The Syndicate

Okay, first thing first. I want to sincerely apologize for being MIA for the past few days. I'm especially sorry to BWT and Bea for not participating as much as I should be in this great game that you both worked hard on. Midterm/project season has been kind of insane but I'm going to try as hard as I can to keep up and be more involved. I've been checking in to read the night and lynch posts, but as far as actual conversation, I'm still pretty far behind.

The one thing that I've seen that I think I should address as soon as possible was Nijuu's case against me has the wrong person. She says I have a lot of posts defending Snow Dog and then I voted for him, but I was speaking about Daisy (I had only said SD. I'm pretty sure I wrote out Snow Dog every time and only used SD to refer to Daisy). I didn't ever defend Snow Dog, which is why I was surprised about his lynch result because I actually did believe he was bad. I defended Daisy because I strongly believed she was good. I thought this was an important thing to bring up because it changes the situation greatly when you see that it was two different people.

Now back to catch up, and once again, I'm extremely sorry.

Enrique wrote:Anything else, Dana? What do you think went down on Day 4? What do you have to say to the suggestion that you're Made and MP's teammate?

I'm unsure what went down on Day 4 because I'm not caught up yet, but I have no class tomorrow so it will definitely be a mafia day. I am not Made or MP's teammate. I defended MP because I believe he is good, and I do not want good people to die. I defended Made slightly, but I've been pretty unsure about him, and I have also been saying he's acting odd.

Voting Rexel 4 because I do not like the idea of the others all having baddie connections. Sure, there are witches there but we also have the Doctor, he wouldn't let us die, right?

I apologize for not really being around the past few days. I'm very many pages behind, but I don't want to miss the vote. Are we still doing the thing where we want the person in front to be a lot more in front because of the +1 on all civs? I think I'm going to vote Made because, like Gotrees said, I know them mostly outside of Mafia and Enrique seems a lot more like his normal self than Made does. Enrique definitely has a lot more experience, but I've said a few times throughout the game that Made was acting a little quiet. I don't feel super great about this vote, but I do feel slightly better about voting for Made than voting for Enrique.

S~V~S wrote:

Dana wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote:Welcome back Snowy! What are your thoughts on the last lynch?

Good one.
I think I was surprised. But more thoughts later on how it went down and the reasons for my voting pattern.

Is Snow Dog 2.0 allowed to talk as or give explanations for Snow Dog 1.0? I'm kind of actually really confused about the people replacing that were already previously in the game. Of course they get new roles and such, but they're still the same person with the same play style and all of that. What are the rules for this? As in, what are they allowed to do or say or talk about?

Why should he be restricted?

This post has a "sour grapes" feel to it, IMO. Like you are annoyed that Snowy did not stay dead.

Not at all! I just wanted to make sure everything was alright since this was a new situation I'd never seen before and I was probably overthinking at 5:30 in the morning.

TH- It's currently 7:20am and I'm still awake from yesterday, but I definitely plan to address your post when I wake up in the late morning/afternoon.

Snow Dog wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote:Welcome back Snowy! What are your thoughts on the last lynch?

Good one.
I think I was surprised. But more thoughts later on how it went down and the reasons for my voting pattern.

Is Snow Dog 2.0 allowed to talk as or give explanations for Snow Dog 1.0? I'm kind of actually really confused about the people replacing that were already previously in the game. Of course they get new roles and such, but they're still the same person with the same play style and all of that. What are the rules for this? As in, what are they allowed to do or say or talk about?

I pick w also if that counts for real. It's the most common letter out of those 4. Can I buy a vowel?

Long Con wrote:But if you guys need a Civvie for this plan of yours, I will be happy to volunteer. Tie me up with someone, and let me be lynched. And then you'll have a baddie.

It won't work this way, unfortunately We need two baddies or else we don't know. Civ/Civ tie and Civ/Bad tie will have the same result. A Bad/Bad tie will help us because then we'll know the other person is bad too, but we'd need to single out two baddies, and we haven't even been able to get one so far, so I'm not sure how likely that'd be.

Welcome back Epi! I hope things get better soon Canuck

Gotrees wrote:In case anyone confronts me about it later: Voted for the 4th option because I used to have the #4 jersey in little league in like 1st grade so it's become my go-to number for this type of thing.

IS THAT WHY YOU'RE GOTREES4?!?!?!

Gotrees wrote:So it becomes a 33% chance at revealing two baddies vs a 66% chance at killing one civ.

I don't like those odds

Gotrees wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Snow Dog I just don't really see as bad still, though I hope he comes back soon because his absence so far this D3 makes me nervous
.

What are you talking about? We already chatted today! Not enough maybe? I have been reading and digesting the posts. Still clueless this game.

So am I reading this wrong, or missing something, or...??

As far as I can tell, SDog and MP hadn't "chatted" at all on this thread at that point in the day.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 755#p87755

I did think that was a bit odd, but I assumed he meant like on IRC or IRL or something similar, because I seriously doubt a baddie would make a slip that obvious.

Okay, whoa, did not expect that to happen. I was strongly considering voting for Snow Dog back when I made the post saying his vote switched bothered me, but I got distracted with calc homework that was due at 11 and forgot to actually do the vote until the last minute. This was a really surprising turn of events, but hopefully we'll get a good result.

Also to respond to this:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Chris wrote:I just noticed that in the post that Daisy quoted of MM's, he says that Dana made a post in support of me.

None of what she posted in response to Splints was about me. It was about Epig and Daisy.

Epig was dead at that point, there's no way that Dana could "think" that he is civ, when she already said that she thought he was bad after the lynch had happened, and he is a confirmed civ. Either Dana is out of her mind, or she was talking about you.

I am not out of my mind, it made perfect sense if you read the posts before it. I said "I think they are both civ", as in, Epig was definitely civ, and I believe Daisy is also civ. Even though I said I thought he was bad after the lynch, I was talking about what I had thought before the lynch. Why would I still think he's bad after he was lynched and confirmed civ? I said "they are both civ" in defense of Daisy, not Chris. I didn't mention Chris anywhere.

Voting for Snow Dog so I don't miss the time cut off, explanation coming next post.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dana wrote:Hi BWT can we have some more letters, please?

Patience, young grasshopper.

Hi BWT can we have some more letters, please?

The Dom/Made fight is absolutely insane. I'm really not sure what side to take on it, if any, because to be honest I don't completely understand either side of the argument. There are good points being made, but there's also just a lot of craziness.

Like I've said earlier in the game, Made is definitely acting super different from his normal mafia self. He says he's playing this game similar to how he played Felt, but since I didn't play that, this seems like a huge jump in his style to me. Can anyone that played Felt comment on his style in that game? I also haven't really seen Made get this annoyed before, even when he was close to being lynched. The two times I've seen him get lynched as a civvie, he's done the whole "Go ahead, lynch me and you'll see you were wrong". I don't know for sure what that means, but it might be worth noting. I do also think it could be because he doesn't want to die (of course) or stress from college apps and school and such.

I'm not entirely convinced that MP is good, but I think he's more likely to be good than bad at this point. I don't think Daisy is bad at all, and I explained why in a reply to SVS earlier, and in one to MP even before that. I'm unsure about the DF situation, but I strongly believe Daisy is civvie, so if she's that suspicious of DF, then I'll take another look at him.

Snow Dog's recent vote switch really bothered me. I said before how I was slightly suspicious of Snow Dog following MP's vote yesterday(?). The asking who to vote for and just placing his vote on whoever's the most likely to be lynched at that time is not sitting well with me. You're being super fishy, friend.

keys56000000000 wrote:

Dana wrote:It wasn't that no one was picking up on it, it was that no one was trying to dissuade the Made suspicion, or at least it seemed that way at the time (like it currently does with Hedge). It just makes me uncomfortable when everyone is ok with lynching someone, because then that means the baddies are too.

I agree with this. It's what I like to refer to as a "lynchtrain" - everyone's ok with voting that person, for practically nothing, and no one is coming to that person's aid. Makes me very uncomfortable, and I think one is forming against this Hedgey person.

Also, Dana, if that's how you feel, how do you feel about Enrique heavily defending MP? And going as far as calling my suspicion of MP irrational?

Sorry this is late, I went to go do some homework. I'm glad to see people have started to hop off the Hedge "lynchtrain". I'm super worried about lynching a civ today because of the planet thing. Keys, I think both Enrique and MP are good, and it seemed to me like Enrique was just speaking up for his fellow civ. I must have missed the irrational part, because I don't really remember that, but I don't think I would vote either of them today.

Snow Dog wrote:At least one civ doesn't trust Elo though hence the kill attempt. Wish i could be so sure, very risky role the civ killer.

DFaraday wrote:On that note, I am voting Elo based on the fact that she was part of the Juliet-wagon, then the Azure-wagon, then she made no attempt to defend herself other than "I'm always blendy", then she mysteriously survived an NK from the civ ninja.

So the role description for Strax just says "you are the civ ninja". What does that entail? Does the civ ninja get any information or any way to know that they're picking a team member and not a civ?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I would vote Dana because she is backing up a lot of people rather than actually voicing suspicions. So much defense or uncertainty, but nothing particularly strong or helpful, except for the decoding. She just doesn't seem like she wants to formulate a strong opinion of anyone. I'll make a list of the players she has talked about, starting at the beginning of Day 2.

I am a very unopinionated person in general, which can be extremely bad for mafia and understandably makes people suspicious. I try to be as helpful as I possibly can be, which is super difficult this early on in such a big game. There are so many people that I find it pretty hard to keep track of suspicions and what people are saying or how they're acting throughout the game. I absolutely love puzzles so I've been working on the decoding as much as I can to try and help all of the civs, especially since there were at least a few people saying they're too bad at it to help out.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Made - She starts out with this post which seems like such a baddie thing to say. Made's behavior is odd, but because no one else was picking up on it, I won't get behind it either. I brought up this post earlier. Against just strange things to say that don't offer anything. It doesn't vibe with me.

It wasn't that no one was picking up on it, it was that no one was trying to dissuade the Made suspicion, or at least it seemed that way at the time (like it currently does with Hedge). It just makes me uncomfortable when everyone is ok with lynching someone, because then that means the baddies are too.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Here, she does voice a brief suspicion of Elo, emphasis on the brief.

Elohcin - Uncertainty here with support for others.

About Elo, I said I was suspicious of her on Day 1, though you only looked through my posts from Day 2 forward. Then she came in with an explanation and I said it made sense. Can you explain to me what's wrong with this?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Epignosis - Here and here she calls Epi's playstyle weird. No commitment there though, not until after Epi was lynched and a confirmed civ. Here is where she finally says that she thought he was bad, after the fact.

I committed with my vote. I said he was acting weird and he might have something to hide, which means I thought he was bad. In that final post you linked, I was talking about MP, not Epi. I was even supporting MP, I'm not sure how you thought I was saying Epi was bad there.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Space Daisy - Uncertainty here. She suspects the bandwagoning, but no players in specific.

I've said quite a few times since then that I think SD is good.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Snow Dog - Uncertainty here.

I found something odd and I asked a question. I don't see what's bad about this?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Zeek - Support here.

Support because I had just said the same thing a few posts before, in the "SD bandwagon" post, linked above and again here.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Enrique - Uncertainty here and later backed him up. MP makes a good point here, but didn't really pursue it.

Here is the resolution of that.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Chris - Support here.

This was SD support, not Chris. "They" in that post was SD and Epi.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Gotrees - Uncertainty here.

Definitely more on the civ side for Gotrees. I said I had no reason to think he's bad, is that uncertainty? Of course there's always some degree of uncertainty but I tried to make it clear that I don't think Gotrees is bad.

I'm unsure about the usefulness of a case like this (cherry picked posts) when the context of what was going on in the thread at the time is very important. In a few of these, you even said I was talking about someone that I wasn't. I know I don't have very strong suspicions or opinions, but I do try to say what I'm thinking and ask questions if I feel something is off.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Oh, and she didn't get my Rush allusion.

Sorry

Er, if he was.*

keys56000000000 wrote:I didn't just pull a defense out at random. Dana's defense makes no sense. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a baddie will want to pretend to be a goodie. That's how this game works. So when she started questioning why MP would behave in such a way (his typical civvie playstyle, according to most of you, including himself) if he were bad, it sounds wholey fake. I don't think a civvie would question why a baddie would play like that, especially in regards to a player like MP.

I have explained this already. I did not know that was his "typical civvie playstyle". I thought he was acting overly suspicious (NOT like a civvie). Of course baddies will want to pretend to be goodies, I understand that. What I was asking was if people thought he would act in such a way that would make people think he were bad if he wasn't.

keys56000000000 wrote:

Henry wrote: But this whole case against [MP] is just so... irrational.

I suspect MP is hiding in plain sight. Dana defended him by asking if anyone would play like that if they were bad, an argument I don't think she would make unless they were mafia together.

Can you explain why I wouldn't make that argument unless we were mafia together? Why would I not, as a civ, defend people that I also believe to be civs?

Also is there supposed to be a T in the 9th word of Dalec Sec's secrets?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dana wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:All of them are correct except for The Master. I will update the role list accordingly.

But it didn't fit!!!

Which one didn't fit? I'm confused.

The first word of Dalek #2 was too short. It was 8 spaces and "rolecheck" is 9 letters.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:All of them are correct except for The Master. I will update the role list accordingly.

But it didn't fit!!!

S~V~S wrote:

Dana wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:And DFaraday's vote for Daisy makes me nervous, to be honest. I hope he elaborates because it might give me some insight.

It really worries me too. I hope there won't be another "vote for Daisy" chain (yay puns!) because I don't think she is bad at all and we really need to lynch a baddie today so the planet doesn't eat us or something.

Why are you so sure? Talk me out of it, convince me I am wrong. I am the person most likely to be swayed by an argument you make, because like you, I tend to play with my heart and my gut more than with a logical deduction process.

Tell me why I am wrong.

I felt like her defense was very genuine, it seemed to me like she was a frustrated civvie who came to check in and realized she was leading the lynch. I'd be pretty frustrated too in her position. I also still don't really understand where the suspicion of her started. She made one part of one post about you and MP and MP said it was a little bit weird and then it seemed people were like "MP knows her best, she must be bad!" If we don't want to lynch a civ today then we shouldn't lynch SD.

MovingPictures07 wrote:What do people think of Gotrees? Dana, any idea, since you know him?

It's a little hard to tell since this is his first game, but he's not acting any differently than I would expect. I'd be a bit suspicious if he didn't help out with the code thing because I'm pretty sure he likes puzzles and such as much as I do, but since he has been, everything seems to be in order. I'm assuming the baddies aren't helping to decode the baddie secrets because they already know what they are, right? Well, there is the other team of baddies, so I'm not sure if they'd still be helping out or just solving it in their BTSC. Possibly there, because if they put it in the thread then it would be helping the civvies too. Gotrees has also been really helpful with show information, like the planet links and stuff last night. I have no reason to believe Gotrees is bad at the moment.

Dom wrote:

Dana wrote:Oh wait it only fits for Cyberman #2, not Dalek #2.

Does "discover" fit?
Like discover a dead role?

We submitted that earlier and it wasn't filled in on the first page so we assumed it was wrong.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dana wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:And DFaraday's vote for Daisy makes me nervous, to be honest. I hope he elaborates because it might give me some insight.

It really worries me too. I hope there won't be another "vote for Daisy" chain (yay puns!) because I don't think she is bad at all and we really need to lynch a baddie today so the planet doesn't eat us or something.

It worries me mostly because he didn't state a single reason in doing so. Even quiet civvie DF usually tags a reason in his votes. But why would a baddie not state a reason, IDK. Really I'm also super curious if there's a particular aspect of the argument against her he thinks is compelling.

You feel THAT confident she isn't bad at all? How much?

And have you looked back at any of those four individuals? Would you consider a vote for any of them?

Very confident, but I should probably not say more. I haven't looked back at those four or anyone else yet. I will likely focus on Python for the next few hours until the poll ends over there, but I'll definitely give you a more complete answer to this later tonight.

Elohcin wrote:I don't know....I just don't agree that you would necessarily be able to read them b/c they are your friends. Like I said, I play Mafia with my husband of eleven years, dating him for 15, and he acts totally different in Mafia than in real life. On top of that he acts totally different in each game. So, I don't think it is necessarily good to seek comfort in those we feel we know better than others. But, Made and Enri may just be that transparent and readable people. But I can imagine they are smart enough to know how to put on an act when they feel the need.

Of course, they are very smart people. I could be totally wrong, I'm not denying that at all. I was just saying what I thought and felt, since I'm still newish to mafia in general and I don't really have much experience with reading people. All I have is what I know them to act like normally and how they're acting here in this game.

MovingPictures07 wrote:And DFaraday's vote for Daisy makes me nervous, to be honest. I hope he elaborates because it might give me some insight.

It really worries me too. I hope there won't be another "vote for Daisy" chain (yay puns!) because I don't think she is bad at all and we really need to lynch a baddie today so the planet doesn't eat us or something.

Elohcin wrote:You can sometimes use people's personalities outside of mafia to decipher their mafia affiliation. I would never do that with Epi (my husband) however, b/c I know his mafia actions do not always reflect his true personality. But, you didn't say that the first time I asked. You only said something to the effect of sticking with what is familiar.

Here is my exact quote:

Dana wrote:Made and Enrique are both very good friends of mine, and I don't know anyone else very well at all, so familiar names are comforting.

I did not mean that I would defend them solely because they are my friends, I meant that I know them better because they are my friends, and I feel like I would be able to tell if they were acting weirdly more than I would for someone I barely know. Also mafia is scary and I like comforting things.

Oh wait it only fits for Cyberman #2, not Dalek #2.

Hello hosts! I would like to submit these for review:

Emperor Dalek wrote: You cannot be lynched until every other member of your team is dead.

The Cyber Controller wrote: You cannot be nightkilled until every other member of your team is dead.

Dalek #2 wrote: Rolecheck a dead player nightly.

Cyberman #2 wrote: Rolecheck a living player nightly.

The Master wrote: The first three attempts on his life will be blocked. Every night, he attempts to find Lucy Saxon, his wife/companion. If he finds her, they gain BTSC. Due to his strong ability as a scientist, once in the game he can block every night action that night to be randomly redirected at someone other than the original target. This is up to and including kill attempts.

Elohcin wrote:

juliets wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Dom wrote:

Elohcin, I would love to hear from you. What are you thinking at this point in the game? Who are you suspicious of? Surely you must have suspicions by now. Do you know how you survived your attempted murder?

I am still overwhelmed with all the players at this point, however my biggest suspicion is Dana. Her actions say that she couldn't care less if the lynched player is civ.

Elo, can you be more specific? What action(s) has Dana taken that says she couldn't care less if the lynched player is a civ?

It is why I voted for her Day 2. She was so defensive of Enri and trying to keep voters away from him and when I asked her (paraphrasing) "why? Do have reason to believe he is civ?" she said nah, she didn't know his affiliation at all but that she knew him IRL and sticks with people she is "familiar" with.

Then today, her actions have been no different in that she is talking about how she felt both options in the last lynch were civ options and yet she still voted for one of them. She saw no reason to vote for who she thought was bad.

Of course I care if the player lynched is a civ, that's why I'm trying to figure out who is bad and who is not. I said I didn't know Enrique's affiliation because I don't. I don't know anyone's but my own for certain. I do think he is a civ because I know him well (though not IRL) and he doesn't seem to be acting odd. Am I not able to use information from people's personality outside of the context of mafia to tell if there's a suspicious change in their behavior? I never said that I "stick with people" I'm familiar with, I said I may defend them slightly more than others because I'm still new to the game and I don't know anyone else well enough to be able to say if they're not acting normal or not. I do know Enrique well enough (I think) to say that he IS acting normal.

I didn't feel both options in the last lynch were civ at the time the lynch was happening. I explained already that I feel that way now that Epig's role has been revealed. Meaning I thought SD was civ and I still do even after what happened. I did vote for who I thought was bad, and I was wrong.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dana wrote:Oh whoops I forgot night ended. By currently on the poll I meant last night because we aren't planets.

We are planets to each other, drifting in our orbits to a brief eclipse.

That was very deep.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Emperor Dalek wrote: You cannot be lynched until every other member of your team is dead.

Yaaaay!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Cyberman #2 wrote: --------- a living player nightly.

Why did you change this to living?
Oh, just checked the front page. Was this just recently changed?! I totally remember them being the same.
"Rolecheck" fits in the blank if it's just one word, but I think it would probably be two. Maybe.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I did not survive due to my role. I was awarded an automatic kill (NK or lynch) protection for recruiting SO many people by bea and BWT regardless of my role, and even though I'm generally talkative and aggressive, it's why I may have been especially so thus far. I doubt the hosts will confirm or deny, so people will just have to take my word for it as to whether they believe me, but it's the truth.

I definitely believe this. You were all for those prizes in the signups.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dana, I appreciate the response. Are there any individuals that fit that bill ('avoiding suspicion') that you think we should look at? (not even necessarily as supicious, but just talk about?). What do you think of Sabie?

I haven't seen too much to make me think Sabie is bad. I have to go to class now, but I'll be back later to elaborate. As for who to look at, I'm not too certain. Maybe people who have been around a bit but haven't been extremely involved in conversation. Bass, BR, DF, and Hedge are a few names that stick out in the "I have no idea what their opinions are" way just from scanning down the poll really quickly.

Baddie/Indy secrets so far:

Emperor Dalek wrote: You cannot be lynched --t-- ----- -t--- ------ if your team is dead.

Dalek Sec wrote: If someone targets a member of your team wiTh a night action, you can conduct a -a--ing? experiment on them. A coin is then tossed. If heads, the night action will --t---- and you flip a coin again. If tails, nothing happens. If the coin lands heads on the second flip, that player will not be able to effectively target your team in any way (nothing is ----- --t--) for the remainder of the game. If tails, the night action stops ---- --t----, but there are no other effects.

Dalek/Cyberman #1 wrote: ----- a player nightly.

Dalek/Cyberman #2 wrote: -------- a dead player nightly.

The Cyber Controller wrote: You cannot be nightkilled --t-- ----- -t--- ------ if your team is dead.

Cyberman Head wrote: If you manage to find your body (a randomly determined event) at some point in the game, you gain an extra amount of votes for the next lynch determined by how many members of your team are still alive.

The Master wrote: The first three attempts on his life will be blocked. Every night, he attempts to find Lucy Saxon, his wife/----a-----[companion?]. If he finds her, they gain BTSC. Due to his strong ability as a scientist, once in the game he can block[?] every night action that night to be randomly redirected at someone other than the original target. This is up to and including kill attempts.

fingersplints wrote:Dana - It seemed like two civvie options, yet you still voted one? I'm a little confused with your wording here.

Correct. It seems now, after Epig's role has been revealed, that they were both civvie. I voted one because I was more sure SD was good than I was was about Epi, so I don't think we should vote SD today because the night post implied that we'd be in big trouble if we lynch another civ.

Long Con wrote: I'll add it into the mix that there's a Civvie role I know he's not due to the events of last night.

Was this from decoding a secret or just plain logic that I can't figure out?

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm going to elaborate hopefully once I hear back from the hosts, but I don't understand why people are making assumptions about BOTH me and Elo as having survived due to our roles.

Elo could have survived due to the civvie ninja being blocked, yes?

You said you know how you survived, does that mean you survived due to your role?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Is there any protections revealed in any of the Cyberbullies?

And re: Cybers, I don't think so but I'm not sure. Someone more active in decoding will have to help there.

Not at the moment, but I think we're getting close.

Linki-

MP wrote:Do you think anyone who took two or more votes yesterday (Elo, Enri, Daisy, Epig) is possibly bad or are they avoiding suspicion?

Epig wasn't bad, and I really don't think Daisy is. Enri doesn't seem to be acting too suspicious, and I'm unsure about Elo. I voted her Day 1 because of her vote for Juliets, but her explanation for that did seem to make sense, and it made me feel a bit better that she came in to give an explanation at all.
At the moment, I do think the baddies are avoiding suspicion.

fingersplints wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I am probably going to vote for Daisy again, unless something *WOW* comes up. She had like 10 posts, mostly wishy washy buddying to MP, then when she starts taking votes she comes back, makes some 20 posts defending hard, then leaves again. Plus the feels I had previously I still have, and the Epi lynch sure as hell looked like a save to me.

It looks to me like a save as well. I'm not feeling great about Chris atm. His "don't make it look like I was the last to vote Epi" when he was in fact the last is strange. I'm interested to hear what others think about Chris. He is the type of player who generally sounds bad to me.

I really feel like they were both civ, and we should take a closer look at the people who have been more along the sidelines. I'm not sure exactly who that would be, but I don't think the Epig lynch was a save. It seemed more like two civ options, and for me at least, I went with the person I felt slightly more sure was bad.

If someone targets a member of your team wiTh a night action, you can conduct a -a----- experiment on them. A coin is then tossed. If heads, the night action will --t---- and you flip a coin again. If tails, nothing happens. If the coin lands heads or the ------ ----, that player will not be able to -----t----- target your team in any way (nothing is ----- --t--) for the remainder of the game. If tails, the night action stops ---- --t----, but there are no -t--- -----t-.

Pretty colors because I find it helpfulish.

If someone targets a member of your team wiTh a night action, you can conduct a -a----- experiment on them. A coin is then tossed. If heads, the night action will --t---- and --- flip a coin again. If tails, --t---- -a-----. If the coin lands heads or the ------ ----, that player will not be able to -----t----- target your team in any way (--t---- -- ----- --t--) for the remainder of the game. If tails, the night action -t--- ---- --t----, --t t---- a-- -- -t--- -----t-.

Oh whoops I forgot night ended. By currently on the poll I meant last night because we aren't planets.

zeek wrote:Lol, Dana ask your question differently.

Did you have info specifically on the night 1 poll? Did you know what would happen for each option that was chosen? Do you have info about the planets currently on the poll?

Hi zeek did you know things about the planets in the context of this game?

Linki- Enrique are we the same person

If someone targets a member of your team wiTh a night action, you can conduct a -a----- experiment on them. A coin is then tossed. If heads, the night action will --t---- and --- flip a coin again. If tails, --t---- -a-----. If the coin lands heads or the ------ ----, that player will not be able to -----t----- target your team in any way (--t---- -- ----- --t--) for the remainder of the game. If tails, the night action -t--- ---- --t----, --t t---- a-- -- -t--- -----t-.

If someone targets a member of your team wiTh a night action, you can conduct a -a----- experiment on them. A coin is then tossed. If heads, the night action will --t---- and --- flip a coin again. If tails, --t---- -a-----. If the coin lands heads or the ------ ----, that player will not be able to -----t----- target your team -- a-- -a- (--t---- -- ----- --t--) --- t-- ---a----- -- t-- -a--. If tails, the night action -t--- ---- --t----, --t t---- a-- -- -t--- -----t-.

Enrique wrote:

But we don't know why there should've been a push for zeek's planet either. Though that is a really good point about last night's post.

Because it seemed nice and good and people vouched for it? All the Azure votes were randoms or throwaways. But it was very close to winning anyway.

Azure seemed nice and good too, I think. I missed that vote but I probably would have voted Azure because I like blue. Of course it was probably different in the moment. I can definitely see how, if zeek was pushing for that one planet (what was it called again?), and the baddies knew he wasn't on their team, they would probably not want to go with zeek because it might have not benefited them. Okay, I sort of understand the Azure suspicion now.

keys56000000000 wrote:It actually does not mean that he is statistically less likely to be bad. That is not how probability works. He cannot be on both baddie teams.

And again, I wasn't saying anybody was literally calling anyone stupid, nor was I saying that anybody was stupid, but I'm sure everyone appreciates you coming to their rescue from me apparently being mean, insulting and disrespecting them.

I mean, I didn't take stats yet, but it did seem that way to me. No, he can't be on both teams, but we don't know which team he's on if he is on a team. Now we know he's not on one of the teams. Though it's way too late at night to get into a math discussion when I have calc in the morning.

I never said you were being mean, insulting, or disrespecting anyone. I just want us all to be friends here

If someone targets a member of your team wiTh a night action, you can conduct a -a----- experiment on them. A coin is then tossed. If heads, the night action will --t---- and --- flip a coin again. If tails, --t---- -a-----. If the coin lands heads or the ------ ----, that --a--- ---- --t -- a--- to -----t----- target your team -- a-- -a- (--t---- -- ----- --t--) --- t-- ---a----- -- t-- -a--. If tails, the night action -t--- ---- --t----, --t t---- a-- -- -t--- -----t-.

Are double coin flips uncommon? It would make sense for having "If tails" twice.

Enrique wrote:Dana, what's suspicious was the push for Azure when there should've been none. I'm also pretty sure zeek confirmed he had info. Also, if you read the current night post, last night's planet choice might be really important depending on who we lynch today.

But we don't know why there should've been a push for zeek's planet either. Though that is a really good point about last night's post.

keys56000000000 wrote:What did she say again, something along the lines of asking if MP would play the way he was playing if he was bad? Essentially asking if someone would pretend to be a civvie if they were bad? The answer is obviously yes, and Dana must know that. So why did she post such a ridiculous defense of MP?

I wasn't asking if someone would pretend to be a civvie if they were bad, because of course they would. What I was asking was why someone would act so un-civvie-like if they were actually bad. I thought MP's play style on day 0 was overly suspicious, and then I rethought it and figured that I felt it was unlikely that someone who was bad would bring so much attention to themselves. I asked the thread to see what other people's opinions were, not to make a "ridiculous defense" or say that MP was definitely not a baddie.

Whoops, got stuck in linki and posted the code post first. Not that it matters really, but posting this now.

MovingPictures07 wrote:But you still never explained to me why it makes more sense to focus on me if my baddieness is conditional upon Dana's baddieness.

Yeah, I still don't completely understand this. I made a post asking if people thought MP would be acting the way he was if he were bad. I wasn't going for a full blown defense there, but I do think he's probably civ, and I don't want to see another one lynched. If he is bad, and your suspicion of him is me defending him, why would you go after him first? It doesn't seem to make sense.

Gotrees wrote:In your defense, Dana has been defending a lot of people this game. Maybe she just sees the good in people.

I always try to see the good in people!

keys56000000000 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:LMAO I can't believe people actually think I'm bad after I just nearly got killed by the Cybermen. This is just astounding.

Again, there are two baddie teams. I can't believe you are using the fact that you were targeted by one as proof that you're good. It seems to me like you think we're all stupid.

Okay guys can we be nice to each other? No one thinks anyone is stupid. Keys, the fact that he was targeted by a baddie team does not definitively mean he's good, but it does mean that he's statistically less likely to be bad, because that's 1/2 of the baddie teams that he's not on.

Also wanted to comment on a few things:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Daisy - ... Azure voter on N1, torn between believing whether the Epig push D2 was to save her or whether she and Epig were both convenient civvie scapegoats and whether I've been too hard on her

Did we ever figure out if the planets did anything at all? I'm not sure why the Azure voters are suspicious. As far as I remember, BWT said he was okay with a yes/no answer from zeek on whether he had information on the poll or not, but I don't think zeek ever answered. From what I've gathered, zeek was just trying to get people to vote for what he thought was safest in the context of the show. I could totally be misremembering, though. I also agree with your second point that they were both civvie scapegoats.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Made - Definitely a new game approach... he said he was suspicious heavily of Epig "all game" but for all of his posts up until his D2 declaration of suspicion against Epig he never expressed that, and failed to vote D1 and failed to even say he would have voted for Epig D1, his suspects were all those getting high amounts of attention D1, now he has suddenly gone quiet

Made definitely did say he was going to vote for Epig on Day 1.
Quote:

Made wrote:what showed up on my phone the moment I walked into the stadium (sorry can't post imgur pictures as proper pictures in thread apparently)
For the little it's worth, I was going to vote epi. I have screen shots of the message I typed and intended to send if anyone would like to hear them, RIP Juliet.

Nobody took Made up on that offer, but that seemed pretty genuine to me.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Also I'd love some assistance on the Dalek Sex info I posted. I'm feeling good about this one.

Coming right up!