The Syndicate

Wilgy!

You looked at your role PM before the game started, didn't you?

That's what I picture.

I went hamish in the end too there, Epi. Golden, when I PMed you, what were your perceptions of the game?

Scotty wrote:I voted for LC in the LC-Mac lynch for the main reason that I didn't want to thin out the pirates too early, though Snow Dog saved him. Then blocked me one of the next nights so I couldn't kill vomps like i was supposed to. LC, I still owe you a drink as promised.

So... so you didn't think I was bad? You scum, you had me all worked up!

Snow Dog! You're the man, thank you for knowing when you are reading the truth. Thank you for believing in me enough to save my life... if I had died and Mac had survived that lynch, this game would surely belong to the Pirates. Also, great work in voting Scotty in that lynch... I followed your vote, but Scotty later convinced me that he wasn't bad, and I was regretting the early vote a great deal. All in all, if the Civs had won the game, I would vote you for MVP, because your mid-to-late-game actions were that damn good.

motel room:

motel room wrote:Mighty fine distancing, mighty fahhhn

You were right. Mac and zebra were using a manufactured fight to convince everyone they were not teammates. The unfunny thing is, even after Mac was lynched as a baddie, no one even needed to bring up the Distancing Dispute between them as any sort of proof that zebra wasn't a Pirate - zebra had that going for her through sheer charm and charisma. Great instincts, motel room, you are one smart cookie!

Wilgy: I can't believe you grogged Snow Dog. His Civvieness was airtight! I think you were too deep into The Perfect WIFOM to see.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:@Long Con, I was actually beginning to back off of you and reverse my stance on you when I died. Unfortunately, I didn't get the chance to say as much.

Well, there was never any good reason to suspect me, so maybe next time...

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I was going to give Long Con the shovel, but I was killed the same night.

Fuck, I would have won the game for the Civvies with that shovel. Despite certain Civs being determined to lose it for us.

Golden wrote:I was pretty sure LC wasn't cannibal, because I knew they had killed me and I was the only person on LC's side on day one.

You could be 100% damn sure I wasn't a Cannibal, because there's no way in hell I would kill you on Night 1 of your return game. I said as much in the game, but a lot of players had bananas stuffed in their ears or something.

Here's how I felt for most of the game, especially the latter half (when I was actually participating more):

Epignosis wrote:Got Black Rock and nijuukyugou. Another game where I go hamish and still lose.

What does "go hamish" mean?

Here's my false Lookout info I received, maybe Llama can comment on them:

Night 1 wrote:With your eagle eyes, you can see that the Head of the Navigator still has his protective necklace. What a relief!

Night 2 wrote:Last night, you saw Otis the thief steal something important.

Night 3 wrote:You see that the role blocker has missed at least one night action.

Night 4 wrote:Guybrush will find at least one of his crew members before the end of the game.

Night 5 wrote:None of the bad guys forgot to send in their PM last night.

Night 6 wrote:The Pirates have been eliminated.

Great job, Scotty, you played really well, you deserve this win!

Vompatti, I think this message is for you:

a2thezebra wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Try harder.

DrWilgy wrote:You had bananas for yourself earlier but no shenanigans now? If the game is over don't leave me in suspense.

Are you talking to me? I never had a single banana, grog, or piece of eight. I had no items at all. I won no contests, either. I bet someone won bananas for one of those contests.

I'm not leaving anyone in any suspense, Wilgy. If I die, you'll see I'm Civ, and I hope you have a good plan for tomorrow.

DrWilgy wrote:Sorry today was a bitch. Voting Scotty. Gave him a chance.

Snow Dog was grog'd so there goes that opportunity to redeem yourself in my eyes Scotty.

Thank you for giving me a chance, Wilgy. That's really cool of you. I really do think that lynching Snow Dog would have in no way lessened the negative impact on the Civs.

And Scotty, if you are Civ, I'm really sorry. I shouldn't have voted so early, I just reasoned that I should go along with Snow Dog to actively try to avoid splitting the vote. Good luck!

If I get a dying wish, it's that someone, anyone still alive in the game would please start reading zebra's posts, and recognize that they are ridiculous and untrue. Like this one:

a2thezebra wrote:Look at Wilgy's posts and Long Con's posts today...that's co-ordination right there.

She doesn't even have to try and back it up with anything with you guys. You just nod your heads and accept it.

Long Con wrote:LOL, what a joke. Well played, baddies.

Well, I did my best. I hope some of you learn from this. Sorry I let you down, Civs, I really tried.

Can't wait to see what happens. Even Wilgy's plan for him and Scotty to vote Snow Dog doesn't make sense to me. Why does he want a three-way tie? Does he have bananas or grog? Why Snow Dog?

a2thezebra wrote:

Long Con wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Whenever I read Wilgy as bad and proclaim it, he always gets on my case immediately and doesn't stop bothering me about it until one of us is dead.

Prove it.

Sure, just remind me which games I read Wilgy as bad and proclaimed it.

For all the rest of us know, there are none. Cool story though, br-- ...sis.

a2thezebra wrote:Whenever I read Wilgy as bad and proclaim it, he always gets on my case immediately and doesn't stop bothering me about it until one of us is dead.

Prove it.

DrWilgy wrote:And that's exactly why it makes sense.

You're failing to see that there are other, more sensible and sure ways that Snow Dog could have secured the win for himself if he were bad. The way things played out just make no sense if he were bad, and that includes this fucking bizarre WIFOM that you apparently believe in. Why can't you see that Wilgy??

DrWilgy wrote:So here's the thing. I'm 98% sure that there are shenanigans in play. A tie will result in better things for baddies than civvies.

Scotty if you trust me, vote Snow Dog. Otherwise you will die.

Snow Dog?? Wilgy, you so crazy. If it's not going to be a tie, as you seem to think, then why not push the lynch in a better direction than Snow Dog? How can Snow Dog be bad? You think he's bad and I'm not, now? WTF? Believing I'm not bad is largely a matter of trust, and seeing that my posts are honest. Snow Dog's bananigans point to him being Civ so conclusively... why, Wilgy? *tears out hair*

DrWilgy wrote:

Long Con wrote:There's no situation that I can see here where Snow Dog could be bad. And if I didn't already think you were Civ, Wilgy, that last post is, in the parlance of our times, 'Civ as fuck'.

If Scotty is actually good, and there are two baddies left, then it's Vompatti and zebra. If there's one baddie left, then it's most likely zebra, and Vompatti just casually made a foolish mistake that could cost the Civs the game.

If that's the case, and it's by far the most likely scenario, then the best thing I can see to do is put the final two votes on zebra and cross our fingers.

LC if Scotty is good, what prevented Zebra and Vomps voting him if they are bad?

I don't know... zebra gave the completely arbitrary "60% sure Scotty, 95% sure Long Con" line, so she claims to think we're both bad. I'd say that she wants to get rid of me a lot more because she's the reddest player on my rainbow list. She didn't want to just lynch Scotty and have to deal with me coming after her tomorrow.

Vompatti just did what zebra said. I have no idea why, she hasn't said anything that makes an ounce of sense for a while, and I feel like the only sane person in the asylum because the rest of you are just acting like it's totally normal.

There's no situation that I can see here where Snow Dog could be bad. And if I didn't already think you were Civ, Wilgy, that last post is, in the parlance of our times, 'Civ as fuck'.

If Scotty is actually good, and there are two baddies left, then it's Vompatti and zebra. If there's one baddie left, then it's most likely zebra, and Vompatti just casually made a foolish mistake that could cost the Civs the game.

If that's the case, and it's by far the most likely scenario, then the best thing I can see to do is put the final two votes on zebra and cross our fingers.

Maybe it would be helpful if you explained what you did mean then?

Wilgy and Scotty, I'm asking you two to vote for a2thezebra. There's significant evidence that she's bad and no remotely decent case against Long Con.

LOL, what a joke. Well played, baddies.

Scotty wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Scotty wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Yay! Baddies win!

3 votes placed on 2 civs

Wtf are you talking about.

DrWilgy wrote:I'm just waitin for another vote and a half LC. No worries.

Guys Wilgy just claimed baddie and no one is calling out his shit.

Vomps, I want you and I to vote him and someone throw some grog on me. He played his cards too early

"Vote and a half", I don't get that Civ or bad. What does he mean?

I thought "baddies win" was a sarcastically celebratory way to say "stop voting Civs or the baddies will win"... this is just weird. Is it too late? Is it over?

I take it as:
"I am bad and have a banana and so it doesn't matter if you vote me because I will only have 1 vote max"

...unless someone can throw all their shit at Wilgy it sure sounds like he's gonna walk off with this one. I haven't voted yet because I want to make sure vomps is on board. It's either we throw our last votes on Wilgy or I put it on LC to tie it with me and hope you're bad LC. I don't know who Wilgy's partner is, if he has one.

Ok, so say LC gets lynched, and is a Civ, and Wilgy kills someone tonight. Wouldn't he still get lynched tomorrow?

Wouldn't revealing his baddieness at this point lose him the game?

If he has one partner, and we don't lynch them today... then it's three against two next lynch. Assuming only one baddie team left. Then he needs a banana, and can win that lynch. Then they kill, and own a two-to-one lynch. I didn't think that's where the game was.

Probably best to let it run the extra 24 hours, I think. At this point in the game, we need everyone's vote.

Scotty wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Yay! Baddies win!

3 votes placed on 2 civs

Wtf are you talking about.

DrWilgy wrote:I'm just waitin for another vote and a half LC. No worries.

Guys Wilgy just claimed baddie and no one is calling out his shit.

Vomps, I want you and I to vote him and someone throw some grog on me. He played his cards too early

"Vote and a half", I don't get that Civ or bad. What does he mean?

I thought "baddies win" was a sarcastically celebratory way to say "stop voting Civs or the baddies will win"... this is just weird. Is it too late? Is it over?

a2thezebra wrote:I just want MORE clarity, LC.

You're not even trying to make sense or make a real point. I'm just going along with it to let you show everyone else reading this your true colours.

And just as a fun exercise, here's your post with the OTHER half of that sentence inserted:

Long Con wrote: I don't understand what you mean.

Long Con wrote:I'm asking you for MORE clarity

Long Con wrote: I don't understand what you mean.

Long Con wrote:I'm asking you for MORE clarity

Long Con wrote: I don't understand what you mean.

Long Con wrote:I'm asking you for MORE clarity

Long Con wrote: I don't understand what you mean.

That is a good example of taking things in a vacuum. You deliberately sucked out all the context in order to make that completely meaningless post.

a2thezebra wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Golden wrote:Oh, sorry, you probably call that a Hoover.

I call it a vacuum. Who calls it a Hoover? That's just a brand of vacuum. We have central vac in our house, and it rocks my world.

a2thezebra wrote:Nothing has value in a vacuum.

What vacuum? What kind of information would I have to introduce in order to make voting records have value? I did analyze them with game-related information. As in, the timing of their votes, and how much they mattered / were influential to the baddie getting lynched. I don't understand what logic you're using to just disregard voting records. Tell me what it would take to make voting records a more valid source of information to you!

a2thezebra wrote:Stop going out of your way to miss the point.

I don't understand what you mean. There is no deliberate misunderstanding or deception in a single thing I have said to you.

Using any one element of the game to justify reads while excluding other elements goes directly against town's interests. I don't know how many times in how many different ways I have to say this for you to stop pretending that you don't get it.

Uhhh, how does this sentence not indicate that I get it, and I'm asking you for MORE clarity...

Long Con wrote:What kind of information would I have to introduce in order to make voting records have value? I did analyze them with game-related information. As in, the timing of their votes, and how much they mattered / were influential to the baddie getting lynched. I don't understand what logic you're using to just disregard voting records. Tell me what it would take to make voting records a more valid source of information to you!

...not the same level of clarity. MORE clarity. I have been sufficiently clear with what I mean by that, you just have to read all the words.

Golden wrote:Oh, sorry, you probably call that a Hoover.

I call it a vacuum. Who calls it a Hoover? That's just a brand of vacuum. We have central vac in our house, and it rocks my world.

a2thezebra wrote:Nothing has value in a vacuum.

What vacuum? What kind of information would I have to introduce in order to make voting records have value? I did analyze them with game-related information. As in, the timing of their votes, and how much they mattered / were influential to the baddie getting lynched. I don't understand what logic you're using to just disregard voting records. Tell me what it would take to make voting records a more valid source of information to you!

a2thezebra wrote:Stop going out of your way to miss the point.

I don't understand what you mean. There is no deliberate misunderstanding or deception in a single thing I have said to you.

a2thezebra wrote:

Long Con wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Based on Day 7 posts and nothing else whatsoever (see what I did there?) I give Scotty a 60% chance of being bad and Long Con a 95% chance.

*votes Long Con*

Not a surprise.

When Wilgy and Vompatti both have voted for baddies from both teams, when those votes mattered... that is a relevant thing. All the creative arguments in the world can't take away from that. Sure, a baddie can backstab his teammate, but it's far more likely that those two were not teammates of the baddies they helped lynch. I'm not fucking majoring in creative writing here. Right?

I don't know, are you? I didn't mention Wilgy or Vompatti in the post you're quoting so I don't get the point you're making.

Ok, I will clarify the point further.

You called my voting analysis trash, and proceeded to have a tirade (is that fair?) about how looking at any factor in isolation was worthless. I just want you to acknowledge that that analysis of Wilgy's and Vompatti's voting records has some undeniable value when considering whether or not they're bad, which, I understand, would be in direct contradiction to your earlier "tirade".

DrWilgy wrote:Yay! Baddies win!

3 votes placed on 2 civs

It's not too late to change that, if that's what you believe.

Do you agree that zebra is likely a baddie then? Or do you believe that Snow Dog and I are teammates? Because if you still think that, I'm sure that an analysis of game interactions and such would only point to the truth: that he's just a Civ that believed another guy was Civ. And if you can just see what he saw in my posts... Wilgy, I am Civ. Even if you don't think I am Civ, I just don't see how Snow Dog's banana usage makes sense if he's a baddie. Either save me (his baddie teammate) without telling everyone, so that a later lynch of me doesn't incriminate him... Or if he's a baddie saving a Civ..like what?? In what universe does it make sense for a baddie to save a Civ, using up the ability to save themselves?? It's not like I was Mr 100% Trusted Civ that a baddie would seek to attach themselves to. It just absolutely doesn't make sense to me for Snow to be bad.

Also, I'm not either.

a2thezebra wrote:Based on Day 7 posts and nothing else whatsoever (see what I did there?) I give Scotty a 60% chance of being bad and Long Con a 95% chance.

*votes Long Con*

Not a surprise.

When Wilgy and Vompatti both have voted for baddies from both teams, when those votes mattered... that is a relevant thing. All the creative arguments in the world can't take away from that. Sure, a baddie can backstab his teammate, but it's far more likely that those two were not teammates of the baddies they helped lynch. I'm not fucking majoring in creative writing here. Right?

Scotty wrote: And on which team?

Oh, and Cannibals is most likely.

I have been thinking there is 1 from each team left, but maybe one team was completely taken out by night kills. Then I would believe there is only 1 baddie left, and if you're not it, Scotty, then I believe it's zebra. Or Wilgy or Vomp did some really convincing team backstabbing on the polls. I'm Civ and I believe Snow is as well.

Go ahead and vote for me, if we are in lylo then the Civil will lose. If Wilgy and Vomp don't want to lynch Scotty, then I believe the best course of action would be to vote for zebra. I don't think Snow Dog would have saved me if he were bad, and he didn't make a mistake saving me.

I'm getting a Lylo and going to the pool.

DrWilgy wrote:Subject matter is different, but you called Item Shenanigans interacting with your potential death before it happened.

Oh ok. Well, I read the initial posts in the game, and I was aware that these items existed, and that people probably had some in their possession, and that they would be used when it was a very close lynch. I feared my detractors would have them, and skew the lynch against me, but I was fortunate that it was the other way around.

DrWilgy wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:@LC yes

@Snow Dog where'd you get those bananers?

Ok I'm not sure I am allowed to answer that.

In this case, I'm to assume that you are Stan, Toothrot or a cannibal with Toothrot's Banana picker.

Makes no sense for me to be a cannibal. Why would I save LC?

He's your teammate.

No, Wilgy. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, dude.

DrWilgy wrote:Which is a fine thing to think, but I disagree.

@LC how did you know about this situation before it happened?

Long Con wrote:

Soneji wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I want to lynch Long Con, and our only chance today is if DrWilgy joins me in forcing a tie (and someone has a wonderful item to use).

But I don't like ties either. This lynch is the worst.

I would like to join you but I don't trust Scotty ;__;

Do I vote Snow Dog, Ji-San or Scotty?

It doesn't matter much. If you're not voting Long Con then the lynch is set in stone on myself.

Not so set in stone. Maybe someone will use bananas and/or grog and make me get lynched.

I would totally get revenge on that person.

But I'm not referencing any situations before they happened, because that situation didn't happen. No one used bananas and/or grog to get me lynched.

DrWilgy wrote:@LC yes

The net result is the exact same, so this is 100% about mindset, right? I think maybe we think differently. I don't see grog as a gun and banana as a first aid kit. I see them both as an item that alters the lynch by one vote... I don't have a different mindset toward a positive or negative number.

If a lynch is within one vote of an alternate result, or tied, then the item can alter the lynch as I choose.

If a lynch is two or more votes away from an alternate result, then my item cannot alter the lynch, and is useless during this lynch.

You can sub in grog or banana for the item, or you could introduce a third item, guacamole, that can either add OR subtract a vote from someone... and to me, they're all the same item.

DrWilgy wrote:

Long Con wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:There's a reason why I don't trust Snow Dog.

Bananas are more valuable to baddies than civvies.

Snow Dog. Why bananas over grog? Why not grog someone twice instead of banana lc twice?

Doesn't that have the same net result? Remove votes from one dude, or put votes on the other dude.

Nope, it's a survivalist vs activist mindset. A baddie normally takes measures to save themself rather lynch others.

Bananas are more valuable than that to a baddie because they know who to trust and who to save when shit goes bad.

Now I ask, would a civ get bananas and save them for themself or would a civ get grog and nuke who they found suspect?

If I got bananas or grog, I would use them to save myself, generally. Nuking a suspect might happen if I was really sure about it, but otherwise survival is imperative. I would use them at a point where I was in danger of being lynched, to alter the lynch so the other guy gets it. Bananas or grog do the same job in that, the most likely usage situation.

Snow Dog used his for someone else, which was a risk. But it's the same risk whether it's bananas or grog, because you'r using your instincts, your detective work, voting analysis, or whatever else you use to decide who is good and who is bad... and you could be wrong. Saving someone else with bananas, or condemning someone else with grog, it's the exact same risk if you're not 100% sure about the other guy. You could banana a villain, and you could grog a Civ.

If Snow Dog had had two grogs in his possession, and used them both on Mac, would that make you view the situation differently?

DrWilgy wrote:There's a reason why I don't trust Snow Dog.

Bananas are more valuable to baddies than civvies.

Snow Dog. Why bananas over grog? Why not grog someone twice instead of banana lc twice?

Doesn't that have the same net result? Remove votes from one dude, or put votes on the other dude.

Vompatti wrote:That's a strange reason when you're only the second to vote and there's still around 40 hours left for someone else to split the vote.

Not really. There's six voters, probably one or two of them are bad. And there's bananas/grog in play. If I voted zebra...

That's all the explaining I'm doing, Vompatti. I shouldn't have even needed to say that, what's your deal anyway?

Ok zebra. I'll try harder tomorrow.

In the interest of not splitting the vote, I'll go along with Snow Dog's judgement and vote for Scotty today.

*votes Scotty*

a2thezebra wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Zebra can you comment on LC's vote analysis?

Trash.

Well, the facts about who voted for who are not trash, they are facts. So if my analysis was trash, then why don't you use those facts to show us what a proper analysis looks like. Take your time, we seem to have until Friday.

DrWilgy wrote:Assuming game rules are followed, I'm to assume what snow dog said is a lie and should vote both him and you.

If game rules are followed, and talking about banana usage is prohibited, then I imagine Snow Dog will be modkilled. I hope that's not the case, he didn't use an information role and blab it or anything like that. Either way, I don't think that you need to be so hasty as to include a vote for me in the vigilante consequences you're planning!

I'll be playing the exact same way as I would have before the banana "revelation", and I think you should do the same. It's nothing that a reread of Snow Dog's posts prior to that didn't strongly point to anyway - that's why I believed he was the banana-er. What did he say before the lynch, "Hope is not lost, LC" or something like that?

Who do you think we should vote for today, Wilgy?

Snow Dog wrote:What the hell I'll tell you know. I chucked two bananas on you to reduce your lynch vote by two.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!

Dude... you just couldn't keep it in, could you? You are too hilarious. I'm still physically laughing over here.

I thought that it was probably you. When I said "that's not exactly my most vote-influencing thought about you", that is what I was referring to. I just didn't want to put a target on your back, so I acted like I saved myself. I have/had no bananas, grog, or anything.

Anyway... thanks for the bananas, Snow Dog. I swear to you that you will not regret it when this game ends and all is revealed, because I am Civ.

Snow Dog wrote:I'm a bit hurt I am so high on your voting list after all my efforts to save you.

You really shouldn't feel that way. The only people above you are Wilgy and Vompatti... and they both earned their spots with tangible voting records. Who they voted for, AND the timing of those votes, are really big indicators to me. Baddies can vote for their teammates, but both these guys cast their votes for the doomed baddie when it mattered most.

I don't think it would be sensible of me to just assume you're Civ just because you (kind of?) trust me now. You could easily be a baddie who is saying all the right things to make me like you, and it's not really reassuring to me that you brought it up like that. Was that your plan, to be not so "high on my voting list" due to your "efforts to save me"? I haven't forgotten that you cast a killer vote against me last lynch, and then changed your mind after the vote was locked in. Think about that. If I had been lynched, then you'd be all "I trusted him in the end and hoped he'd be saved!" when all the while you held a good share of the responsibility for my death.

I don't want to think that way. That's not exactly my most vote-influencing thought about you, but it's in there. So, don't be hurt about your place on my voting list - as I'm sure you now see, it's far from the worst place you could be, and it's not an unfair placement.