The Syndicate

No vision :-\

What role does Possessing Entity anyway?

Lucy?

Well, supportance i probably didn't purseproud to. looks like I got a little in before the uncivilized actually started Red Rook braaiiiinssss....

ebwop:

Nevinera wrote:Yay!
I mediant plainclothesman has a better clue to who kill than Novinha do.

Nevinera wrote:That sounded Yang like endaemonism plainspoken teams turning Maligna Petra soundminded Ciubia antifebrile

That sounded ominously like two baddie teams turning into one larger team :-\

Yay!
I hope Zodac has a better clue to who kill than I do.

Boomslang wrote:Well, on the bright side, I'm no longer insanified! On the dark side... everybody missed a vote. Which, presumably, will come with host punishments. That's a pretty big nuke by whoever did this.

I doubt he'd punish us for missing that vote.

I hope we get a rez vote soon - last time we got to get one of the lynched and two non-revealed,
and Zodac picked SVS last time, iirc.
Surely she'd get picked again!

I was born in IL, so that's where I'll go.

What just happened? Did someone have a 'end the day immediately' item or something?

RIP SVS :-\
That sucks.

• Trusty John - [Grimm's Fairy Tales] – Is always valiant and has the Kingdom's best interest at heart. The first time he is targeted for a NK, he will survive and there will be two days in a row. The second time he dies.

Presumably one of the folks that survived the kills last night did it by being trusty.

And yeah, there was no urgency to killing grady, but he *was* lms - we had to kill him eventually to win.
I'm just glad we don't have to waste our free extra day lynching him a third time.

Flyin' High wrote: thellama73 - narrowed down to roles that aren't on Video Game Killers

I'm not sure I'm interpreting your strike correctly, but why can't llama be Fetus again?

I don't think I'll be free again before poll-close.
I still don't have anyone solid to vote for, and I still see some gain from lynching llama, either way.
Votes for llama.

Hedgeowl wrote: Thats a really good question about Rumple and the word. It definitekly changes Nev's analysis about certain words as well. You would want to use a word that would be more unusual and others might not use as much if it did add votes for all of us. It might be worth looking at posts from all of the vomps voters, but that will take some time.

Supper seems a likely choice whereas "specific" would not. ALthough since we often refer to MP as sock that seems an odd one to use as well. Why not refer to Sock instead of talking about actaully socks?

No, that's what I assumed for my analysis.
And if it was naturally in someone's posting style anyway, that would be an excellent reason for them to choose it ;-)

You're welcome to try to pry additional leads out of that type of analysis,
but I didn't find much aside from the short list I presented before,
which is now clearly inaccurate.

I definitely feel good about SVS, FH, Lizzy, and now Bea.
I don't have any suspects aside from Llama now.
Epi was probably bad, so you shouldn't suspect BWT for voting for him.

Fetus almost certainly cannot be lynched yet, that's why we think it would be a waste of time.
Lynching him twice would probably prove he's fetus (cause surely he's not macguyver after all this without ever hinting at it), but that's all.
If he's Cohen of course, he has no teeth.

Unfortunately his lynch vote had a *lot* of voters, so his wincon requires about half the surviving players to die.
If he is cohen. I think there's still a decent chance he's fetus.
But as I said earlier - if we don't have anyone better to vote for, taking two turns to either kill llama or prove him as fetus wouldn't be entirely without worth.

DharmaHelper wrote:Can anyone make sense of the Goose/Llama portion of the NP?

I mean, it seems like it might be hinting that llama is macguyver, but that doesn't seem like something MP would just throw our way, not with real names in it.

I think that's reasonably likely as well, because none of the bits of the riddle turn up much on the internet.
And I think the baddies *are* dwindling.

Dev, Llama survived a lynch, not an NK. Unless I missed one?
If he also survived an NK, he's almost certainly Cohen and unprotected.
There are not any NK-proof baddies, but there are several ways a player could manage it.

Penny is the obvious one.
Henderson is effectively nk-proof, though I don't know how well that fits the night in question.
Zodac is NK-proof.
Any role the villager protects is safe for the night.
Percy can be safe for a few nights, using various powers.
BB can protect someone for a night.
The shield is in play somewhere, and makes people safe for a night. Who knows where that is any more.

Basically I can't find anything about the nk-survival that would suggest BWT is bad.

Does anyone have an opinion about doing the riddle in public?

S~V~S wrote:Well, the hard to lynch baddies have to be killed sometime, and the other baddies/killers are unlikely to do it since while we are busy lynching the same guy a few times, we aren't lynching them.

At this point, i am seeing more civvies than baddies, and THAT is bad.

Or from another perspective, quite good :-)

S~V~S wrote:I think it might be profitable to read the people who have been kissing up to Nevin.

That seems like a sound tactical approach - that is certainly something I would have one team member doing if I were them.

juliets wrote: I don't know who I want to vote for today. llama is a possibility but someone (Nevin was this you?) convinced me so thoroughly that a lynch of llama was totally a waste, though I understand that it could give us some information.

Probably. It gains us little, but it isn't a *total* waste.
Vomps is gone, and my argument against you and bea is disproven, so there's not anything else solid to bet on that I'm aware of.
I am still hoping something comes up that's better, but I don't see anything.
And after my miserable failure with Bea, I'm not going to launch any deep investigations for a while.
We'd have to lynch llama twice before we can either kill Cohen or show that he's fetus, so it's a lot of time investment for a small (but definite) gain.

All in all, I'd rather do something more effective, but until such a thing comes up, llama has my vote.

Not *100%*, but probably 90-95%. You have to read the roles and keep in mind what just happened to her.
And ignore the 'killed herself' part until you see the rest - the phrase has multiple meanings.

Our most probable remaining suspect is llama, but I don't know that it's worth lynching him yet.
If nothing useful happens, I'll vote there though - at the least we do need to get rid of cohen eventually, so it shouldn't be a *total* waste.
And if we prove he's fetus, that's worth something also.

Scratch that last line, I forgot how the role worked.

Wow, that changes the landscape a bit.
And it also explains how she could have 'killed herself' - I didn't think of the words that way before.

Looks like its time to 'backpedal' (aka "change my opinion to fit the facts like a rational person") again.

This makes it unlikely bea was bad, and also explains a remark BDH made a while ago,
about how bea was a role we specifically didn't want to kill, 'particularly now' (I'll dig it up if anyone cares).

Damn. It looks like my word evidence was just really bad luck :-\
I'm sorry Bea. Keep in mind that I didn't actually get you killed though!

So now I'm curious if Bea has an opinion about llama's badness :-)

Oh, before I forget again, here's the riddle from the post (ceasar cipher again):

I am as shapeless as the waves of old unless under the torch of apollo.
when I am born I am one but when I die I am many.
Some call me a saint and others a sinner.
Solve this riddle in time and you'll be the winner.
What is six at once and one six times unless reversed and multiplied?
The masons call and dead will rise but only when you close your eyes.

None of the chunks of the riddle seem to show on google for me, and I don't recognize much from the other riddles I've read.
The torch of apollo is *probably* the sun, though it gets lots of metaphorical occult references apparently,
which makes me think the first line is 'shadow'.
The second line makes some sense in that context too, but i'm a bit confused by the structure - it seems like 2-4 riddles pasted together?
I certainly don't see how the numbers portion could refer to the same thing as the rest of the lines.

I don't know if we ought to solve the riddle in-thread or not,
but I figured the baddies would certainly already have done the translation,
so no harm there.

That theory about BDH has no facts, and was not presented as 'evidence',
and relied on information that I can't share.
Also I don't think it's likely either.

But 'backpedaling'? Backpedaling is an entirely appropriate thing to do if you walk down a promising street, gain new information, and decide that your original theory doesn't fit the facts. Backpedaling is certainly something I've done a few times this game, including upon bea's death to some degree.
That's because I play based on evidence and logic, and new evidence is constantly coming to light.
Sometimes it contradicts old evidence, and at that juncture all rational folk ought to back up and look at their conclusions, then decide if they're still warranted.

BigDamnHero wrote: The magic word theory he presented against Bea were NOT FACTS. He's using faulty logic to make conclusions which he then cites as evidence.

Please review the definition of 'fact'. Lists of words and the number of times people used them, along with links to the searches displaying those counts? Those are facts.

My logic is not 'faulty'. It's possible that one of my assumptions ("all the rules of the game are now understood") may have been, but that has seemed a fairly reasonable assumption to me until today. You can't use logic without some assumptions - I assume that all the people playing have one of the roles in the role list for example. I assume that the win conditions listed are accurate. I assume that the bulk of the things MP tells us are true.

If you think my shared word-counts evidence is faulty, then *please* do some similar work that proves to a similar degree that anyone else in the game is a baddie. If my logic is wrong, then surely the evidence of bea's team must be random chance, and someone else will have similar circumstances you can dig up, aye?

None of my theories have been remotely outrageous, and I'm careful to state my level of confidence in each theory as I describe it.

My "flip flopping" is nothing of the sort, though obviously it could seem that way if you aren't reading my meaning in those posts.

I have acted in every case as intelligently and "honorably" as I could, and I very much disagree with your characterization of my actions and behavior. I do not cite assumptions as evidence, I present observations and then described the conclusions I believe can be garnered from them in a logical fashion. I still believe my rumplestiltskin evidence against bea to have merit, though not so much that it could justify lynching you or Juliets.

And finally, I did not "attack two civs", I brought reasonable and thought-out evidence against one person, who may or may not have been a civ. I certainly didn't 'attack' *you*, which you seem to be implying - I in fact straight out told you that I didn't think there was enough evidence to make any kind of case against you. Maybe the way *you* seem to play - attempting to drive opinion by relentless characterization - that constitutes an "attack", but the way *I* play does not involve steering public opinion via emotional displays and accusations.

S~V~S wrote: That is your game play style, but it is not everyones.

Once MP had an entire hidden baddie team that was not in the secrets, mechanics or anywhere. They were just an actual secret. He has secret event style mechanics, and trigger mechanics that are not usually in the role list. Just becasue you don't see something in the roles, does not mean it does not exist.

Logical? Perhaps not. True? Most likely. I understand why you came up with the theory; you are having a problem understanding how this could be, and a theory like that would explain the numbers. But it is what it is.

This is useful to know. I'll definitely be less certain I know what's going on in the future.

I've already said I don't intend to press a case on BDH - I don't think my theory Is solid either,
It's just all I can come up with.

BDH: I am on the civ side, and I am gathering and presenting evidence as well as I can,
Because that's how you catch the bad guys.
If you are civ, please review my behavior throughout the game.
My evidence could have been incorrect (though I don't see how), but it was never *secret* -
I do not 'make up' cases, I do not try to get someone lynched on "my gut",
and I had every reason to believe bea was bad.
Even if, as you say, she was not.

I *also* have accomplished a great deal this game in the civ cause,
and I tend to think that that has been downright obvious, if not to its full extent.

So if you really are a civ, please think twice about this course of action.
Your opinion of me is incorrect.

If anyone other than BDH has any questions for me I will be delighted to answer them as far as I'm able.
Or if he wants to ask any real ones, or make a real case of course I'll reply to that.
But I'm not really interested in trying to answer random mud slinging without any arguments or logic.

Well I can see this is about to get ugly.
There's too much I'm not allowed to say in my own defense, so I'd love it if any of the people that have been paying attention could help out with that.

After that response from BDH I consider the scenario I just posited much more likely than I would have otherwise.
I could believe he hasn't been paying attention, and doesn't know who I am or why I would behave as I do,
but there's no way he'd be this aggressive if that were the case.

I stand by my earlier evidence, and I think it's unlikely that bea was a civ.
My brief appearance of a disagreement with myself is because the numbers, as they say, are bad.
They confuse me.
But I don't see any *role* that could cause Bea to kill herself, I don't see any mechanic in-game to allow that,
and I don't think that's a likely reward for a contest. So host-shenanigans seem likely.

So BDH will certainly try to get me lynched - it's really their only hope of victory, and they know it.
Hopefully the majority will see past that crap and keep an eye on what is really *happening*.

BigDamnHero wrote: If you now believe Bea was good, then why did you just posit a theory in which you think she's bad again? IN fact, if you don't even believe in the words you wrote, why post it at all except to plant the idea in people's heads?

The numbers, of course.

Now I just have to hope enough of you have paid attention that he can't pull this off.

Yeah, that fits.

To be clear, what I am positing (and this has no kind of confidence, it's just the only story I can make fit all the data):

Bdh read Beas role on accident. Bea Martell, bdh a civ.
They call foul on themselves to MP, and the best way to not destroy the game is for one of them to bow out.
MP lets bdh join the baddy team and bea die anonymously to not kill the game.
I mean, mp could have just killed bdh instead, and that would seem more likely to me, but bea would have thought it was her fault and argued for her dying instead. And since bdh knows, he needs to be switched in?

It seems far fetched enough that even I don't believe it,
but I just cannot figure what happened last night out otherwise.
I don't intend to press any case against BDH based on this, of course, but I will be watching him closely.
Just in case.

Well that makes sense. They wouldn't have stopped the lynch if they though bea was going to die instead, huh?

Wonder how bea could have died though - and who is bdh planning to avenge her on?
I hope that wasn't my fault :-/
She doesn't seem bad to me any more, though that boggles my mind.

I'm wondering if there were some kind of corrective host-shenanigans last night, actually.
It's the only thing I can think of that seems to fit all the facts.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

Lizzy wrote:Nev, if we ignore the killer indies for one or two days, while hunting for baddies, the latter WILL resort to NK'ing the suspected SK's because it's in their interest.

I agree with this.

I still don't follow. Would you mind explaining the logic here?
As far as I can tell, the killer indies are motivated to get people dead as fast as possible, and want the baddies alive.
The baddies are motivated to get civs eliminated faster, and have no particular reason to want serial killers dead.
And since those indies *are* suspected, baddies will prefer to leave them alive to draw lynches.
Where am I wrong?

Lizzy wrote:How are baddies in a tight corner when there are 6 of them, with one team having 2 kills? Not to mention the fact that it is in the SK's interest to hunt baddies down at this point. And it is in the baddie's interest to spend a kill saving the civs the trouble since they're looking in the wrong places.

I don't believe your numbers are correct.

And it's especially true that they wouldn't waste NK's on serial killers that civs *know* about (or significantly suspect) -
we'll lynch them ourselves eventually, it's certainly not in a baddies interest to spend a kill saving the civs the trouble.

Lizzy wrote:Nev, if we ignore the killer indies for one or two days, while hunting for baddies, the latter WILL resort to NK'ing the suspected SK's because it's in their interest.

Not likely at this point. The baddies are in a tight corner, and they *need* those extra kills right now.
With all the killers churning at full speed, it'd take them.. 7-8 more nights to kill all the civs.
Even if there were no saves or misses, and they managed to kill only us.

Lizzy wrote: So apparently people piled up on Vomps because there is some sort of evidence, which can very well be the result of illusory correlation, that he might be Jack. Now, in case you haven't noticed, Mr Butler made two successful NK offers, which ended in him gaining 2 (two) lynch stops. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that Vomps is indeed Jack. Now he survived once, technically as a result of Delbert's lynch stop. Which means he still had another one left, right? Now then, why the hell do people waste a vote and thus an entire day, on someone whom they KNOW would not be lynched, and who is NOT a baddie in the first places

Evidence aside (it's been covered), I'd like to address your statements of waste: What really matters is getting rid of *kills*, not baddies.
It would take two more lynches to kill Jack (and his kill does not appear to pass on).
It would take two more lynches to kill the last baddie on team manipulators also, which is what would need to be done in order to get rid of their kill.
Jack kills *every night*, while the manipulators just kill every other night.
If we knew that vomps was Jack, and that the manipulators were bea and Juliets (just as an example),
we'd still come out ahead by killing Jack twice first. Even three times if it came to that.

The reason I don't want to waste the time on Llama is because he did not survive via lynch stop, he survived by not dying when lynched -
that suggests to me that he is not jack, but rather cohen or fetus. Cohen does not get a kill, unlike Jack.

Lol @ llama - you sound like that guy on witness in his own defense saying "You can't PROVE I did it! You can't prove anything!"
Maybe not, but this is a jury trial, and that's not really how those work.

I'd like to go on the record pointing out that I am *not* defending llama (no offense buddy), and think he probably is at the least a bad-leaning indy.
My arguments have all surrounded the feasibility of lynching him, not the value of doing so.
Since SVS has replied to each of those arguments with "but he's bad", I thought it worth clarifying.

And llama, I don't think your current line of argument is doing you any favors ;-)

Flyin' High wrote:I'm pretty sure I see what S~V~S is saying. And I think you're intentionally ignoring it. But I thought you were bad before this whole hullabaloo so this hasn't really changed anything for me.

Is there some way you could clarify that would not out her?
Because I'm still lost, and would love to understand what's going on.

S~V~S wrote:To be honest, it feels to me like you are trying to steer the thread, and your reaction to someone, me, stepping out of line, is typical of that. So helpful as you have been, I can't say I totally trust you.

I cannot visualize Sock Alex fashioning a game where one player can deduce all of the roles, allowing all the civs to fall in line behind that person and marching to victory. Anyone who knows me and my game will tell you I have ever marched to the beat of my own drummer. Hell so much so that my drummer isn't even a drummer, he's an accordionist Lol.

Most of my deductions haven't been related to *my* role, so I'm not sure how to take your assertion about what Sock would do..
I think his version of Rumple was devlishly clever, and the amount of information he's been feeding into the game in the form of events,
rezzes, displayed secrets, and interactive roles has made this game somewhat unusual, and allowed me to do a lot more deducing than is usually possible..
But that's me, not my role.

I *am* trying to steer the thread - I'm trying to steer it towards lynching bad guys.
All of the evidence I've presented has been real evidence - things people can look at and verify;
I'm putting a lot more effort into this game than usual because of the sheer amount of information we have access too.
Normally I spend most of the game waiting to see what will happen next, because there is nothing to work with except *feelings*,
but this game there's an abundance of info out there just waiting to be inspected, analyzed, investigated.
'Steering the thread' is bad, if you do it subjectively - if you try to get people to look a certain direction by uttering
unprovable claims or talking about your 'pings'. But if you do it by presenting directly visible evidence I can't see how that's a problem.

And accordions rock - we had one at our wedding, and it was so much better than any bad we could have afforded!

thellama73 wrote:I'm glad you're here Nev. Someone I can reason with.
Do you agree with me that, pending a Zodac result, the most logical explanation for Bea surviving and for her lynch vote begging is that she is one of the unlynchable, or limitedly lynchable roles?
What do you think of timmer and Hedgeowl immediately leaping to the opposite conclusion that Vompatti somehow got more votes or it was a tie?
I haven't been giving hedgeowl much thought this game, but her comments today scream baddie to me.

A) No, I think a tie vote is the most logical explanation, given the wording of MP's post. And we already have two people in that bucket, so I think adding a third might make it overflow ;-)
B) I leapt to that conclusion as well - there are *several* vote manipulations in play, and after my analysis I think the odds are good that the manipulators would try a different tactic on rumple -
the one *I* would have tried were I them yesterday, is to pick a word that people might use occasionally, but that could be *provoked* from individual players.. but there are several other tactics around.
Even if they stuck with the basics, it would be *easy* to pick a word for only one of them to use, which would tie the vote up. Toss Thomas in, and the number of ways a tie could happen go haywire.
C) I don't know. I don't really like using feels for that purpose, once there's anything better to think about, and I've seen nothing suspicious at a tactical level from her.

On reread, the whole 'ignoring' thing sounds like a dick thing to say, and doesn't really mean what I was trying to get across anyway.
Sorry about that, I just meant I won't argue incessantly with you like I have been, because it's frustrating and a bit pointless.

ebwop: I will of course not ignore her reply to my questions of her.

Spacedaisy wrote:But I am hearing SVS and what I am hearing is not, "I suspect, I believe" It is "I know." She would not be saying that if she did not know

I agree, and I think she may very well have some info about llama. But that info must be consistent with his being *lynchproof*,
and despite my endless begging, she would never explain why lynching a lynchproof baddie is a good idea.

Spacedaisy wrote:Also, I don't understand the logic of killing Bea if you believe she is Martell. If she is, we have no way of knowing it for certain. Why is she the logical choice from your group of three that emerged in the word analysis? I'm just not understanding.

I actually made this point, and would have preferred to lynch Juliets first. But there were only two left in that group - Bea and Juliets.
Epignosis died in a fire last night and I'm pretty sure he was bad.

Spacedaisy wrote:Vomps... DH surprised me with that one. To be honest it seems the most like desperate attempt to distract. (It was DH who brought this us, was it not? Stuff melds together when reading ten pages in one sitting.) anyone can copy and paste. To say that it looks like Vomps because of that seems like a HUGE stretch. And Vomps seems like an easy target to me.
Arg. I don't know if Vomps is bad, but I don't like the case against him. But I have a bad feeling about the way this lynch has gone and particularly about the idea of lynching Bea so I am going to cast a vote on Vomps and see how the chips fall.

The main evidence against him is that the lynch was *stopped* when he was about to be lynched.
No mention of 'protection' or 'rezzes', the lynch just didn't happen. That reads as delbert's secret power to me,
and I don't see anyone else that can do it. The minor textual evidence from the Jack quote in the night post
is a nice verification, but I don't think it's nearly as strong as the fact that delbert used one of his precious lynch-stops to save vomps.

I'm actually hoping zodac will lynch vomps now, despite the evidence stacked up against bea -
they are both available on the night-lynch poll also, and from the sound of it if martell is lynched on the non-participation poll martell's power won't be usable.
(I asked MP about that a few days ago).

There are lots of ways it could be a tie though - that itself doesn't really say much bea or vomps.

bea wrote:yea. we civs have sucked it.
I truly wish I knew how to change that.

On the contrary, I think we're doing *very* well.
We're way ahead of the game right now - we're out something like 5 baddies in seven days (if all my stronger suspicions are correct - I'm not including you in that count).
Admittedly most of them aren't our fault, but that's astounding by the numbers.

I'm just going to ignore anything SVS says that isn't a (new) logical argument from here out, arguing with her is like arguing with a cd-player set on repeat.
I don't see what role she could be alluding to, the only thing I can figure is that she poetry- or insanity- cursed someone *else*,
and thinks llama was faking because of that. If it was an insanity curse, I think the odds aren't bad, but representing it as "knowledge"
when we have a role like Mr. Henderson in the game seems irresponsible to me.

SVS - I am confident that you are a civ. Will you please try to see things from my perspective?
Civ or not, why should I trust your 'certain knowledge' when you can't express where it comes from or why you have it?
You (and others) have done that to *me* in the past with zero justification - tunnel vision based on something that turned out to be a coincidence or an interplay with someone else's power.
Kate's crusade in Twin Peaks stands out particularly in my mind.
You might *know* something, and it turns out later you just had some single bit of solid (but not foolproof) evidence, which was wrong.
Do you *know* that bea is innocent? Do you have private information on that topic?
I say again: I don't doubt that llama could be bad. Do you *know* that he is both bad *and not lynchproof*?
I would love to just trust you, since I'm confident that you are at least on my team, but I don't trust your private logic.

S~V~S wrote:BDH's posts seem to give lots of people pause, but they vote anyhow. Good to know.
And sometimes things happen that are not in the secrets. In socl games, like ALL THE TIME.

What are we supposed to do, aside from doubt but continue on? He's given no reasons, arguments, logic, not even any hints.
Just "Trust me".
Well I don't.

I've been racking my brain about what stuff could be happening behind the scenes, and I can't think of anything savory that would do this sort of thing.
Perhaps later in the game (or after) it will become obvious what you're doing and why, and I'll feel like a moron.

bea wrote: Is there something in those posts - that still bothers you about me? Something you want me to address?

There's not really anything for you to address. I understand all of your explanations and arguments,
I just don't buy them. If I'm wrong about you, then I'll apologize.. but I don't think it's likely.
I don't play on instincts and guts much, I vote based as purely on logic and observation as I'm able.
That's why I'm such a fan of the shared-word counts - they are *not* subjective, and cannot be twisted.
If you flip innocent (for real), then I'll be simply *astounded* by the odds.

Mongoose wrote:Nev - I don't disagree with you; in fact, I made a post stating agreeing with you, so that is why I took a mild and polite issue with your tone (when I'm not failing to understand your logic or disagree with you at all).
Maybe you thought me saying "For today" was me saying I'd believe you, for today instead of just legit believe you. I meant I'd hold off on voting Logan for today at least. Otherwise, it just seems like semantics.

I apologize for my tone to all of you. Frustration is no excuse for being an ass.

And yes, I did misunderstand your meaning Mongoose, not that it should have mattered.

BDH's posts do give me pause, because I can't think of a single reason for him to behave as he is.
But I've been able to say that a lot lately.
Hopefully at the end of the game someone will be able to explain wth has been going on.

Votes *bea*.