The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:

Matahari wrote:Thanks for the answers guys. About Zekes vote, I looked at it as though it was an STV thing. Back a few years ago, using the word 'team' was considered a slip. Over time, at rev, it became accepted that the civs are a team and it wasn't considered a slip anymore, thank heavens. Most so-called slips wound up lynching civs anyway, so I'm glad they get largely disregarded now.

Thanks Mata. From your experience (I am assuming you have played with Zeek at STV before?), how much do you think Zeek is aware of this change in culture from the word "team" no longer being deemed a slip over there? He seems to have no problem continuing to use that logic even if it failed to work time and time again on his home site...

I started at STV almost right after he stopped. We may have played 1 game together, or else, I just read a game he played, not sure. Since then, I haven't played any games with him, and I'm not sure how long he has been back in the game. I think I'm seeing the point you are getting at- but I'm not qualified to answer it. Using slips to lynch someone became a baddie associated tactic, so it dwindled away. Do I think he may have used the slip as an excuse for his vote? I really don't know. He may have actually thought it was a legit slip.

Thanks for the answers guys. About Zekes vote, I looked at it as though it was an STV thing. Back a few years ago, using the word 'team' was considered a slip. Over time, at rev, it became accepted that the civs are a team and it wasn't considered a slip anymore, thank heavens. Most so-called slips wound up lynching civs anyway, so I'm glad they get largely disregarded now.

Detectives win when all killers (Kiras) have been stopped and justice has prevailed.

Does anyone think the use of the word stopped, instead of killed, means anything?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:I've only got 10 minutes left to vote. I had to skip pages 36-46. I'm starting to wonder if Llama is holding so tenaciously to his Snowman theory in an effort to save himself - I see that they are neck and neck. I don't see a good case against Snowman. I do see that Llama voted early and I'm wondering if he just jumped the gun before thinking the vote through. He says that he wanted to vote early to get the conversation going - but that isn't really very detective like and not something that a seasoned player would do if he were hunting baddies (rather than just hunting). I like Boo's idea of voting for low posters but I see a situation where my vote would be "wasted" if I voted for anyone other than Snowman or Llama. Between the two - I'm gonna have to vote Llama. You took a chance and it backfired.

so much linki

What do you mean by " You took a chance and it backfired."?

He voted early with a weak case and tried to drum up support. I just don't think that it ended the way he wanted it to.

So do you think the other people who voted snowman gave weak reason to vote him?

I do. even tho you were not asking me :P

linki, I really think epig and llama have something going on, game-wise I mean. I think someone doesn't want llama's identity revealed

thellama73 wrote:

Matahari wrote:This is really sucking. I do not agree that Snowman's actions seem bad. Llama insists Snowman is bad=llama has info, if Snowman is bad. I'm not ready to vote Llama yet, but I may have to in order to give snowman more of a chance. I was suspicious of BWT earlier, so I could vote there too, but I'm not sure what to do yet. Sucks, I tell you!

Whoa! Stop! Do NOT conclude that I have info. Come on, Mata, you have played games with me before. TRY TO USE YOUR MEMORY. I am always confident, I always insist, and I hate infodumping. Don't pretend like you have never played with me before. You know this stuff.

Ok, if you say you don't have info, I will believe you. That post is the first one I've heard from you that sounds straight up honest.

So now I can go back and think you just have a different opinion of Snowman than I have. I'll go ahead and vote BWT instead of Llama, which is totally diff from my thoughts an hour ago

This is really sucking. I do not agree that Snowman's actions seem bad. Llama insists Snowman is bad=llama has info, if Snowman is bad. I'm not ready to vote Llama yet, but I may have to in order to give snowman more of a chance. I was suspicious of BWT earlier, so I could vote there too, but I'm not sure what to do yet. Sucks, I tell you!

thellama73 wrote:

Matahari wrote: Llama says its awful to be playing the way that Snowman is playing, and he shouldn't get any passes for being new. There is some saying about doing something the same way over and over, and expecting different results, and yet, Llama is whining about getting killed early in too many games. Maybe you should be wondering why this happens. I do not see any good of this case on snowman or the way it was presented. too much thread derailment going on. If he is bad, then llama has an info type role, and should have waited a bit longer to actually build a more convincing case on him. This case just sounds like a Llama trick, and I'm tempted to vote there.

I know why it happens. I play the same way every game - aggressive, confident, combative. It's how I like to play. It's how I have fun. Toning it down would be less fun and more effort for me, and I feel like my dishonesty in not posting how I wanted to post would be transparent.

My mistake is in expecting people to remember how I always play and learn from it. I had hoped that after enough games of lynching me for being aggressive and me flipping civ, people would start to realize that me being aggressive does not necessarily mean I'm bad. But it hasn't happened yet in over a year of playing, so I guess I have too much faith in people.

I could win a lot more by treating people like they are stupid and playing transparently under the radar games like so many people do, but it is not in my nature to play that way, and I would not enjoy it.

I think its a debatable point that you treat people like they are stupid regardless of how you are playing. But people get used to it and don't mind it so much. However, I hope you realize that most of what you do when you're in aggressive mode makes people believe you are bad. Would you rather be ignored? When you make a grand obsession over some not very bad point, do you want people to just say "oh thats how he always plays, just ignore him". I don't get the strategy, but that's just me, I guess.

I think its odd that you were panicked on day 1 by BR's mistaken vote on you. I think you won't die from a lynch, but you don't want anyone to know your role. In which case it would be pointless to vote you.

SoC- just my random thoughts

Someone mentioned that Russ might be cursed or whatever, and that maybe he wasn't, just going to float through the game without posting, and he's still doing it. Whichever it was, he's still doing it. I don't see a good reason for his lack of posting or contribution, so I'll probably vote him. I don't see why nobody is paying attention to that

Llama says its awful to be playing the way that Snowman is playing, and he shouldn't get any passes for being new. There is some saying about doing something the same way over and over, and expecting different results, and yet, Llama is whining about getting killed early in too many games. Maybe you should be wondering why this happens. I do not see any good of this case on snowman or the way it was presented. too much thread derailment going on. If he is bad, then llama has an info type role, and should have waited a bit longer to actually build a more convincing case on him. This case just sounds like a Llama trick, and I'm tempted to vote there.

I don't think Epig is up to any good either, but I can't really figure out why I feel that way. He's not doing anything that seems remotely helpful

I still feel weird about Metalmarsh voting Epig. His convo with Llama was very confusing, he seemed to disagree with llama, but then he would post something that sounded like he was feeding llama, then back to disagreeing with him. Then he votes epig, kind of out of the blue. Maybe he has bts with llama.

anyway, this all makes sense to me, good luck trying to figure out what the hell the crazy old broad is going on about-

I'll vote in a minute

FZ. wrote:

Matahari wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:I just want to throw my two cents in on something here. I'm not a fan of the "new player" excuse. New players can be evasive and post next to nothing of value and they are given a free pass? I don't like that. I haven't seen anything constructive from Snowman, and I don't care if he's a new player or not.

I know some players feel that way, and everyone's entitled to have their own views. I just remember that, not so long ago, baddies would target the new players early in games, because they were easy to lynch. It was standard treatment but overtime it became known as a baddie tactic, and finally stopped happening as much. Which is good, because its difficult to get enough players to fill games as it is.

I'm not saying either way of thinking is right or wrong, but we all have our own viewpoint on it.

Who is your top suspect Mata?
I feel like you're skating by a little. Giving input and thought into things (a thinker, like TH calls it), but I don't think I actually know what you think.

I was a bit suspicious of BWT, because of the way he was posting at first. Seems like I remember him posting a lot of 'and yeahs' when he is bad. But then he started to sound a bit more involved and expressed a few opinions, so I am bb-ing him for now. I also felt a bit wary of you, for your posts, and then you made a post about Bea that made me laugh, because it was how I was thinking about your posts. I don't think you would have called Bea out as possibly bad for that if you were bad and using the same tactic. Therefore, I am more relaxed about you.

I can see what you were saying though about Bea, and I don't know if I agree as far as her posting style goes. Bea is always like that, it seems to me, and its really hard for me to know when she's bad or not.

I'm getting ready to vote soon, and have a post coming up about Llama, Russ, Epig and Metal. So the rest of my suspicions will be in that.

holy shit at the linkis

I'm still not sure why MM decided to vote Epig. I guess its something he'll have to answer when he comes back

thellama73 wrote:

Matahari wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:I just want to throw my two cents in on something here. I'm not a fan of the "new player" excuse. New players can be evasive and post next to nothing of value and they are given a free pass? I don't like that. I haven't seen anything constructive from Snowman, and I don't care if he's a new player or not.

I know some players feel that way, and everyone's entitled to have their own views. I just remember that, not so long ago, baddies would target the new players early in games, because they were easy to lynch. It was standard treatment but overtime it became known as a baddie tactic, and finally stopped happening as much. Which is good, because its difficult to get enough players to fill games as it is.

I'm not saying either way of thinking is right or wrong, but we all have our own viewpoint on it.

I understand that, but it also mystifies me that if you think someone is bad, you would refrain from voting for them just because they are new-ish. New people are capable of getting baddie roles too.

I understand this, and I even did it once. I just didn't see your case as being very strong, or persuasive. It was handled in a way that caused me to be skeptical, as though you were just trying to draw votes on yourself.

linki, will read after

AceofSpaces wrote:I just want to throw my two cents in on something here. I'm not a fan of the "new player" excuse. New players can be evasive and post next to nothing of value and they are given a free pass? I don't like that. I haven't seen anything constructive from Snowman, and I don't care if he's a new player or not.

I know some players feel that way, and everyone's entitled to have their own views. I just remember that, not so long ago, baddies would target the new players early in games, because they were easy to lynch. It was standard treatment but overtime it became known as a baddie tactic, and finally stopped happening as much. Which is good, because its difficult to get enough players to fill games as it is.

I'm not saying either way of thinking is right or wrong, but we all have our own viewpoint on it.

I'm a bit surprised that Metalmarsh voted for Epig. I hadn't seen anything in his posts to indicate he was thinking about that, but I might have missed it. I'll reread him again, but after his sparring with Llama, I thought it odd that he would vote Epig.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Boo seems to have quite the army of defenders. Interesting that I get called evasive when my Avatar question still stands.

Can you give me recap? I am still befuddled by this whole topic.

Gladly.

Boo had a long tirade about how we should lynch non-participants. He said it's not fair that people who post get lynched while people who stay silent get a pass. I lartgely agree with him on this.

I voted for Snowman, not for being a non-participant, but based on things he said.

Snowman came into the thread and saw that I voted for him and people were talking about him. He made a jokey post and left.

Boo said it was not fair to vote for SNowman, because he had not had a chance to defend himself.

Epi and I pointed out that this seemed to contradict boo's earlier stance. Disagreement ensued.

I asked how long boo would consider an ample chance to respond. He said he wanted to wait until the last possible moment for a rsponse before voting, which I felt did not entirely answer my question.

I pointed out that Snowman did have a chance to respond, since he posted in the thread after I voted for him. I asked if boo still maintained that Snowman had no chance to respond.

Boo refused to answer me, and voted for me instead.

I hope others consider this a fair representation of events as they occurred.

I hope you'll reread the day for a fair representation of the events as they occurred. I'd like to hear more opinions on the actual posts.

Epignosis wrote:I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you outing yourself here?

Epignosis wrote:Boo voted for llama, but boo is worried about people coming in and having a bandwagon?

Nice twisting, but it really doesn't work, you know. People can read how things really go in the thread, so why do you bother? It just makes you look like mafia.

thellama73 wrote:

Matahari wrote:

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S, I still feel strongly about a vote for FZ. However, these new boo revelations have me atingle. What say you?

Ok, this. Trying to catch up before posting is ridiculously difficult. I've been reading post after post of perfect examples of 'manipulated facts'. Call it spin if you want. Saying someone is inconsistent, thus a baddie, doesn't mean its true, no matter how many times you say it.

And I've played with people who vote player x for lynch because player x killed them in their last game, and tons of other silly reasons for voting. Snowmans posts were not that far out in left field. Sounded like he just didn't feel like engaging at the time. And he's new, let him find his footing.

I am still wary of FZ, she raised points about Bea's posts that were good examples of her own style of posting. But at this point, I'm so weary of the manipulating nit-pickers that I'm probably going to vote one of them. They seem badder by the minute.

linkis- of course

When did I say I thought boo was a baddie?

Did you think I meant you? Why?

linki

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S, I still feel strongly about a vote for FZ. However, these new boo revelations have me atingle. What say you?

Ok, this. Trying to catch up before posting is ridiculously difficult. I've been reading post after post of perfect examples of 'manipulated facts'. Call it spin if you want. Saying someone is inconsistent, thus a baddie, doesn't mean its true, no matter how many times you say it.

And I've played with people who vote player x for lynch because player x killed them in their last game, and tons of other silly reasons for voting. Snowmans posts were not that far out in left field. Sounded like he just didn't feel like engaging at the time. And he's new, let him find his footing.

I am still wary of FZ, she raised points about Bea's posts that were good examples of her own style of posting. But at this point, I'm so weary of the manipulating nit-pickers that I'm probably going to vote one of them. They seem badder by the minute.

linkis- of course

I just reread Rico, while I had a few minute free. He mentioned that Snow had pinged him on day 1, then later came by and gave Snowman a pass for one day on account of being new. Not too generous there Then today he seems to be convinced about Snowman again. Feels a bit shady to me, but I'll ponder it some more.

well, I will start rereading a few ppl tomorrow that I haven't reread yet, but for tonight, I'm tired.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Matahari wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I read Mata's post and then that's the impression I got from it.

What about her post gave you this impression?

It seemed to me that she is/was more interested in what players of certain alignments might be up to than she is in actually catching baddies.

Baddies hunt baddies. Civvies prefer to be more careful.

I was under the impression it was that other way around.

Baddies like to hunt baddies openly because it makes them look good. Civvies want the baddies lynched, but have to be really sure not to kill a civvie by mistake.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Matahari wrote:Players seem extremely out of character, and its making me crazy. er. I've pondered whether TH and Llama were just doing something kind of cliche, like they have bts and both are safe from dying, but that doesn't make sense. Its too old school plus why even draw attention to themselves or each other.

Who in particular is acting out of character, and what about their character has changed?

Turnip and Llama, Russ, Epi maybe, and according to other ppl I have no reason yet to mistrust, FZ. As far as how they are different? I am used to seeing civvie TH, who is very wise. And Llama is usually more assertive, and also wise. Neither seems to be very wise yet.

Russ, gee, seems like he did something weird... with Epi, I expect all kinds of weird, but its usually followed up with some kind of reasonable explanation.

Therefore, I'm not going to try to find explanations for any of them, because its wasting my time. Everytime I try to go back and reread one of them, or make connections somewhere, I come back to the page and see 2 more pages of posts. Spinning wheels.

Turnip Head wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I read Mata's post and then that's the impression I got from it.

What about her post gave you this impression?

It seemed to me that she is/was more interested in what players of certain alignments might be up to than she is in actually catching baddies.

Baddies hunt baddies. Civvies prefer to be more careful.

Turnip Head wrote:Mata's pinging me a bit. Her post ^^ looks like it has a baddie mindset to it, specifically a baddie without BTSC trying to figure out what's going on.

and you know whats going on, with the unusual voting and all, but are not inclined to talk about it. Or can't. I'm no mind reader, so I'll have to get used to disappointment, I guess. There are plenty of other people to study. Who maybe don't have agendas.

Players seem extremely out of character, and its making me crazy. er. I've pondered whether TH and Llama were just doing something kind of cliche, like they have bts and both are safe from dying, but that doesn't make sense. Its too old school plus why even draw attention to themselves or each other.

Then I pondered whether one of the teams was allowed to signal to each other through antics in-thread, but after re-reading roles, it doesn't seem to fit. Seems more like ppl are supposed to remain secretive. So I'm back to the notion that certain players were given some kind of task/challenge on day 0. Maybe if a certain option won, they wouldn't have to do the weird thing, or if they accepted the challenge, but the wrong option won, they would have to do some weird task.

Whatever reason, its disconcerting. I'm going to keep observing the players who are not as much in the spotlight.

juliets wrote:Channeling my inner Epi he sometimes says things - like he thinks Russ is bad and will vote for him - just to see what reaction he gets, never intending to do what he says.

I second this- seems like he did something very similar in a game at rev once. Hope you get well soon JC, and I hope Roxy and Bass will have good news soon, too.

Ok, I wound up voting first so as not to miss it. Voted BWT.

The other 2 players I mentioned earlier were FZ and BWT. I dont know if I've played with FZ before, so had nothing to make comparisons with, but I felt like her posts were calculated to be non-committal and still sound like she was baddie-hunting at the same time. They reminded me of baddie Hedge. BWT had caught my eye a zillion pages ago when he responded in support of a few posts without actually saying why he felt the same way. He just supported whatever the player said as though it was an established fact. I don't even remember who now, but I will look it up after things settle down.

Boo, yes, sadly facts, numbers, logic etc can be presented in any way a person with an agenda wants to present them. I've always thought LC should win an award for this kind of talent, he makes an awesome baddie because his presentation of facts sounds perfectly acceptable, even after the civvie gets lynched

sheesh, I still have 3 pages before i'm caught back up. I will say that no matter what anyone else thinks, I believe that worrying about challenges matters. Too many innocent ppl get lynched from baddies seizing an opportunity to use things against them. And facts and logic are wasted on me, they too can be manipulated. So, going on the feels, I'm putting some faith in Aces, he has an uncanny nose when it comes to sniffing out baddies with little info to go on (by that, I mean I wasn't sold on every argument made in the posts, but that combined with how sure he seems, is important). I'm also giving Epi's case some serious thought, not as convinced there, but worth a reread. Looking at 2 other ppl, but I want to catch up before I say anymore.

FZ. wrote:

Matahari wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:I don't really know at this moment. I feel like there were some really big personality players going back and forth in the thread today but I'm not sure what I make of it.

Also... WIFEY!!!!

Does anyone think there may be challenges either attached to the Day 0 poll, or just as part of players secrets? Normally when there are challenges or wins attached to polls, I will see an occasional post from ppl about the possibility, but I'm not seeing this. Some things would seem less of a mystery if we thought there was a possibility of secret challenges... like Russti not speaking, TH not being consistent and then the way he voted early, I'm just getting the feeling that either some players have adopted new play styles, or something else is going on. And a role that doesn't post because he can't be lynched is a little too blatant. The host asked for no hinting, and being silent due to feeling safe from a lynch would be a lot like role-hinting.

sorry for rambling.

I missed this post. Yeah, I'm trying to think why some people are acting so out of character. What are usually the consequences of secret challenges?

Also, do you have any thoughts about the players themselves?

Usually, ppl are not supposed to admit to having a secret challenge, but if they exist in a game, ppl will sometimes mention the possibility (because they have first hand knowledge, and no I don't, lol) however, it helps me to feel like some players do, when I see the possibility mentioned a few times.

I have mostly positive thoughts at this time, mainly because day 1 has always been a crapshoot for me. The only reason I don't abstain from voting on day 1 is because its not allowed. So I sometimes announce to everyone that I'm going to go with the majority but I try to give reasons for why I can't feel 100% sure of a player.

So far, I've trusted (and agreed with) most everything posted by Boo and SVS. For once, I don't mistrust DH and Aces, their posts may not reflect what I'm thinking, but I don't see them as having bad intentions.

I need to go and cook lunch for my grandson - but when I'm finished, I'll try to go down the list of players and my list of notes.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I mean, it truly would remove any doubt if Russ starts posting insanified posts for day 2

Not really.

Spacedaisy wrote:I don't really know at this moment. I feel like there were some really big personality players going back and forth in the thread today but I'm not sure what I make of it.

Also... WIFEY!!!!

Does anyone think there may be challenges either attached to the Day 0 poll, or just as part of players secrets? Normally when there are challenges or wins attached to polls, I will see an occasional post from ppl about the possibility, but I'm not seeing this. Some things would seem less of a mystery if we thought there was a possibility of secret challenges... like Russti not speaking, TH not being consistent and then the way he voted early, I'm just getting the feeling that either some players have adopted new play styles, or something else is going on. And a role that doesn't post because he can't be lynched is a little too blatant. The host asked for no hinting, and being silent due to feeling safe from a lynch would be a lot like role-hinting.

sorry for rambling.

Thanks for clearing that up! I would have felt kind of silly if I responded to something meant for someone else.

I'm not sure who Meta is, I thought it might refer to Metalmarsh, or to me with a typo. But I'm not sure- Aces said something to me in a post earlier, and I thought he was referring to a beer. then he ebwopped it to Meta. Is there a meta and a mata in this game?

For the player who asked (if you meant me) I'm usually quiet in the first couple of days because I'm so busy reading people and making notes. But I tend to come out of my shell a bit by night 2-day 3ish. The impressions I'm gathering mean nothing to me at this point, but might later on. I doubt they would mean anything to anyone else either, but I will share them if anyone wants me to.

I went with the normal vote. All of the other options seem the same to me, they equate to random. I'm all for doing things a different way, occasionally, but I wouldn't want to be trapped into a style of voting for the entire game that provides me with no info. I'm one of the less astute, probably the least astute among you.

If I thought it was a one day lynch thing, I'd be happy choosing any of those except the last. Since I don't know for certain, I may choose normal, because, because.

I don't see anywhere that the host has said we can't ask questions, so here goes:

Host, are all the lynch choices except the last one, for one lynch only? Thank you.