The Syndicate

Tranq wrote:So does nutella's vote for Luke still count?

Good question. Hosts do I need to move my vote to the dead option or should I leave it?

About 5 hours until the first lynch. Gonna go ahead and vote for Luke. I think he's really hiding behind the low posting/noob card.

sig wrote:@nutella any idea why you didn't get lynched yesterday?

As I said I figured Tranq had been right and there was only ever going to be one lynch between the two groups. It's certainly not what I expected to happen but it's the most reasonable explanation.


I don't really know who my top suspects are right now. Bass has said some odd things, I might look into him. I'm also still waiting to see any content from Luke.

RIP TH.

Curious, the double lynch itinerary.

Wow, surprised I didn't die. I guess Tranq was right.

Totally forgot to come back to defend again before the poll ended as I have been totally swamped with work today, but I see Typhoony made a post about me and a couple others voted for me without much explanation. If there is any point in particular that people want me to answer, ask away.

juliets wrote:I have gone back and looked at Matt's case on nutella. Basically, though nutella contributed during the day it took her only 8 minutes to decide to throw her vote on Sorsha. This is ironic because at the same time she said she wanted to give Bubbles a chance to respond to the allegations against her. Why not, then, let Sorsha have an opportunity to respond? In addition, there was a 4 - 4 - 4 tie on Dom, Bugla and Banana. She avoided getting involved in that tie vote.

I would like to hear what Epi and Golden say about their thoughts on nutella. I might consider her as an alternative to sig since i have Epi, HamBoy, Golden, TH all saying I am not reading sig correctly in the genuineness of his sincerity and I don't know him at all.

juliets wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epi I missed your post while I was posting. Since there is no case would you mind sharing your thoughts on why you voted nutella? I am looking for a good reason to pull my vote off of sig since so many of you think I am misreading him.

I think it would be better if you read nutella and decided for yourself. Why must your reason for voting sig, or nutella, or anybody else come from another person?

There is no reason my reason has to come from anyone else. You have been trying to convince me not to vote sig and I thought you might be helpful in finding an alternative.

@nutella - I have read through your posts several times and I don't see a response as to why you gave Bubbles a chance to respond but you didn't give Sorsha a chance. I see the part where you voted Sorsha first and then saw the Bubbles comment but that still doesn't answer the question as to why not give Sorsha the same chance you were giving Bubbles.

Once again you are misinterpreting my comment on Bubbles, and ignoring my explanation of the timing of my Day 1 posts. At the time that I quickly read Sorsha's posts and decided to vote for her, there was about half an hour left on the poll and I had to leave before then, so I could not stick around for her response. The Bubbles comment pinged me, but not nearly as strongly as Sorsha's posts had, so by saying I would wait for Bubbles' response I meant I would wait UNTIL THE NEXT DAY to pursue her further, since there wasn't enough time left and I had to run. My ping on Sorsha was strong enough at the time to go ahead and vote for her, and I knew it wouldn't actually have an effect on the lynch but I often use my Day 1 vote as a symbolic indication of my strongest suspicion.

You're comparing two things which in my mind are not comparable. I couldn't give Sorsha time to respond because I had to vote right then. I was not even considering voting for Bubbles that day, I was merely recording that it was an interesting point and I looked forward to her response for the next day.

Matt F wrote:nutella, splints, Sorsha - Do you plan on keeping your votes on Bubbles in Group 1 even though it looks like she'll already be lynched in Group 2?

I mean, it looks like I have the most votes in group 1 so if someone else gets a couple more I would change it Also I'm not sure if what Tranq said is right or if two players will get lynched. I hope he's right because otherwise it looks like I'll be lynched (for very weak, if any, reasoning ) but I had assumed both groups would have a lynch.



Dom, Sorsha, care to give reasoning for your votes? I'd like to be given a chance to defend and perhaps change your minds. Lots of incorrect assumptions have been made about my posts and I just want to know what your reasoning is.

I think Golden's reasoning for suspecting Bubbles is actually quite strong. Voting double bubbles for now, might just be a placeholder for one of the groups but we'll see.

I'm kind of lost as to who I want to vote for today, in both groups. I could see myself voting for Bubbles, I guess. I'm still waffling on Sig -- sometimes I really want to agree with Golden that it's a weak bandwagon, and sometimes I really find him suspicious. In group 2 I could also see voting for Luke or maybe HB.

RIP Zebra.

Double poll, now that's... different.

Fair enough.

Btw, I just remembered that Reywas is playing (and apparently it's his birthday today, happy birthday rey!) but he has barely posted anything at all and absolutely nothing of substance, and not since Thursday. Seems like he hasn't been keeping up at all, perhaps he should be replaced? @hosts

So there have been lots of fluffy, boring exchanges, but finally this Dom/Mac exchange is, dare I say, interesting. (Like Lorab I am pro-"interesting." Epi crusaded against it a couple games ago and I feel slightly defiant every time I use it now. )

Dom's well-organized case on Mac has some compelling points but I also find Mac's responses reasonable, and I haven't played with him before so I think a lot of what has felt slightly off about him is just a style thing.
This post pinged me though:

MacDougall wrote:

Dom wrote:^no it's because you're bad and its' obvious

If it's so obvious put your case together and get the town to lynch me.

The way he says "the town" sounds kinda slippy to me. Like he's not part of the town. Could also just be the way he uses the terminology, but the phrasing doesn't sit right with me.

BUGLABUSH wrote:Luke is mafia

Please elaborate.
I haven't gotten the best vibes from Luke either, but I would really like to hear actual thoughts from you as well.

Hi Bugla. Have you been reading the thread? What are your thoughts? Give us something to work with here.

Hmm, interesting that Sig survived. A cursory glance at the roles finds a couple that can survive a lynch, but of course we have no idea of his alignment.

WB Timmer.

Voting for cats. I love both, but I grew up with cats and am more of a cat person.

I've kind of lost track of the reasons, if there are any, that people are voting for me. I would defend myself if I (a) had time to do so and (b) knew what I was defending that I haven't explained already.

Unfortunately I kind of agree with Golden in that I'm wary of the sig wagon, but not so much that I'd risk myself to prevent it, so my vote's going on sig since the votes are so close. :\

SVS, I think I've explained why I decided not to vote for Bug. One or two people, I forget who, had concluded that he looked more like a loner civ than a baddie and I agreed. I realized that it was just another Day 1 bandwagon on a low poster who didn't actually look like a baddie for any particular reason, and besides, I found that I was more suspicious of Sorsha than anyone. Since I had no investment in the tie, I wanted to let it play out and see who *did* break it, and meanwhile preferred to vote for my own highest suspect at the time.

Ah. Cool.

For some reason that post of Golden's didn't show up on linki. Sorry I didn't answer your questions directly, I tend to ramble. I am civilian-aligned. The fact that Bubbles hadn't stated that she was civ was particuarly notable since that is her signature MO.


more linki. Makes you doubt what by agreeing with sorsha?

Golden wrote:

nutella wrote:Why were you two, Golden and Dom, so quick to jump on me for something that wasn't even explicitly a case on me, and why did neither of you mention Sorsha at all?

Because votes are changeable and in those games I like to be 'quick to jump on' whatever I see that I find convincing.

Would I have jumped on it as quick if votes were not changeable? No.

Also, because I already suspected you before Matt's case, and although I might not have jumped in with a vote so early in the day, you were still my first point of examination for today. And I think it's inaccurate to say Matt's case is on Sorsha not you. My read is that the case is that you and Sorsha are baddie teammates, but I find the statements about you more convincing... Sorsha could have been distancing, but it also could have been virtually random. The fact it didn't break the tie, however... I know how conspicuous it can feel to do that when bad, it's a real lose lose. Actually it's a lose lose when you are civ too.

This is a long way of saying that... before catching up on whats happened in the thread today, you are my top suspect. I see sig is taking some votes, but I don't know why yet. It's not like I'm determined you are bad... but I feel like you are a good place for a vote.

Alright, fair enough. I kind of fail to see how Sorsha and I could look like teammates, but okay, you are welcome to suspect me. I have nothing to hide

Sorsha is looking better to me with each post and I like her thoughts on Bubbles, Luke, and DF. I keep waffling back and forth on how I feel about Sig.

sig's posts* plural, that is

Golden wrote:Voting nutella, for an early placeholder. Matt, I think your case holds a lot of merit.

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:What are you seeing with nutella?

I think Matt F's case against her was well thought out and doesn't look all that great for her.

I'm sorry, what "case"? I think Matt's "case" was more condemning of Sorsha than of me, and his post here more or less confirms that:

Matt F wrote: Don't get me wrong, it wasn't just your vote for her. It was Sorsha's complete disregard to said vote that got me pinged on this whole thing. I find it curious that some players have looked at you for my case here, but nothing to say about Sorsha. And yes that is odd.

Why were you two, Golden and Dom, so quick to jump on me for something that wasn't even explicitly a case on me, and why did neither of you mention Sorsha at all? What in particular are you suspicious of me for? If it's about my vote for Sorsha, I have already responded to Matt explaining my end of things regarding the vote process. Neither of you acknowledged my response.

juliets wrote:Well my wonderful husband took care of candy and decorations so I have a little time on my hands. Nutella, I am currently looking at Matt's case on you and your response plus your posting history.

Please see the underlined in the passage below. What were those odd inconsistencies that you saw in her posts?

nutella wrote:@Matt- you might be reading some things into my timing. I couldn't stick around for the last 20 minutes of the vote, I had to get going and was feeling some time pressure. I saw the mention of Sorsha, and looked through her posts, and it really shouldn't surprise you that that took less than eight minutes, since she had so few. But even in those few minutes I saw some odd inconsistencies in her post history that were enough to merit a vote. I do remember there being a tie at the time but I didn't feel like I had any reason to vote for or against any of those people and decided to let it play out, see who would try to save whom. So then I voted for Sorsha right after posting that second post, and then *after* voting I saw the point on Bubbles, and I wanted to wait until I heard back from her and obviously wasn't going to switch my vote then and there, I just thought it was a point worth remarking on.

Hope that clears it up for you. It is quite odd that Sorsha never acknowledged my suspicion of her.

I mentioned this a bit in the post when I decided to vote for her. She had some odd comments regarding the Mac/Matt debate that I found hard to follow. She said a few times that she would only vote for Matt if nothing else came up, but she felt bad/apologetic toward him, and also said that she was more likely to vote for Mac. Then she said she thought it was clear that she wouldn't be voting for Matt. I found this all very confusing and inconsistent, and it looked to me like she was grasping for some little thing to come up so that she would have an excuse not to vote for Matt, and that's why she tagged easily onto the Dom vote.

Now on to her response:

Sorsha wrote:In this^ post it sounds to me like she’s already decided to vote for me based on Dom having a suspicion of me, despite saying THIS about Dom just one post earlier:

No, I had not already decided to vote for you. I noticed that Dom was suspicious of you and remembered seeing your name mentioned a couple times so I was curious and looked through your post history, and found your posts to be suspicious for my own reason. That's no indication of having any particular trust in Dom -- I don't.

Sorsha wrote:I’m pretty sure I never said I would vote for Mac and I did clear up earlier here that I was NOT going to be voting for Matt so I wasn’t looking for an excuse out of anything.

Ah, looking back I might have misread something, you said you *would* be more likely to vote Mac but I think it was in a hypothetical statement. Partially explains my confusion regarding your posts. But I still believe you were inconsistent regarding Matt -- you kept saying that you would possibly vote for him if nothing else came up, just that you would feel bad about it. You apologized to Matt but you never outright said that you would with 100% certainty not vote for him.

Sorsha wrote:I always seem to think Epi is bad and I lately (last three games we have played together) I have been wrong. I did say that I agreed with his points on Dom and I did say that I was getting civ vibes from Mac and felt ok voting along with them so I don’t know how that is considered hedging.

Maybe "hedging" wasn't the right word but you didn't really justify your vote very well. You had been arguing a bit with Epi and then you suddenly say you "wouldn't mind a vote for Dom" and then you went ahead and put a tentative vote on Dom, later justifying it by saying you agreed with Epi's points. It just felt really weak to me.

Sorsha wrote:Nutella is obviously reading my posts... I’m not sure if she’s just twisting it to fit her motive or if its just so weak that it doesn’t come together fully.

Nutella- In one of the posts above you said you’d vote for me or Bug. Why were you considering him? Did you even look over his posts before making the decision on which of the two of us to vote for, or just mine?

Bug had barely posted at all, I didn't even have to look at his posts because they were so few and unsubstantial. He struck me as a particular kind of low poster -- popped in, voted for Zebra without giving a reason, contributed absolutely no content -- that I find annoying and somewhat suspicious but would only vote for him if I had no other suspicions. I forget who said this but it seems likely that he doesn't have any btsc and is just a loner not putting effort into the game. That's basically why I decided not to vote for him -- it was an easy day 1 bandwagon on a low poster who is not actually particularly likely to be bad, and besides I found that I was more suspicious of you.


Linki: I am not liking sig's post at all.

@Matt- you might be reading some things into my timing. I couldn't stick around for the last 20 minutes of the vote, I had to get going and was feeling some time pressure. I saw the mention of Sorsha, and looked through her posts, and it really shouldn't surprise you that that took less than eight minutes, since she had so few. But even in those few minutes I saw some odd inconsistencies in her post history that were enough to merit a vote. I do remember there being a tie at the time but I didn't feel like I had any reason to vote for or against any of those people and decided to let it play out, see who would try to save whom. So then I voted for Sorsha right after posting that second post, and then *after* voting I saw the point on Bubbles, and I wanted to wait until I heard back from her and obviously wasn't going to switch my vote then and there, I just thought it was a point worth remarking on.

Hope that clears it up for you. It is quite odd that Sorsha never acknowledged my suspicion of her.

a2thezebra wrote:nutella, explain to me what you mean by "pseudo-random" and then tell me why she shouldn't be my number one suspect. I have played with her before and granted, it's been a while, but I am familiar enough with her meta to understand how lightheartedly she plays, which is why I made clear that if her throwaway vote was on a throwaway candidate, or even herself, I could understand. But Banana, after two votes at that point? Hell no. That is inexcusable.

Well, for one thing it's possible that she didn't realize that Banana was actually a candidate at that point. I know that if I'm catching up I don't always keep track of votes or bring up the poll results very much, and I doubt that she would have. Possibly she saw Banana's name mentioned a couple times and the name simply stuck out to her a bit more than the others, and the jokey reason is "pseudo-random" by which I meant a very common day 1 phenomenon -- you don't have much material with which to make real judgments/have suspicions yet, so you place your vote on someone with some reason to justify it because nothing else really jumps out. (I'm distinguishing this from actual randomizing, which people also do sometimes, but I'm against that and much prefer to have some justification, however weak. Thus "pseudo-random.")
Anyway, even if she did consciously decide to vote for someone who was already on the table, I honestly don't necessarily find that suspicious. Bandwagons can be dangerous but it's not always bad to go with the flow, especially on day 1 when the votes tend to be pretty spread out and vulnerable. I can definitely see why you're suspicious of Canuck for her vote. I'm just skeptical of how completely convinced of her baddieness you appear to be. I look forward to seeing her response though.

RIP Timmer.

a2, I disagree with your strong condemnation of Canuck. Idk if you've played with her before but she generally plays pretty lightheartedly and that looks to me like a typical pseudo-random day 1 vote. I can understand finding it a little suspicious but your guns-ablazing, number-one-suspect reaction is surprising to me.

I'm interested in keeping an eye on Bullz, Sorsha, and Bubbles today, and after how yesterday's lynch ended I am open to looking more at Dom and Bugla as well. And if one or both of them is bad, I'd peg SVS as a teamie.

Fun fact: The current president of Reed College is commonly believed to be a lizard person.

RIP Banana.

Lizards are cute.

Voted for Sorsha.

The Bubbles catch is interesting indeed. I don't feel like it merits a vote yet -- I'd like to see her response first.

Okay, I'm voting for Sorsha. Her early comments on Matt/Mac are confusing, and it looks like she tagged onto the Dom ping as an easy excuse not to vote for Matt or Mac (because she said she would if "nothing else came up"). She hedged around any actual reasoning for following Epi's lead. Now That's What I Call Opportunistic™!

Epignosis wrote:"Pushing the Dom thing."

I have to pick someone to vote for. I have to have a reason for voting that person. I have to try to get that person lynched. Otherwise I'm just coming in and voting and not giving a toss.

nutella, what WOULD give you a clue as to my alignment? I'm curious.

I don't really have an answer to that. Different behaviors can make me suspect or trust players and it depends on the context of the game. I just usually don't have such reads/much material to base them on when it's still day 1.


Hmm, Dom suspects Sorsha, apparently because of her easy vote for him? I have to vote quite soon so I will look over that exchange and perhaps vote for either Sorsha or Buglabush. Feels like a really weak day 1 vote all around, I hope we get lucky.

Epignosis wrote:

nutella wrote:

Golden wrote: Nutella, BWT, Eloh?

You have been a little involved, but haven't said much to give me an idea of your perspective on things. Are you civilian aligned? If I claimed you were just trying to look involved, and not really being involved, would you call that a fair assessment? Who would be your biggest suspect right now?

I am catching up when I can, a couple times a day, and posting once per catch-up. So I am not putting a huge amount of effort into getting involved, but I'm also not deliberately holding back. I always find it hard to have many thoughts on Day 1. I suppoooose my biggest suspect is Bullz, sorta, kinda, just for lack of thoughts on other people at this point. But I can't vote for him. I'm a little curious about the Epi/Dom discussion (but Epi is also off the poll and idk if I'd be convinced to vote Dom). I am very confused by Buglabush and might consider a vote there.

Is this to imply that you suspect me second to Bullz?

Why couldn't you be convinced to vote for Dom? Does he never draw Mafia roles?

I am absolutely not discounting the possibility that Dom is bad. I just don't see any particular reason to vote for him at this stage. I'm not really leaning in either direction in my read of Dom yet.

And largely the same goes for you, but you stand out a little bit more to me for pushing the Dom thing. Then again, I always seem to find your early-game reads & behavior to be off-putting, so as with Dom it's more of a consistent reaction to your style that doesn't really clue me in on your alignment.

Golden wrote: Nutella, BWT, Eloh?

You have been a little involved, but haven't said much to give me an idea of your perspective on things. Are you civilian aligned? If I claimed you were just trying to look involved, and not really being involved, would you call that a fair assessment? Who would be your biggest suspect right now?

I am catching up when I can, a couple times a day, and posting once per catch-up. So I am not putting a huge amount of effort into getting involved, but I'm also not deliberately holding back. I always find it hard to have many thoughts on Day 1. I suppoooose my biggest suspect is Bullz, sorta, kinda, just for lack of thoughts on other people at this point. But I can't vote for him. I'm a little curious about the Epi/Dom discussion (but Epi is also off the poll and idk if I'd be convinced to vote Dom). I am very confused by Buglabush and might consider a vote there.

I jumped to the conclusion that Bullz had info because his vote post read very strongly to me as if he had info. Why else would he deliberately vote for such an odd reason? In his defense, he says he wouldn't be so obvious about it (but there's always wifom), and maybe he really did just have a bizarre inkling that made the option stick out to him as "notable."

Btw, are we still assuming that only the 3 original people were aware of the info? Do we not think that the baddie would have shared the info in btsc? Someone besides me brought this up, but then people kept talking about 1-in-3 chances.

Also, I think Dom is being his usual nitpicky self and nothing has pointed me to a particular alignment. I find him hard to read because his style in general always bugs me.

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.

The feud between Mac and Matt feels trivial and unproductive imo.

Hello everyone!

Choosing alternative.

I used to be a hardcore Muse fan but I really don't like their newest two albums.