The Syndicate

DharmaHelper wrote:

DH: I think is playing a neutral game and was happy to vote for me a threat. I've no problem seeing that as genuine.

DH - I don't buy that you are scared for a second. It's just more bullshit. If I successfully baited an epi kill, there is no way I succeed in doing that twice.

Lets play Which One of These Did Golden Say?

If you guessed both, you are correct.

I don't think you are scared that I am going to get you killed, which is what you claimed. I have no problem believing you simply have no qualms getting me out because you see me as a threat. Those are two different things.

thellama73 wrote:Observation 5: re: Golden. His whole "I got Epi killed" thing is super shady, and seems like just the kind of thing he could pull off. If true, I would hate to see him get away with it, if only for the precedent it sets.

Could you explain this a bit better? Particularly, what does 'getting away with it' look like and what is the 'bad precedent it sets'.

I have always had big schemes. Sometimes they work and sometimes they backfire. This one might have done both (King Arthur did both too).

Golden voters.

Dom: I feel is probably genuine, although I don't entirely understand why he suspects me. But it's been consistent and felt real. I'd like to understand what specific things I've done that have him suspecting me.

DH: I think is playing a neutral game and was happy to vote for me a threat. I've no problem seeing that as genuine.

SVS: I also think is genuine. Mostly she has gone about comparing me to past games and her comparisons have not been unfair. I think she is not taking on board some of the points I've made and I think I'm playing much more like the golden she knows than she realises. But I also have satisfying reasons in mind for why SVS has stepped up her insistence that I am bad, even though she is wrong. If I was to be lynched tomorrow, I would go down declaring that you should not hold it against SVS.

Rey: I've made my feelings here pretty clear. Rey voted for me on day one because I said that 'certainly epi wouldn't end up on my team' and didn't say to his satisfaction that I recognised this was not true (even though I did say it multiple times). He then voted me on day two for saying I felt guilty about the approach I took to epi. He himself said motivations were more important than actions, but I don't feel as though rey has demonstrated that he has thought about what my motivations would be at all. I acknowledge that rey is a tunneler even when he is civ but I feel like even rey civ would have taken a step back and listened to some of the things I've said but he doesn't really seem to be listening. I have trouble seeing this as genuine. If I was to be lynched tomorrow, particularly if it was done on the back of a vocal rey, I would go down declaring you should strongly consider lynching him the day after.

Boomslang: Bandwagony but consistent. No reason to see it as not genuine, although it feels more the view of a neutral-aligned than anything.

Tinybubbles: Probably the most suspicious since she expressed that I normally take suspicion just for being loud and tended to be a target but said she'd vote for me anyway without ever really explaining why. I felt as though this vote might have been intentionally to avoid heat she was taking from being on TH bandwagon. Hard to say if this is bad or just the sign of a survivalist, though.

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:

thellama73 wrote:All right, I'm back.

Does anyone remember the awesome summaries/recaps I do from time to time when people ask me? Somebody do me a solid and make one of those. I'm going to go back and read a lot as well, but a bird's eye view narrative would be helpful.

I would usually do this, but my perspective is highly skewed. I think I may be able to summarise why each person who got votes, got votes. Others might want to argue my interpretation though. Is that sufficient?

Yes.

Bass - some people thought he was being deliberately limited in his posting content, and felt he read bad. Others felt he was not contributing enough. Others felt he was a good target for baddie recruit.
BWT - seemed to be primarily a reaction to his 'go civs' post, some people found it not genuine or his posting not genuine generally, and also that it is blendy.
DP - for being DP, and because he voted himself.
G-Man - I can't recall why Rico voted G-Man, I think it was to do with G-Man's posts about TH or his posts about me.
Golden - I'll give another post to my perception of why each person voted for me and what I think of it.
MP - you were here for that. He got no more votes after.
Scotty - self voted for not being around much
Timmer - self voted for not being around much
bubbles - for being blendy and jumping on votes without explanation
TH - because the speaker of serenity said so. Some people also found TH's posting about how we should perceive this game odd (he took a very neutralist view of it) but they ultimately voted elsewhere.
Unfurl - No idea why bwt voted unfurl.

Others can add or subtract if they think I've been unfair.

thellama73 wrote:All right, I'm back.

Does anyone remember the awesome summaries/recaps I do from time to time when people ask me? Somebody do me a solid and make one of those. I'm going to go back and read a lot as well, but a bird's eye view narrative would be helpful.

I would usually do this, but my perspective is highly skewed. I think I may be able to summarise why each person who got votes, got votes. Others might want to argue my interpretation though. Is that sufficient?

S~V~S wrote:I meant Rey and DH who were both on staff with you at ZRM, Golden.

OK, but you were wrong, yeah?

Rey and DH know me well, but so do all the others I listed. It's wrong to imply that those who know me best think I'm bad.

(Plus, I don't even think DH thinks I'm bad. I think he merely thinks I am a threat to his game. He is playing the game in a way I would describe as truly neutral. But he can correct me if I'm wrong)

Roxy I can understand why I might look clique-y. My bass vote was mostly because he is a very successful baddie and if I was bad, I would want to recruit him. The fact I was also voting to save MP is because he looked like he was having a bit of an emotional time and feeling like perhaps quitting the game, and I wanted to give him tangible reasons he didn't need to quit the game and to know that there were people (or at least one) reading his posts and who didn't think he was bad. But there was no intentional clique.

I also don't feel like I agree with unfurl saying the game will necessarily become for elite hard core players. I think I've shown that the targets are not all on the quieter players. But I think there are solid logical reasons to target quieter players, so I can see why it could go down that road.

Roxy wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Speaking of Golden's meta, I find it intriguing that the three people playing this game that have known him and his game the longest ALL voted for him.

Thats interesting. The four players here who have known me the longest (ie played my first ever game) are you, Roxy, Bea, and unfurl. None of the others voted for me.

http://spoilertv.co.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... cc7cb9650b (mom is roxy, beatrixkiddo is bea)

Roxy and bea have, in fact, not yet said anything that I have read to be an active suspicion of me. Neither have said they still trust me recently but what they have said has indicated that they read me as genuine. Unfurl, I'm not sure she has mentioned me at all.

BeatrixKiddo is Mata's daughter NOT Bea.

Really? OK, well scratch bea and leave it at unfurl roxy and SVS. Still point remains. Bea is next as she played in superhero (my second game). And I see beatrixkiddo was kiddo on that game. Somehow I have forgotten her

Scotty wrote:As for Golden, I feel like if he were to stop responding to every little thing said about him his heat would die down a bit, but he has kept going, much to people's chagrin, and people are finding that even more suspicious. I feel that he's probably gonna have that monkey on his back all game until we can get a better picture of who actually killed Epi (we may never).
I have no reason to believe he is anything more than neutral right now.

I do not agree that the heat would die down if I ignored things. I think I survived the lynch primarily through fighting hard, and if I didn't respond people would call it another sign I'm off-meta.

linki @scotty - I don't have the slightest clue.

reywaS wrote:"Out of reywaS' 124 posts, I'd reckon 60% of them are about Golden (I'm guesstimating). I would expect it very easy and safe to tunnel into one person for a time"

A response to this particular snippet from Scotty's earlier post. You are right. I have been focusing on Golden a lot. I tend to get tunnel vision in mafia games when someone's posts get stuck in my head. In the past it can be a flaw of my game play style. But, I'm not always wrong when I get fixated on someone. A particular RM game comes to mind...Reality TV Mafia. I remember having a particularly over the top case of tunnel vision in that game, but I did sniff out DharmaHelper and Golden as 2 of the 4 mafiosos in the game...but for every time that I am correct in that case, there are a few instances where I was just flat out wrong. I realize this. This is why I tempered my suspicion of Golden in between Days 1 and 2, but he reignited my suspicion with the things he said in the 2nd half of Day 2. Right or wrong that is the only way I know how to play when I am not on a baddie team. I tend to have a lot more trouble when I am because in my head everything I think to write just sounds forced. A handful of people in this game know this about me. Golden is one of those people, which is why the 2 "no u's" he's flung at me in this game don't ring true to me. In Zany Dex's Superman game on RM, this dynamic was on display where I was Clark Kent and Golden was independent and eventually merged with the mafia team (and won). I got tunnel vision in that game too. I think I was wrong in that case, but regardless I got a lot of flack in that game for it.

I can confirm rey does get tunnel vision as a civ. It's why I can't find him bad solely for continuing to chase me.

I do, however, think that particularly his suspicion on me for saying 'I feel guilty about it' does not ring true, and sounded like he was trying to manufacture a reason to vote for me.

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:Also Bye Bass
I think this is become an elitist game tbqh, where the people who arenot hard core player will going to be lynched, my prediction, less see in an a fortune teller

I disagree 100%, have you been reading the same thread as me? Golden and I have been in hot seats for almost the entire game, and Golden barely made it out of the last lynch alive.

Meanwhile, we have TinyBubbles, timmer, and DisgruntledPorcupine, who are recently receiving a bit of heat, but have not come under near as much fire as those who have put their words on the line and posted much more.

I think your post here trying to further the divide, making this a hardcore v. non-hardcore fest, is troubling greatly. I think players with post counts of all sizes should be eyeballed with equal fervor, not lopsided, and it's entirely why I've been defending Golden because his posts have read completely reasonable as a neutral-aligned Golden. The only accusations against him legitimately fall into two categories: (1) fear mongering and (2) belief that neutral Golden would play like a civilian.

HE SAID HE WOULD

When did I ever say I would play "Like my civilian meta" - if anything, I've said the exact opposite - that I am neutral and don't know what team I'm on and am one of the few people overtly being clear that I am playing like that. I have literally never said I'm playing 'like a civilian'.

I am, however, saying that I do not believe epi was a civ, and I would not have made my move if I thought he was a civilian. I'm not playing anti-civilian.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

I do see the irony in SVS seeing me as a threat and wants to vote me, essentially because I did what I could to get rid of the person I thought was a threat.

Um I am voting for you, but if you do not get lynched, I will not try to get the baddies to kill you.

Well I think I've made it very clear epi was a one off too, but it doesn't stop everyone pretending like I'm going to do it to them next.

This type of attitude is a big reason why I don't trust you, Golden. You admittedly make this big, bold move to Epignosis killed on Day 1, and then you act like everyone is being unfair to you by not trusting your intentions. Do you really see the scrutiny on you as unfair?

Scrutiny? No.

But, rey, I will repeat to you - you find me suspicious for things like saying 'I feel guilty about it'. What is the baddie motive in that statement?

I do not think all of my votes are the outcome of scrutiny. I actually think some of the votes (especially yours) come from a place of a lack of scrutiny.

I will say to you again, you are the one who claimed that motivations are where you should be looking. Why, then, do you continue to ignore me every time I ask you why my statements are indicative of a baddie mindset, and just fall back on telling me off for claiming honesty etc

I apologize for the lack of clarity. When I say "your motivation", I am not saying what is the baddie or civvie motivation for Golden to react that way? I'm saying "What is Golden's motivation for saying the things he does?" Is it coming from a position of honesty or is he being fundamentally dishonest in his ideas. Do you see the difference?

I know what you mean.

But what is the motivation for being dishonest?

It's pointless to say 'I think you are dishonest'. You can just think I'm dishonest, I can't stop you. But the question you should be asking is "If that is dishonesty, why would he say that lie? How would it possible ever further a baddie game?" And the reality is, it wouldn't, the things you are accusing me of being dishonest about it wouldb e stupid and meaningless to lie about no matter what my affiliation and I NEVER would.

S~V~S wrote: I considered that as well, but with Epi alive and focused on Golden, why waste their kill? The end result would be Golden dead and Epi marginalized. The only way it makes sense for me is if Golden was on the team that killed Epi.

So you think the focus on me yesterday would have been greater if epi is still alive?

I don't think so. The only reason I took so much focus is because epi was dead.

S~V~S wrote:Speaking of Golden's meta, I find it intriguing that the three people playing this game that have known him and his game the longest ALL voted for him.

Thats interesting. The four players here who have known me the longest (ie played my first ever game) are you, Roxy, Bea, and unfurl. None of the others voted for me.

http://spoilertv.co.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... cc7cb9650b (mom is roxy, beatrixkiddo is bea)

Roxy and bea have, in fact, not yet said anything that I have read to be an active suspicion of me. Neither have said they still trust me recently but what they have said has indicated that they read me as genuine. Unfurl, I'm not sure she has mentioned me at all.

Rico, I like your find in nutella's posts.

@JJ - although you did not make the point about me, the italicised last 13 words of your posts I find myself relating to a lot in this game because it expresses very simply why I find it difficult to understand that some people are so convinced I'm behind epi's death.

I don't even remember voting position 3 but I just looked at the poll and apparently I did. so I'm voting position 3.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

I do see the irony in SVS seeing me as a threat and wants to vote me, essentially because I did what I could to get rid of the person I thought was a threat.

Um I am voting for you, but if you do not get lynched, I will not try to get the baddies to kill you.

Well I think I've made it very clear epi was a one off too, but it doesn't stop everyone pretending like I'm going to do it to them next.

This type of attitude is a big reason why I don't trust you, Golden. You admittedly make this big, bold move to Epignosis killed on Day 1, and then you act like everyone is being unfair to you by not trusting your intentions. Do you really see the scrutiny on you as unfair?

Scrutiny? No.

But, rey, I will repeat to you - you find me suspicious for things like saying 'I feel guilty about it'. What is the baddie motive in that statement?

I do not think all of my votes are the outcome of scrutiny. I actually think some of the votes (especially yours) come from a place of a lack of scrutiny.

I will say to you again, you are the one who claimed that motivations are where you should be looking. Why, then, do you continue to ignore me every time I ask you why my statements are indicative of a baddie mindset, and just fall back on telling me off for claiming honesty etc

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

I do see the irony in SVS seeing me as a threat and wants to vote me, essentially because I did what I could to get rid of the person I thought was a threat.

Um I am voting for you, but if you do not get lynched, I will not try to get the baddies to kill you.

Well I think I've made it very clear epi was a one off too, but it doesn't stop everyone pretending like I'm going to do it to them next.

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

I do see the irony in SVS seeing me as a threat and wants to vote me, essentially because I did what I could to get rid of the person I thought was a threat.

Canucklehead wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:Hey all i've been reeeeeally busy and just havent had time to read all posts,sorry. i'm willing to change my vote from turniphead to either golden or bass since that's where things seem to be headed.. golden hasn't seemed totally his upfront self like from previous games, it's giving me goosebumps. what's the case against bass though?

So, Golden gives svs chills and Bubbles goosebumps

, . . . .


What a cool guy!
* rimshot *

Wakka Wakka !

I like your joke, canuck!

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

Public beheading, lol. More or less accurate.

BTW this would be me going for the wifom...

"If I had killed epi, I would have just said 'looks like someone is trying to set me up' and left it at that. The fact I was open about my day one motivations should be the hint you need to realise the kill was not me."

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:S~V~S, to elaborate, I suppose I just feel as though you're putting Golden up to an expectation that is unreasonable, considering he has been quite open about playing a neutral game, and that Epi was a serious threat to Golden's immediate livelihood. I think it's key to note how emotionally-charged Golden's play has been this game, due to being under constant defense for his well being, and from Epi for a while at that.

I feel his behavior in this game is contrary to his non-baddie meta as I know it.

Do you better understand it put like that?

I feel like Golden is playing similar to how he started out in HSK actually, sparring with Epignosis and all. He just took it... a little further this time. I've only seen Golden bad in one game, when he subbed back into Economics, and he played nothing like he is here. He was calm and collected and attracted no attention.

I never said he is playing like a baddie. I said he is not playing like civ-centric Golden. What if he decides I am incompatible with him? Or you? I am flabbergasted that anyone is actually defending this.

I believe that he killed Epi and is going for the WIFOM. And if Bass does not flip bad, I will wonder about the hard push for him at this point.

SVS, if later in this game I'm civ and decide I think you are bad, then I am deciding you are incompatible with me, but I'm doing so in a civ/baddie context. What is the difference for epi?

S~V~S wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:S~V~S, to elaborate, I suppose I just feel as though you're putting Golden up to an expectation that is unreasonable, considering he has been quite open about playing a neutral game, and that Epi was a serious threat to Golden's immediate livelihood. I think it's key to note how emotionally-charged Golden's play has been this game, due to being under constant defense for his well being, and from Epi for a while at that.

I feel his behavior in this game is contrary to his non-baddie meta as I know it.

Do you better understand it put like that?

To be precise, i feel he is behaving contrary to the non-baddie standard he sets for HIMSELF. I did not set him this standard; he did, and he knows I am right is saying so.

I disagree that I'm behaving contrary to my own non-baddie standard, and I've tried to explain why. I don't think epi was civ. There are plenty of times I've ignored what everyone else thinks because I think someone is not civ. Aces in Roger Rabbit comes to mind as a prime example.

I DO agree that I have done something I've never done before, that looks very different. I've tried to compare it to past big moves I've made like in King Arthur. You've said you could understand the civ motivation there but not here. I get it, that you do not see it as the same thing, and I think your view on that is genuine. I just don't know what more I could do to explain myself.

Just wanted to quickly pop in while I have a moment and clarify my last post.

SVS says I did not act with interests of the group at heart.

I made my ploy against epi because it was in my self-interest but also, as I've reiterated several times, I do not think he was civilian, and would not have made my move if I thought otherwise. I was not exclusively focussed on my own self-interest which I think is now a misperception.

Sometimes two things are true at once. I made the move I did specifically because I think epi being dead was in my self-interest. But even so, I would not have made the move if not for also believing he was not civ.

S~V~S wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

reywaS wrote:

reywaS wrote:Also, Golden, you getting so upset that someone might think you are not being honest in a game of mafia doesn't look good for you.

EBWOP

What would you say if I told you that in a very recent game I played with Golden, he was equally insistent on his claimed honesty being respected on the purest moral basis that honesty is virtuous -- and he was a townie?

What would you say if i told you that in the perhaps 20 games i have played with Golden in about 5 years, he has consistently put the civ group above himself, even when a neutral or independant?

But I'm not neutral or independent. Im' just in limbo.

I don't know what I might be, until I am.

And I still did put the needs ahead of the grpi[ in full focus, but whatever, I'll get to that later. Gotta go now.

Rey - I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong. Sorry if that is overreacting.

thellama73 wrote:Just beer with me one more day.

Hey guys, not going to be around much if at all to defend myself before the night post goes in, so its time for the legacy post in case I come back to find I'm lynched.

Given his vote today, I'm struggling to find rey genuine. That's the second day he has come in and voted late on me in a row based on some small point out of the blue. He claims that the way to find baddies is to look at their motivations not their actions, but he has completely ignored doing any thinking about MY motivations for either of his votes. He has tended to call my defences semantics.

I think bass is someone you should definitely be lynching. I've probably underplayed today how sensible I think a bass lynch would be.

I agree with others who think Dom is being shady about his thoughts, and I tihnk people should be asking him to explain them more.

I'm reading bwt, bea, roxy, SVS, JJ, nutella, unfurl, bullz as very genuine.

Everyone else you could call my read neutral.

linki @rey - whatever. I did not say your vote for me was personal or try to imply it. People have called me a lot of things this game. Call me a liar if you want. I'll just continue to say what I have to say. Anyone who knows me well knows that I do not lie about stuff like emotions, and that my firm belief is 1) there is no legitimate reason why any baddie would ever get benefit from doing so (and if they did get some short term benefit, it gets held against them forever) and 2) That lying about trivial things that you don't need to lie about is stupid no matter what your affiliation is. I feel like you know me well enough, but I recognise there has been a long break.

This game has taken a big emotional toll on me so far and I'm finding it exhausting. I have no idea who has posted the most but I must be up there, and 90% of it has been me on the defence. I go out to try and actually figure out who the baddies are, immediately get some bullshit suspicion from epi, and basically I've never been able to let up on defence since. I don't want to keep it up. So, if people are honestly going to go after me day after day after day for some conduct which I think makes literally no sense in terms of it making me bad, then there isn't much I can do about it.

linki @rey again - why does that not look good for me either? Honestly is my core value. There is nothing I think is further from the truth than that mafia is a game of lying. It isn't. It's a game of lying as little as possible.

linki @rey again - oh no, two also's, you must be bad.

I am confident it is in my best interests, and if I had my time over I would do it again. Why can't I also feel guilty about it?

I'm sick of people using honesty against me. Once again, WHY IS IT BAD FOR ME TO SAY THAT?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:golden do you really think MP was civ recruited already?

Bass, I really think you haven't.

I was just looking for a yes or no.

I have no particular view as to the likelihood of MP being civ. It's not why I was setting out to save him. I just didn't like the way he took three votes for what I see as poor reasons very early in the day.

@SVS - thank you I just wanted to know either way. And I do know you <3 me and I you, but I honestly don't blame anyone if they were mad at me about epi, because I feel guilty about it myself.

I can understand why having acted roguish might make people feel uncomfortable (especially people who know me well). I feel like it's how all neutrals are probably playing, and I'm just overt about it.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:golden do you really think MP was civ recruited already?

Bass, I really think you haven't.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:I was not directly responsible for killing epi. I was intentionally baiting people into setting me up, though. I suspected that if I made enough of my intention to kill epi, someone else would do it.

I am very sad to see Typhoony die already, I agree with SVS it's a lame kill hope you get a rezz, typh.

This nonchalance. This post chilled me. You cared not a whit what anyone else thought. You felt that he was incompatible with you, so he had to go. I feel that YOU are incompatible with the rest of us if this is how you feel.

I feel like this vote is really personal. If it's not, ok, but it's certainly the way our discussion has felt today. It feels like you have a personal distaste for the fact I set out to get epi dead, from the start when you are saying it's not golden-like.

I've always made big moves, and the biggest ones I make are against the people I think are most likely to be bad. I don't know what impact me trying to bait the kill actually had, but I really hate that being honest about the fact that this is what I was trying to do has led to some of the things that have been said about me. I didn't need to say it, I could have kept my mouth shut. You specifically asked if I was being set up, I gave my honest view on what may have happened.

I said a long time ago, that anyone who feels like the move against epi was in poor taste, I understand if you vote against me. But I would appreciate the honest truth about it. I don't want to be left wondering.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

Roxy wrote:Also llama what happened to your Bubbles suspicion? Did it just magically disappear?

Same goes to all the Teeth voters - did your suspicion (strong enough to place a vote on him yesterday) just disappear over the night phase?

I would not say it fully evaporated, but his comment when he thought he was lynched made me think twice about him, and yeah it did make me think he was more likely to be civ than I previously thought.

Really? Why?

He said 'go civs' after he thought he was going to be lynched, and it read genuinely to me.

You do realize that there is a baddie recruiter that is immune to lynches and night kills while in position 1, right? Did that factor into your read of the post?

It read genuine to me. Yes, I factored in many things. Including him being able to stop the lynch or being responsible for the night ending early. There are many things that could be true, but when I read that post I felt it read genuinely, in a way which outweighed what were moderately small pings I had on him before then.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:VOTE REGISTERED FOR GOLDEN I'm not sure I want to wait for him to consider it impossible for myself and he to be on the same team :P

Why, are you scared that me deciding that would actually lead to your death?

YOU Seem to think that it led to Epis, so

DH's vote seems to be very intentionally tongue in cheek to me.

I do not like that I am being painted as a villain just for admitting that I actively tried to bait a kill on epi

I particularly don't like when people keep ascribing to my thinking things that I have not said (like that I think the only possible explanation for the kill was that I was successful in baiting the kill, because I just have so much power in the world).

I really hate it when wanting to be honest is what gets me suspected.

DH - I don't buy that you are scared for a second. It's just more bullshit. If I successfully baited an epi kill, there is no way I succeed in doing that twice.
SVS - I would like you to tell me whether or not a factor in your vote is just that you don't approve of what I tried to do to epi (and may have succeeded in doing). If it is or is not it's ok, I just want to know.

S~V~S wrote:@BWT, ok, that makes sense. I was like

Bullzeye wrote:

S~V~S wrote: This pretty much sums up how I feel about the TH votes. I find that remark he made to be brow raising, but not enough to merit a vote, gossip or not. TH is a strong player, and I am not ready to experiment on him just yet. I have not seen anything from my day one vote, Bullz, to alarm me so i doubt I will vote for him again today, although i plan to keep an eye on him. He plays a pretty seamless recruited game in my experience.

I don't think I've played a seamless game my entire life! Lost Revolution was like the biggest fluke ever.

Ha ha ha, well, you were a seamless recruit there. So it was an awesome fluke. I was so impressed!

DharmaHelper wrote:VOTE REGISTERED FOR GOLDEN I'm not sure I want to wait for him to consider it impossible for myself and he to be on the same team :P

Yeah, this. I find the whole nonchalance about the whole thing to be almost chilling, tbh. Everything else I have seen seems like a little ping next to it.

VOTING FOR GOLDEN

What nonchalance?

DharmaHelper wrote:VOTE REGISTERED FOR GOLDEN I'm not sure I want to wait for him to consider it impossible for myself and he to be on the same team :P

Why, are you scared that me deciding that would actually lead to your death?

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

Roxy wrote:Also llama what happened to your Bubbles suspicion? Did it just magically disappear?

Same goes to all the Teeth voters - did your suspicion (strong enough to place a vote on him yesterday) just disappear over the night phase?

I would not say it fully evaporated, but his comment when he thought he was lynched made me think twice about him, and yeah it did make me think he was more likely to be civ than I previously thought.

Really? Why?

He said 'go civs' after he thought he was going to be lynched, and it read genuinely to me.

Aapje, for clarity. I can't see why people would vote TH because the speaker told them to. I can see why they might for other reasons.

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can confirm that lynching me is a waste of everyone's time, and if that's the barometer we're using for whether or not the Speaker of Serenity can be trusted, then the answer is that s/he can not.

I saw no reason to believe the Speaker of Serenity ought to be blindly followed yet.

The question for me is, are they not to be trusted as in actually bad, or are they just not to be trusted as in - it should be obvious to everyone that they probably don't have info yet.

Even if they're not actively bad (yet), I'd be wary of anyone willing to blindly follow such a role. Despite the fact I've always wanted to have a gossip role (and the one time I did I got bandwagoned Day 1) I always take their comments with a pinch of salt - it's just another player who isn't necessarily any wiser or dumber than the rest of us, they just get an anonymous platform to call people out from. They can be useful, but only when their posts have more content than just "lynch X plzkthxbai".

I agree entirely. I'm not really sure why TH has votes, to me it is pretty much on the same place on the curve as random. Although someone like G-Man is not basing it solely on the Speaker.

Turnip Head wrote:I can confirm that lynching me is a waste of everyone's time, and if that's the barometer we're using for whether or not the Speaker of Serenity can be trusted, then the answer is that s/he can not.

I saw no reason to believe the Speaker of Serenity ought to be blindly followed yet.

The question for me is, are they not to be trusted as in actually bad, or are they just not to be trusted as in - it should be obvious to everyone that they probably don't have info yet.

Roxy wrote:Also llama what happened to your Bubbles suspicion? Did it just magically disappear?

Same goes to all the Teeth voters - did your suspicion (strong enough to place a vote on him yesterday) just disappear over the night phase?

I would not say it fully evaporated, but his comment when he thought he was lynched made me think twice about him, and yeah it did make me think he was more likely to be civ than I previously thought.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Nevermind replacement. I'll soldier on after work.

Yay you would have been a big loss to the game.

We are all out of unfurl's league. Unfurl is super-awesome.

I like that post from DrWilgy a lot. I won't end up voting that way today (you are right MM, I like doing that). Thoughts on Bass pretty much mirror my own, although the problem I have is somehow bass always seems to be mafia, so I'm not sure how much of bass's civ meta I have to go on. (lol at Bass the Cleaver though...)

I will say one thing though. I don't think we are going to get any choice as to who we use a rezz on (I could be wrong about that). I have a feeling that rezz contests will be played out amongst the dead, and we will get who we get.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

nutella wrote:I really don't understand you Dom. Like I never understand most of the things that cause you to "eye" people, they're always the weirdest, most meaningless little things. Like how hard you went after Scotty for something you contrivedly read as a "slip" when it clearly wasn't (I think quite a few others were as baffled by your interpretation as I was.) And now you're eyeing me for placing an early vote in a changeable poll?? What??? I guess it's just how you play though, going doggedly after little things like that, but honestly if you weren't like this every game I would call you out for being opportunistic. But I'm generally always completely baffled by your extreme nitpickiness.

If he nitpicks you, that means he likes you.

Dom never nitpicks me.

Do you have nits?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:No worries. I'm just drinking beer and enjoying watching this game unfold.

Do you want to lynch Bass, or are you just voting him for the time being?

I'm not opposed to lynching bass. But I'm mostly voting him for the time being, in order to protect MP a little. I am not a fan of the votes on MP. Any of them. That includes Bass's vote, even though it could be construed as self-defensive.

Why are you so worried about trying to save MP?

I don't think he is bad and I do not trust the votes against him.

So you think i'm bad?

Are we going around in circles? We already had this discussion about 10 hours ago.

Golden wrote:Bass, put it like this.

You theorised that the recruiters were likely to be people who are known for always participating fully. That might take the heat of you as being a recruiter. I don't think you would be likely to make that statement if you were a civilian recruiter. You might if you were a baddie recruiter. I saw that statement as being likely neutral.

But, who is more likely to recruit the person admitting they aren't reading the thread?

It sounds a bit mean, but you've kind of admitted it yourself. You wouldn't make a great recruit. At least, not for the civilians who need to solve the game. But someone like that can also be very hard to lynch. Not a bad candidate for a baddie recruit.

In any event, with you I see a worst case scenario of being neutral, and that is ok with me. I'm trying to avoid lynching people who are civs. I don't think you are civ.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:No worries. I'm just drinking beer and enjoying watching this game unfold.

Do you want to lynch Bass, or are you just voting him for the time being?

I'm not opposed to lynching bass. But I'm mostly voting him for the time being, in order to protect MP a little. I am not a fan of the votes on MP. Any of them. That includes Bass's vote, even though it could be construed as self-defensive.

Why are you so worried about trying to save MP?

I don't think he is bad and I do not trust the votes against him.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:No worries. I'm just drinking beer and enjoying watching this game unfold.

Do you want to lynch Bass, or are you just voting him for the time being?

I'm not opposed to lynching bass. But I'm mostly voting him for the time being, in order to protect MP a little. I am not a fan of the votes on MP. Any of them. That includes Bass's vote, even though it could be construed as self-defensive.