The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:I deserve the blame for this loss. I got in my own head and pushed scotty when I should have trusted going after Splints. Sorry, team.

You didn't successfully turn Sorsha, and you were still going to die either way. And Dom and Splints were still going to vote Scotty. It's not on you.

Where we really won was probably on night one. There were two roles who could target Dom and get btsc with him, Scotty was completely right about a love triangle. We just got exceptionally lucky that we targetted him first.

Roxy wrote:Also I totes enjoyed being civ ninja and taking out golden bc I cba'ed to make a case (it would have been too much work)

My last kill I debated betwixt Dom and Scotty and ended up with Scotty bc of Sorsha's remark about Dom.

I was keeping you alive because I like playing with you.

I even came down on the 'Roxy is good, Eloh is bad' side of the fence because I wanted you to be alive until the end. Even though you suspected me.

This is the thanks I get

Also, damn Sorsha you were hard to kill!!!

Turnip Head wrote:Well played baddies. Nice attempt at bussing Lacey, Golden, but it put you on my radar Not that it mattered because you guys lynched me first

Yeah, it was pretty obvious I had to get you lynched instead

Scotty wrote:Good game baddies! Was I right in assuming Phoebe was a turncloak should she find Monty? And did Golden slip when he said Dom was Phoebe?

Yes. I did a major slip. I really wasn't focussed on this game, and boy did it nearly screw the whole thing up.

The 'quiet' thing wasn't because I was bad, though. I'm just quiet in all games at the moment, relative to normal, because like you I'm a little burnt out and can't dedicate quite the same time to it. I'm going to take a short break after World Reborn.

Scotty, a short break is good - but you are way too great a person and I would miss playing the game with you. I really love playing mafia with you.

You were also definitely the town MVP. We were coasting to a win and you nearly turned the whole thing around.

I wanted to wait because I am worried about self-defence, but I have to go now.

Eloh, I think you are bad. I think you went a little hard at Roxy to paint a target there, and when it didn't work you've really backed off.

@elo - how do you feel about llama?

Not asking for info outing, by the way, just want to be clear there.

I think you can follow the logic through the posts, but I'll spell it out clearly so people can see. Context was lost because I lost my big post.

Scotty made a post which I read incorrectly, speculating about who was monty and bringing up phoebe. I thought he had counted dom out and said she was phoebe. (Yes I should have known better or gone back and checked or something. But I didn't - because my attention was far more taken up with the second half of this same post where he called me out as bad and it's where I immediately focussed my attention.)

I wrote a long response. In that response, it would have been far more clear that I was simply working through what I thought was the next step in scotty's logical process. The much shortened version makes it sound like I am saying a statement 'dom is not monty'. But that is not how the original version of this post read at all. It was way clearer that I was following through what I'd taken from Scotty's post, and it would have been very apparent that I was not making a claim about Dom. Unfortunately, because I tried to do a short version of that post when I lost it, all the context got lost.

Then Scotty asked why Dom was not monty, and it baffled me, hence why you will see the question mark at the end of my next thing. Again, I was not making a statement that Dom IS Phoebe. I was confused because I didn't understand why Scotty was asking me why Dom couldn't be Monty when I thought he had literally just said Dom was Phoebe. It wasn't until Scotty questioned where I got that from and I went back and read his original post that had me thinking that, where I realised I was wrong about that.

I can't do more than that. I don't have a role check, not from either role OR prize, I'm not sure why it would be a slip that I know who Phoebe is if I did (just kind of random) but I don't, and I doubt I would have been allowed to use a deadie role check on someone who wasn't dead at the end of phase even if I did have one.

Perhaps the real Phoebe, if they are alive, or Dom can back me up on this... since chances they are not actually the same.

Sorsha wrote:

Scotty wrote:Actually, @Sorsha: what is your opinion of Golden? You two haven't interacted all game.

linki- well aside from her survival on night 2 (3?) what preempted your good vibes on her Golden?

I don't trust him. I don't trust you either though. I'm glad he's posting more so I can get a better idea about him.

Who do you most trust?

Did Scotty say that, or was he quoting me in his case against me? (I don't know, I can't find it either way, but I know I said I thought llama could be at some point).

Oh, me trying to explain why I'm not llama's teammate.

Well, I mean... I know I'm not. I didn't think that the whole way through, because it seemed logical when I began the sentence. It was less logical when I thought about the fact that the argument is that he is Monty.

All I know, Scotty, is that I'm not bad. You've voted for me now, so I can't change that. I'm not trying to protect llama and I don't have much I can say in the way of defence there. It probably doesn't help that its Friday night and I'm not at my sharpest, I'm having my Friday night unwind blob.

I'll be more engaged tomorrow

linki - Umm... that seems like your logic fail. I would say someone could still be monty even if saved by the reverend?

But all I'm saying is, from the position of someone who has hosted a bit... it's more likely you forget that someone has been targetted, rather than forget a part of their role. In my experience. I have just been assuming Dom was protected by the rev all game, clearly I shouldn't be assuming though.

What was wrong with my logic?

@scotty - I would prefer a vote on eloh.

And given dom is in the mix for being monty, that reduces the chance for llama being monty too. I hadn't thought about monty being one of the NKed people before, but I guess it can be dom.

I think more likely is Dom was protected by the reverend...

Also scotty, you've pointed out my vote for llama on day one tying the vote. It was legit, and very early to bus a teammate like that... although I guess if llama is monty that would be less meaningful.

Anyway, I would consider my vote possibilities for today

1) eloh
2) llama

Noone else.

Yeah, I read back too, Dom's role isn't revealed.

I just misread scotty's post, where he was talking about dom, sorsha, monty, phoebe, and got confused. I was trying to point out to Scotty his own logic. I think that thought process would have been clearer if I hadn't lost that big post.

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:Scotty, I've read your case and...

It's a good one. I can see why you find it convincing, and I might too.

But you are wrong. I'm not on a team with llama. And if you want to know what my baddie game meta is, its to not defend my teammates and leave clear trails back to them.

Take that how you will. I think there is a good chance llama is bad, but I am not.

If it was Llama and Eloh, who are viable third possibilities? MM, scotty, fingersplints. I think it is three out of that 5 in any event.

I don't think Roxy or Sorsha or Dom.

linki - because dom was revealed as being phoebe?

wait what? I missed that. Where was that revealed?

Didn't you just say it?

Scotty wrote:Actually, @Sorsha: what is your opinion of Golden? You two haven't interacted all game.

linki- well aside from her survival on night 2 (3?) what preempted your good vibes on her Golden?

Possibly the fact she seems to have been seeing the game the same way I have lol. I don't know, I just feel like she has made sense and looked good, to me. I haven't seen anything that I feel like could be deliberate manipulation (eg, like Eloh using strong adjectives to rile up Roxy). Gut feels.

Scotty wrote:And I wouldn't put it past a smart mafia team to put out a kill attempt on Monty. Gives dat street cred, especially if a mafia member has a green mushroom.

I'd pull that move for sure, it's definitely one that is in the bag of tricks. I think there are others who would too (like MM, llama - possibly you!). I just go on the fact that Sorsha is the person I think is least likely to be bad based on the thread. I get good vibes from her.

Scotty, I've read your case and...

It's a good one. I can see why you find it convincing, and I might too.

But you are wrong. I'm not on a team with llama. And if you want to know what my baddie game meta is, its to not defend my teammates and leave clear trails back to them.

Take that how you will. I think there is a good chance llama is bad, but I am not.

If it was Llama and Eloh, who are viable third possibilities? MM, scotty, fingersplints. I think it is three out of that 5 in any event.

I don't think Roxy or Sorsha or Dom.

linki - because dom was revealed as being phoebe?

Oops, also, I let Eloh go yesterday because of consensus pick and the day before because she was insanified, but I would still like to lynch her today.

Gah, I just lost my post.

Long story short.

What is a benedict arnold?

Dom can't be monty. Sorsha could, I guess, but I've felt good about her all game. Llama would be my pick.

Yes, I've posted less. Welcome to a game in which I haven't had to constantly defend myself. My post counts are traditionally high because of how much effort I put in to trying to demonstrate to people why I am not bad.

Despite only having 35, I'm right up there eh?

linki - I guess thats about to change.

Good night, greybonez

I always find it kind of fun when someone admits to it when things are a foregone conclusion.

Llama is one of a pool of people I haven't ruled out as a possible baddie, but him being bad would be more circumstantial - I haven't had any baddie vibes from him, and for me the worst strike against llama is greybonez day one drive by vote.

Greybonez/MM/Eloh would make sense to me as a team. Scotty is bothering me, though, in that his views just changed a lot from being llama to now being greybonez/eloh team. I almost wonder if it could be Greybonez/Scotty/MM and if scotty is setting up the lynch of one of his own so that he can turn it on to Eloh tomorrow. Also, from day one greybonez/llama still makes a decent amount of sense.

Anyway, putting that all together I think a greybonez vote is the way to go, I'm on board.

Llama could also be asquith sr.

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:Another driveby for greybonez. That does it. I'll give Daisy a chance to respond, I'm voting greybonez.

Unfortunately, that doesn't help me.

It may. Sorsha was willing to vote that way. Daisy couldn't call it boring...

(If Grey is bad, I think you could be his teammate anyway, so saving you was not my first priority).

Another driveby for greybonez. That does it. I'll give Daisy a chance to respond, I'm voting greybonez.

I do plan to vote and I do not plan to vote for you, llama.

I suspect Eloh, but find it a bit rough to lynch her while insanified. Especially when, as Dom said, it can't be a baddie tactic that she is insanified.

I am currently considering a vote for daisy, because:

1) When I was on her baddie team in guess who, she was similarly very quiet in the thread; and
2) I'd rather lynch people who I think are bad, rather than lynch people because it's 'less boring', and I'm not sure what motivated her to say that.

Spacedaisy wrote:I think I would like to see a different lynch for once. Feels like anymore we lynch the same handful of people in the first two to three days. Boring.

Who, specifically, would you consider to be a boring vote?

thellama73 wrote:Hey Golden, are you bad?

Nope, are you?

I also still feel like greybonez day one vote may have been a newbie mafia mistake and it's hard for me to let that fly under the radar day after day.

So, my thoughts on Roxy.

Her getting emotional and frustrated is always real. Even when she is bad, I don't think Roxy fakes frustration or any of the emotional stuff. However, she never lets it stop her from playing the game to the best of her ability and I do not assume she must be good just because her frustration is real - I've seen it from the side of being bad.

I have seen Roxy play like this, except one thing. I have never seen Roxy self-vote. That one is kind of odd. But I wonder if it has specifically to do with her relationship with llama. I understand completely when Roxy says she and llama are completely different in style and don't see eye to eye, because there are people whose style is literally polar opposite to me too. And I can understand why deep frustration like that could get you to self-vote.

Now the thing about Roxy that I thought was opportunistic was her suspect list... her top one was Eloh who is going after her and then the next two are straight from TH's legacy list (includes me), but having said that Roxy already expressed suspicion of me before, so suspecting me is consistent. (Roxy, its up to you to elaborate and I see you are more after Eloh right now - but I would like the chance to defend what about me you think looks bad).

Roxy reads frustrated and rational to me right now, and that feels civ - except that I've seen that from Roxy when she is bad as well. So, I keep that in mind.

~

Eloh, on the other hand, really is playing different to what I've seen from her. Her choice of words in describing Roxy seems quite aggressive. Going after Roxy so hard in the circumstances also seems opportunistic, especially when Roxy is already frustrated. I think Eloh would also fail epi's adverb test, as Roxy has pointed out, some of the things Eloh have said feel to me like they could be designed to get Roxy voted out.

So right now, having reviewed all of that...

I think Eloh is bad and Roxy is civ. I'll probably vote Eloh today, but I want to see what others come up with.

Glad you survived Sorsha. I already felt good about you, but it's good confirmation.

I have been watching the Roxy/Eloh thing with interest, and could see scenarios where either one of them is bad. I have been very busy today and without time to post, but I will post more about what I'm seeing in this when I get home tonight. There are some things about both of them that read as opportunistic to me. Actually, I think there is a lot of opportunism going on in this game.

Sorry TH, and RIP - I was wrong.

I can't be around all the way to the vote. I did want to wait till TH came back.

As it is, my view of TH is that he is willing to stir the pot and see what comes out, but he isn't putting anything of his own out there. It's a great way to look civilian (I'm asking questions!) while actually all you are doing is putting the entire focus on someone else and trying to make them look bad. I've seen civ TH ask questions along with putting out his own view on stuff, but I've also experienced bad TH when all he did was early votes and asking questions to get reactions, and I get the same vibe from him here. It doesn't help that he didn't go after reactions from me at all until I suggested I thought he was bad, if anyone wants to understand what I mean by that, start with the last post on page 3, and then read page 4 through to the lynch, have a look at the way TH goads me without really making any point at all - the entire thing feels to me not like he had any legitimate issue with me but just that he wanted other people to look at me.

So voting TH.

BWT, nod if correct.

You think that the llama slip conversation was ridiculously overplayed, and clearly it wasn't a slip (I agree with that sentiment), and you think that Sorsha's explanation was believable, so you think probably one of Eloh and MM is bad.

Have I captured that correctly?

Elohcin wrote:I somehow missed it. Roxy, why did you self vote?

She wanted to piss off llama?

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I think it's odd that you expected a lot of case making, or even a lot of opinions, from me on a 24-hour Day 1 where three meaningless votes had been cast up to that point. The fact that you've had a lot of strong opinions, none of which feel organic to me, is actually a big reason why I suspect you.

I don't expect a lot of anything. But you contributed a lot. You posted a lot. But it was meaningless. If you hadn't contributed nearly so much, then I wouldn't have found it odd how little of it was actually relevant or providing any view on anything. You never even said 'I don't have any particular pings' or anything like that... you just posted a whole lot. And I have had literally zero STRONG opinions, which is why I was wanting to bounce ideas off people towards the vote. When I have strong opinions, other peoples views are not going to influence what way I vote. That doesn't stop me from saying what I see.

You call it meaningless, but earlier you said it seemed like I was looking for reactions. Is looking for reactions meaningless? Is asking questions meaningless? Maybe to baddies, because they want to know what's going on inside my head.

I'll elaborate on what I meant by strong opinions when I have more time.

Not inherently meaningless, no, but in conjunction with nothing else of value - as I've said and will repeat - this is not consistent with what I know of civilian and indy TH but I have seen it from you when you were bad on RYM. I find it suspicious not because of what you HAVE said, but because of what you HAVEN'T said... ie its the absence of anything concrete that anyone could pin you down on.

Turnip Head wrote:I think it's odd that you expected a lot of case making, or even a lot of opinions, from me on a 24-hour Day 1 where three meaningless votes had been cast up to that point. The fact that you've had a lot of strong opinions, none of which feel organic to me, is actually a big reason why I suspect you.

I don't expect a lot of anything. But you contributed a lot. You posted a lot. But it was meaningless. If you hadn't contributed nearly so much, then I wouldn't have found it odd how little of it was actually relevant or providing any view on anything. You never even said 'I don't have any particular pings' or anything like that... you just posted a whole lot. And I have had literally zero STRONG opinions, which is why I was wanting to bounce ideas off people towards the vote. When I have strong opinions, other peoples views are not going to influence what way I vote. That doesn't stop me from saying what I see.

Oh, I found daisy as well. Thats even more confusing than having a golden 2 floating around.

Because after originally bringing up lacey as an absentee, when he voted it he said he was doing it to 'piss off roxy', and that felt like a way of pre-empting any possible suspicion he could take from roxy so he could paint it as a reaction to him saying he wanted to piss her off, to me.

And I agree its par for the course for you - for your baddie game. It reminds me of playing against you at RYM when you were bad. It doesn't remind me of Keeler, nor of Economics, in both of those cases your questions felt far more organic and just one of the things you were doing, they formed part of the context of you giving opinions, you are more well rounded in your approach.

And, I just realised daisy hasn't checked in yet... I thought she had, but I just realised it was roxy in a daisy suit. So we have two absentees.

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:Have to go. Voting llama. I understand the points about lacey, but if she isn't here tomorrow I will vote for her tomorrow.

You're not making a lot of sense to me lately. Why are you voting Llama? Why are you already setting up a Lacey vote for tomorrow?

Because of those with votes llama and lacey were the only two I considered good votes, llama's vote

Looks like something is missing here. Llama's vote what? Why did you consider Llama and Lacey to be good votes?

Golden wrote:As for your second question, yeah I really have no good reason for that. I just get frustrated with and don't have much sympathy for absenteeism. But I don't know why I said it, except that in the moment I was frustrated, because I'd much sooner vote you tomorrow. Anyone I have a legitimate actual suspicion of, in fact.

Llama's vote pinged me.

I went through why I didn't vote others. I didn't want to spread the vote further, because it looked like only me and epi were left... I'm glad lots of others turned up in the last 20 minutes, but that was unexpected for me. I didn't want to vote active people who I had no suspicion on, especially when they are types who take suspicion early a lot.

Now, TH, you've stopped short of actually saying you suspect me, you've done all these questions which read to me like a deliberate attempt to get me to react so you can peg stuff on me, and that is exactly the kind of thing I was seeing from before that point too. Everything you've done, it feels like you've done just to obtain reactions. And even though I told you I suspected you because it felt like you were posting a lot without giving much of your own views, you have not begun to do so... you've simply tried to entrap me.

So, why don't you say who you are actually suspicious of.

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:Have to go. Voting llama. I understand the points about lacey, but if she isn't here tomorrow I will vote for her tomorrow.

You're not making a lot of sense to me lately. Why are you voting Llama? Why are you already setting up a Lacey vote for tomorrow?

Because of those with votes llama and lacey were the only two I considered good votes, llama's vote

As for your second question, yeah I really have no good reason for that. I just get frustrated with and don't have much sympathy for absenteeism. But I don't know why I said it, except that in the moment I was frustrated, because I'd much sooner vote you tomorrow. Anyone I have a legitimate actual suspicion of, in fact.

RIP epi, I'm sorry to see you go early again, you've had a really bad run, I know how much that can suck.

Greybonez, how new are you to mafia?

Have to go. Voting llama. I understand the points about lacey, but if she isn't here tomorrow I will vote for her tomorrow.

BWT took the pressure off, epi has options.

@MM - I think those are my two best options... to make a vote that is meaningful.

@TH - anyone can turn anything into a 'legitimate vote' on day 1 if by legitimate you just mean 'actual'. Epi explained to me his perspective, I do not agree. I don't find Sorsha suspicious, and I am not voting that way.

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:I have to vote soon, but I was/am hoping to get input from others first... anyone else still here?

I'm here.

Your boy Epignosis has two votes and wants to vote for Sorsha. Where do you stand on that?

Sorsha was the first person I said I was not going to vote for and I don't want to go back on that. Also, I don't agree with epi's reasons for suspecting her, I don't actually think she can follow that through to become a legitimate suspicion, I think it was just a random reason for a random vote with no real ping.

@TH - bouncing off you is fine, anyone who is here!

I think the merit is in lynching an absentee, someone who cannot contribute to the cause. I would definitely lynch her tomorrow if she still isn't here, but is now too early? Maybe, in a speed game.

Well, thats it, right? And then epi comes and votes for the same person I do to save himself...

MM, what do you think are the merits of a lacey lynch or a llama lynch? At least one person to bounce it off...

I have to vote soon, but I was/am hoping to get input from others first... anyone else still here?