The Syndicate

Sorsha wrote:I've got some suspicion of BR from main thread regarding her Mac posts & vote but I'm also eyeing LC and LoRab for entertaining the thought that Floyd might be silenced.

What if there is a target switcher? Or something else? At any rate, he hasn't posted, so the possibility is there, and I'd rather lynch someone for their content and not because they haven't posted--and I don't remember what floyd said in the other thread. People said he was in the thread and hadn't posted, which is often a sign of being silenced. So...

sig wrote:
LoRab wrote:I'm not seeing baddie LC, I don't think. At least he's not reading bad to me. I have an eye on him always, but for now I'm thinking he's civ.

I'm going to vote sig. Because I remember being suspish of him from posts of his in the main thread. And as folks have indicated that floyd has been seen in the thread but hasn't posted, so may be silenced.
Again why? You remember something vague that you can't name? It obviously didn't leave that big of an impression on you. Why are you assuming floyd was silenced where is your logic for this at all?

1. why would anyone pick Floyd who was super inactive
2. Couldn't the same be said for MP who saw the thread but didn't post at first?
3. Couldn't I have been silenced?
4. Why do we assuming if he was silenced that this is a mafia role? many games have a civ silencer.
5. How do you even justify this reasons? Not only is it very improbable there is a silencer or that they targeted floyd, we don't have access to half the thread! So we have no clue if someone there was silenced.

This stinks of a mafia member who silenced someone in the other thread and is using that as an excuse to direct the lynch/there vote. Or just a bandwagon vote.

1. I don't know. Because baddies target random people all the time so people ask why? Because the target was switched? Because shits and giggles? I don't know. But he has been seen in the thread and hasn't posted. That's really my only point. My bigger point is that I don't remember what he said, therefore I don't personally find him suspicious, therefore I don't want to vote for him.
2. MP isn't a player in this game, so I doubt he is silenced.
3. You hadn't been online, so it was less likely as you weren't seen lurking, as reported in the thread. Also, votes are changeable and you have now demonstrated that you're not silenced.
4. I haven't assumed that. Where did I assume that? How is that relevant? I don't like to vote for people who can't defend. It's part of my personal honor code.
5. Because ethics. There is a chance he is silenced, and based on that chance, I am choosing to not vote for him, on the chance that he cannot defend himself. Is that risky in that I'm not voting for a potential baddie, sure. But I also have no idea he is bad. And I have no recollection of what he did in the other thread. So I didn't vote for him. I don't just take other's people word for things and vote for people because they say so. That's not my style.

And I'm not assuming he is silenced. But I am recognizing there is a chance that he is.

My vote for you is because my suspicion of you started in the last lynch. It did make an impression on me. I just can't remember the specifics of what the post was and what pinged me. The fact that you are trying to discredit me makes you seem more suspicious to me. No, it didn't not leave that much of an impression on me. It did leave an impression--I remember that your post pinged me. In a normal circumstance, I'd look up your posts and quote it. That's not possible, so I can't. You are very nicely taking advantage that situation to discredit my suspicion and now paint me in a bad light for suspecting you. Nice switcheroo.

Neither a baddie vote, trying to direct anyone, or a bandwagon--just my suspecting you.

I'm not seeing baddie LC, I don't think. At least he's not reading bad to me. I have an eye on him always, but for now I'm thinking he's civ.

I'm going to vote sig. Because I remember being suspish of him from posts of his in the main thread. And as folks have indicated that floyd has been seen in the thread but hasn't posted, so may be silenced.

DharmaHelper wrote:Why do you constantly assume my suspicion of you is only to bait reactions to it

I may vote sign in this thread but I may also get you lynched in the main thread.

Do you have access to the main thread?

DrWilgy wrote:
LoRab wrote:Thus far, BR, Professor Farnsworth, Sig, and Floyd haven't posted yet. Yes?

Just to track if someone is silenced....or someone is pretending to be.
I would hope that silencing wouldn't be a thing in a scenario where we are split into groups.

Why not? If there is a silencing role or roles, I'd assume that role/those roles would still go through...I don't see why not?

Thus far, BR, Professor Farnsworth, Sig, and Floyd haven't posted yet. Yes?

Just to track if someone is silenced....or someone is pretending to be.

DrWilgy wrote:
LoRab wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
LoRab wrote:OK, agreed with all who stated above that it's really annoying to not be able to see the main thread, in order to see what was said previously. As is obvious, I suspect Wilgy, although less so than Day 1, based on lynch result--knowing that mafia has game-related roles (or at least some mafia), the slip seems less likely to be a slip. That said, his defense still doesn't sit right. And I still don't like that he never answered my question about why he automatically went to the conclsion that the first player to post about being from a game was lying about what game they were from, and what motivation he thinks they would have for lying about what game they were from.
There could be countless motivations for a player to come out lying. As mafia to look contributory, to draw information, or even set up the long con. As civilian, to start discussion w/o revealing too much info, to safely check and see if others would like to mass role claim, bait baddies to reveal info.

Also it wasn't just the fact that he was first, it was that he claimed a game that we all knew existed from the purchasable items. I did already explain this and im not going to go in circles. Your persistent suspicion of me without knowing this is not a good look.
Really just annoyed that I asked you a direct question in the last round that you never answered. Now you have. Sorry if direct questions annoy you.

I'm not sure I truly understand your thinking, but I accept that it is your thinking. And my challenge with it is that it was the first. I understand the second or third person claiming, as it's already been established that people are saying what games they are from. It seems more likely to me that a baddie would just not say what game they are from until it's a thing that people are saying what games they are from. I think this may be a matter of different ways of thinking. As I said, you've moved down on my suspicion list. If there were a full game list, you'd probably be negligible by now.

Sorry you think that asking questions isn't a good look. Since, that's kind of how I learn things.
It doesn't annoy me, what annoys me is circle questions that have already been answered. I must've missed your question earlier when asked, but I know it was already explained.

Asking questions isn't what makes it a bad look, more so asking questions that have already been answered by your top suspect. It makes your suspicion not feel genuine as I don't think you've read your suspect. I do acknowledge that I have missed some posts from you, so who are you suspicious of besides me (they do not need to be in hatch)?

Quin wrote:
timmer wrote:
Quin wrote:
timmer wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Timmer, why was Quin a contender for your vote?
Without my posts from earlier, I can't remember for sure. I read all of day 1 in a single block and pasted as I went so I could reference it all and now it is gone.

I do remember that quin was one of the people who quickly pOsted about how mac had a game listed in his role but that wasn't the main thing.

I honestly can't remember lol. This is why we have post histories for those of us with really poor short term memory.
I 'member.
Quin, why did I suspect you, lol?
You thought that mentioning that I thought DH was luring a night kill was fishy.
This is why not having the main thread blows. I can't judge this for myself. Quin, do you think Timmer's suspicion is genuine?

You hadn't actually answered the question I was asking. Which is why I was asking it. You've sort of answered it now, and I'm pretty srue you've answered it as well as you're going to, as you don't seem to be getting the essence of what I'm actually asking, as opposed to what you've already said. But it's not a think I'm overly worried about. Just a difference in how we understand the game. And I'm satisfied enough for the moment.

And you can read my posts and see who else I'm suspicious of. I do't have that many posts in this thread.

DrWilgy wrote:
LoRab wrote:OK, agreed with all who stated above that it's really annoying to not be able to see the main thread, in order to see what was said previously. As is obvious, I suspect Wilgy, although less so than Day 1, based on lynch result--knowing that mafia has game-related roles (or at least some mafia), the slip seems less likely to be a slip. That said, his defense still doesn't sit right. And I still don't like that he never answered my question about why he automatically went to the conclsion that the first player to post about being from a game was lying about what game they were from, and what motivation he thinks they would have for lying about what game they were from.
There could be countless motivations for a player to come out lying. As mafia to look contributory, to draw information, or even set up the long con. As civilian, to start discussion w/o revealing too much info, to safely check and see if others would like to mass role claim, bait baddies to reveal info.

Also it wasn't just the fact that he was first, it was that he claimed a game that we all knew existed from the purchasable items. I did already explain this and im not going to go in circles. Your persistent suspicion of me without knowing this is not a good look.

Really just annoyed that I asked you a direct question in the last round that you never answered. Now you have. Sorry if direct questions annoy you.

I'm not sure I truly understand your thinking, but I accept that it is your thinking. And my challenge with it is that it was the first. I understand the second or third person claiming, as it's already been established that people are saying what games they are from. It seems more likely to me that a baddie would just not say what game they are from until it's a thing that people are saying what games they are from. I think this may be a matter of different ways of thinking. As I said, you've moved down on my suspicion list. If there were a full game list, you'd probably be negligible by now.

Sorry you think that asking questions isn't a good look. Since, that's kind of how I learn things.

DharmaHelper wrote:Zero twirl emojis LoRab is mafia.

I stopped twirling as much several games ago.

Sorsha wrote:
LoRab wrote:OK, agreed with all who stated above .

Highlighted above: How many people do you remember stating something about the main thread?

Wasn't counting. In reading, I noticed it more than once. And, just for fun, just went back to look. Only 2--you and LC. And you mentioned it more than once. Really, was just noting that it had been mentioned more than 1 time and not mentally noting who had said it.

OK, agreed with all who stated above that it's really annoying to not be able to see the main thread, in order to see what was said previously. As is obvious, I suspect Wilgy, although less so than Day 1, based on lynch result--knowing that mafia has game-related roles (or at least some mafia), the slip seems less likely to be a slip. That said, his defense still doesn't sit right. And I still don't like that he never answered my question about why he automatically went to the conclsion that the first player to post about being from a game was lying about what game they were from, and what motivation he thinks they would have for lying about what game they were from.

I also suspect sig. Suspicion of him has been brought up a few times. He had one post that definitely pinged me and I didn't mention it at the time because I had cut and pasted a bunch of quotes and then lost them and didn't get around to going back to getting them all again and needed to get on with posting. And I don't remember exactly what it was or why it pinged me. And I realize that isn't at all helpful. And I really wish I could go back and reread his posts now. Dammit.

The Syndicate

Search found 10 matches

Re: 2016 Game of Champions - Hatch

Re: 2016 Game of Champions - Hatch

Re: 2016 Game of Champions - Hatch

Re: 2016 Game of Champions - Hatch

Re: 2016 Game of Champions - Hatch

Re: 2016 Game of Champions - Hatch

Re: 2016 Game of Champions - Hatch

Re: 2016 Game of Champions - Hatch

Re: 2016 Game of Champions - Hatch

Re: 2016 Game of Champions - Hatch