The Syndicate

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Awesome. In that case: *Voting Sig* now and gonna go look at the group 2 members to decide which one of them I also want to lynch.

Are you really just going to tunnel down this road?

If so, then I'm really just going to tunnel down the road of trying to prevent sigs lynch, again.

Tell me why I shouldn't.

I have a couple of hours to spare, might do a bit of a read-through of the group 2 members to see if I turn anything useful up. My group 1 vote is almost definitely staying where it is, though I do have two other potential suspects in there.

Awesome. In that case: *Voting Sig* now and gonna go look at the group 2 members to decide which one of them I also want to lynch.

Possibly a stupid question but are we able to cast one vote now and add the second later or do both have to be cast at the same time?

Note: I'm not asking if it's allowed, I'm asking if it's possible.

Typhoony wrote: I don't think sig is bad, but from just reading his posts, I cannot fault anyone for voting him. I hope we don't have the same endless discussion surrounding him Day 3, since all that could be said surrounding it has been said imo. Let's move on.

I partially agree with this. I still think Sig is bad and will probably continue to vote for him, since I think he should be lynched. However I'll be looking at other suspects as well tomorrow since there's nothing new I can say about Sig - we just go around in circles and it's helping nobody. In fact it might actually be helping baddies since they have this big thing going on that they can use to be blendy and hide around.

sig wrote:@Bulls your right I didn't say probably but this once again points to what I said right before the day ended, the amount of posts and the lengths of the posts plus the amount of time I spent defending myself, the fact I'm gonna need to do it again tomorrow and just RL tiredness, it will be easy to find a small thing to pick at which you just did.

Also it was what they were doing. I already said why I think you're bad I didn't call you bad day 1 did I when you originally voted for me? I said you were bad based on your posts and the reason for your lynch vote on me. You've literally made excuses to when I flip civ how it isn't your fault that is scummy.

Your reason for thinking I'm bad basically amounted to me being the first person to point out the suspicious nature of one of your posts. I haven't "made excuses" at all. What I said was that if you are a civ (or even if you aren't) then I alone am not responsible for your lynch because others will also have voted. That doesn't mean I'm not at all responsible, just that finding a suspicious civvie suspicious doesn't make someone a baddie. The case against you is strong because you are simply not acting in a pro-civ manner IMO. If you are a civ, this knowledge doesn't retroactively make everything you've said and done okay.

I prefer cats. Dogs take more effort, cats are happy to take care of themselves for the most part. Plus I've always had pet cats.

sig wrote:Did Splint say why she votedfor me or was it just a fly by?

linki: Nevermind Splint did you read my initial post and Bull's reasons for pursuing me? Do you find me saying the mafia is probably killing low posters to be suspicious?

The word probably was nowhere near that post. You said it was something they were doing. There was no implication of uncertainty.

sig wrote:I am
In regards to Epi's initial post not only was I not scum I was the only player who was correct and voted for the remaining scum.
Know I'll admit I can come across as scummy when I'm not but with zebras comment on scumtells. As scum I don't usually make these tells only as a civ do I do this. THis usually only happens within the first few phases when someone finds a reason to start a bandwagon and multiply people jump on it. Usually the people who push my wagon and start them are scum, such as Bull's. Quite possibly zebra as well, but I'm unsure on that.

The fact that your immediate defense is to call me bad for ever daring to suspect you is why you look so bad to me. Literally the only reason you're calling me bad is because I said it about you first.

Golden wrote: I do feel, though, like nutella is racking up the connections while literally no-one but me is coming to sig's defence. I think thats what it is mostly. It doesn't even feel like anyone is subtly leading the thread away from him. Sig had such an early and easy bandwagon, with no-one who wanted to stand up for him. It seemed very easy.

Literally nobody was defending Sig? No one at all? Ever? I must have hallucinated HB's constant pushy defense of him (which began before Sig even started to defend himself). That's one of the big reasons I suspect him, the fact that HB has been so obsessively defensive of him. I don't think you understand my case against Sig at all.

Golden wrote:What really amazes me is that noone is taking their vote OFF the sig train.

Isn't it obvious by now? It feels like it to me.

Even if I hadn't been in bed at 2am, I'd have left my vote where it was. What's so obvious?

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:Golden, how sure are you?

Well, I mean, how long is a piece of string?

But I do really feel it, like, what is there to sig's case. He used the word 'currently' when describing the mafia's kill. No-one has really been sticking up for him until I started to. He was the run away early leader in the lynch. He is like the cliche easy town bandwagon.

If you think the word currently is seriously the foundation of the Sig case, you don't understand it well enough to be arguing against it.

Surviving a lynch tells us nothing about alignment. I'll most probably continue to vote Sig as he remains my top suspect.

HamburgerBoy wrote: and the only other person to reply was Bullzeye who took his request and tried to use it as a case against him, since he was already going against sig even on day 1. Interesting that he makes the same argument against sig being made this day: sig making a mountain out of nothing, and that nothing ends up ballooning into a bandwagon anyways.

When I voted Sig on day one, it was for a minor ping because I didn't have anything better to go on other than my trusty fallback of the day 1 low poster vote. The fact that Sig continued to make me even more suspicious of him is nothing to do with me, if he hadn't made the post that kicked off today's discussion I might never have voted for him again. You and he are the ones who've made mountains out of molehills.

Golden wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:"Currently" just means "at present", which is clearly the case if we're talking about the most recent nightkill, even if it was only a single one. Not to mention that it assumes a scumteam made some kind of mandate that they are going to exclusively kill low-posters in the future; I seriously doubt a scumteam would be that inflexible. That case looks like a forced "scumslip" that rarely actually catches someone, and from what I can tell, people have a habit of doing it to sig with poor results. Note that Long Con, who flipped scum day 2, was going after sig for that.

I agree that sig gets lynched for scumslips too often.

I also don't think the word 'currently' is a scumslip, but I'll see what I think of sig as a whole when I see his responses. I would use the word 'currently', if I felt it was a trend that was existing on the site over several recent games.

Take the word currently out of the post entirely. Then it just says the baddies are killing low posters. It still doesn't make sense because you can't infer a pattern from one point of data. It still looks suspicious IMO. It's not the fact he said currently that I find suspicious. It's the implications behind the post as a whole. I would encourage you to read sig and HB's responses, and also consider why HB is defending sig so hard if they aren't teammates.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Stupid fucking English language is going to cost us the game lmao

Who's "us"?

I already made that joke.

sig wrote:@LoRab your right it was rude of me to call you inmature and I'm sorry for saying it. However I still stand by what I say while baddie/scum mean the same the word difference that Bulls used is I believe to be done on purpose in an attempt to make me look less clean. I dislike what you said and I believe you purposely missed my point. Because I will stand by what I said there is a difference between my word and his..

See my previous post re: definition of shocked including the word surprise. The word difference I employed was not an attempt to do anything.

sig wrote:So I should have admitted that your case was right when it isn't? I'm notgoing to validate why you should lynch me I'm going to defend myself. What I'm interpenetrating from your post is no matter what I could have done you would have pursued my lynch. I've caught a few people in the past by doing this and I find the reason for your suspicion to be suspicious as well as your response. Your argument started based around individual wording, I've played mafia games with people who purposely change wording just enough or use small things to further their case. Look at my past game (TH) and you can see the reason I first mentioned LC was based around calling me the other guy, something thatwhen I said nobody took seriously but he ended up flipping mafia. It is the same with you changing my wording.

How should I address the suspicion on me? In my early posts I in fact did I said why I mentioned Timmer, gave the reasoning for mywording, and even answered the question people kept asking in the thread about Timmer. You ignored what I said and then said that was weak so you're wrong here I answered you just ignored it.

I would never expect someone to 'admit my case was right' regardless of whether or not it was. That would be silly. My point is you didn't acknowledge the actual reason for the case against you and instead chose to go for the strawman. You are just flinging out accusations to those who disagree with you and picking at minor things like synonym use (adverb theory on drugs?) for no clear reason.

sig wrote:Zebra I don't have much off an opinion on you right know I will ISO and have one tomorrow. I'm not sure about you, but today wouldn't be a good day to vote for you would it.

I still think Bulls is mafia, but I would like other peoples thoughts on matter both this and non related.
@Turnip head, Epi, and Matt what are your views on Zebra and Bulls?

I'd also like to point out I think Bulls has know placed a vote on me based around my previous post. I think I was completely right about his post and he is trying to make it seem like this isn't true by know placing a vote.

I voted you because I hadn't voted for you yet. I'd have voted you before going to bed anyway. You just asked for it (in a figurative sense, before you accuse me of twisting your words again) and sped the process up by like an hour.

sig wrote:linki: Zebra I don't thing you understand me pointing out the Us thing at all. Iim NOT trying to get you lynched by saying that I am showing how absurd it is. My point is that it is so stupid and makes no sense since it takes a simply word and twists it to mean something it doesn't which is the same thing bulls did do my post. Then any response given will be bad since he is lynching me with no case but based off of a little word. There is no way to properly defend yourself when there is no case and everything I've said in my defense has been shot down by people who want me lynched. Since I'm either reacting wrongly, or my tone is based or my defense is weak.

I think she is right that ridiculing the case against you is not a civ move. The reason your defenses are being shot down is that your defenses don't address the suspicion properly. Rather than acknowledge that the overall meaning of your post can be interpreted as if you had accidentally revealed baddie plans, you twist it around and make it about the meanings of individual words as well as accusing your accusers of being bad based purely on them suspecting you.

sig wrote:So tell me how should I have responded? Should I have ignored Bulls then I would be accused of scum for ignoring his case.
I change my mind about the early post I think both Bulls and Zebra are scum.

Ignoring me would've made me bring the case back up and ask you for comments directly. If you'd have continued to ignore me I'd have strongly considered voting for you. Immediately NO Uing me had the same effect. There are ways you could have approached this case - calmer, more reasonable ways. You didn't choose those ways.

Linki HB - Meta is only worth so much in cases based on something that was potentially an unintended slip. The whole point of the suspicion begins with the idea Sig said something he wasn't supposed to say, without thinking of the consequences. You can't really use intentional past actions to dispute that IMO.

Matt - I'm only accusing HB if Sig is also bad. Even you can't deny it's weird to be so strongly invested in the continued existence of someone whose alignment he shouldn't be able to know.

sig wrote:This isn't my thoughts but is basically the same as Bulls argument on me I just substituted the situation.

Notice In my third line I said Zebra said our team instead of us this is basically the same by definition but just different enough to make it seem slightly more sinister.

linki: Notices Bull's has already set up there defense for when I flip civ? Just the right amount of remorse while already pinning the blame on the other people who might vote for me and even though Bulls is the one pushing my wagon it won't be their fault. This is a strong case no matter how I flip so even when I flip civ it won't mattersince my case was strong, I wasn't the first to vote for him, and it will be to bad.

Three things scum so commonly say when trying to lynch a civ, also another point Bulls says he isn't the first to vote for me this is true, however he is the one pushing my lynch and is waiting until it gains enough steam to vote on it. This stops Bulls from looking as scummy. His whole posts reeks of scummyness he has just pre lynch given his reason for why he won't be a baddie when I flip civ. This doesn't seem strange that Bull's is already defending his vote on me as if I already flipped civ and he is in the hotseat for pushing a civ wagon>

I'm not defending my vote I was responding to a hypothetical situation. I'm not pushing this case. I'm defending it from your attempts to twist it and make me out to be bad. If other people see what I'm seeing they're welcome to follow me in a vote. I think you're bad. If I'm wrong I will admit to having been wrong and will accept whatever consequence people deem necessary but I won't pretend that being wrong makes me bad. I'm not waiting for anything to gain steam. I'll vote you now if you like.

*Votes Sig*

The reason I'd held off on voting, and the reason I almost always do, is because I like to wait til near the end of lynches to cast my vote. It comes from years of playing games where votes can't be changed, so my mindset is that before I commit to anything I'd like to have seen as much discussion as possible and taken advantage of the available time to weigh my options. Even though I know changeable votes are practically the norm now, I still can't shake the attitude. Old habits.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Okay so first there's you responding to the suspicion for him: Comes off as potentially a defense from a teammate.

Then there's the fact that rather than simply address the suspicion he immediately went to "the person suspecting me is a baddie".

Referring to me as "attacking him".

Claiming I was twisting his words by using a synonym.

Going as far as to play the classic "you must think I'm stupid" card.

He has scrambled to take the case against him and twist it into his own argument for me being a baddie trying to set him up. You are his stalwart protector, guarding him at every turn. It just doesn't look good on either of you.

My defense has nothing to do with his reaction, that's not an answer.

You are attacking him, just as I am attacking you now. That's how you build cases and lynches in the game.

The other points seem valid in this kind of an argument. You are taking a couple of words he used and trying to make them into grounds for suspicion. If he flips civvie, how do you think that will make your case look, if it is discovered he had no special insight?

If he is a civ, it will be a shame for him to be lynched. However, I alone will not be responsible for such a thing. I've not even voted yet. I'm probably going to vote Sig when I do, yes, but unless everyone else's vote doesn't count mine alone won't kill him. Plenty of people are wrong in their suspicions every game. I think the case against Sig is strong, and if he flips civ it will still have been a strong case. A wrong case, yes, but not one that was inherently bad.

I don't think he is a civ though. I think he is bad for his reaction and for the fact that you are so adamantly defending him despite having no obvious reason to do so. I don't think his points have any validity to them. He acts as if I'm doing some terrible malicious thing by replacing a word with one of its synonyms and claims I'm a nitpicking baddie all because I'd made one post saying his choice of words looked strange.

Linki - I'm one of the civs. I was making a joke because "us" could refer to any of the factions at play here.

a2thezebra wrote:Stupid fucking English language is going to cost us the game lmao

"Us"?





I'm just kidding :P

for now

sig wrote:I am seeing the difference . When people in the thread pretend to be so shocked by his death. This is more scummy then myself not being shocked by it and I still say there is a difference. it is very small wording but paraphrasing what I said in a way that appears to make what I said slightly more scummy is pingy.
"so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie" You seem to be acting slightly inmature here. baddie scum it is the same changing my words right after quoting me isn't. Especially when Bull's argument revolves around a SPECIFIC word, if Bulls argument is based on that which it is then yes it does matter when later in trying to get me lynched he says I said something I didn't say. That you fail to comprehend the importance when Bulls whole argument is based around my wording is strange.

Okay you said shocked instead of surprised, but unless you meant to say "I was not electrocuted as a result of Timmer's death" then it's quite fair to rephrase your shock as surprise. The difference between baddie and scum in a mafia sense really is the same as the difference between shocked and surprised.

shock
verb
past tense: shocked; past participle: shocked
1.
cause (someone) to feel surprised and upset.

I don't think it makes you appear any more or less scummy if I refer to you being surprised rather than shocked at something

HamburgerBoy wrote:So what is it about his reaction that particularly pinged you? He didn't even reply until three people suddenly bandwagoned your case within a single hour. Your response to his reply was literally "nice NO U there" when he actually asked specific questions pertaining to the case on him.

Okay so first there's you responding to the suspicion for him: Comes off as potentially a defense from a teammate.

Then there's the fact that rather than simply address the suspicion he immediately went to "the person suspecting me is a baddie".

Referring to me as "attacking him".

Claiming I was twisting his words by using a synonym.

Going as far as to play the classic "you must think I'm stupid" card.

He has scrambled to take the case against him and twist it into his own argument for me being a baddie trying to set him up. You are his stalwart protector, guarding him at every turn. It just doesn't look good on either of you.

sig wrote:Just as I said in my last post this was the same way LC tried to get me lynched and many others in the past.Bulls is know using the threat that if I'm bad they will lynch HB next in an attempt to get HB to stop defending me. This is a very typical scum threat when someone opposes a lynch.

linki: Your know just being foolish, why would either of your things make sense. It is a logical thought especially for day 1, are you saying I would make such a scum slip, and in said slip reveal the mafia plan to only kill low posters? I'm quite insulted you think my scum play would be that bad.

HB is welcome to defend you all he likes. I'm just saying that he should know what to expect.

Neither of those things make sense, that is true. But your point makes as much sense as they do, there is the same amount of supporting evidence for each one. Which is why your comment is a strange one to have made for someone who doesn't have access to what the baddies are planning. The feigned offense is also a classic baddie move. I've got it perfected.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.

It's relevant because you're trying to create the narrative that it was unsurprising because he knew about the timmer kill before the rest of us did. You're willfully ignoring the context of that post, where golden had described the kill as "very odd". Some people found it surprising, so he provided his explanation for why he didn't.

That isn't what I'm doing at all. What I'm saying is his explanation doesn't add up. His comments implied an observable pattern to the baddies' actions that does not exist in this game. You and he are majorly overreacting to the suspicion that the comment brought on, which gives me cause to suspect both of you even more.

That entire argument is based on his use of the word "currently". Do I have to be DictionaryBoy again? "Currently" does not inherently make a statement of what has happened previously. If you're going to make a semantic argument to lynch a player, make sure that you at least get it right.

My argument for Sig being bad is now based on his reaction to the argument that he might have had prior knowledge of the baddies plans based on his use of the word "currently". While it is a fine word to have used, and does indeed simply mean at the present time, it still suggests that there is something in progress. Timmer is the only person to have been NKed so far. To say that the baddies are 'currently killing low posters' based on that information is as accurate as saying they're currently killing people whose names begin with T, or are planning to eliminate all the men.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

LoRab wrote:Also, why is Hamburger Boy defending you? And with almost the same words?

Anyone know if HB is the kind of player to defend a teammate?

I defended him the exact same way during Talking Heads, and even put him at the top of my rainbow for good measure on the feeling that scum almost never gets hit by weak "scumslip" accusations. There have been plenty of cases on RYM where I defend players because I feel they are being targeted for minor things (scumslips, low post count, etc), in multiple games. And it's not altruistic, I think that scumslip arguments are lazy and distract players from trying to find real scum.

It's not just the slip though, it's his reaction too. Not to mention your continued defense. If he does turn out to be a baddie, I'll be voting for you next.

Linki - So you think someone who claimed to have been surprised by Timmer's death was lying? Meaning they knew in advance he'd be killed? Who?

Also you literally say not finding it strange means you weren't shocked. Shocked and surprised mean the same thing unless you're talking about electricity.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.

It's relevant because you're trying to create the narrative that it was unsurprising because he knew about the timmer kill before the rest of us did. You're willfully ignoring the context of that post, where golden had described the kill as "very odd". Some people found it surprising, so he provided his explanation for why he didn't.

That isn't what I'm doing at all. What I'm saying is his explanation doesn't add up. His comments implied an observable pattern to the baddies' actions that does not exist in this game. You and he are majorly overreacting to the suspicion that the comment brought on, which gives me cause to suspect both of you even more.

sig wrote:Just dropping this underlined is one of the times Bulls puts words in my mouth.

Bullzeye wrote:
Thank you, DictionaryBoy, for explaining what currently means :P It's still an odd way to phrase it. If there'd been a few kills in this game so far, it'd make more sense IMO. In my experience baddies often do make specific plans for how they're going to kill, by no means set in stone but as a "if we don't need to kill anyone in particular we may as well kill a low poster". Saying "the baddies are currently killing low posters so Timmer's death is unsurprising" doesn't make sense given that the baddies of this game weren't 'currently' doing anything until they killed Timmer. It was just something that caught my eye, but the fact that so many other people seem to agree with me makes me more confident. Especially when this is at least the second time I've noticed you defending Sig this game.

Linki - nice NO U there. I have other suspicions than you and wasn't necessarily going to vote for you today, but keep digging that hole.

While I actually said

Bullzeye wrote:

sig wrote:First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

The phrasing of this post bothers me... There's been one mafia kill all game, so how can you say what they're 'currently' doing? One point isn't even a line, let alone a pattern. It makes it sound to me like you know what the mafia's current plan is.

I don't like this at all, he jumps at me for a wording choice and then twist and even changes what I say to fit his view.

I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.

HamburgerBoy wrote:"Currently" just means "at present", which is clearly the case if we're talking about the most recent nightkill, even if it was only a single one. Not to mention that it assumes a scumteam made some kind of mandate that they are going to exclusively kill low-posters in the future; I seriously doubt a scumteam would be that inflexible. That case looks like a forced "scumslip" that rarely actually catches someone, and from what I can tell, people have a habit of doing it to sig with poor results. Note that Long Con, who flipped scum day 2, was going after sig for that.

Thank you, DictionaryBoy, for explaining what currently means :P It's still an odd way to phrase it. If there'd been a few kills in this game so far, it'd make more sense IMO. In my experience baddies often do make specific plans for how they're going to kill, by no means set in stone but as a "if we don't need to kill anyone in particular we may as well kill a low poster". Saying "the baddies are currently killing low posters so Timmer's death is unsurprising" doesn't make sense given that the baddies of this game weren't 'currently' doing anything until they killed Timmer. It was just something that caught my eye, but the fact that so many other people seem to agree with me makes me more confident. Especially when this is at least the second time I've noticed you defending Sig this game.

Linki - nice NO U there. I have other suspicions than you and wasn't necessarily going to vote for you today, but keep digging that hole.

sig wrote:First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

The phrasing of this post bothers me... There's been one mafia kill all game, so how can you say what they're 'currently' doing? One point isn't even a line, let alone a pattern. It makes it sound to me like you know what the mafia's current plan is.

I want to get my vote out now so I can get to bed since I'm super tired. I will be *Voting Sig* because I feel like his random mention of the Epi/Dom thing looks like a forced attempt to appear involved. It just doesn't sit right with me. I have an eye on Nutella for similar reasons.

sig wrote:The only reasoning you gave for a Dom lynch is that you think from his tone you could be bad. So anyone else who votes on Dom would either think the same thing or follow your vote based on good faith/trust of your read. Also I don't trust you enough on day 1 to follow your vote, which is why I'm not your vote comes down to nothing but a small meta/tone read. I find it very curios MM voted for Dom.

@MM why did you go with a Dom lynch.

See, what I find unusual is that you saw fit to explain this but didn't mention why you haven't followed anybody else's vote. It's not as if Epi's thoughts on Dom have been a hot topic. Your specific mention of it comes a little bit out of the blue IMO.

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

nutella wrote:I see I've already gotten a vote for not being around much. I'm just now checking in, I am having quite a busy week.

I think that Bullz is, or is one of the teammates of, one of the people who got info. That means that I think there is more than 1/3 chance that he is bad because I think it is likely that the baddie who got info told their teammates. As Epi points out I find it unlikely that all of the team members would vote for it, I wouldn't doubt that a couple of them would, and that there is therefore a greater chance that Bullz is on a baddie team than that he is a civ or indie.

Unfortunately, of course, I can't vote for him. So I'll have to resort to other Day 1 crap. Like maybe the Mac/Matt thing, but as I already said I think that both of them are fucking around uselessly and I'm kind of indifferent to both.

Who says I had info at all? If I did, and especially if I was the baddie who did, what logical reason would I have for making my vote stand out? It just doesn't make sense.

So you didn't have info? I'm not really sure where the 'bullz has info' thing came from.

No, I did not. Some people have theorised that I might have had. No idea why nutella leapt to the conclusion that I definitely did. I don't really have anything more to say about it though.

MacDougall wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

nutella wrote:I see I've already gotten a vote for not being around much. I'm just now checking in, I am having quite a busy week.

I think that Bullz is, or is one of the teammates of, one of the people who got info. That means that I think there is more than 1/3 chance that he is bad because I think it is likely that the baddie who got info told their teammates. As Epi points out I find it unlikely that all of the team members would vote for it, I wouldn't doubt that a couple of them would, and that there is therefore a greater chance that Bullz is on a baddie team than that he is a civ or indie.

Unfortunately, of course, I can't vote for him. So I'll have to resort to other Day 1 crap. Like maybe the Mac/Matt thing, but as I already said I think that both of them are fucking around uselessly and I'm kind of indifferent to both.

Who says I had info at all? If I did, and especially if I was the baddie who did, what logical reason would I have for making my vote stand out? It just doesn't make sense.

I find it far more likely that you selected prog because you had a reason than because you just did. I don't think it necessarily makes you bad, but it may later.

Fair enough. I was actually asking LA specifically since she jumped straight to that conclusion but I do invite anyone thinking I had info to consider the question. It's WIFOM, but so is the argument that I did have info.

nutella wrote:I see I've already gotten a vote for not being around much. I'm just now checking in, I am having quite a busy week.

I think that Bullz is, or is one of the teammates of, one of the people who got info. That means that I think there is more than 1/3 chance that he is bad because I think it is likely that the baddie who got info told their teammates. As Epi points out I find it unlikely that all of the team members would vote for it, I wouldn't doubt that a couple of them would, and that there is therefore a greater chance that Bullz is on a baddie team than that he is a civ or indie.

Unfortunately, of course, I can't vote for him. So I'll have to resort to other Day 1 crap. Like maybe the Mac/Matt thing, but as I already said I think that both of them are fucking around uselessly and I'm kind of indifferent to both.

Who says I had info at all? If I did, and especially if I was the baddie who did, what logical reason would I have for making my vote stand out? It just doesn't make sense.

Turnip Head wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Didn't mean to press submit just yet. I have several favourite genres of music and felt that rather than pick one I'd just pick something different. I don't see why it should have to mean something.

It doesn't have to mean something, but it could mean something, in a poll where we were told to pick our favorite genre and everybody did that but you. It is, at the very least, noteworthy :P And you saying "I don't see why it should have to mean something" instead of "it doesn't mean anything" also has me curious.

Well... It doesn't mean anything, but it doesn't have to either. You're the one trying to attribute meaning where it doesn't exist. Given that LC has confirmed there was info about one option, I think it's safe to guess there was info about others too. So I doubt everyone else voted for their favourite.

That's fair, it's possible players lied about their favorite genre to gain some sort of edge. But it's easier and theoretically more productive to question the one guy who didn't vote for his favorite genre (and gained an edge) than it is to question the 29 that ostensibly voted according to the poll's question.

Question away. I didn't have any info. All I thought was "oh look it's day zero, there is a poll, I don't know what to say is my favourite with such a varied taste in music so I'll vote for the one that stands out because I don't know enough of it to really have an opinion". I don't take day zero seriously.

Turnip Head wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Didn't mean to press submit just yet. I have several favourite genres of music and felt that rather than pick one I'd just pick something different. I don't see why it should have to mean something.

It doesn't have to mean something, but it could mean something, in a poll where we were told to pick our favorite genre and everybody did that but you. It is, at the very least, noteworthy :P And you saying "I don't see why it should have to mean something" instead of "it doesn't mean anything" also has me curious.

Well... It doesn't mean anything, but it doesn't have to either. You're the one trying to attribute meaning where it doesn't exist. Given that LC has confirmed there was info about one option, I think it's safe to guess there was info about others too. So I doubt everyone else voted for their favourite.

Didn't mean to press submit just yet. I have several favourite genres of music and felt that rather than pick one I'd just pick something different. I don't see why it should have to mean something.

Turnip Head wrote:Obviously not something I can act on toDay, but this post by Bullz caught my hindsight eye. It feels like the least genuine vote for Prog.

Bullzeye wrote:Voting Prog not because it's my favourite. Nor is it my least favourite. It's the only option in the poll I have absolutely no opinion on either way and that makes it noteworthy to me.

Everyone else voted for their favorite option on Day 0. Bullzeye voted for a "noteworthy" one.

Do day zero votes have to be genuine now?

DFaraday wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: What is a phylactery and what does it do?

A phylactery is a box with Hebrew scripture in it, worn during religious practice. I have no idea what it would do in the game though.

I believe liches and other such evil beings are also said to keep their soul/spirit/essence within them to give them immortality, and destruction of a phylactery is a sure way of killing a lich.

Source: I'm a massive nerd.

Voting Prog not because it's my favourite. Nor is it my least favourite. It's the only option in the poll I have absolutely no opinion on either way and that makes it noteworthy to me.

Yay Just checking in atm will pop back in in a bit!