genuinely. Which is unfortunately for you, incorrect.

So much of this post is just hyperbole designed to ensure that the points I'm raising are viewed as irrelevant. I'm trying to "fit you into a little box", the part where you sarcastically say it's sweet that I think there are definitive formulae, as though that's not actually true. There are repeat behaviours scum exhibit all the time, do you agree? Ignoring scum teammates or over focusing on them to the detriment of sense and reason. Late game ISOs exhibiting a lack of actual scum hunting effort in a voluminous ISO. There are dozens of behaviours scum players largely exhibit. Talented scum players know them and get around them.

Of course I want to talk about you. I think you're bad. And I keep talking to you because you keep engaging me in conversation. And I defend myself because, well, that's what one does when accused of being bad.

I have raised points about others, as well and stated why I suspect them.

We clearly play this game differently and look at posts differently. And that post was in response to a post of yours. If my sarcastic tone was hurtful, I apologize. It is sometimes my default, especially when I am frustrated. I did not mean to belittle you--just point out that things that you are saying in a self assured way are not necessarily true. And your tone has been dismissive of me consistently in this game. I can't help but respond in kind. I was responding as much to the rofl smiley as I was to your language.

And that post was designed not having anything to do with you but as a response to what you had said. Please don't assume what my intent is.

MacDougall wrote:As for the poll it's Pixie and it's a no brainer. I don't think there's much doubt about the alignment of the Puppet Master and I couldn't care less about the others. I want to know if these fucking notes being left everywhere have malicious intent.

What do you think the puppet master's alignment is?

MacDougall wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote: It's so sweet that you think that there are definitive forumulae as to how baddies act. While I agree that Dr W is bad, it's not for the same reasons. But, go along.
... the part where you sarcastically say it's sweet that I think there are definitive formulae, as though that's not actually true. There are repeat behaviours scum exhibit all the time, do you agree? Ignoring scum teammates or over focusing on them to the detriment of sense and reason. Late game ISOs exhibiting a lack of actual scum hunting effort in a voluminous ISO. There are dozens of behaviours scum players largely exhibit. Talented scum players know them and get around them.
LoRab can you address this. Do you genuinely believe there aren't?

Sorry. Just got up.

I do not agree.

Mafia would be a much different game and, to me, less interesting if there were definitive formulae.

I think there are sometimes patterns, but that it depends much more on the individual in a baddie role than baddies in general. Talented baddies may or may not know what their personal tells are and may or may not be able to avoid them.

Sure, there are some tendencies of baddies, but not everyone exhibits them and a lot of them are things that civvies do just as much. I also think a or if it is dependent on role.

I also think svs brings up a good point about the fact that the game structures we are used to make it a different game in some ways and one in which rules like that don't apply.

And I've been looking for baddies. Maybe not the same way as you do, but I have been looking for baddies.

I could also argue that your random naming of people also isn't baddie hunting. And that your formulae are clearly flawed because I know you are wrong about means I think you are wrong about others.

MacDougall wrote:
LoRab wrote:I actually find floyd more suspicious with his desire to be replaced. I feel like a newer player who was civ would go with the flow and argue that they weren't bad, but a baddie is more likely to not know how to defend, and steps out. I would consider changing a vote there.
This one single post is the entire extent of LoRab's ISO referring to Floyd.

Yes, I hadn't read him carefully earlier, and even having read him now, I don't see much either way. This itself struck me as suspicioius. So I pointed it out.

He has not been, nor does he continue to be, one of the players I'm most concerned about. What the crowd is doing isn't interestig to me, but isn't how I make decisions. Never has been. Yeah, I know, it makes me hard to read. And you're probably going to say it reads suspish to you. Well, it's you, so you're probably going to say it's scummy--I'm not used to playing with people who use that language, so it's not my default for examples. And I'm still getting used to reading it without cringing.

I'm sorry if I didn't find other things supicious earlier to fit into your little box of what people are supposed to do. I don't tend to fit into little boxes.

linkitis: It's so sweet that you think that there are definitive forumulae as to how baddies act. While I agree that Dr W is bad, it's not for the same reasons. But, go along.

Matt F wrote:I dunno about Lorab. Again, the first two times juliets was lynched Lorab voted for Mac.

Here is an interesting quote from after Mac was non-lynched...

LoRab wrote:
MacDougall wrote:No tie breaker = juliets has negative votes right?
Or you have additional votes.
She would eventually place a vote on juliets after this was said (after 7 others did and she was clearly being lynched that day), but I dunno. Does this seem like she's defending juliets or is she still eyeing Mac?

Also, Epig specifically asked Lorab how she felt about Luke after Luke was lynched. Lorab said she would elaborate on her thoughts on Luke later, but never does, save one post where she believes that juliet was a Luke teamie.

Shortly afterwards, Epig was killed by the Obsidian Dagger. I wonder, why would Epig specifically ask Lorab about Luke?

I forgot Epig asked me, tbh. I need to reread Luke to remember my thoughts--IIRC, I read that lynch in retrospect, knowing the result, so hard to judge what I had thought. No idea why Epig asked me--was I online at the time and he wanted to ask me something while I was on, maybe? I know it was when I was away, but I don't remember when what was going on during that week. But, no, I didn't kill Epig, if that's what you're suggesting. Also, why would I kill Epig--he asked me a question. Even if I forgot to answer it, it wasn't an accusation or anything.

And, also, we don't know that whoever killed Epig was bad. And Timmer sort of implied that it may have been him, although inadvertant. So, just saying unclear on that.

And I was still suspish of Mac (and am), but went for Juliets that round, upon realizing that she was bad, too.

But, yeah. If you have other questions, please ask away!!

Also, an ISO of me doesn't scare me at all. Because I have nothing to hide. I'd love to see everyone reread all of my posts. And, again,

Also, I don't go around thinking that people are suspicious for having wrong suspicions. Civies are wrong all the time. I actually don't even often think people are bad when they wrongly accuse me. So, not sure why it's even relevant that my first post just now didn't mention you (and sorry, was responding to one thing at a time).

But, yeah. In this case, I do think you're suspicious. And I do think your'e suspecting me on false pretenses. But I'm not that worried. There are enough players that will either recognize your bullshit or who know me well enough to recognize that I'm not bad.

You are completely wrong about me.

Do you mean your, not you're. Because I don't really understand that sentence.

And I've been suspicious of you long before you even mentioned me. So, if you're accusing me of switcheroo-ing, it's kind of the other way around.

MacDougall wrote:Matt can you put your ISO and tunnel skills to use on the following players;

LoRab
Tranq

Nice that you're too lazy to do your own research on players you want to have lynched, btw. Are you afraid that you can't nk me? Or do you just want to save your nk's for other players? Also, why not make a case yourself? Oh, right. You don't do that. You just throw names out.

I look forward to my ISO. I predict that there are things on it that people don't get because I'm a bit out there, that I tend to stick to suspicions, even past the time that others have given those same suspicions up, and that I was away for a bit. All of which are true. None of which make me bad. I'm civ this game. Everything I've done has been civ. But eye me all you want.

I'm falling asleep shortly, so may not have time to answer stuff about me until tomorrow. Just saying now so no one is waiting for a response. I'll try to stay up to answer stuff, though.

Matt F wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Matt F wrote:I might have to reread Lorab as well. She voted for Mac the first two days juliets was on the chopping block, but on the third day voted for juliets after juliets had already taken 7 votes. Hmmmm
Please do. I have nothing to hide. If you have any questions, please ask. I'm civ, and all my actions have been civ. eye me all you want.
Right now Bullz has taken priority over both you and HBoy. However, feel free to post on your meds, I still think that would be epic

Will do! I took a painkiller tonight, so you might be in luck.

Matt F wrote:I might have to reread Lorab as well. She voted for Mac the first two days juliets was on the chopping block, but on the third day voted for juliets after juliets had already taken 7 votes. Hmmmm

Please do. I have nothing to hide. If you have any questions, please ask. I'm civ, and all my actions have been civ. eye me all you want.

DrWilgy wrote:
LoRab wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
Golden wrote:It feels like a new post-juliets dawn where new suspicions need to come forth.

I have two clear thoughts so far. The first is that I can see a scenario where Dr Wilgy is bad and on the Cabal and they set up his 'death' knowing the night wouldn't count for cred. My impression from TH, and it was backed up somewhat when I asked about it in the thread, is that this is exactly the kind of gambit Wilgy would enjoy. It seems up his alley.
I am no longer intoxicated

Golden, how many times have we been on a team together? What makes you think this is up my alley?
You pretty just answered him by saying, "Wifom?" When, really, he was saying that this is totally something you would do. Also, it doesn't have to be up your alley or have been your idea, even. It could have been a scheme thought out by others on your team, and you cooperated with it. How would it not be up your alley, by the way?

And why did you ask people to night kill you? And why did you stop after night 6.1?

It also makes sense why LC would have told us late what the results of the first non-night were. Someone on your team reminded him.
Idk... Seems too simple... My schemes are more fun! Besides if I really wanted to have some clear, why would I ask people to kill me, rather than go with the flow? Just seems like too much work for something so insignificant. Also, why me rather than a teammate if that was the plan? Why wouldn't we save that play for when someone else needs an EZ clear.... Yes! This is why it's not my plan. Too many holes. Too many flaws. I wouldn't accept the plan even if it was my teamates.

I wanted to die because I didn't wanna play at the time... Better! I didnt wanna catch up DX

I do enjoy the speculation regarding the delay. Y'know... Considering this isn't the only time it has happened. Was this speculation genuine though... That is the questionoly.

Linki - Timmer, IDK bae. If those coincidences or gambits were forced to get me somewhat "cleared" as others described, it seems to be doing a pretty shitty job

In response to your wifom switcheroo goodness, I do think you would do it. I'm not sure your teammates would give you the chance to "accept" it, as I don't know who they are, but I know sometimes folks run with ideas before waiting to hear other views, why wouldn't you just ask for a replacement if you didn't want to play, I'm guessing that LC was reminded at other times about things he forgot to post (but your death is the only one connected to a baddie team, and why would anyone else necessarily want the result public, other than those who carried out the kill--and how would anyone other than the person that made it happen know that the original result was supposed to be in the post), why would the baddie team even care unless the result was significant, and yes the speculation is genuine.

And to your linkitis: sometimes plans don't go as planned.

DrWilgy wrote:
Golden wrote:It feels like a new post-juliets dawn where new suspicions need to come forth.

I have two clear thoughts so far. The first is that I can see a scenario where Dr Wilgy is bad and on the Cabal and they set up his 'death' knowing the night wouldn't count for cred. My impression from TH, and it was backed up somewhat when I asked about it in the thread, is that this is exactly the kind of gambit Wilgy would enjoy. It seems up his alley.
I am no longer intoxicated

Golden, how many times have we been on a team together? What makes you think this is up my alley?

You pretty just answered him by saying, "Wifom?" When, really, he was saying that this is totally something you would do. Also, it doesn't have to be up your alley or have been your idea, even. It could have been a scheme thought out by others on your team, and you cooperated with it. How would it not be up your alley, by the way?

And why did you ask people to night kill you? And why did you stop after night 6.1?

It also makes sense why LC would have told us late what the results of the first non-night were. Someone on your team reminded him.

I've seen it happen both ways. And, I've seen baddie roles live longer as a result, tbh. Players tend to give a replacement a day or so to settle in and catch up, especially if there is suspicion and not definitive reason to know someone is almost definitely bad.

Also, he's never really said that he's good, even though there's been suspicion on him for a while--he's never really defended. He's also made on topic comments/votes, despite not being caught up, which often points to BTSC.

And he asked to be replaced, which gives a chance, and not to just lynch him. In my experience, baddies do not often go the "just lynch me" route, as it reveals their role and isn't fair to their teammates.

It's not enough to lynch someone on its own, but yeah. Yet note, I have not, at this point, changed my vote. It' sjust something I'm considering.

I actually find floyd more suspicious with his desire to be replaced. I feel like a newer player who was civ would go with the flow and argue that they weren't bad, but a baddie is more likely to not know how to defend, and steps out. I would consider changing a vote there.

S~V~S wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Tell me more about your suspicion of sig, Lorab. Does the fact that he's dead make you suspect him more?
It actually doesn't change my suspicion of him at all.
Did you have a particular team you think he was on?

I still think typh was bad, what do you think about him?
I originally thought circle but they killed him. Unless that was a redirect or something. Or a mastermind plan so he wasnt revealed. Or he was either death and the slip was coincidence or based on the other teams thinking or Indy and the slip was coincidence. I don't think he was civ. I could have been wrong but that's my thought.

I think typh was a bad Indy. I wasn't getting a team feel for him, but I wasn't really getting a civ feel either.
Witherdeath killed him, Lorab. Right?

Typh? Yeah.

Sorsha wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Tell me more about your suspicion of sig, Lorab. Does the fact that he's dead make you suspect him more?
It actually doesn't change my suspicion of him at all.
Did you have a particular team you think he was on?

I still think typh was bad, what do you think about him?

I originally thought circle but they killed him. Unless that was a redirect or something. Or a mastermind plan so he wasnt revealed. Or he was either death and the slip was coincidence or based on the other teams thinking or Indy and the slip was coincidence. I don't think he was civ. I could have been wrong but that's my thought.

I think typh was a bad Indy. I wasn't getting a team feel for him, but I wasn't really getting a civ feel either.

MacDougall wrote:Nothing at all. Not even enough to give you pause. Very discerning of you.

You've been pretty clear about dismissing my thoughts and not refuting any of my accusations. You've acknowledged that I suspect you, repeatedly, but that's it. I've thought things through. I have come to the same conclusion. Just like you suspect people, I suspect people. You happen to be one of the people I suspect. I am discerning, even if my discernment doesn't end with the conclusion you'd prefer.

MacDougall wrote:You have a scum read of me but you don't want to talk to me in the thread to help formulate a case? Seems legit.

I've hashed and rehashed my case several times. It hasn't changed. No reason to bring it up again. You haven't done anything that has made me change my mind.

Not really.

And since voting early seems the hip thing the kids are doing these days, I voted Dr W, at least for the time being. I think he's bad.

Turnip Head wrote:Tell me more about your suspicion of sig, Lorab. Does the fact that he's dead make you suspect him more?

It actually doesn't change my suspicion of him at all.

Golden wrote:@splints - there is one thing that bothers me about LoRab... she has a LOT of posts and yet I really don't feel like I know where she stands on anything except Mac.

This could just as easily be me as it is her, though. I need to read back her posts specifically.

In sum: I still suspect Mac. And Sig.

I agree with you on Dr W. Because of points made (and posts I've made) as well as similar reasons for suspicions you had earlier in the game.

I also think that points against Timmer have been apt.

I haven't looked deeply into other cases that are currently being discussed.

Also: eye me all you want. I shave my head again (to raise money for childhood cancer research, not just for fun) and I totally rock the buzz cut. I'll even twirl.

fingersplints wrote:
timmer wrote:Read through splints' posts.

So one question I have for splints, from earlier in the game, is what this post was about:

fingersplints wrote:RIP Banana and RIPIYWG Timmer. Sorry for missing the vote and general absence. Will try to be more around from here on out.

I like the points about sig, and am interested to hear his response. Lorab's post remarking about Timmer's low posting also bothers me.

LoRab wrote:Thinking about Timmer's death...and RIPIYWG Timmer of course...two things dawn on me. One is that the mafia team was going for a low poster. Two is that it would seem like good strategy for someone to separate themselves from killing a low poster by talking about how against lynching low posters they are. Just a thought.
Partially because the idea is similar to that of sig's (something discussed in btsc maybe) and this really just feels like trying to set up someone talking about lynching a low poster.

I read this as you agreeing that sig is suspicious (like the points about sig) but simultaneously suspecting lorab for suspecting sig? What was your gist, here? I don't see how you could suspect both sides of something?

As for the rest of splints' posts, she never really latched onto the cases against the known baddies, but has spent time commenting on things without getting too involved, a lot like how juliets often does. She NO U'd Epig at one point.

I'm not sure anything cries out as baddie specifically, but I don't get a strong civ vibe, either. The latest posts are a bit odd, to say the least, but maybe she's just not caught up?
I'm not sure how you can say that you don't see how I could suspect both sides of something. There are many roles in this game, and because they might not be teammates it doesn't mean they both couldn't be bad or Indy. Lorab responded pretty well after, but what caught my eye in her comment was that she was subtly pushing looking at those who could have been distancing without mentioning names. Seemed vague for Lorab.
The other thing that bothered me was how many people were jumping on sig while no one was mentioning Lorab for having a similar (although not totally the same corrected by juliets) thought.

I'm neither bad nor indie. And yes, I was being intentionally vague. Partly because I didn't want to make a Mac case at that point (I'm pretty sure it was mainly mac I was thinking of at that moment), and partly because I honestly didn't have time to look at who else had made that point.

I don't quite see what you see Sig and I having similar thoughts on? And I suspect Sig, so quite curious about that.

So I'm not the only one who thinks this is bizarro-world lynch or something, right?

Way too many votes on people, no reasons, and early voting, all rolled into one!

Sorsha wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Golden wrote:Do you think it could have been a random event? Thats interesting. I, too, assumed it was set there.

My thinking was its an item someone found on the map and activated there, whether or not they knew what it would do I don't know. A 'beacon' sounds like it could be pretty useful (more useful than it was).

Sorsha wrote:
Long Con wrote:Terribly sorry for an oversight, I should have announced this at the beginning of Day 7.

There is a beacon of light shining into the sky, visible from anywhere on the map. It's coming from G9.
This is what LC said about it earlier. So it seems like something from night 6 to me. No one was announced to have been killed by it though. Is that square destroyed now?

I don't think it was random. But whether is was triggered by something or someone put it there, I have no idea. It could have also always been in that space potentially, if that makes sense, and something/someone turned it on, so to speak. I agree it would have been something from night 6. But you seemed to be implying earlier that someone put it there, by your language and the fact that someone was supposedly near there that night.

I guess I just wonder if you know more about this than the rest of us...and why you would mention that someone had claimed to be nearby.

And the square below it looks pretty destroyed on the map.
I have been to the space that the beacon was shining from in the past and there was no mention of a beacon being there to turn on.

Or, something in that square started to shine a light (or the ground started to shine a light if it's an empty square) based on a trigger somewhere.

Golden wrote:Do you think it could have been a random event? Thats interesting. I, too, assumed it was set there.

My thinking was its an item someone found on the map and activated there, whether or not they knew what it would do I don't know. A 'beacon' sounds like it could be pretty useful (more useful than it was).

Sorsha wrote:
Long Con wrote:Terribly sorry for an oversight, I should have announced this at the beginning of Day 7.

There is a beacon of light shining into the sky, visible from anywhere on the map. It's coming from G9.
This is what LC said about it earlier. So it seems like something from night 6 to me. No one was announced to have been killed by it though. Is that square destroyed now?

I don't think it was random. But whether is was triggered by something or someone put it there, I have no idea. It could have also always been in that space potentially, if that makes sense, and something/someone turned it on, so to speak. I agree it would have been something from night 6. But you seemed to be implying earlier that someone put it there, by your language and the fact that someone was supposedly near there that night.

I guess I just wonder if you know more about this than the rest of us...and why you would mention that someone had claimed to be nearby.

And the square below it looks pretty destroyed on the map.

Search found 260 matches