The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'm making a drive-by vote again tomorrow.

Hello, MM! You know, I should do this too, because why not?

a2thezebra wrote:TH, that is.

sprityo wrote:Almost missed it again

I'm here and ready to panic

a2thezebra wrote:I love you MM.

sig wrote:Wait I'm not saying we should lynch them all? I'm saying if they get lynched fine, but they aren't pro town.

MacDougall wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Bubbles wrote:soo i looked over matt's posts since he is the most voted right now, and i don't see it, don't think he is bad. suspicious of people who voted for him, gonna throw my own vote in for nero

Welcome to the thread, Bubbles.

This post and vote is shady as hell.

Bubbles in Star Wars played exactly like this, was civ and was mislynched late game in a really really bad position.

a2thezebra wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I am shocked that people are choosing to vote for Nerolunar - a player who none of us are very familiar with - over sig, who is clearly demonstrating his baddie meta moreso than his civ meta, and who has openly advocated what the host has said is not in our best interest, even voicing suspecion (and because of this, pressured) of those who didn't follow his lead. I don't see how anything Nerolunar has done tops this, especially since we are unfamiliar with his meta.

You and Golden should chat. Apparently he sees obvious civ sig, while you claim to see obvious baddie sig.

What do you see?

a2thezebra wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Only had 300 posts left to catch up on, big post and everything half written too

Reminds me of that time when some asshole nightkilled me in Star Wars when I was three-quarters finished with an ISO of everyone's interactions with a single player.

Hey this was me not Wilgy. I even asked to apologize to you as a private message but I wasn't allowed to since it was possible you would replace back in the game.

Oh I know! I actually forgot that Wilgy was on your team. That wasn't directed at him.

But since the player I was ISO'ing didn't know his baddie partners anyway, my ISO might not have mattered much.

a2thezebra wrote:I am shocked that people are choosing to vote for Nerolunar - a player who none of us are very familiar with - over sig, who is clearly demonstrating his baddie meta moreso than his civ meta, and who has openly advocated what the host has said is not in our best interest, even voicing suspecion (and because of this, pressured) of those who didn't follow his lead. I don't see how anything Nerolunar has done tops this, especially since we are unfamiliar with his meta.

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:FYI being made "insane" in Mafia role land, is having your targeting ability messed with...

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Sanities

Not to mention having a role in the game that amounts to "if you are targeted the player who targets you advertises it to the thread via posting like a retard" and that role being anti-town is a joke.

It's been said already, but that's not the usage of the term in this mafia realm. In 8 years of playing on this and its mafia-cousin-sites, I have never heard the term used that way. So, while it is possible that they switched things up in order to screw with us, I don't think it's likely that they would make a role description mean something totally different from what the vast majority of players understand it to mean.

That said, you raise a good point with it not making sense for it to be so obvious. Same reason that I speculated that perhaps the joker's role secrets include the ability to insanify. Or, as you point out, the possibility that there is a failsafe for the person who targeted the joker naming their target.

Also, I respectfully request that you not use the word retard or retarded--it is offensive.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I'm sorry I didn't give you credit for that, Mac, in my defense I've hardly read the thread, as you would know if you've been reading my posts.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Okay, so regarding the d1 no lynch, I don't understand why so many people are upset. I know it sucks not to have a result, but chances are most likely that a civilian would have been lynched (mathematically). Furthermore, I don't understand why people are eliminating or leaning against Robin having stopped the d1 lynch. If I remember correctly, that's the only public reason the lynch would be stopped based on the role listing. Why wouldn't Robin stop it, especially if it gave him information on that insanely close vote tally?

DrWilgy wrote:Only had 300 posts left to catch up on, big post and everything half written too

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:This is fun; I've never been that guy before. Maybe I'll randomize my Day 2 vote.

Random votes always go to MM. Thats like the Syndicate rule.

I can't imagine being in your position. I think, though, that at least some skimming might give you some ideas.

It might be worth picking on a couple of isos.

MovingPictures07 wrote:This is fun; I've never been that guy before. Maybe I'll randomize my Day 2 vote.

DharmaHelper wrote:@MM Why would someone opt not to vote instead of voting for someone with zero votes or casting a suspicious vote?

The Penguin
As a powerful informant, The Penguin learns the role of the person he votes for, and may blackmail his victim. The victim has a choice to either do whatever The Penguin says or have his or her role sent to a rival person. The Penguin wins by surviving.

DharmaHelper wrote:

juliets wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Anyone who feels SVS would not intentionally miss the vote, explain to me how she missed the vote after explicitly stating that she had to vote 10+ minutes before EOD

Maybe she spent too much time trying to formulate a post?

Maybe she got caught in linkitis hell?

Maybe she was posting on her phone, and was getting inconsistent wifi?

Maybe she got caught up in the discussion and lost track of the time?

Maybe DH was pestering the hell out of her in mafia BTSC and distracted her from voting?

None of these explain anything.

Maybe you should ask her specifically about those 11 minutes. She's the best one to answer the question, not us guessing.

I intend to. But with everyone dismissing it as a nonissue, I'd just like to know what logical explanation they have for it.

DharmaHelper wrote:Anyone who feels SVS would not intentionally miss the vote, explain to me how she missed the vote after explicitly stating that she had to vote 10+ minutes before EOD

Golden wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:Are you guys sure about that? She might have broken her meta and is trying a new strategy. Just because it´s traditional to do something doesn´t make it true.

Rubs me the wrong way that you don´t consider that option.

Nah. SVS has a certain code you can rely upon. Never missing the vote on purpose is one of those things.

She doesn't need to break her meta on her code, because she is such a good player and virtually impossible to read with it. I couldn't tell you any aspect of her meta that I have noticed as being alignment indicative.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Svs would not miss a vote on purpose, no matter what. Anyone that knows her and seriously thinks she would gets an

Really hyped on that SVS defense aren't you.

Really hyped on that svs attack aren't you.

Nerolunar wrote:Are you guys sure about that? She might have broken her meta and is trying a new strategy. Just because it´s traditional to do something doesn´t make it true.

Rubs me the wrong way that you don´t consider that option.

Bullzeye wrote:I still think it's lame to miss the vote no matter what but I can't remember ever seeing anyone miss a vote while posting in the thread after having mentioned they intended to vote and knew the deadline was fast approaching.

Scotty wrote:as a side note, I've been playing a metric ton of One Night Ultimate Werewolf with my coworkers recently and I've found that a) I'm almost always a werewolf and b) I almost never win because people assume as such.

But that's okay, because I live for these types of games.

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:Scotty, what I don't trust from you is that you seem tunnelly and not very open minded. I can understand if that comes about from defensiveness, but even if all you are interested in tomorrow is voting sabie if she doesn't turn up, I think you should move on to other discussions first anyway. I know that you are a great contributor to the thinking of the thread often. Given I'm not seeing that, it gives me pause.

I don't actually think your low poster/no poster thing is that suspicious, but if it feels like thats all the opinions you have, that is a bit suspicious.

You call it tunnelly, I call it my normal day 1. Every game. Look at the D1's any of the other 10 games I've played on this site. I do tunnel, admittedly, but this is not an example of that.

Next time maybe I'll just vote in alphabetical order or something, because apparently that is a safe way to vote that won't induce criticism.

MacDougall wrote:Harumph

Turnip Head wrote:I'm frustrated at the lack of lynch and I'm about to watch The 100 so we can hash this out when we're both less frustrated SVS. I'm not a bully out to get you, I swear it.

S~V~S wrote:I am gonna be a contrarian and say this is a 50/50 thing~ it is a lot easier for a person who made a post to find it and just link it. Especially if they ate the top poster in the thread. If you are so adamant that someone answers you, you should put your question i their face over & over. In this case, the link to the post, if not a quote of the post itself. I know that is what I do.

And Matt, you really should just answer the fucking question. Jeez.

AND FUCK I MISSED THE POLL

Was gonna vote Glorfindel.

Turnip Head wrote:

Scotty wrote:Voted lovedelic like I said I would.

Shocker.

DharmaHelper wrote:Also yes before you ask Enrique I am of the opinion that, should we lynch an independent, it would be just as beneficial as having lynched a mafia because they are both enemy factions. I wouldn't prioritize "hunting" for either, however, given that (once again due to the size of the mafia in this set up) the in-thread tells are likely to be the same sort of things.

a2thezebra wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:But like I said, my response was only meta-based because your suspicion was meta-based. Why is me pointing out being a baddie in that game to explain why I find your logic in suspecting me for differing from that game flawed suspicious to you?

linki - Metalmarsh, for one. I think some others did too, perhaps MacDougall.

They said something this game?

No, in Star Wars. They pointed out (MM before my flip, and MacDougall after my flip) that you were suspecting me for invalid reasons, even though you were right about my alignment.

a2thezebra wrote:I fail to see your point, MM.

a2thezebra wrote:But like I said, my response was only meta-based because your suspicion was meta-based. Why is me pointing out being a baddie in that game to explain why I find your logic in suspecting me for differing from that game flawed suspicious to you?

linki - Metalmarsh, for one. I think some others did too, perhaps MacDougall.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Can I get an outsider's opinion on what I'm seeing in zebra's game.

DFaraday wrote:MM, that's an awfully early vote. As someone who lately keeps getting lynched for voting early, I can tell you that usually doesn't end well.

DrWilgy wrote:I'm feeling that Zebra is civ y'all.

She's not flingin shit everywhere like baddie Zebra, and her focus and frustrations seem to be that of civ Zebra.

a2thezebra wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:I know this is probably a stupid thing to say but you sound really frustrated here Zebra. I understand why and try not to worry - not everyone is oblivious to your efforts. Whilst it'd be a disaster if you were Mafia, I think you're a huge asset to us if you're not and I for one would like to give you the the chance to help us win this

That's not a stupid thing to say at all, you're absolutely right. I know a lot of you are giving me the time of day but it's seemed to me like anyone who I suspect is not. Thank you.

At some point S~V~S said recently that she contributed to my frustration, again I disagree. That was all on me.

Now MM, you've given two reasons for voting for me. The first made sense to me: that I had over 100 posts but had not caught up with the thread. I've gone over why this is. At the time you came in and asked me for a summarization (this is a word now) of what was going on I was still extremely frustrated and still trying to respond to Matt. Anyone can tell you I'm number one in being in the middle of conflicts this game so far, particularly battle wall text type conflicts, so trying to keep up with all of that while still trying to be patient and not get emotional with anyone was and to an extent still is my top priority. I'd rather have made this many posts and not be completely caught up with the thread then to have already voted and not be caught up with the thread, you follow? The second reason you gave was that I'm the first alphabetically in all the vote options and that votes aren't changeable. I'm going to guess you were making fun of sig by giving that reason since you had already given your real one.