The Syndicate

Black Rock wrote:

Official Announcement

Llama has been rezzed, he will not be able to be voted for today or targeted this night.

No...no...it's spelled LORAB. I see how you could find that confusing, though.

Roxy wrote:I am neutral.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I am accusatory bc people are accusing me of lying about A - my stance of there being two nights and B - my silenceing.

Riddle me this - if there was not 2 nights why was I not silenced the first but I was the second night?

I think you are trying to set me up for lynch but it will only serve to make you look bad when I flip Neutral but by all means follow your heart.

Because, night 9 1.0 didn't happen--only night 2.0 happened. The targets from the first time didn't amount to anything because they didn't actually happen. Only the targets from the second time around counted. The night restarted. It was not that day was skipped or that there were 2 nights in a row. Day restarted.

Again, if day happened twice, why didn't we have twice the results?

I'm not saying you are necessarily bad. But I can't see a way to understand your posts without thinking you are manipulating facts.

Roxy wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Roxy wrote:I had forgot I am playing with so many perfect people.

I was silenced.
I had posted before I went to my PM's bc I am hosting and was facing 17 PM's that morning.

I cannot believe not one of you thought of that. You just immediately went to - she is being nefarious, she has a lot of explaining to do, I think she is doing it on purpose

So can you explain your entirely contradictory statements?

And did anyone else get told that they couldn't use their power on the second round of the last night?

Contradictory in YOUR opinion.
I used my power the first night the second night I was told I could not.Ergo there was two nights in a row.
maybe bc it is a wonky power idk but I am not going to role/ability out nor am I going to info dump - sorry.
was I silenced the first night - no but I was the second night

Why is it so hard to understan there was 2 nights in a row?
Not a delayed night with inevitable results.

Sorry if you do not agree but I am entitled to my own opinion.

I don't see how your opinion makes sense. If there were 2 nights in a row, why did we not have 2 nights' worth of results?

No one is asking you to info dump. I don't think you are being honest. Your response to people asking questions is to accuse them of being unfair to you--to asking you to break the rules and to not simply accept that you were silenced (when we don't, in fact, know that was the case--and, really, while it was brought up, it was said again and again that you could be silenced--why the accusatory tone at people questioning it?)

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't mean that your posts don't make you seem bad.

Roxy wrote:I had forgot I am playing with so many perfect people.

I was silenced.
I had posted before I went to my PM's bc I am hosting and was facing 17 PM's that morning.

I cannot believe not one of you thought of that. You just immediately went to - she is being nefarious, she has a lot of explaining to do, I think she is doing it on purpose

So can you explain your entirely contradictory statements?

And did anyone else get told that they couldn't use their power on the second round of the last night?

LoRab wrote:Bea has been suspicious, as has been mentioned. She seems to be floating along, but I find her suspicious. I am voting for her.

UGH. hit send too early. Meant I would vote for her as second choice. Notl iking the bandwagons. If I were to switch, it would be there at this moment. Bt not there yet.

Bea has been suspicious, as has been mentioned. She seems to be floating along, but I find her suspicious. I am voting for her.

Falling asleep, so voting now. Voted TH. Because suspicion still there. If I stay awake and think more, I may reconsider. But didn't want to miss vote.

I think Brutal Executioner was recruited after night 5. Until then, targets were only LP/TP/RM players. After that, it changed.

Scotty wrote:
So will you be voting TH today? You're track record says so.

Likely. I had been thinking we had until tomorrow, because time is all wibbly wobbly in my world right now. So, haven't decided. TH is likely. Possibly Bea. Not ready to vote Rox without her defense--even if she is faking silence, I don't like to vote folks who haven't defended at all.

Scotty wrote:

aapje wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

aapje wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

aapje wrote:Looks like maybe I was wrong about him

Did you kill him so you wouldn't have to keep trying to get him lynched?

Nope, I was not involved in his death? Were you?

No. Do you think lorab was?

Interesting thought. If LR was bad I can see her wanting to keep Rico around in case the TH stuff doesn't work out. If their earlier back and forth is anything to go by people wouldn't touch their discussion with a 10 ft pole. Therefore I am leaning no.

Keep in mind LoRab was on Rico's ass the day before he died, and when he was rezz'd, I seem to remember LoRab held back a bit. Besides you, aapje, I would equate LoRab as the biggest detractor of Rico in the game as a whole.

Also, is the LoRab/TH thing still going on? Those 2 sort of stopped looking at each other like a disgruntled couple after 25 years of loveless marriage. She hasn't been pushing either Rico or TH of late. Why is that?

I still suspect both of them (although I'm clearly not going to be pushing Rico anymore). I haven't been pushing anyone of late--mainlybecause game time has been limited and I haven't had time to make big posts--Jewish holidays, start of school year, spent today in DC at a rally and lobbying on capitol hill...not excuses, and I've still been paying close attention, but my posting has been limited in general.

One of these things is not like the others:

Roxy wrote:DH - that only says it has been restarted not that we went back to the beginning off the previous night. No where is it stated for you to NOT to use your ability again.Do you think the baddies will not send in a kill target? Do you think everyone else is not submitting night their night action? Do you think it will all remain what it was going to be before the restart? Do you think it would be double targeting if they repeat actions?

Roxy wrote:Also yes isubmitted another night action - didn't you?

Roxy wrote:Oh well I changed mine bc it was a new night.

Roxy wrote:

nutella wrote:Roxy I think you are just plain wrong. It is still night 9. It is not a separate night, although actions have to be re-sent. They can be the same target as they were originally.

Yeah you already said this before and like before I just don't care - I am entitled to my own opinion.
I was told I could not use my power

@LC: Executive Assistant was truly brilliant word play.

And, night again? I don't know what to do with that. So I'm going to go finish writing a sermon for tomorrow, because I'm not sure my brain is capable of trying to think through both.

Voted 2. I don't like consequences.

Moved my vote to rico. Because I suspect him just as much--perhaps even moreso with the rez. And I was feeling lonely.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:JJJ is dead, so I haven't much thought of him. Rey hasn't done much and I kind of keep forgetting he's playing. Neither of them were major, huge suspicions in the first place. Both pinged me, but they never rose to the top of my list.

Who was on the top of your list on D2, if JJJ and Rey never rose there?

Anyway, I labeled your drop of their suspicions as potential moodswings, not suspicious behaviour. As far as I know, any partnership developed with them could have still inspired you to drop any word on them. Furthermore, as I've told nutella, I still believe you set a double standard with rey. You suss him on a statement and aren't satisfied with his rebuttal, but it's not major, huge and you drop it. You suss me for a statement and aren't satisfied with my rebuttal, and I rose to your top o' the list.

I wanted to respond, regardless.

And I don't think it's a double standard--your responses have felt more suspicious. His response was just unsatisfying. He didn't really explain himself, in my mind, but it didn't feel like a necessarily suspish response to me.

And I had forgotten that I was suspish of BWT earlier, so thanks for giving me reason to go back to my older posts. He was probably my top suspect day 2, although that was a while ago, so hard to remember where my brain was. Hmmm....may move my vote there, even though he seems to be likely to have the most votes regardless.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I believe Scotty is saying something along the lines of "You have not cared at all about what I've said all game long LoRab, and suddenly you are interesting in reading and transcribing my insanified text. I don't understand this sudden reversal in attitude, but I suspect you for it. Ha ha ha ha ha."

I agree with this interpretation of his words. I thought I had implied that in my response to him. And my only reversal in attitude was that I was trying to undersatand what he was saying.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'm at peace with you voting for me because I'm not really saying much yet this round. It's a fair and true criticism. And havenot excuse other than real life (and, for ther record, I'm in the middle of the equivalent of the superbowl, the world series, and the
nba dinals, while running the boston marathon). Just to give context of my sechedule.

Then I will vote for you too.

Uhhhh...ok.

@Rico: A lot of the LP/Piano players also have experience with the insanifier. I don't remember off hand who is good at reading it. Since LC bumped up the percentage of words that get changed, it became harder to understand.

BWT's self vote, and lack of denial of being bad makes me consider moving my vote in that direction. aaple voting Rico makes me consider a Rico vote, also (no, my suspicion of him hasn't let up).

Understood. You were also cheerfully exclamatory at an insanifying taking place. Do you think insanifying is a good thing or sign?

As for voting me, you haven't let up, I have nothing to add since the previous time you voted (or intended to vote) for me, so I'll use this instead:

What happened to your suspicions of JJJ and rey from the early Days?

I think insanifying is neutral. I've seen it as a good role and a bad role. I find it entertaining more than anything.

And that is an excellent use of my smiley.

JJJ is dead, so I haven't much thought of him. Rey hasn't done much and I kind of keep forgetting he's playing. Neither of them were major, huge suspicions in the first place. Both pinged me, but they never rose to the top of my list.

Turnip Head wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:What happened to your suspicions of JJJ and rey from the early Days?

Isn't Jay dead? Should we still be suspecting him?

No. I should have rather put it "after [suspecting them] the early Days".

Read my re-read of her. That's what I'm referencing. For a player never letting up on suspicions, she suspected them and then the suspicions vanished.

I could see the LoRab and Rey being recruited to the same team angle but I don't feel strongly about it; Rey fell off the face of the earth. But I'm sure you've noticed Rico that LoRab's opinion of you and me is completely static: nothing I say ever changes her opinion one way or the other, there's never anything new. "My thoughts haven't changed", she says... Since Day 3. I get the feeling that nothing I say will change LoRab's thoughts for better or worse. LoRab isn't accounting for my posts anymore, she's just paying lip service to her suspicion of me.

Now she could just be a lazy neutral, or she could be a coasting baddie, but either way I think she's full of bullsuit.

I wouldn't quite say lazy neutral, but neutral that doesn't have a whole lot of time to post. I'm not full of bullsuit at all--but really nothing you've said has made me change my thoughts about you (or Rico for that matter), so I haven't added to my reasons. I don't see a point in repeating myself. I'm accounting for your posts--they are just not changing my thoughts on you.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'm at peace with you voting for me because I'm not really saying much yet this round. It's a fair and true criticism. And havenot excuse other than real life (and, for ther record, I'm in the middle of the equivalent of the superbowl, the world series, and the
nba dinals, while running the boston marathon). Just to give context of my sechedule.

Then I will vote for you too.

Uhhhh...ok.

@Rico: A lot of the LP/Piano players also have experience with the insanifier. I don't remember off hand who is good at reading it. Since LC bumped up the percentage of words that get changed, it became harder to understand.

BWT's self vote, and lack of denial of being bad makes me consider moving my vote in that direction. aaple voting Rico makes me consider a Rico vote, also (no, my suspicion of him hasn't let up).

Scotty wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Scotty wrote:

LoRab wrote:The insanifier!! Yay!!!!!

I am fairly good at understanding insanified posts--although less so after LC tweaked it and made it harder. But I'll give a shot at summarizing what I think he's saying. Scotty, please correct me if I'm wrong. Or nod or agree with parts/disagree with parts or something.

I think Scotty is saying that he wants to look at new folks, and specifically the people Rico named last night? And that he's ok with a BWT lynch.

You instanter pursy correct, don't me in charge buddy!.

This is Red Bishop far clientship biggest landslide itemize Zelda in this nullity gimlet Will O' The Wisp lucific so if BWT is actually fonctionnaire his investigated Dream Walker bussing bussing bussing all macaronic livelong day!

Ahahhaaaaaaaaa Hahahaaaaaaa theophobist

Paraphrase (I think): This is a big clusterfuck bandwagon. And if BWT doesn't end up being Uzbekistan, then there is a crap ton to go on.

I'll add personally, that this is a great way for baddies to hide out--whether on the other bad team, or if they're throwing him under the bus. That said, I'm going to stick with TH for the moment. Just to be different.

While NotInOxford Bubbles the help, I'm not sure phrensy you're so communicatory in my advice right now. I've Tribunal of Judgment endaemonism all game long, and you tillage nop talked or addressed me all game long.

Voting LoRab just to goodie team against the grain

HAAHhahahaa

I'm at peace with you voting for me because I'm not really saying much yet this round. It's a fair and true criticism. And havenot excuse other than real life (and, for ther record, I'm in the middle of the equivalent of the superbowl, the world series, and the
nba dinals, while running the boston marathon). Just to give context of my sechedule.

Scotty wrote:

LoRab wrote:The insanifier!! Yay!!!!!

I am fairly good at understanding insanified posts--although less so after LC tweaked it and made it harder. But I'll give a shot at summarizing what I think he's saying. Scotty, please correct me if I'm wrong. Or nod or agree with parts/disagree with parts or something.

I think Scotty is saying that he wants to look at new folks, and specifically the people Rico named last night? And that he's ok with a BWT lynch.

You instanter pursy correct, don't me in charge buddy!.

This is Red Bishop far clientship biggest landslide itemize Zelda in this nullity gimlet Will O' The Wisp lucific so if BWT is actually fonctionnaire his investigated Dream Walker bussing bussing bussing all macaronic livelong day!

Ahahhaaaaaaaaa Hahahaaaaaaa theophobist

Paraphrase (I think): This is a big clusterfuck bandwagon. And if BWT doesn't end up being Uzbekistan, then there is a crap ton to go on.

I'll add personally, that this is a great way for baddies to hide out--whether on the other bad team, or if they're throwing him under the bus. That said, I'm going to stick with TH for the moment. Just to be different.

Scotty wrote:don't me in charge buddy!.

So funny this should show up on the insanifier. I actually used this quote today IRL.

The insanifier!! Yay!!!!!

I am fairly good at understanding insanified posts--although less so after LC tweaked it and made it harder. But I'll give a shot at summarizing what I think he's saying. Scotty, please correct me if I'm wrong. Or nod or agree with parts/disagree with parts or something.

I think Scotty is saying that he wants to look at new folks, and specifically the people Rico named last night? And that he's ok with a BWT lynch.

nutella wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'm not ruling out that there was seemer action in the last lynch.

Voting 4.

Judging by the results of the team-numbers contest combined with calculations provided by Rico earlier, the result was legit.

not necessarily. also, that's assuming mm is telling the truth about winning and that the numbers mm posted were the answer submitted (as opposed to sending a pm with different numbers).

Also, we don't know that a civie wasn't nk-ed at some point, which would equal the same numbers.

I'm just saying, I think it's dangerous to assume.

And his posts don't make sense to me in the context of having been recruited to the civie team.

For that matter, we I can't remember which lynches happened in a position with a seemer, but we don't actually know that a seemer role wasn't used to make someone appear neutral.

I'm not ruling out that there was seemer action in the last lynch.

Voting 4.

Sorry, dude, but that sounds like the perfect set up if your'e the seemer.

nutella wrote:Still so many votes for Syn... I am really quite wary of this bandwagon and do not think Syn is bad. I think this could end up as another neutral lynch, which is not what we need. But I could be wrong. Personally I think Lorab, Devin, and Reywas are bad and I will be looking into them more intensively for the next day. Along with BWT -- I liked Rico's case and could definitely see BWT being Ubzimbabwe.

Eye me all you want. I am not bad. But please, ask me anything. I have nothing to hide.

Voting TH, at least for the moment.

Ricochet wrote:LoRab, can you give a sample of your Tone Book as to why Syn's posts don't make sense coming from a baddie? Is it just his last reply or everything he said toDay or in general?

That being said, I'm gonna move him to "mull over" after his last response. Not so much his initial D8 one, that was unconvincing and slightly irking too. I'd still like a bit of evidence that, in his culture, mafia sometimes outs mafia, otherwise saying "I'm claiming to out so that mafia will be scared to recruit me" is still a bit of a bluff, if such outing will never likely to happen.

It's less tone and more that his whole threat of outing people doesn't really make logical, strategic sense from a baddie point of view. In light of day, however, I'm now second guessing myself and wondering if his whole defense is an experienced newbie card sort of thing.

Also, this makes my eyebrow raise:

Synonym wrote:
I haven't posted it publicly but I'm happy to explain it.

Did you post it privately in BTSC?

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:Also, I've been suspecting TH for days, and I'm not sure how many have agreed with me on him, either (until Bubbles' lynch).

It's hard to agree with someone who just says "I suspect this person", every day, with no details or analysis or even a reason. You've said nothing original about me for days. You don't interact with my posts or engage me in any way, you don't try to make others see your point of view, you just plop a vote on me and continue on your merry way.

And people didn't "agree with you [after] Bubbles' lynch" either, so you can't claim credit for that... Scotty made that case, and you agreed with him.

I explained my suspicion. It hasn't really changed. I explained my initial reasons, whichare still the core of my suspicion. I am happy to restate them, but don't really see the point.

I'm not claiming credit for anything, as you seem to imply. My point was just pointing out that I hav had original thoughtus.

nutella wrote:

LoRab wrote: Given the number of people that agreed with me about Rico during our back and forth,

My point exactly. Bea said I was being blendy and that I haven't had original thoughts. Given that pretty much no one agreed with me, I think it is fair to say that I was having original thoughts and not being blendy.

bea wrote:Feeling is mutual sweetie. Feels a little like you are saying I'm being too blend and unfocused because timer and th brought me up earlier. I'd say it's a bit pot and kettle here. You've defended for sure but have your contributions to the game that aren't defending been any more original and game moving than mine?

You can totes vote me, i get it, but all that is going to net the town is an unrecruited player lynched.

Given the number of people that agreed with me about Rico during our back and forth, I'm not sure I can agree that I haven't had original thoughts. Also, I've been suspecting TH for days, and I'm not sure how many have agreed with me on him, either (until Bubbles' lynch).

And yes, others mentioning you was what got me noticing your posts. But my own conclusion about your posts is my own. They don't match with what I know as civ/civ friendly Bea. I love you, and I know you're busy IRL, but I don't think I'm seeing innocent Bea here.

The fact is, the only confirmed civ in this game named you as one of his top ones to watch. So, yes, a number of people are watching you now. I'm not ready to vote for you quite yet. But your response to my suspicion doesn't add any warm fuzzy feelings to my read of you at this point.

While it may not have been said explicitly, there has been a bunch of speculation about Wigly's votes and posts. I think the idea that he voted his suspicions was implicit in the discussion.

I also meant to say earlier, that you were one of the players he suggested we look at next.

You know I love you, but I'm not sure I'm seeing civ/unrecruited Bea here.

At this point, I doubt Synonym is bad. His posts just don't make sense as a bad player. And I don't like the bandwagon I see going on. He's an easy player to vote for at this point, and I think a lot of his voters are taking the easy vote, knowing he's not on their team.

Synonym wrote:
So once again, I'm not mafia and I have played the best game I can under these circumstances. I do not want to be recruited and am quite happy to keep reading and voting as I have been. If the town agrees that I'm the best lynch choice then it won't hurt their final quota but it won't get them any closer to eradicating any other mafia.

To be fair, while I do not suspect you for this, I will say that the point of the game is to be recruited. Hence the name Recruitment Mafia. And there will be very few, if any, players that are not recruited by the end of the game. Whether by baddies or by civies.

And this is part gut, but I could see Bea being bad. I hadn't thought of it until it was brought up. But reading her posts now, they do resonate with Bea's baddie style. Sort of general, not taking strong stands, putting thoughts out there that add to the discussion enough to not be too blendy, but don't really add a lot (for example, her positing thoughts on the wigly votes as possible folks he suspected). She is not at the top of my suspicious list at this point, but I am definitely starting to eyeball her.

Thoughts on TH and Rico haven't changed.

Ricochet wrote:The question was more towards LoRab, but thanks just as much, SVS. [jest color]I doubt I'm a fun player, so I guess I can expect you to rezz me. [/jest] Outside the logic you pointed out for "automatically assuming rezzed would be recruited", do you think there is any sense for a role described as "possible rezz" to imply that rezz also comes with recruiting? Do you think the Hosts wouldn't have announced a recruitment in the thread after my rezz, if my rezz came with recruiting?

I do not think they would announce a recruitment immediately following, as that would be too obvious. I would assume there would be a delay on the announcement. If there were a secret team, there would probably be no announcement at all.

Ricochet wrote:You had a chance to suspect me for my rezz or my replies on it, LoRab, you asked me, then we exchanged posts about different things and now you're back on that matter after appje brought it up. That's not "I didn't get a chance to articulate before he did", the window of opportunity is too large for that to be genuine.

I get that you think an aligned rezzer would not rezz an unknown, but you also state that neither would an unaligned rezzer. So who would an unrecruited rezzer rezz in your view, if he for sure wouldn't rezz an unknown? Isn't everybody "unknown" to him, if he's unrecruited?

Even if you don't think I'm being genuine, I am. Sometimes, I think about things before I come to conclusions, so the too much time doesn't make sense. And yes, aaple posted what I had been thinking, but I hadn't posted yet. You don't have to believe me, but it's the truth. But keep convincing yourself that I'm not legitimately coming to conclusions, even if they are different from yours or if I don't say them the very second I say them.

And if I were an unrecruited rezzer, I'd either not use my power, use it on someone I truly enjoy playing with/a friend. In the case of this game, tbh, I'd likely use it on Typh, based on the numerical thought that he was likely unrecruited and the number of players (and the host) that expressed sadness he was out of the game so early.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Speaker of Serenity wrote:Please lynch Turnip Head. That is all.

Remember when we got this message, then NEVER got another one after from the Speaker? What's up widdat?

We got a message from him at the start of D2, after position 1 concluded. We never got back to position 1 so far. His positions 2-5 might not be messaging. In fact, I'm pretty sure this lack of messaging since D2 tells us his positions 2-5 aren't messaging. I'm not sure if he's still alive or got killed, but there's no way to tell anyway.

Except that the roles are pretty clear that all 5 positions for that role are a message to the thread--it's how the messages work that we don't know. Seems pretty far fetched that the other positions aren't messaging.

Ricochet wrote:I keep saying I'm unrecruited, you must mean. What rezz recruitement possibility?

I don't know what I'm supposed to say about my rezz, really. I was unrecruited when killed, so I was out and done (i.e. loser). I don't know why the Shaman brought me back, of all people, but it didn't come with any recruitement. I'm still unrecruited and I'll still go down and lose the game if I stay that way and get killed again. I'd like to get recruited by the civs, because I'm fairly convinced I won't survive the game unrecruited. Team Azura clearly didn't like me and I doubt they like that I'm back either. I helped lynch Bubbles, in fact growing suspicious of her ever since her Golden D3 flip-flop, so I doubt team Ubzilly are fond of me, either.

Hmm, I made an error in assessing MoSh, it seems. I thought position 5 was up the night Dom was killed, so that MoSh couldn't have been targeted. But with position 4, you're right, MoSh is eligible.

I don't believe you. It seems too unlikely that someone would rez an unknown. Even if the rezzer is unrecruited, I think you're an unlikely choice. The night 1 deaths are the least likely recruited, which would make more sense as someone to rezz.

And we don't know that there isn't a evil rez/recruitment possibility going on.

I am quite suspicious of you. Your rez and your response to your rez don't make me less suspish of you.

That said, I'm more suspish of TH at the moment, and voting for him.

vote: TH

The Speaker's twist on his positions has been discussed before, I think quite early in the game in fact. My interpretation of "Each position appears to be the same." is that each position is possibly not the same, meaning the abilities, not a variation of the same ability. If the phrasing is that the positions "appear to be the same", how can you say it is "pretty clear" that all positions are "the same"? It would also be quite redundant for the Speaker to be designed with basically the same variation (different messaging routes) as the Keeper of Ravens, but that's also my take on it. I don't believe the version you bring is unlikely, but I don't believe mine is either.

As for your belief, go with it. Just like aapje, I imagine that your view and experience with how rezz have worked and what they meant are more significant. I don't have such experience, it's the first time I've been brought back in a game, all I know what I was and what I am (which is same answer: unrecruited) and that doesn't give me any window to analyse why someone completely unknown to me brought me back. Both appje and apparently you as well have standards as to what rezzed people need to answer and it seems I cannot meet them. I've chosen honesty about my status and about what happened.

As for you suspecting me, I have no desire to go back to what we've talked for Days. My conclusion from that was that your initial case partly doesn't hold water factually and partly is extremely subjective and overblown. I don't remember you giving conclusions about my rezz on your own after inquiring me about my rezz. For all I know, you can be surfing the wind, after aapje's own interpretation of my rezz, because it suits you in your suspicions.

Of course the 5 positions work differently, but it seems clear to me that they are all a message to the thread in some way or other. I'm not sure how the powers could be not a message to the thread and not be entirely inaccurate in the role descriptions. In my reading of the roles, it seemed fairly evident that it was how that message worked/what information/misinformation might exist that was what changed. I see how you could read it differently--but not that the role could be something different than what is stated.

And I've seen many versions of rezzes, yes. What I haven't seen you theorize is why anyone in the game would rezz you. You seem like an unlikely choice. A rezz of someone not on someone's team seems unlikely. I am trying to understand why someone would rezz someone unknown, who claims to be unrecruited, without the express intent on recruiting them to a baddie team--especially if the rezz role is unrecruited, I can't see why they'd rezz an unknown. The possibility of a baddie rezzer rezzing you to take attention away from their team did dawn on me, but I don't get that sense from your responses.

And I don't want to bring back our back and forth, either. It isn't going to take us anywhere. But I will say that my original reasons for suspecting you remain. That you continue to seem to think that my reasons have no validity only perpetuates my thoughts. And that attitude is part of what makes you suspicious to me.

And my own thoughts on this are similar to apples--he happened to articulate it before I had a chance to. Yes, your rezz makes you more suspicious to me, and you were suspicious in the first place.

S~V~S wrote:Lorab, while i don't necessarily agree with your stance on Rico as he has seems pretty transparent to me (for him)~ but, then, i know him better; I wanted to know why YOU voted for TH, becasue I tend to understand you, and vice versa. Becasue I am not sure I am getting it.

It is entirely possible that I am misreading him because I don't know him. As for TH, a sum of my thoughts:

He, early on, posted that all of the recruiters were equally neutral and there were no baddies/civies. While he claims that he was simply mistaken, I think that it is an unlikely mistake, especially for someone who has played recruitment games before. I think he was trying to get the thread to neutralize their thinking about the baddies. And, afterwards, he claimed to have been asking a question about how it worked and not making a statement that all the recruiters were evil, misrepresenting his prior action.

Later on, day 3, he posted about lynching neutrals helping baddies--which seemed to be diametrically opposed to his original post about it. And while he could have changed his mind, he has repeatedly denied that he meant what he said in the first place. And even questioned me for voting him for something he said early on--when I think the original post made him seem bad, and it's not like someone who was bad at the outset would become good later on.

When he then defended bubbles, it only reinforced my original suspicion of him.

linkitis: Yes, I haven't posted a lot about you. I didn't have much to add to my original thoughts. But that didn't mean they went away. I have not had a lot of time/energy to post much the past several days--that doesn't mean I haven't been thinking or that I don't have opinions. And I didn't have anything to add to what has been said--I don't really believe in posting for the sake of posting.

Ricochet wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Speaker of Serenity wrote:Please lynch Turnip Head. That is all.

Remember when we got this message, then NEVER got another one after from the Speaker? What's up widdat?

We got a message from him at the start of D2, after position 1 concluded. We never got back to position 1 so far. His positions 2-5 might not be messaging. In fact, I'm pretty sure this lack of messaging since D2 tells us his positions 2-5 aren't messaging. I'm not sure if he's still alive or got killed, but there's no way to tell anyway.

Except that the roles are pretty clear that all 5 positions for that role are a message to the thread--it's how the messages work that we don't know. Seems pretty far fetched that the other positions aren't messaging.

Ricochet wrote:I keep saying I'm unrecruited, you must mean. What rezz recruitement possibility?

I don't know what I'm supposed to say about my rezz, really. I was unrecruited when killed, so I was out and done (i.e. loser). I don't know why the Shaman brought me back, of all people, but it didn't come with any recruitement. I'm still unrecruited and I'll still go down and lose the game if I stay that way and get killed again. I'd like to get recruited by the civs, because I'm fairly convinced I won't survive the game unrecruited. Team Azura clearly didn't like me and I doubt they like that I'm back either. I helped lynch Bubbles, in fact growing suspicious of her ever since her Golden D3 flip-flop, so I doubt team Ubzilly are fond of me, either.

Hmm, I made an error in assessing MoSh, it seems. I thought position 5 was up the night Dom was killed, so that MoSh couldn't have been targeted. But with position 4, you're right, MoSh is eligible.

I don't believe you. It seems too unlikely that someone would rez an unknown. Even if the rezzer is unrecruited, I think you're an unlikely choice. The night 1 deaths are the least likely recruited, which would make more sense as someone to rezz.

And we don't know that there isn't a evil rez/recruitment possibility going on.

I am quite suspicious of you. Your rez and your response to your rez don't make me less suspish of you.

That said, I'm more suspish of TH at the moment, and voting for him.

vote: TH

:o Is this the first?

I remain in my belief that TH is bad. Defending bubbles doesn't help.

Turnip Head wrote:I guess I want to know who he thinks saved him and why.

No idea who silenced him or why. Probably the chaos factor.

Why would you think silencing is a chaos factor (or Chaos Dancer, if you mean the role), and not Highborn Assassin, who had a silence power last night?

I find Wilgy suspish, but not enough to so vote for him when he well may be silenced. Has anyone else not posted yet this cycle?

I'm exhausted. I helped my mother set up her iPad today, and I'm a bit traumatized and a lot exhausted from the experience. I also need to sleep on some thoughts.

Finally home--was AFK all day (for really good reasons...breakfast with an old friend, a manicure, a nice drive, and then the Oddball Comedy Festival. All good stuff. At my parents' place tonight. Hanging out here for the day, having dinenr with a friend, and then I'll be home. So will have real time at keyboard to mafia tomorrow night and Monday, mostly. I might be able to sneak in some reading up on the thread during the afternoon.

@Rico:

So, what kind of whiskey?

Vote: 3

Because, it's a magic number.

Wait...what? And also, wait...what?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:Switched to wilgy (whose name I keep thinking is wiggly) because this post tipped the scales. You are not new to this game, and I find it hard to believe that you don't know what WIFOM is--I don't believe that is a unique term to our mafia culture. It stands for The Wine in Front of Me, a Princess Bride reference. It means that a baddie is posting something as if to say, "why would I ever do XYZ? I would never do that as a baddie!" when that's exactly what they've done.

I find it hard to believe that on page one hundred something, no one has explained that to someone who asked. If you did ask, then I missed the question. But, if you "still" don't know, then I'd think that you would have asked it again.

And yeah...the whole tone of this seems bad to me.

Spoiler: show

DharmaHelper wrote:I'll take, oddly flimsy reasons to suspect someone Day 6 for 200 Alex.

DharmaHelper wrote:I'll take, oddly flimsy reasons to suspect someone Day 6 for 200 Alex.

DharmaHelper wrote:I'll take, oddly flimsy reasons to suspect someone Day 6 for 200 Alex.

LoRab, I struggle to believe that you really found "I don't know what WIFOM is" to be the scale-tipping factor in your voting thought process. What exactly do you think a baddie DrWilgy would be up to by pretending not to know what WIFOM is?

That was just one aspect of his post that pinged me--more than that, as I said, it was his overall tone. The piece you mention felt, to me, like he was putting out there a facade of not really knowing the game on this site and it didn't ring true.

Not everything a baddie does is on purpose or has a strategy behind it--there are things that baddies tend to do that are subtle and tend to show up in patterns and that are not intentional. That is how, in my experience, baddies are most often found. This felt like an experienced version of the newbie card to me.

I'll also note that others also felt that his post seemed suspicious. So I'm not entirely crazy in the way that I read posts.

DrWilgy wrote:

nutella wrote:DrWilgy seems to be using the defense of "why wouldn't I have defended Bubbles earlier" which sounds to me like the obvious set-up defense in the case that Bubbles was only recently recruited. There's a lot of WIFOMy stuff going on with regards to his defense of Bubbles but now that I'm actually looking at his posts I think it's enough for me to *vote DrWilgy*

I still don't know what WIFOM is
If Bubbles was only recently recruited that'd make my theory on day 5 recruitment correct yes? at least I'm right here.

Honestly I'm kinda sad, but it is what it is. I flubbed everyone. I'm sorry.

Scotty wrote:Wilgy, for the record, if you flip civ or unrecruited, I apologize profusely and take full credit for mislynching you.
I just don't think that is the case right here.

You better! Take care of everyone for me, OK Scotty? Avenge me, and avenge Unfurl for me. It was fun while it lasted. Keep an eye on MM for me, he is a good friend. It's sad I gotta leave him behind again. 15 min left... One last greentext


Wilgy sees his friends standing before him. He smiles and apologizes one by one to each and everyone of them. He hands them each a sealed note. He hands BWT his penguin suit, BWT realizes who the penguin was the other day, but can do nothing other than stand there in awe. Wilgy picks up his backpack and heads for the front door. He smiles as he looks back one final time, waving with a backwards hand. He looks forward, drops his hand and walks into the distance.

Switched to wilgy (whose name I keep thinking is wiggly) because this post tipped the scales. You are not new to this game, and I find it hard to believe that you don't know what WIFOM is--I don't believe that is a unique term to our mafia culture. It stands for The Wine in Front of Me, a Princess Bride reference. It means that a baddie is posting something as if to say, "why would I ever do XYZ? I would never do that as a baddie!" when that's exactly what they've done.

I find it hard to believe that on page one hundred something, no one has explained that to someone who asked. If you did ask, then I missed the question. But, if you "still" don't know, then I'd think that you would have asked it again.

And yeah...the whole tone of this seems bad to me.

Today was only a 10 hour work day!!! Yay for "short" day!

A few thoughts, then responses. I find it fascinating that synonym goes from I'm new here to nothing for 6 days, to I don't really understand the game. And then, 12 hours later, to make 4 posts within an hour on SVS. With some caveats of--well, I could be wrong and it could be nothing...I don't really know her and haven't played with her, so I could be off base, but this is what I see from baddies. His accusations ring false to me, and it seems odd to me to go from zero to fangs out. I also believe that baddies who replace in often use the time they can to avoid being caught up while they catch up in BTSC. My eyeball is moving towards synonym's direction.

And the Wilgy stuff makes sense to me--he does seem to have defended bubbles and his style has had something about it, regardless, that feels off. I was writing it off in my mind as a player I'm not used to. But, perhaps it's because he's just not civ.

Also, I don't suspect SVS. I am not seeing her baddie game here. And while she has snowed me before, I really don't think that is the case this time around.

Ricochet wrote: 10) LoRab, you've gone back to TH, but do you have any other opinions, suspicions apart from him and me? It's D6, the bad teams are at a standard size; the field is also down to a standard full-game size. Your nod to SVS's case on Bullzeye is pretty mellow, almost as if to tell the thread that you're receptive to others, but not much more than that.

Also, as a general side-note, although this should probably be saved for post-game, I cannot express how much I dislike the "placeholding" vote tactic. Changeable votes are supposed to influence the course of a Day phase, in a way - they can be placed to influence, fish out reactions, shape discussion, make a temporary but clear stand and so on. Parking votes just because of how big the field of players is and unwillingness (or laziness?) to check (or open a separate tab with) "View results" doesn't fit into any of those categories.

I never moved my suspicion away from TH. I just started to suspect you more. And I tend to tunnel a bit in mafia, and hang on to the suspicions I have. I also like to play my cards close. So, yes, I have other thoughts. But my main suspicions have been shared.

And it was not a place holder entirely--I also suspected him. The ability to vote early without having to worry about wanting to vote a different way later is kind of a whole new world for me (and many players here). It has nothing to do with how big the field is or laziness. It's more playing with a new toy and figuring out how it works. And, in my case, I have not voted for someone I didn't want to vote for early. But, the majority of players here are figuring out how to use the early vote strategically, I think--I also wouldn't sell short the ability of said players to use this ability to their advantage. Even if seemingly "place voting."

And I didn't put that in green because it is not off topic. I don't think your green is off topic either, tbh.

thellama73 wrote:I'm not going to be around too much tonight. I'm watching Mary Poppins with friends. Of the people who have votes, I am mosts suspicious of Bullzeye and TH, so I'll hold my vote for now in case I need to save myself.

Is that a euphemism for something, or are you actually watching Mary Poppins? Because, I'm not sure which is more awesome. And I think I'm going to start using "watching Mary Poppins" all the time when I want to be ambiguous about my activities. Also, it's a great movie.

Boomslang wrote:Well, I think I'm going to vote Dr Wilgy. I feel like I made some good points on him, I feel vindicated by llama's own suspicion, and I saw him creeping around last night without addressing any of the arguments made against him. *votes Dr Wilgy*

With that out of the way, I want to say TH's vote for me feels really lazy, and I'm frankly annoyed by it.

Turnip Head wrote:
If you're interested, check out his posts - I didn't even read all 35 (!?) of them, I started at Day 4 with his first (and only) mention of Bubbles and worked up to the present.

Any case I make would essentially just be quoting his Day 4 - present posts and summarizing them.

First, with that sly little (!?), he's criticizing the number of my posts and not their content/quality. I could easily add another 30 to 40 posts, TH, if (like you) I included OT jokes and RIPs after every lynch/NK. Second, and more importantly, quoting and summarizing my posts is not making a case. A case involves interpretation or analysis. You take your suspicions as self-evident, and that shouldn't be acceptable in this game.

Addressing Bullz:
1. I admit that the "am I bad or just stupid" quip sounds bad. Honestly, I was just frustrated at that point by dealing with what I regarded as irrelevant logical minutiae, and you have to read that quote in the context of the whole discussion, where JJJ is picking more nits than a pack of chimpanzees.
2. My Lorab vote was weak, but not entirely throwaway. I hadn't had time to consider the TinyBubbles case, and I had given time to the Lorab/Rico thing. What pinged me most was the abrupt switch of Lorab's target from TH to Rico and the way she seemed to be targeting playstyle instead of more concrete evidence. My vote was an attempt to bring attention to those points.

I didn't switch my suspicion, I started to suspect someone else more when that player posted something that was, to me, suspicious. And, yes, I do look at style and tone and language and posts more than "concrete" evidence. In my experience, it's a more accurate way to find baddies. Statistics are much more easily manipulated.

w/b Rico. Do you know who rezzed you and why?

Putting a vote on TH for now. Because I still suspect him (no, I haven't forgotten about that position, nor do I think he's unrecruited neutral). And because I want to have a vote on the board so I can see the results.

I may move my vote at some point. I think SVS has good points about bullz.

timmer wrote:

LoRab wrote:

timmer wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Caelia wrote:Bullzeye, SVS, Lorab and Scotty are enemies of peace.

Anyone figure this is the result of last night's contest? If so, going by the rules of the contest this should be legit right? Only, with so many names, does this constitute an entire baddie team, theoretically? OR Is this Jay one name from each faction that isn't Caelias? In short what does it all mean? ??

That doesn't add up. The entries for the contest were due at the end of night, so the winner would not have known before then or had any information before then. I assume that Caelia had to have her power in by the end of the night period, as is traditional for night powers.

I think it is speculation.

Hmm, it's an interesting point. Was last night position 4? That WOULD put Caelia into her "send a msg" spot, so you're suggesting maybe she actually borrowed the terminology of the contest to try to make her point more forceful and dupe people (like le moi)? Now now Caelia... I'll take that as a strong point in your favour, LoRab, you are right. It would seem that technically there should not have been enough time to get the results of the contest AND submit the message, if both were due at night's end.

What terminology do you think she borrowed?

timmer wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Caelia wrote:Bullzeye, SVS, Lorab and Scotty are enemies of peace.

Anyone figure this is the result of last night's contest? If so, going by the rules of the contest this should be legit right? Only, with so many names, does this constitute an entire baddie team, theoretically? OR Is this Jay one name from each faction that isn't Caelias? In short what does it all mean? ??

That doesn't add up. The entries for the contest were due at the end of night, so the winner would not have known before then or had any information before then. I assume that Caelia had to have her power in by the end of the night period, as is traditional for night powers.

I think it is speculation.

Ugh! I had a whole post written up before the lock and it disappeared when I tried to post because of the lock. Will try to remember what I said.

And exhausted after an even longer work day than yesterday. Tomorrow is my day off, and Friday should be relatively quiet, so hoping to be able to play more in the coming days.

So, Afikoman (my name for the civ dude whose name I can't rememer) civ killed DP and I can't really argue with that choice. DP had the fewest posts in the game, other than non players, Typh who died night 1, and players who have been replaced or just replaced.

And Azura (which already sounds like Hebrew, so less hard to remember), killed Rico, whom I openly found suspicious, so if the baddies are going to kill people I think are not civ, then I smile and thank them, I guess.

Black Rock wrote:

Caelia wrote:Bullzeye, SVS, Lorab and Scotty are enemies of peace.

Caelia is either wrong or misinformed. I do not know about the other players, but I am no enemy of peace.

And I am sorry to see Dom go, as I always enjoy his play. And he was giving me civ/civ-friendly-neutral vibes thus far--he seemed his eager puppy civ self (albeit somewhat calmed down since his early adolescent years) to me.