The Syndicate

No role list, after all?

Long Con wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Killing me didn't feel so awesome.

We killed you because you were too good, I think. Needed your voice gone. Best nightkill a Civvie can receive.

I keep hearing that excuse, whenever I'm lynched Night 1.

Should have taken you with me, at least.

Killing me didn't feel so awesome.

(Rocochet? Rococo-chet? And did not "have gun", because I didn't get to become a Captain! )

Wait, it's over? Put an Endgame sign on it at least, good sir! And reveal some roles. Were you Lady Jessica, SVS?

Congrats to the winners, I guess. This was a pretty lame loss for me and it just happened to tarnish my wingrab pristine record. Barry was precisely the role I didn't desire much to be, because of the narrow window in which he was required to ascend (with two obstacles in his way, as well: hitting the immune captain or falling in ranks if Boy Lyndon dies). Nevertheless I was fully invested in this theme, as far as my roleplay can perhaps be the proof of that, and had my hopes.

I let Mother sig to the faith of a three-way tie, instead of trying to make an obvious save move, and then lost him. Sorry. Then I got bounced for *insert reasons*. In retrospect, I see that I had Long Con rightfully in the bottom area and I was starting to suspect MP for lurking his ass off. Plus, I targeted a Captain. So that's three out of four. Blergh.

Night 1, I planned to simply revenge sig's death by targetting either LC or Zebra. I fraking hit the immune Captain! On the plus side, I'm glad my vigi skills have technically not weakened one bit since Donner. But yeah, fail.

Hey scum, if you didn't want me to play, a PM would have sufficed.

Has Sir Sock returned at all since the first half of the Day time? He was relatively prompt in dealing with his business elsewhere, so I'm starting to get curious as to why he didn't bother even for a how do you do on his way there, however shortly. Could he really enjoy lurking in the shadows for this play, after all?

I don't want anything spelled out, your second sentence in the post above would have sufficed from the very beginning, when I asked for directions within an ISO of 24 posts and a lot of topics.

After reading it, I declare to be . It could mean something, it could mean nothing.

S~V~S wrote:I am asking him to read it and to think about it, lol.

You are either recommending me to read something, the way you would just hand me a volume of Byron's finest, or you are recommending me to look into something that you might have an idea what it should reveal, so which is it?

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Ricochet, I recommend that you reread sigs ISO, and think about what he said.

Linki~ you're a zebra, maybe>?

What should I focus on or try to extract from it?

Dude, you're usually the guy who reads too much into things, not me

S~V~S wrote:Ricochet, I recommend that you reread sigs ISO, and think about what he said.

Linki~ you're a zebra, maybe>?

What should I focus on or try to extract from it?

Long Con wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I find Sir Con's attempt for a summary suddenly overelaborate. Unlike the views shared by Madam S. van S. and Sir Bird, the short interval of time between Sir Serge's and Sir Con's posts would work in favor of Sir Con's added sentence argument. But now that Sir Con has even considered not posting altogether, as to avoid relating in context to Sir Serge's jest, it feels like a change of statement and my pings feel suddenly activated.

Hey, you wanna tunnel me, fine, it will probably make me less likely to get nightkilled. But just so we're staying honest here:

Long Con wrote: Well, yes. I was taunting S~V~S, and then I saw his post with the dragon in linki, and then I thought of deleting it altogether because he kind of beat me to the punch, and then I added the dragon part as a nod to his post in a quick way.

The statement that I had considered deleting the post isn't something that I just added - I mentioned it before. It's just the truth.

Ah, it seems you have indeed mentioned it before. I missed the earlier instance and for that I must hereby apologise.

I do not see myself as tunnelling and, again, it is not my problem that the few issues I raised about your game, during the first Day time, have not improved after Sir Sig's lynch has taken place.

-- I believe you focusing on whom not to lynch for most of the first Day time, to the point of arguing by making use fallacious falafels, has been aggravated by you choosing to lynch sig in a manner that slightly has the vibe of a jump aboard - to paraphrase, "hey, X, good catch, I might vote there; oh look at the time, voting there"
-- I believe you arguing that a gentleman such as Sir Serge would not be so careless as to state bandwagoning as his MO, if fashioning captain clothing, makes the later arguing that a gentleman such as Sir Sig would be careless in missreading the context of the ongoing debates a bit baffling

I am by all means open to hear rebuttals on these matters.

S~V~S wrote:At the time, when we did not know sigs role, I still suspected Serge. I suspected Serge & sig equally. So I tied it. I can't say what LCs reasoning was, just that the reasons I had for suspecting him have been ameliorated. And I can't in good conscience suspect him for doing essentially the same thing as I did. I never feel comfortable trusting LC, he can be mega slippery and will do anything (legal) to get one up on his opponents. Anything. But other than normal paranoia, I feel better about him than I did yesterday.

What do you now think of Serge? Since the entire suspish of LC originally was based on his weird seeming interaction with Serge, you must have an opinion there? What about Wilgy and the Wilgy voters?

If I would have an apparatus to measure my suspicions on Sir Serge, its arrow would not budge much in the opposite direction of distrust, despite Sir Serge's new statements. Indeed he claimed to be honest in exposing his MO, but I'm afraid his MO is exactly the issue. He said that he believes Day 1s are a matter of pure luck, but ironically through his actions he has almost made it a matter of removing the player who does arbitrary and controversial (by our standards) things, at the price of his life. I believe that the distraction created by his bandwagoning or zero-interest stances could go either way: the edgy jester of a gentleman that happens to be good at heart nonetheless, or the taunt of a captain. I see nothing positive in this matter, either way.

Dr. Wilgy is not better at keeping himself composed and influencing others to read him with good intentions, but I am less what can I interpret to the fullest of my abilities, between him launching theories with little tangency to the main discussions or goofing around. He hasn't left us a vote from yesterday, to interpret as a move. As for the voters, Sir Sig has been revealed to be civilian, so that leaves two more players to be judged. On a superficial level, I do not find that either Madam Sorsha or Sir Bird have taken it as an easy opportunity to put their votes on that side. But surely if I look deeper into every side of the tie and every voter involved, during this nocturnal phase, I face certain execution by the squad, wouldn't you say?

You are partly correct that Sir Con has regarded Sir Serge to be in no need of suspicion - although it should be said that his argument, that a bad person would not openly express intent of bandwagoning, is rather prone to WIFOM. Meanwhile there was no attention give to Dr. Wilgy during the day that passed. His vote pushed Sir Sig ahead in the polls, to which the following two votes did not do much to salvage Sir Sig's fate. I reckon a toss of a coin was used in deciding a victim, anyway?

I was moreover interested in thoughts on the reasoning behind his vote - although, even in the matter of timing and timeline, it should be noted that Sir Con's suspicion was more of a follow-up to your own. Furthermore, to create an analogy between two different statements, Sir Con can believe a baddie would never express open intent of wagoning, yet at the same time suggest that a baddie could be so openly careless as to misinterpret facts and statements within the thread?

I am still quite confused by your stance and Sir Con's alike: Sir Sig misinterpreted the reasons for which Sir Serge was suspected and voted, although he disapproved of Sir Serge being suspected and voted, and yet this made him bad?

What about his vote, then?

Dr. Wilgy, what shameful, unsanitary display is this? I must insist that you start using our tongue only for brilliant rhetorics as to how to unmask the captains; or else, denounce yourself as a licking captain at once!

I find Sir Con's attempt for a summary suddenly overelaborate. Unlike the views shared by Madam S. van S. and Sir Bird, the short interval of time between Sir Serge's and Sir Con's posts would work in favor of Sir Con's added sentence argument. But now that Sir Con has even considered not posting altogether, as to avoid relating in context to Sir Serge's jest, it feels like a change of statement and my pings feel suddenly activated.

The sun won't shine for another 24 hours.

Serge wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Serge wrote:Hey, why am I leading? It was obviously a joke. I would've used it on anyone, if they had captain on their tag, SVS just happened to be the person to have it. I saw the opportunity to crack a joke, I did. Weak sauce, Serge voters.

Sir Scott may have voted you for such a reason, but Sir Faraday and myself did not.

I imagine Madam SVS and/or Sir Con would cry "mischaracterization" about this, now.

linki: What do you mean to say by opposite teams?

Where I'm from I generally do what I said I do on Day 1 because it almost always is a shot in the dark. That's how I roll. You'll see when my role's been revealed.

Well, I can only note that bandwagoning - even more, with full intent! - is generally frowned up. Abstaining would look even worse. Sir Faraday wasn't half right in saying that it would be detrimental for a civilian to embrace such mannerisms, if he indeed is civilian.

Serge wrote:Hey, why am I leading? It was obviously a joke. I would've used it on anyone, if they had captain on their tag, SVS just happened to be the person to have it. I saw the opportunity to crack a joke, I did. Weak sauce, Serge voters.

Sir Scott may have voted you for such a reason, but Sir Faraday and myself did not.

I imagine Madam SVS and/or Sir Con would cry "mischaracterization" about this, now.

linki: What do you mean to say by opposite teams?

Long Con wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Well, no sight of Barry, but we just killed his mom. Requiescat in pace, Sig.

Shame about this misdirection, in hindsight. Carelessness is a baddie trait? My regard of Sir Con has considerably worsened.

Funny how your regard waited until after he was lynched to show itself.

Uh no, sir, it has worsened. By a mislynch you contributed to. It didn't just formed itself post-factum.

Well, no sight of Barry, but we just killed his mom. Requiescat in pace, Sig.

Shame about this misdirection, in hindsight. Carelessness is a baddie trait? My regard of Sir Con has considerably worsened.

Long Con wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Madam SVS and Sir Con, you're suggesting Sir Sig has mischaracterised Sir Serge's voters' reasonings, yet he disagrees with Sir Serge being voted. Does that make him and Sir Serge teamies in your opinion or what? 'Cause otherwise I'm tad confused.

I already said that I think Serge is Civ.

Then Sir Sig is a baddie mischaracterising Sir Serge's votes, with which he does not agree, to what purpose?

And the votes missing seem to be merely four.

Have gone with Sir Serge, in accordance with my list.

I don't know, my hierarchy between the wagons would still be Sir Serge > Dr. Wilgy > Sir Sig. At least the latter gentleman is bringing issues forth and confronting issues related to him, whilst the other two haven't been so generous, except in flinging stuff around. If there is a matter of Sig and Serge being teammates, I would be astounded by Sir Sig being so poorly prepared in what his teammate's voters are criticising.

Madam SVS and Sir Con, you're suggesting Sir Sig has mischaracterised Sir Serge's voters' reasonings, yet he disagrees with Sir Serge being voted. Does that make him and Sir Serge teamies in your opinion or what? 'Cause otherwise I'm tad confused.

S~V~S wrote:I am gonna make it a three way & vote for sig. Let someone else be the decider

This is Ireland, not Scotland. MacDougalls and their tie lovin' be damned.

One thing I would like to point out, in my research, is that so far there's a serious stream of benevolent appreciation of Madam Sorsha, coming from different directions: Sir Con with his thesis, Sir Bird merely agreeing with Sir Con and Sir Sig not having in my mind any such lynch despite disagreeing, in principle, with Sir Con's thesis. I would be aghast if this will prove to constitute an entire group of officers trying to protect a single source.

Oh dear, such an outbreak of typos and missing words. Just a few corrections, then.

for Madam SVS: green hue, have witnessed*

for Sir Sig: his lobby for lynching Madam Zebra*

Ok, time to inject some colour into our proceedings.

Sir Richet - by all means a very fine chap, among the finest

Madam S. van S. - a fair bit of a green hu, not to say that I have decisively witness a civilian play from her, but merely to acknowledge a few things I appreciate, for reasons that I have previously stated and do not, at this point, have something to add to. Her call for an active play, her line of inquiring I would both call agreeable.

Sir Sig - I believe the Host's call for a "revote", as he stated, can be open to interpretation, but I would not rush to judge Sir Sig's action of an actual revote to be in poor taste. In fact, had the interval for voting not been screwy, wouldn't Sir Sig's vote have been permanent, before the 24-hour out of 48 mark? I find his lobby for lynching Madam to be the slight result of vexation, not sure I would follow him int that path anyway, at least for the day, nor am I sure why he wouldn't follow others in a Serge lynch, for his explanation (low poster) quite differs from others' impressions, including my own (odd stances).
Sir Scott - his momentary pressure on Sir Con's way with words leaves me no strong impression, plus it has indeed seemed to have cooled off. His Serge seems entirely inspired by meta, hmm.
Madam Sorsha - spot on neutral, for statements and remarks that do not tell me much of anything. Indeed I would characterize her play so far as constantly on the catch up and with mild points made on selective issues. EDIT: written before reading her new contributions.
Sir Faraday - hardly much of a contribution; he took swift interest in judging Sir Serge (for reasons I would partially judge Sir Serge myself) and did not much else, yet I reserve judgement whether it was warranted suspicion or the move of an opportunist
Madam Zebra - nothing serious except for a few lines of inquiry on Sir Con's odds views and the serious reproach of Sir Sig being disingenuous in his vote and in his knowledge of how the day phase would have behaved. I have expressed enough on the latter in my read on Sir Sig itself, whilst right here I cannot say for sure if Sir Sig's actions simply startled the lady into crying foul play or if it's a more dubious attempt to cling on to a candidate for the Day being.
Dr. Wilgy - no idea what his thesis (on gambler's fallacies endorsements being a trait of civilianship) can lead to, nor what impression his play so far should give me. Not very focused on the main issues, is it, though?
Sir Bird - only notable statements I could catch is him agreeing with Sir Con's reasoning for not voting Sorsha (might I ask him, in this case, why he found Sir Con's gambler's fallacy to be agreeable and so influenceable for his own intentions?) and inquiring Wilgy and Serge on suspicious manners. I find his search for answers acceptable, but that bit about Sir Con makes me think the two of them have both been the rare kind to mention, so far, who they would not vote for, rather than who they would. I'd certainly want to hear more from Sir Bird regarding the latter. Time right now is too precious for process of elimination walkthroughs.
Sir Sock - I still believe his action to vote for Sir Serge might have been the product of both confusion (created by the erroneous time posts) and self-defense. Gut tells me a player such as him would fret more to produce a minimum of consistency and reasoning in his actions, under such circumstances, should he have attained the rank of captaincy. Alas, his inactivity, otherwise, does not leave me with much else to interpret.

Sir Gleam - Afraid I've not read any statements from this gentleman that wouldn't rank as trivialities I'd hear from the baker's wife, every day in which I go make my purchases there. Commenting on how often he played or not with other fellows? Inquiring a proxy (Sir Sig) on a certain player (Sir Wilgy)? Hmm. I sure hope the gent did not forget that the last time he wrote in small doses and tried to keep appearances he was not an upstanding civilian, no sir, I sure did not forget. Not implying that something should be interpreted out of this, right this moment, nevertheless I would like to prompt the gentleman, indeed, to trying to bring more substantial contributions. slightly concerned
Sir Epig - I have already mentioned how I perceived his off-topic literary moment to have been, but I remain concerned by him doing an effort to ascertain how focused and inspired the civilians must be, if they do not wish to lose this game quickly (according to the numbers), only to proceed not only with a "low poster" lynch policy - surely this tactic hasn't become less of a lottery than it is usually is, has it? - but with voting Sir Sock, who happened to actually offer a humble apology for his absence. Myes, I cannot say that I find this too agreeable.
Sir Con, whom I find acting with ideas (the gambler's fallacy) and actions (fake-vote and poking bears) which cannot make it certain whether they paint him in a good colour or smudge his reputation. With such a player as Sir Con over here, it can certainly go both ways. I'm not impress by his former ideas, on account of them not telling me much about which suspects he's pursuing, plus I'm still very intrigued how the "she was bad so many times, she must be good this time" rationale for Mme Sorsha and the "he was mislynched so many times, he must be good again" one for Sir Bird are consistent. Regarding his risky statements towards Madam S. van S., it may surprise some, but I actually find the "linki" part of his explanation not inconceivable, if seeing Sir Serge's post beforehand indeed influence him to add an extra "dragon" line. Two captains - or even Sir Con, attempting to mirror Sir Serge, should the first be a captain and the second not - coordinating to pressure a person with the same language would be more than foolish on their (or his) behalf.

Sir Serge - his taunt of the fairy Madam S van S. is certainly not something I'd call inspired, but the biggest issue I'd bring forth is with his comments on bandwagoning with ease or even abstaining from vote. I would still appreciate for the gentleman to explain if this is such common of an MO on his behalf. Otherwise it's truly an uncomfortable stance to appreciate.

I have taken the liberty to gather every player's statements.

Madam Zebra
Sir Gleam
Sir Bird
Dr. Wilgy
Sir Faraday
Sir Epig
Sir Con
Sir Sock
Sir Richet
Sir Scott
Sir Serge
Sir Sig
Madam Sorsha
Madam S. van S.

And now, the Club for body training awaits, for me to try to get into the shape of Olympians. Mens sana in corpore sano. I shall return thereafter.

Good evening to you all, for I have returned from my journey, in which it seems that my horses felt the spirit of Pegasus himself in bringing me home sooner. Oh who am I kidding, the train ride took 9 hours and a half and was godawful.

I will now attempt a summary, roughly in order of the events that have passed, and a few thoughts on the matters addressed:

Sir Epignosis seems to have created some buzz with his literary moment, although I suspect such a story would normally dissolve on its own in the next few days. I personally have not failed to pick up on him referencing a work of writing that has no real bearing to our storyline and would normally not put much into it. That being said, it would not surprise me in the slightest for this gentleman to feel no pressure in making random statements which to garner attention and heat, if he were the kind to hide his captain attire in his cupboard, during the phases of Day.

Next up, I am slightly curious how he made a valuable post on how us common people cannot afford too many missteps in our attempts to lynch the captains, only to follow it with a proposal to lynch an inactive among us. Does he believe in the general success of that? Are such tactics affordable in the current situation of our tight numbers?

Afterwards, of all the people that would quality thus far as inactives, he put a serious vote in lynching Sir MP, who I remember being among the few to have excused themselves in not managing to be active during the next days. So why, if his intentions of lynching inactives are pure, did he resort to a member who actually left a note of apology?

With all this in mind, I retain a small ping regarding his person, but not enough for any satisfying verdict, thus far.

===

That being said, Sir MP himself took the easy path of self-defence and inactives voting, so hrrmpf. He seemed confused by deadline being tonight, however.

===
Madam SVS shows to me good spirit in wanting people to join and contribute, but I am less sure what to make of her slightly serious reactions in situations where non-topical or unserious statements were made.

===

All I can recall, until this moment, of Dr. Wilgy is jesting on account of lynching Sir Bird and Madam Zebra. An eyebrow in his direction, as I seriously expect more from him soon enough. Oh wait, I must redact this, as he has since turned his attention to more serious issues, like the gambler's fallacy approaches.

I don't recall much except banter from Sir Scott and Madam Zebra themselves, for that matter.

===

Writing down votes without voting seems to be a new fashion nowadays, huh.

===

Sir Con's reflections on either Sir Bird or Madam Sorsha deserving a Day 1 pass, at least until grevious evidence should point to them being bad, gives me some pause. I mean, I truly find the whole reasoning fallacious in the style of a gambler's. But I am moreover surprised that Madam Sorsha received from him benefit of the doubt, on account of having been too many times bad in the past, whilst Sir Con never posits instead that, for all the misfortunes he suffered in the past, Sir Bird could roll mafia for once. Anyway, all in all, I do not view the idea of handing free passes to players too favourably, so I do not declare myself a fan of Sir Con's contribution over here.

===

Lastly, Sir Serge surged (alliteration ftw) with various statements. That request towards Barry is definitely a no-no, game-wise. Not a fan of him expressing intentions to bandwagon, with nonchalance and double negation even ("nobody can't [sic] stop me"), but I wish to inquire the gentleman if he considers this to be part of his usual D1 MO or not. But most of all I'd inquire what he sees in Madam SVS that he so sternly distrusts? Arguments, my good man, not mere accusations!

Formulating other thoughts or following the discussion any further will have to wait until tomorrow afternoon.

I must bid you farewell as I'm off in my travels till the day aftet morrow. I can only sporadically hope to be able to send letters and mentions in the meantime.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Why did you post that, Epi?

I think he's playing this game on a meta level unlike the rest of us.

What metaphysical level would that be?

S~V~S wrote:I mean that I am in the bathroom at work on my phone. Do the satirical essays of Swift have any beating on the game? Will this info be something I need for game purposes?

I am dubious about this exercise of copy and pasting having any purpose to our play.

Too wordy, henceforth I shan't leaf through.

S~V~S wrote:The only way I have seen cross affiliation BTSC happen is if at least one of the parties goes in as their role, not as the player.

@Llama, is that the case? Also, if Barry's son is NKed, Barry will know his role since it effects his win con? Barry can win with the Captains?

This did not cross my mind this morning, nor upon reading the roles, in which her BTSC clearance is redacted in the same fashion as all the other BTSC connections (and one can assume the others, between people of the same affiliation, would be more permissive). It seems the only practical way, indeed. I rescind my wariness of Miss Nora Brady's status and intentions in this game, although I can only pray that she be dexterous enough, as to not reveal herself to Captain Quin (not to mention he would have the support of his crew in attempting to discern things). With some good fortune, she might even be able to gain the upper hand herself.

Good morrow to our waking souls.

I dare ask, Sir Sig, why do you fret so much upon the stripe-dressed lady being the first to show up?

sig wrote: Also I hate to jump right into game stuff, but I'm going to we're at 9/4/1 and that is at the start of the game. So I'd say we need to be very careful. We don't need to focus on Hunting Barry atm since he does need to kill one mafia member, and 1 to 2 civs is worth one mafia member imo. However, if we are to lynch Barry it wouldn't be a big deal. I do think we need to be careful about who to lynch and not rush into things this game since we are operating under a very tight margin of error.

Indeed you are not mistaken that this is a tight and risky affair. Four representatives of terror against nine good-hearted fellows is a bit harrowing of a proportion, making me almost wish that our esteemed Host would have taken liberties to place some vanilla farmers and peasants into the action. We the commoners are required to "eliminate", whilst the Captains need only to "outnumber". And with that ratio set between the righteous and the tyrannous, it shouldn't take many missteps on our behalf for them to achieve it.

Now, onto the matter of this Barry chap that's generating a lot of talk over by each grapevine in the village as of late, I regard him as the embodiment of an independent, towards which neither outright malignant pursuit nor any form of trust should be shown. He seems tailored very close to the source of our Lord Kubrick's design, in that he is only interested in his own opportunities. Indeed his first move can do us all a great good, since his blade must meet the neck of a plain ribboned captain. But should he achieve that, I'm afraid things will turn for the worse, afterwards, given that he has to take the life of a noble. Sir Charles Lyndon also appears to be a thorn in his side. He could also have the odds in favor to do away with Lord Bullingdon, should they ever meet on the streets. So that's a critical toll of three noble characters that might serve his ascension.

So let us focus, no doubt, on demoting the county mounties, but let us be forever wary of Barry. I will shed no tear, should we entrap him by accident with our lynch proceedings.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I am here. I will check in periodically but my attention will be spotty until Sunday when I am back from vacation.

Linki: Haven't looked much at the roles and objectives yet, but looks like Barry has to kill a minimum of at least 3 people to have a chance to win.

Where in your count do you arrive to that number? For I count a minimum of 2 people. Or are you referencing the requirement of Sir Charles Lyndon's death? For it is not wrong to include his death as necessary to Barry's plans, still Barry does not need to directly kill him, unless he should get so lucky in his own searches.

Now, my fellow dwellers, I must confess that the role that gives me the greatest pause is that of Miss Nora Brady, for I do not know what on earth to make of her presentation. BTSC with a member of the vile task force?! I do not sense her to be destined to betray our cause, given that her winning condition is the general fair one of the civilians. Nonetheless, what are we to make of such a bond? She possesses direct knowledge of who one of our four targets happens to be.

I'll be travelling with business the day after tomorrow, which will likely not be too auspicious for our first Day's concluding activities, but what can one do, I doubt the horse carriage will have the best means of communication, now, will it?

What tempestuous times, indeed! But aside the lowly banes and crooks of our village, I am also increasingly worried of our captains' way to do justice these days and cling to their swords and pistols as a mean of enforcement and sovereignity. So let us gather quickly and swiftly do away with them.

Also, anyone for some Schubert? I heard he wrote a new quintet, calling The Trout, which must be the oddballest of things, since the only trout I know to be served is on plates.