The Syndicate

Sorsha wrote:

LoRab wrote:Juliets, you and your coffee will be missed during your hiatus. RIH to your role.

RIPIYWG DF.

And Jim Nonplayer...do we think he's a secret role who is really one of the players? Also, great title.

And anyone have speculation on the bodies flying possible dead people beacon of light?

I know someone who was supposedly on or near that square the night the beacon was set there.

What do you think happened LoRab?

I don't know. I also don't know if it was set there, or was triggered by a game mechanic, or what. Why do you think it was set there?

Juliets, you and your coffee will be missed during your hiatus. RIH to your role.

RIPIYWG DF.

And Jim Nonplayer...do we think he's a secret role who is really one of the players? Also, great title.

And anyone have speculation on the bodies flying possible dead people beacon of light?

I went with east.

juliets wrote:

LoRab wrote:

juliets wrote:

LoRab wrote:Really? You have no idea why you weren't lycnhed? I find that hard to believe.

At the time I did not. Since then Mac has spread so many hints around I think I might know. As he said in his hints, and I'm paraphrasing, it was not me that caused him to be lynched.

How about why you and k-nuk were tied? Do you not know that, either?

And Mac has more hinted why he survived the lynch, not why he was the candidate. And if both of you are bad, then, well, I'm not sure I believe him, either.

No I don't know why me and canuck were tied. And I also have no idea why Mac was a candidate. I know I voted for him because I was trying to save myself, but why everyone else did I have no idea. They said it was because he was asking for votes which I still don't understand.

I can only say why I voted for him, and I've explained my suspicion.

And 2 votes in which you were involved, which did not have the vote totals that were apparent. and you have no idea how either one happened. That just doesn't seem likely.

juliets wrote:

LoRab wrote:Really? You have no idea why you weren't lycnhed? I find that hard to believe.

At the time I did not. Since then Mac has spread so many hints around I think I might know. As he said in his hints, and I'm paraphrasing, it was not me that caused him to be lynched.

How about why you and k-nuk were tied? Do you not know that, either?

And Mac has more hinted why he survived the lynch, not why he was the candidate. And if both of you are bad, then, well, I'm not sure I believe him, either.

Really? You have no idea why you weren't lycnhed? I find that hard to believe.

so, you search for your name, in every version, every time you get on the computer, instead of just reading through the posts? that seems like a lot more work. And I don't believe you. I think you're either paying attention or your teammates are telling you when your name comes up. But I'll worry about you later.

voted juliets.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:i've read between the lines and i agree with dom.

On which point?

that you're bad.

DrWilgy wrote:

LoRab wrote:that said, I agree with mac's current 2 suspects.

ntioned juliets before. dr w is making me suspish by clearly paying attention, but not really contributing to conversation. jokey, but on topic, short posts. just doesn't feel like a civ play.

Ha! You think I'm paying attention.

Well, if you weren't, then how would you have known to respond?

that said, I agree with mac's current 2 suspects.

ntioned juliets before. dr w is making me suspish by clearly paying attention, but not really contributing to conversation. jokey, but on topic, short posts. just doesn't feel like a civ play.

i've read between the lines and i agree with dom.

Golden wrote:You have had a look in to the dastardly mind of a mafia Dr.

Do you think 'killing' himself as part of a failed night (if he knew the night would reset) sounds like his style?

that was actually my first thought

Ripiywg typh

Not konwing any of these spaces, and being wary of crowd votes, I'm voting B4, because before is better than after.

Spring, because the days start to get longer.

yeah, you've said that. I don't believe you. I think you actually are bad and are trying to save face by saying that you meant to do that.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Well maybe I know why I wasn't lynched. Maybe I don't. Maybe it's obvious. Maybe it's not.

But I'm not scum. So maybe don't waste another lynch on me tomorrow.

Yeah, it's the you're not scum part that I don't at all believe.

I'm glad you think so.

Why is that?

MacDougall wrote:Well maybe I know why I wasn't lynched. Maybe I don't. Maybe it's obvious. Maybe it's not.

But I'm not scum. So maybe don't waste another lynch on me tomorrow.

Yeah, it's the you're not scum part that I don't at all believe.

MacDougall wrote:No tie breaker = juliets has negative votes right?

Or you have additional votes.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:And either you'll be lynched or you'll survive. I don't for a second believe that anything more will happen than that.

You're right. Nothing more at all.

I like how you say that in a way that is truthful, but can be read in a tone that is ominous.

Nothing happens when one votes for you, despite what you've implied before. I don't believe anything happens if you have the most votes.

And either you'll be lynched or you'll survive. I don't for a second believe that anything more will happen than that.

@Timmer: What happened to the item that you had earlier that you say you didn't realize was the obsidian dagger?

I'm going with a Mac vote for now, as I continue to think he is bad (and especially since others are voting that way, and there may be a chance of lynching him).

I will consider moving my vote, but I feel pretty good about it for now.

@Juliets: You asked, so here you go:

Here is my post where I explain why I suspect you:

LoRab wrote:Just read through Juliets. Her post where she votes Luke does read like a teammate begrudingly voting. Not quite defending, but pointing out weaknesses in the argument against him even as the vote goes that way. Because jumping on a running bandwagon is generally a good way to try to distance yourself--but you don't want to accuse the person that hard, in case there's a chance to turn it around.

It's also a tone thing. I'm just not feeling like you're civ.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:You read some of the posts in that Talking Heads game right? Your post wasn't that long LoRab.

I thought we were friends early in the game. What happened? You changed. You used to be friendly to unusual creatures such as me but you turned on me LoRab. You turned on me bad and now we're not friends anymore and it pains me. It pains me LoRab.

We can still be friends. I mean, I think you're evil in this game, but that doesn't change friendship. I welcome you and I'm happy to have you playing--but I still think you're bad.

Hey--I've made some great friendships through accusations. I mean, some of my best friends are FEBS.

And that post was long by my current standards. I used to do really long posts (I once discovered that LP had a length limit, actually), but I gave that up long ago. I say what I need to say.

At any rate, yeah, I suspect you. I haven't changed. I just think you're bad.

As a friend, and one who suspects me, I have a fairly easy request to make of you.

Can you please vote for me?

Perhaps. I've voted for you before. I likely will again. It all depends on how this lynch is going as to how I vote this round.

MacDougall wrote:You read some of the posts in that Talking Heads game right? Your post wasn't that long LoRab.

I thought we were friends early in the game. What happened? You changed. You used to be friendly to unusual creatures such as me but you turned on me LoRab. You turned on me bad and now we're not friends anymore and it pains me. It pains me LoRab.

We can still be friends. I mean, I think you're evil in this game, but that doesn't change friendship. I welcome you and I'm happy to have you playing--but I still think you're bad.

Hey--I've made some great friendships through accusations. I mean, some of my best friends are FEBS.

And that post was long by my current standards. I used to do really long posts (I once discovered that LP had a length limit, actually), but I gave that up long ago. I say what I need to say.

At any rate, yeah, I suspect you. I haven't changed. I just think you're bad.

MacDougall wrote:Not really I know that you are posting that you think I am bad. I am just questioning whether you've actually thought through that possibility.

Yup. Been thinking about it since day 0.

And I even did a whole long post on it.

because there are so many of us who play mafia.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:@Mac: You don't believe that I believe that you're bad?! Have you even read my posts? I've suspected you since day 0.

timmer wrote:Golden, you are leaping to assumptions and need to realize that you clearly (from my POV) do not know everything you think you know, and are ignoring what I'm trying to tell you (without busting the rules). I can honestly tell you that I had an item in my hands that was not what it seemed, and I had never heard the term Obsidian Dagger before Epig died from it today.

And as for me being passive, I've been passive in every game I've played in the last 6 months, except for when I've found conclusive proof that I wanted to pursue. I've made too many mistakes by only half paying attention and then leaping into poorly-formed suspicions, so I no longer do that until I'm sure. This has been my play as both baddie AND civ, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Also, you suggested that you thought my suspicion of you was not legit, but Golden, who is the one person who I know was near me when I died? Of COURSE I've been eyeing you all game, look back through my posts. And I've tried to ask people, when I could, what they thoguht of you.

I can't undo what happened last night, but you can realize that your assumptions about last night are NOt entirely accurate. I'm at work,so my posting will remain sporadic today.

What this sounds like to me is that you saw an item that said, "I'm a soft and furry, cute kitten that you can give to another player," which you then did, but it turned out to be an obsidian dagger and instead of fuzzy kitten joy, it ended up being a dagger that killed Epig. That sounds disingenuous at best.

And, really, if you see an item that says, "Hi! I'm harmless and you should give me to your friend," in a Long Rock game, you shouldn't believe the sign. You've been around long enough to know that. I'm not sure I believe your defense.

linkitis: I had a whole post yesterday on why I suspect you. It's not like this is out of the blue.

Oh you're that LoRab! Sorry I thought you were someone else.

While I did change my name on LP, that was a really long time ago, and LoRab is based on that screen name. So, uh, yeah. I've been the same LoRab all along.

@Mac: You don't believe that I believe that you're bad?! Have you even read my posts? I've suspected you since day 0.

timmer wrote:Golden, you are leaping to assumptions and need to realize that you clearly (from my POV) do not know everything you think you know, and are ignoring what I'm trying to tell you (without busting the rules). I can honestly tell you that I had an item in my hands that was not what it seemed, and I had never heard the term Obsidian Dagger before Epig died from it today.

And as for me being passive, I've been passive in every game I've played in the last 6 months, except for when I've found conclusive proof that I wanted to pursue. I've made too many mistakes by only half paying attention and then leaping into poorly-formed suspicions, so I no longer do that until I'm sure. This has been my play as both baddie AND civ, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Also, you suggested that you thought my suspicion of you was not legit, but Golden, who is the one person who I know was near me when I died? Of COURSE I've been eyeing you all game, look back through my posts. And I've tried to ask people, when I could, what they thoguht of you.

I can't undo what happened last night, but you can realize that your assumptions about last night are NOt entirely accurate. I'm at work,so my posting will remain sporadic today.

What this sounds like to me is that you saw an item that said, "I'm a soft and furry, cute kitten that you can give to another player," which you then did, but it turned out to be an obsidian dagger and instead of fuzzy kitten joy, it ended up being a dagger that killed Epig. That sounds disingenuous at best.

And, really, if you see an item that says, "Hi! I'm harmless and you should give me to your friend," in a Long Rock game, you shouldn't believe the sign. You've been around long enough to know that. I'm not sure I believe your defense.

linkitis: I had a whole post yesterday on why I suspect you. It's not like this is out of the blue.

MacDougall wrote:

LoRab wrote:I trust Golden more than Mac. That said, I think Juliets is likely bad. I will likely vote Timmer, based on what Golden has posted, or Juliets.

Why does it matter who you trust? Why bother even saying that? Are you just trying to be mean to me? That hurts LoRab.

You keep asking people to vote for Juliets because you believe she's bad. As I think you are bad, I don't trust your opinion. I think Juliets is bad for other reasons. Golden, on the other hand, I have low level trust for--he has posted that he believes Timmer is bad--and so if I am considering trusting him on this lynch, then I thought my relative trust was relavent.

I trust Golden more than Mac. That said, I think Juliets is likely bad. I will likely vote Timmer, based on what Golden has posted, or Juliets.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:

DrWilgy wrote: LoRab, will you dance with me until dawn?

You want me to dance with the devil in the pale moon light? Eh...sure...why not...

I'm Batman.

DrWilgy wrote: LoRab, will you dance with me until dawn?

You want me to dance with the devil in the pale moon light? Eh...sure...why not...

Rest in whatever place is appropriate since we don't know what your win conditions were, KNuk.

HamburgerBoy wrote:"It depends" is the cop-out answer and anyone voting for it should have votes against them day 6 count double.

No, it's not. Role claims can totally suck. Role claims can be brilliant moves on either end.

I also know that our host agrees with that opinion.

And, really, if you haven't seen both ends of the spectrum, then keep playing.

Tactic totally depends. It can be used strategically. Especially with false claims. Of course, those can backfire. But still, it can be a good tactic. And role claiming in general can be good. But it's a risk. Always. It can suck and take the fun out of the game. It totally depends on context and on the game and in how it's used.

Well that's ominous.

For the record, I'm totally convinced that nothing happens when Mac gets votes. He's just trying to get people to not vote for him.

DrWilgy wrote:Both of these are very good options... I will have to go with SVS's though, and I hope you can forgive me LoRab. I still think you are bad, and revenge isn't my thing.

No hard feelings. And if you can ever get around to saying why you think I'm bad (which I'm not. I'm really quite civ.), that would be lovely.

Yes!! It was LOTR. Sorry Sorsha!! I know I was civ that game but I couldn't in a million years tell you what my role was--I don't even remember having a kill.

@Dr W: I mean, you could vote Mac. He did cancel the bonfire, after all.

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Just replying to sorsha and LoRab who seem to think I am some kind of bad guy. I am heaps civ.

Well, gee. That totes convinces me.

And pro-civ is not civ. Are you claiming indy now, too?

He's probably bad.

Yup.

DrWilgy wrote:└(◉◞౪◟◉)┘

The owls are not what they seem?

MacDougall wrote:I am going to start night killing my own teammates if this game doesn't get less boring.

I only saw that happen once. Actually, the Dom equivalent was the one who carried out the kill...on himself. But it was for good strategic reason (and almost saved his team). I believe that was the exact moment that DD became the original FEB. And I'm blanking on what the theme was. I'm sure BR would remember (unless she's blocked the game out, since she was on that team). Ah, memories.

But not because of boredom. that would be a new one, even for me.

But if you're bored, you're welcome to self-target. That would be fun.

MacDougall wrote:Hey LoRab. Why are you voting for me when I won't be lynched? You just hiding your vote from a definite scum lynch? Cool.

I explained why I was voting for you when I voted.

And I don't know that anyone is a "definite scum lynch." I vote based on whom I find suspicious.

MacDougall wrote:Just replying to sorsha and LoRab who seem to think I am some kind of bad guy. I am heaps civ.

Well, gee. That totes convinces me.

And pro-civ is not civ. Are you claiming indy now, too?

Sorsha wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Sorsha wrote: @LoRab- thanks for your post on Mac. I agree he has been doing some suspish things but I don't think voting for him is the great st idea at this point.

Why not?

I don't know what his intentions are with trying to draw votes, if he's getting some sort of benefit from it or something... I'm not sure. I don't feel like he's being pro-civ though so I'd have no problem voting for him but I would only do so on a day that I think he'd actually get the most votes.

gotcha.

Sorsha wrote: @LoRab- thanks for your post on Mac. I agree he has been doing some suspish things but I don't think voting for him is the great st idea at this point.

Why not?

Matt F wrote:

LoRab wrote:Voted mac--my post reminded me of how suspicious I find him. I realize he likely won't be lynched this round, but putting a vote there as a statement of suspicion.

I'm comfortable with a juliets lynch, which seems to be where the thread is heading right now. K-nuk, also--I don't really trust indies, so...

Help me vote MM? I think he's a baaaaaaad indy.

Can you summarize the case?

Voted mac--my post reminded me of how suspicious I find him. I realize he likely won't be lynched this round, but putting a vote there as a statement of suspicion.

I'm comfortable with a juliets lynch, which seems to be where the thread is heading right now. K-nuk, also--I don't really trust indies, so...

Just read through Juliets. Her post where she votes Luke does read like a teammate begrudingly voting. Not quite defending, but pointing out weaknesses in the argument against him even as the vote goes that way. Because jumping on a running bandwagon is generally a good way to try to distance yourself--but you don't want to accuse the person that hard, in case there's a chance to turn it around.

Why I find Mac suspish, as per request:

Day 0, he makes a jokey post about voting for Matt on principle. It struck me as pseudo-on-topic-joke-post baddies sometimes make, but not as suspicious in and of itself. However, when called out on it, he waffled between it having been just a joke and he really meant it and votes for Matt until he's out of the game as a policy vote. Because Matt isn't helpful as a player in finding baddies and he, on principle, will always vote for Matt until Matt is dead in every game (which he seems to have dropped at some point).

Also, retorting that finding valid reasons to vote for someone is pingy to him. Which actually fits in with his ongoing seemingly random naming of people.

Also, he put forth the question of there not being any bad roles, which perhaps was trying to get the focus away from there actually being baddies in this game. And trying to blow off suspicion from himself because we don't know the alignment of roles and if one suspects him of being a certain role, we can't konw if that role is good or bad. This section of conversation struck me as doubletalk, trying to evade suspicion.

He repeatedly mentions players and a sure sense of them being bad--or posts absolute statements of his opinion of players without qualifying why he feels that way or explaining anything. He often does this late in lynches, which strikes me as suspicious in and of itself.

Also, he claims that anyone who votes for him has bad consequences happen, and yet, I have not had any and voted for him day 1.

He calls anyone who suspects him opportunistic for pointing things that they find suspicious. And yet calls pingy anything that anyone posts that he doesn't agree with.

Also, he makes lots of posts, many of which are just 1 or 2 lines, wihch is a great way to keep one's post count up, without needing to add a great deal of content.

He ignores questions to him and about him that he doesn't feel like answering. And outright states that he's ignoring them, so it's not like he's missing them.

Also, he posted that he was scum--which could have been just joking around, but also why say that if you're civ?

He posted RIH to TH, which seemed like an odd response to a death caused by an apparent baddie.

He has waffled back and forth on Sig so many times that it makes my head spin.

He also impllied thathe can't be lynched at some point, but htat could have just been to get ttention of of him. It didn't seem like an honest plea at the time, as I pointed out at the time. It felt like a bluff.

He has been so wrapped up in his own opinions, that he has barely commented on anyone who has been lynched. Even though he has actively posted in lynches.

All in all, all that adds up to me suspecting him.

Canucklehead wrote:Sigh. I love how every single person with a case against me has fastidiously avoided the central question I keep repeating: why do my actions make me bad instead of simply un-civ?

You're all wrong, and you're wasting a lynch, and I hope those who are pursuing a civ victory look carefully at how purposefully the people pushing my lunch avoided acknowledging the very large grey area that is a part of this game's set up, and that certain folks refuse to take into account.

I'm not bad, folks. Move along.

So, you're indy? Hmmmm...K-nuk Indy....not sure I'd want to trust that...