The Syndicate

Bump for more stories

Long Con wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Was the info on E6 left by Quantum Key (Draconus)?

Which info do you mean?

Oops. I had confused my squares and didn't realize E6 was the Realm Catalogue.

Carry on with these lovely stories

Was the info on E6 left by Quantum Key (Draconus)?

DrWilgy wrote:I had fun. I think I was more curious about the world more so than anything else. I went to I7 twice just to see if others were as interested as I

I forgot to ask this earlier. Were you aware that you could have saved yourself from being lynched taking yourself off the poll at any point?

I agree. Very well played by Sorsha!

Matt wrote:So Typh was bad then?

I remember at one point I ran into a square with Typh, and very nearly revealed myself because I was all alone

Kinda glad I decided not to. Haha!

I'm assuming this was Day 6, I was at B4.

Good decision to not reveal yourself. You would have very likely died

nub Timmer

Who set off that damn Black Crystal?

Turnip Head wrote:And whose idea was it to poison me on Night 1? That wasn't very nice. I walked around for an entire fucking month with that ailment.

We wanted to poison a player that was likely to make it far into the game and would be hard to lynch under normal circumstances. So, you. :P

S~V~S wrote:
Dom, LC wasn't manipulating the night polls

To add to this, we (ie the rest of the Cabal) were not even aware SVS had this power. LC told her not to tell us in fear of us breaking the game and she actually managed to not even hint at it. We had no idea.

SVS left it there on Day 1 if I remember correctly.

Aw we got so close in the end. Our team had quite a lot of bad luck, and then Nub Tranq loses a cointoss and gets himself lynched

Congrats Circle!

a2thezebra wrote:Rezz plz

No rezz me plz

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Good job not getting juliets lynched Mac.

What?

Good job not getting juliets lynched Mac.

I'm sorry I didn't realise I voted for myself and not for juliets.

You seem happy about it?

You don't seem like the kind of person that I would need to explain sarcasm to.

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Good job not getting juliets lynched Mac.

What?

Good job not getting juliets lynched Mac.

Good job not getting juliets lynched Mac.

Voted juliets as well.

I don't think Golden's case against Timmer is strong. So Timmer was in the vicinity of two kills. Ok.

I don't really like Timmer's responses, especially when it comes to the item thingy, because he himself very much implies he had something to do with it. But that seems to be pertaining the Epi kill, which seems to have happened toDay, not last Night. It's not enough to make me vote for him.

HamburgerBoy wrote: Where did I mention my own role? Not sure where you're going with that.

Typhoony wrote: No, I think you tried to come into the thread seeing an easy way to score some civ cred but overplayed your hand. I think you are or are on the team of Scrippleskitz and made the classical mistake of mentioning your own role as a way to distance yourself from it.

HamburgerBoy wrote: "You started that counter-wagon though, and had a very thorough defense for her." + "or lynch Typhoony in her stead if she's Scrippleskitz and going to be difficult to lynch" = reasons for lynching you first

"I agree that Scripple becomes inherently harder to lynch as the game goes on, but not impossibly so." = reasons why it's not an absolute priority to lynch her day 6, IF people create another narrow counter-wagon

Note that I said I want to lynch her first, but you in the event the lynch is close again.

You never said the underlined.

You said

If there are no issues ensuring a juliets lynch day 6, however, I'll prioritize that over you.

After which I asked "What kind of issues would make you push for me instead of juliets?"
To which you just answered with this color.

These are not "issues that would make you push for me instead of juliets", nor are they issues that could prevent an ensured juliets lynch. They could be seen as reasons for lynching me first, and yes, I did vote Canuck first, but I never explicitly mentioned that until TH asked about it, nor did I push for Canuck to be lynched. I was more than busy enough with juliets.

When I asked "If you think she could be Scrippleskiz, would you not agree that it makes even more sense to push for her now?" You answered with this color, which is not an answer to the question. If you think she could be Scrippleskitz as you initially mentioned, you push hard for her to get her out of the game now. You're the only one trying to create another counter-wagon right now.

No, I think you tried to come into the thread seeing an easy way to score some civ cred but overplayed your hand. I think you are or are on the team of Scrippleskitz and made the classical mistake of mentioning your own role as a way to distance yourself from it.

Anyway, you "answered" my questions, so I guess I'll answer yours.
I am down for a juliets lynch. Do I think she is bad? Gun to my head, no, but her recent posts haven't helped her imo. Do I think Hboy should be lynched tomorrow? No, I think juliets should be lynched.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I'd like for you to answer my first two questions please. I will then answer your question.

I agree that Scripple becomes inherently harder to lynch as the game goes on, but not impossibly so. The train against Canuck seemed to be more of a counter-train in favor of juliets to me, and some of the attacks on Canuck I saw could just as easily have been applied to juliets (like Canuck having not post history with Luke until day 4). That isn't to say everyone on that train is a scumspect; I liked golden's reasoning for favoring a narrow lynch and it netted us another third-party regardless, so I don't think it reflects badly on him. I think other players might be defending her just because she had been posting more than Canuck. You started that counter-wagon though, and had a very thorough defense for her. I'll admit that I actually agreed with you reasoning for most of the preceding days, and thought you looked fairly townie up until then.

My questions were

Typhoony wrote:What kind of issues would make you push for me instead of juliets?
If you think she could be Scrippleskiz, would you not agree that it makes even more sense to push for her now?

I have no idea what questions you just answered.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Typhoony wrote: What kind of issues would make you push for me instead of juliets? If you think she could be Scrippleskiz, would you not agree that it makes even more sense to push for her now?
Why do you think I would flip Witherdeath and not Circle of Decay?

Hosts: How are ties in this game handled? Will all ties be handled like the tie we had yesterday?

You're down for a juliets lynch now then? Because if so I'm fine with that.

My case on juliets is largely dependent on her being a scummate of Luke, and therefore Witherdeath.

I'd like for you to answer my first two questions please. I will then answer your question.

HamburgerBoy wrote: I'd be advocating lynching you first because I'm very confident that juliets is scum, and because I think your defense of her implicates you to the point that I think you are probably scum as well. If you flip Witherdeath, it will be hopefully much easier to push the lynch on juliets. If there are no issues ensuring a juliets lynch day 6, however, I'll prioritize that over you.

What kind of issues would make you push for me instead of juliets? If you think she could be Scrippleskiz, would you not agree that it makes even more sense to push for her now?
Why do you think I would flip Witherdeath and not Circle of Decay?

Hosts: How are ties in this game handled? Will all ties be handled like the tie we had yesterday?

Golden wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I am sure you realize that the role of Scrippleskitz becomes more powerful as the game goes on. If you genuinely think that there is a chance that juliets is that role, you would advocate lynching her immediately and you would suggest everyone vote her. You would not advocate lynching someone else in her stead.

What?

All I realise is that it starts every lynch with -3 votes. Where did you get that 'it gets more powerful as the game goes on' from?

That's exactly what I mean Golden.
Scrippleskitz in Endgame is a very powerful role. Scrippleskitz in the beginning of the game is almost just like any other role.

HamburgerBoy wrote:Good thing we got what sounds like a dangerous indie, but I still think juliets is scum and that we should press that lynch harder, or lynch Typhoony in her stead if she's Scrippleskitz and going to be difficult to lynch for the rest of the game.

Your post does not make sense.

- You want to lynch me on the assumption that juliets is bad. That alone is a flawed idea, as I am sure I don't need to explain to you.
- You do not want to lynch juliets because she might be Scrippleskitz and lynching her might be difficult "for the rest of the game".
I am sure you realize that the role of Scrippleskitz becomes more powerful as the game goes on. If you genuinely think that there is a chance that juliets is that role, you would advocate lynching her immediately and you would suggest everyone vote her. You would not advocate lynching someone else in her stead.

Fail.

TheFloyd73 wrote:Voting for Juliet's because I frankly can't be bothered reading through.

Wow.

She has not been on irc either, fwiw.

Thank you for at least taking the time to read through them, TH.

MacDougall wrote:There you go kids two scum confirmed.

MacDougall wrote:I am going to start night killing my own teammates if this game doesn't get less boring.

Turnip Head wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I would actually urge everyone who is still waffling to read juliets' post in the Champions game, because they are genuinely different from her posts in this game.

link to her posts in the Champions game

If I wanted your opinion about juliets, I would have asked.

You should actually read her posts in the Champions game and see if you consider them the same.

Then, I will be the one to ask you about YOUR opinion on juliets

I would actually urge everyone who is still waffling to read juliets' post in the Champions game, because they are genuinely different from her posts in this game.

link to her posts in the Champions game

I agree. Let that be a lesson!

It actually makes quite a lot of sense TH.

What you underlined was in the middle of your post, worded as an observation in a post that was only observations.

If you wanted me to let you know where I stand on juliets, you should've asked.

Turnip Head wrote:

Typhoony wrote:You then say this:

nub wrote:There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.

These are observations. There is no accusation. There is no question. Hell, later on you even say that your opinion of me is reliant upon juliets.

Which points (plural, please. You said points, give me multiple things) in your case against me would you like me to respond to TH? Come on, let's have some fun here.

The underlined is specifically what I wanted you to comment on. Which you have just now done.

That's not a point raised against me.

Turnip Head wrote:Speaking of completely ignoring the points raised against you...

Typhoony wrote:There is a case on me? All I see is a bunch of my posts quoted with a "You're weirding me out".

Your "case" was serious?

For reference, here is his case.
You quote 5 posts where I talk about juliets (2 of which were spurred on because you asked me to talk about her, 2 of which were because I wanted to look indepth at juliets, as I've done with Bubbles and nutella before).

You then say this:

nub wrote:There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.

These are observations. There is no accusation. There is no question. Hell, later on you even say that your opinion of me is reliant upon juliets.

Which points (plural, please. You said points, give me multiple things) in your case against me would you like me to respond to TH? Come on, let's have some fun here.

For the record, I will not vote juliets. I do not think she is bad. I looked at her posts in the Champions game epi linked. When she was put under pressure, never did she go into panic mode like she did in this game. She made multiple long winded catch-uppy like posts talking about everything that had been going on, and she didn't seem to go to that much trouble in this game.
I see a lazy juliets who asks a shitload of questions to blend in, I see a juliets who mixes things up, who is iffy and uncertain, a juliets who seems disinterested at times. If she had teammates I don't think she would be playing like this.

Turnip Head wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Why is Typh voting for Canuck? His post history reveals nothing. lol all his posts are about juliets

When I went to vote MarshMellow, I realized that I would rather not vote for someone that I don't remember receiving a vote yet. So I voted for Canuck, who did receive a vote yesterday and who did ping me as I said when I went over the case on Juliets. You even quoted the damn post.
Next time, please actually read my post history before claiming something is or is not in it.

Sorry, I was talking about your posts toDay, specifically looking for a post where you mentioned voting for her. It's why I asked.

Why would you rather not vote someone who doesn't have a vote?

If you had said "Why did Typh vote Canuck? I can only find a post where he said he voted MetalMarsh." or something that would have been more fair.
Your post makes it seem like I never even mentioned Canuck and that I never mentioned voting at all. Neither are true and for someone who claims to have looked through my post history, you should've known.

Tarnished Golem.

Sorsha wrote: I have ideas, yes. A couple people who I'll be keeping an eye on in regards to the Typh kill but nothing I can say solidly.
...
What do you think of the cases on Canuck by SVS and Typhoony by TH?

Nub.

There is a case on me? All I see is a bunch of my posts quoted with a "You're weirding me out".

Turnip Head wrote:Why is Typh voting for Canuck? His post history reveals nothing. lol all his posts are about juliets

When I went to vote MarshMellow, I realized that I would rather not vote for someone that I don't remember receiving a vote yet. So I voted for Canuck, who did receive a vote yesterday and who did ping me as I said when I went over the case on Juliets. You even quoted the damn post.
Next time, please actually read my post history before claiming something is or is not in it.

Epi, I see you were juliets' teammate in the Champions game in which she was bad. I don't have the time to go through all her posts in that game atm, I'll do that tomorrow.

Is she acting the same in this game as she was in this game? And if so, how does that differentiate from her civvie game?

nub juliets

No "thanks" for you Canuck.

Epignosis wrote:

Typhoony wrote: Does anyone have a link to a game where Juliets was bad? Thank you

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... f=42&t=280

Thanks Epi.

I'm gonna try and see if I can understand the case against juliets, cause I don't right now. (With some linki's now, for your pleasure. )
As always ,let me know if I missed something or if you disagree with how I said something.

It started with Epi's post where he said that comparing sigs sincerity to LCs was disingenuous. When Juliets asks why, Epi responds that " judging sig based on facts you didn't name because you got burned by Long Con stinks."
Juliets responds by saying she doesn't know anything about Sig and that sincerity does not equal civvieness. To which Epi responds that sig cannot sound sincere.
To conlude this saga:
Later Epi lists juliets as his suspect, when Juliets asks why, Epig responds.
He thinks that juliets' vote for sig is disingenuous. He expects a civ juliets to engage sig directly with questions instead of talk about him.

My opinion:
- I do not see a problem here. Juliets does not know sig => How would she know if he is able to sound genuine?
- Her posts read a bit like she is in panic mode to me. Last game I remember juliets being bad was Recruitment ... 2? When she was Erlatz. I don't remember her posting like she was in panic mode then, but truth be told, I don't remember how she was posting then at all. Does anyone have a link to a game where Juliets was bad? Thank you

-------------------------------------------------------

TH has a post where he points out that juliets got lynched (or almost) for similar reasons as sig did here.
She responds by saying that she acknowledges the case is not that good, but that it is the best one out there for peeps in group 1.

My opinion:
She voted for a shitcase... As you have probably many times TH. We already talked about this a bit but I don't see what would make her bad here? What would be her baddie reason to vote for a shitcase?

-------------------------------------------------------

Canuck made a post where she says juliets makes a concerted effort to misunderstand/ignore othe people's posts. Juliets says she has no idea what Canuck is talking about basically.

My opinion:
I have no idea what Canuck means either. I think Juliets has responded to everything people have thrown at her (hell, too eager and flimsy at times, ie panic mode). Combine that with the fact that Canuck ignores juliets post where juliets ask which posts she ignored, a point made by Canuck, is lolworthy and makes Canuck look worse than juliets imo.

----------------------------------------------------
Back to Epignosis:
His post this time is about juliets D1 vote for Banana. He does not believe a civ juliets would leave a pressure vote on low hanging fruit like Banana.
Juliets responds by saying she made more posts about Banana and that she left her vote there because Banana did not respond and she continued to be suspicious

My opinion:
Seems meta based, and I don't think this is uncivvie like for juliets. A link to a baddie game for juliets would help though

----------------------------------------------------

And last but not least, HamburgerBoys post about juliets. He says that:
- Juliets was the last one on the Luke train and this is a really bad look.
- She was pressured by Epi to change her vote from Luke to nutella.

My opinion:
Ok?
- How does this make her look bad Hboy? Juliets was indeed the last one on the Luke train, she had also said multiple times that she was away and wouldn't know for sure when she would be back.
- She already said her vote for Luke was provisional.

------------------------------

Overall:
What exactly in this is baddie behavior for juliets?
Her behavior overal has been iffy, asking lots of questions, changing opinions a lot, but is that baddie behavior? More specifically, is it baddie behavior for juliets?

Linki:

Here you go, MarshMellow. Enjoy.
Provisional vote on your spiky ass as well.

Also where the fuck is MetalMarsh?

Dude hasn't posted in days, still manages to be in the top half of posters yet I can't remember anything he has posted except for checking if polls has changeable votes like almost every day.

DrWilgy wrote:

Typhoony wrote:No ofcourse.
No good reason to vote yes imo.

You're missing an eye bro.

Here, have another one

No ofcourse.
No good reason to vote yes imo.