The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama and MM, I don't see your votes yet. What are you, chickens? I can't wait to see your responses when I don't flip mafia.

MovingPictures07 wrote: What?

How is that contrived? I'm not looking for a reason to suspect him; I have been wanting to give him a detailed look for a while and he's been on the outer portion of my radar for some time (I even called him out for having the shadiest BWT vote after D1 concluded). In my ISO, I tried to leave posts open for interpretation as much as I could, but I also wanted to provide my own opinion/commentary.

You seriously don't find anything that is suspicious in his post behavior?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

unfurl wrote:I think good points about Sorsha has been brought up, I think Sorsha may know who killed Epig, and she did knew it was not Golden, I think that could had been slip up with the framed part
As a matter of fact Im votting for Sorsha

That's super sketch. I don't buy it at all. Feels like a manufactured/piling on sort of reason.

Supasketch?

How are you doing llama? Sorry your internet is going down.

thellama73 wrote:

nutella wrote: I am not on a team with Scotty. I cannot vouch for him. I have agreed with a lot of his posts in the game but I have no reason to defend him in terms of alignment.

Who are you on a team with?

unfurl wrote:I think good points about Sorsha has been brought up, I think Sorsha may know who killed Epig, and she did knew it was not Golden, I think that could had been slip up with the framed part
As a matter of fact Im votting for Sorsha

nutella wrote: I am not on a team with Scotty. I cannot vouch for him. I have agreed with a lot of his posts in the game but I have no reason to defend him in terms of alignment.

Turnip Head wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I thought that BWT not accounting for Azura forcing votes in Pos. 5, in the context of assessing MP's vote for Golden, felt like a potential slipup if he knew Azura had targeted players other than MP.

As in "Well hmmm, I know I didn't force MP's vote, and I don't see any other vote forcers, so that can't be it."

Could be. Could also be that he didn't read the roles, which is quite possible in a game with this many complex roles.

Could be. This is the full quote if you're interested.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I don't see anything in the roles for this position about some kind of insanification, forced vote, or any type of posting-altering-related power. So not sure what is going on with MP. I'm starting to wonder if he's trying to prove a point about something.

Turnip Head wrote:I thought that BWT not accounting for Azura forcing votes in Pos. 5, in the context of assessing MP's vote for Golden, felt like a potential slipup if he knew Azura had targeted players other than MP.

As in "Well hmmm, I know I didn't force MP's vote, and I don't see any other vote forcers, so that can't be it."

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Also, I don't think players can ever just come in and shout they've been forced to vote or do something; they can try to signal it, at least. So MP heavily denying to have been forced doesn't fully detract me from finding the other version to be a plausible signal or tactic in dealing with a forced vote. In fact, a pee fountain sort of signaling.

Is there really any precedent for players abjectly denying that they were forced to so something they didn't want to do when that is in fact the truth? Couldn't they just ignore those comments to allow the theories to survive instead of putting a concerted effort into eliminating them?

unfurl wrote: linki llama, we will never get along

MovingPictures07 wrote: Regarding Boomslang... OK, here's where my mind is at. I can understand why everyone finds his indignant self-vote suspicious. I even find it somewhat suspicious. However, I know Boomslang quite well. He was one of my groomsmen at my wedding (along with birdwithteeth, Devin, and Russ).

I also know his RL is busy. Regarding his mafia meta, in past games he never was one to be a super high poster, but to contribute a couple times a cycle when he really felt he had something to say. With that said, he's somewhat of an enigma for me from a meta standpoint, since he hasn't played TOO many mafia games, and he's returning from a hiatus with this game and Angry Birds. So my judgment of him relies on RL meta, not mafia meta really.

I'm literally torn right down the middle with my thoughts on Boomslang:

1) Half of me finds the fact that Boomslang has consistently been on Golden and hardly contributed much else to be opportunistic. Part of me also sees his self-vote perhaps as a frustrated Azura or Azura teammate since it appears to me that team is absolutely trying to take advantage of Golden (assuming Golden is not on that team) and use him as a free lynch today.

2) The other half of me can actually get inside Boomslang's head and see where he's coming from, but mostly because I know him well. Boomslang is a sharp guy. He's really good at strategy games. I can see why he thinks self-voting is absolutely absurd, since he has a similar perspective to mine on the matter. Consistently with that, he voted for me after I self-voted on Day 1 of Angry Birds (but I won't mention more since that game is ongoing; I just wanted to demonstrate that fact). So I can easily see a scenario in which a neutral, or even civilian, Boomslang doesn't want to bother to pick up the WIFOM that Golden is laying down, doesn't trust him at all, and thus is voting for him. I can absolutely see this. If that is the case, and if Golden isn't bad, then Boomslang is an alternate option for mafia shenanigans, assuming this vote continues to be that specific two-man race.

If I had to pick one of the two candidates at gunpoint, I'd actually pick number 2, and assess that Boomslang is a neutral being utilized by the mafia.

Canucklehead wrote:I'm keeping my vote on TinyBubbles for now, and will do so until she actually engages with (or even ACKNOPWLEDGES) the concerns that have been raised about her, by me and others.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:llama, I stated my suspicion of Boomslang in a large ISO post. It's not far back in my post history. I can't easily reference it on my phone.

LoRab wrote: Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:So no one else thinks DharmaHelper is a shifty robot but me?

This is my first game with him so I have to guess at how his conduct meshes with his expected persona (or doesn't). He hasn't done anything pro-civilian really, but I don't know that I've found him outwardly suspicious either. He seems to be playing as neutrally as possible, like a more abrasive version of Turnip Head.

I kind of want to lynch him just because he is barely trying despite having so many posts, but that's more my personal bias against deliberate non-effort than a real indication of suspicion.

S~V~S wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I see that golden is heading out and might not be back much but I have a question or two. Anyone else can weigh in on the answer as well. I have been away from mafia for a while and don't know/can't remember all the player dynamics.

First of all I'm of the mind that golden is not on the team that killed epi night one. I know golden still claims responsibility like that team is going to do his bidding for him but I'd think their motive was more to frame him. Anyone in particular come to mind as one who would do that?

My thoughts on the matter is whoever is really hounding golden in the thread did it. But is it a silly question to ask who would set golden up?

You have not played with Epignosis much. I think it is unlikely that it is a frame becasue if I were a baddie, an Epi/Golden thread derailment would be a major wet dream. Had Epi not died, we would have had 2 more days of nonstop, escalating sniping and talking about almost nothing but Epi & Golden. Any bad team would eat that up. UNLESS Golden or Epi was on their team.

Having played bad against Epi a zillion times, as soon as he mentions a teammate, I kill him, lol. I think most baddies do. But if he doesn't, then he's awesome alive. He's tenacious and always stone certain he is right regardless of whether that is true or not.

So I think either Golden is on Azuras team, OR Azura herself and her first recruit are someone fairly unfamiliar with our site player dynamics. And Goldens reaction to Epis death scotched that for me, tbh. I thought a frame was an outside possibility until golden started talking.

Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

Roxy wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: What I find dubious, llama, is that you don't seem willing to grant that what I was doing was directly relevant to "detecting bad guys". I wasn't forcing Bass to "dance for my amusement" at all.

There are lots of things you coul have asked Bass. I don't think demanding reads on random people was productive at all. It just seemed mean.

I certainly didn't intend to be mean. I intended to generate meaningful information to further my own understanding of Bass. Bass, if you found my behavior distasteful then I apologize for that.

Did anyone else feel that way? I ask because if this perspective is a trend then I'll need to reassess my approach. I don't want to baddie hunt so hard that I become a jerk.

I disagree with the idea that it was mean entirely.

Can I see that it could be reasonably perceived as uniquely targeted and so a manipulative move from a baddie? Yes. (I don't think it was, but I can understand that perspective). But that doesn't make it mean to do it.

Not mean.Manipulative - yes. Pushy - yes.

unfurl wrote: @ Spacedaisy
Im usually full of contradicitions , it does mean nothing to my alliance ever, Im weird person that is true, still it means nothing wheter Im good/bad/Neutral
Is very easy for people to think of me as bad, I dont express myself good enough for most people taste

Canucklehead wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:damn it, i just can't vote golden again. i don't care if he's a baddie or not, it feels like rejecting a friend. he's totally right about him and other talkative players like MP and epi getting heat just for talking, rather than for the content of their posts. it isn't right,and the game would be dead in the water without their input, i don't think anyone should be punished for posting a lot, even though it obviously makes them a bigger target.

hope you have a good trip golden! i wont vote you out though!!!
and i know my own arguments are flipping back and forth but thats what happens when you get emotionally invested in a game like this ><

voting rey on golden's testimony

This is what "emotionally invested" looks like for you?!
You have 22 posts. Only 7 of those posts are longer than one line. Of those 7, two are jokes, and one is an excuse for why you've not been around.
Based on this, I'm going to suggest that being overly "emotionally invested" is not a super believable excuse for your waffling.

thellama73 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote: Of course I am

It'd be like putting my name on the top of a rainbow list. Let me tell you why your Epi plan was good:

It was good because it got rid of someone you needed to get rid of in order to make it farther into the game. Now let me tell you why your Epi move was the worst possible thing you could have done:

You came up with a solution to a temporary problem that created a problem much bigger, and more difficult to solve. Namely, now you are unrecruitable. No one in their right mind would want you on their team, because of the big fuckin' red X on your forehead right now. You also presented at least one opportunity for the killer(s) to avoid accountability for their kill. Accountability is the most dangerous thing in mafia, and you basically gave whoever killed Epi a free pass.

So either you are a baddie and cooked up the whole "baited" kill as a smokescreen, or you are fine with not being recruited. Which of those do you think is more likely?

Yeah, I'm not buying what DH is selling here at all. He's scared of having his name at the top of a rainbow list? Like fun he is. No version of DH I have ever played with would display such cowardice.

Vote registered for DharmaHelper

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: What I find dubious, llama, is that you don't seem willing to grant that what I was doing was directly relevant to "detecting bad guys". I wasn't forcing Bass to "dance for my amusement" at all.

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Observation 5: re: Golden. His whole "I got Epi killed" thing is super shady, and seems like just the kind of thing he could pull off. If true, I would hate to see him get away with it, if only for the precedent it sets.

Could you explain this a bit better? Particularly, what does 'getting away with it' look like and what is the 'bad precedent it sets'.

I have always had big schemes. Sometimes they work and sometimes they backfire. This one might have done both (King Arthur did both too).

nutella wrote:

Ricochet wrote: So why the double standard between these two Sorcerers' deaths? And why suddenly find Magnetarch to have been dangerous, when previously it was deemed not so bad?

Honestly, I admit I was a little biased by my having wanted to lynch Bass, and wanted to push back a little against people like SVS who had immediately gone "awww he was an innocent unrecruited so sorry you got lynched bb" without considering his role and its potential effects on the game. When I went back to read the Magnetarch's role after the reveal, it was under a different light than when I skimmed through the Sorcerors for threats, and I re-interpreted it as actually rather dangerous, though of course not as scary as Azura or the Pyromancer. And as I said in the earlier post you quoted, some roles can be a huge threat if they're a baddie but immensely helpful if they're a civvie, so I was scanning for Sorcerors that would be particularly threatening as baddies. When I went back to read the Magnetarch however it seems worrying in its own right -- regardless of his recruitment status, the abilities can cause some destructive fuckery. Especially considering a lot of them have a random factor -- it doesn't look like the Magnetarch has much agency in positions 1, 2, and 5.

So, yeah, maybe I would have included the Magnetarch on my earlier list if I had thought a little more about it, but it's not on the same level as the Pyromancer, but rather scary in a different way.


linki: bea, position 4 is the one with poison and I think it's best to delay the infection as long as possible because it will be cumulative. sneaky counter-current vote there.
and MM I believe it is actually bea's birthday that is coming up in a few days (though idk when diggs' is)

Ricochet wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Turnip Head, what are your thoughts?

I was thinking Bass was bad but his last few posts feel genuine to me. Not really feeling a Golden vote either. Idk.

[no Bass posts or posts on Bass (from anyone, that is) in between]

Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Bass.

Please explain.

I voted like 5 minutes before the poll ended, when Bass already had a majority. A vote anywhere else would have been wasted, or worse it would have led to shenanigans. I don't see what the problem is. I had to vote somewhere.

Bandwagoning.
Flip-flopping.
Voting in contradiction your last read/viewpoint on the player you voted for.
Also: I didn't notice before Scotty bringing this up as well, and I agree with him that you also made some stronger remarks about rey only to never pick it up again, come vote time.

These would be the problems I can enumerate off the top of my head right now.

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:All right, I'm back.

Does anyone remember the awesome summaries/recaps I do from time to time when people ask me? Somebody do me a solid and make one of those. I'm going to go back and read a lot as well, but a bird's eye view narrative would be helpful.

I would usually do this, but my perspective is highly skewed. I think I may be able to summarise why each person who got votes, got votes. Others might want to argue my interpretation though. Is that sufficient?

Roxy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I have been quite clear in the fact that I vacationing at the beach until tiesday being relentless pestered by small children and trying to keep up on my phone. I'm sorry that I have been able to weigh in on every topic of discussion, but at least I am not missing votes. I am basing my votes on pings as I see them until I get back. If that makes me a liability, then don't recruit me to your team.

??

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:MP is responding with threats now? "If you vote for me, I will vote for you"
That is atypical of him. Plus I don't like being threatened. Still some time left, assuming we actually have a 48 hour day, but MP looks no good to me.

That's not exactly what I said. Misrepresentation.

Right, I look "no good" to you because I responded to a false assertion you made about what I do in a WIFOM situation regarding recruiting Daisy. Despite literally every single other thing that's occurred this game, you assert that I "look no good".

I fail to see how "other things have happened" is relevant to whether you are bad or not. And what I am responding to now is your overreaction more than anything else.

Amanda
Overreaction?

You said you were going to vote for me because I responded to something YOU brought up that was completely WIFOM as to whether I would recruit Daisy. You thought I was bad because I commented on a discussion that directly concerned me?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'm kicking things off with a vote for llama.

Votes are changeable in this poll.

I'll vote for him too. His TinyBubbles suspicion yesterday, though I defended him against Rico because he always does it, was ridiculous as always, and his move against me today is irritating and irrational in the highest form.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:MP is responding with threats now? "If you vote for me, I will vote for you"
That is atypical of him. Plus I don't like being threatened. Still some time left, assuming we actually have a 48 hour day, but MP looks no good to me.

That's not exactly what I said. Misrepresentation.

Right, I look "no good" to you because I responded to a false assertion you made about what I do in a WIFOM situation regarding recruiting Daisy. Despite literally every single other thing that's occurred this game, you assert that I "look no good".