The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:The best item-related chatter came from SVS when she thanked the Buddha for saving her life

And the best btsc chatter was when TH admitted he "loved on a terrace"

thellama73 wrote:The person named in the will was assigned randomly to Zombarella, and I was a little dismayed that BF shared that info with the whole thread and that it became taken as an indicator of Zomberella's guilt. I felt like I had painted a target on her back, which I had not intended to do. The point of the will was to give one player a private incentive to kill a particular person that may or may not have been consistent with their other goals. I was a little surprised at how eager everyone was to share details about their items. If I had to do it over again, I might have prohibited talking about them.

This is probably due to the influx of the RM civvie culture. For what its worth, I don't think games that paint targets on the back of individuals are necessarily bad. Zombs did a very good job of working hard to turn it around, and bf was really the one who got lynched as a result of the info being shared. I don't think it is necessarily a negative either for the game or for the skill of an individual to have to go through a pressure test of having a target on their backs.

Of course, I would say that - I'm adept at painting a target on my own back by accident and then being forced into defending myself for the rest of the game.

Oh, and I do understand why you killed the celestials - but no matter how justified it was, I think it was the thing that cost you the game. Not just killing us, but the constant everything on us... silences etc. We had no choice but to go after you. Actually, our interests were in taking out those civilians who could steal stuff from us.

Oh well, these things happen. I mourn not for SVS's loss, because she did us proud.

Long Con wrote:Also, every "suspicion" I had of S~V~S and TH was solely to try and protect them. I figured they were Celestials from long before I manufactured the suspicions. I felt like Rabbit was on the same page there.

I saw you and rabbit doing that too. I felt pretty good about both of you. Had lots of arguments about you in chat, LC, lol.

It's kinda nice to see a baddie team waste all their kills on celestials and cost themselves the game love it when the civs win. Good game everyone!

PS - Bullz you played a really good game. I always thought you were bad, but never found any real way to pin it on you.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:I'm not surprised to have died, in fact I kind of expected it tbh. Good luck civs!

RIP Golden. I was excited to actually get to rejoin the action with you only to see you die.

Lol. This is becoming a thing!

Dom, the one thing I keep coming back to about SVS, it will be interesting to get your thoughts on this...

If she was bad, why come out and be the first one to have the theory that she was supposed to die, she still had the will, lol the baddies failed to kill her and therefore the story in the newspaper must be a fake? After all, that is how most of the heat on zombs started?

Why not just come out and go... yeah, the will was stolen...

Seems like a very odd baddie plot to put a story in the newspaper that appears to clear Zombs, then immediately start going after her in the thread. Not to mention, no-one else has claimed any reason for why there might not have been a NK.

LK, it's hard to quote to quotes... but hopefully this will do!

1) Zombs brought up A Person first. YOU brought up Vomps. The first two names on the list (the one you cut out the other names of, leaving only A Person) were aimed at Zombs and you, people you had suspicions of who I was suggesting I was willing to look at, because I was busy trying to save both your bacons. For one who is accusing me of twisting words.... sure is a very neatly cut quote, that one. (You did then quote the whole thing later in the same post anyway...)

2) Also, even if you take your version of events and say I brought up A Person first, it wasn't 'earlier in the day', that was all happening literally in a single conversation happening in the thread over a period of about an hour or so - one that you were there for, and fully aware of.

3) The lynch didn't give me the clarity on epi that I had hoped. But the lynch went down nothing like what I expected it to.

4) If Vomps had died and flipped civvie I would not have been the slightest bit bothered, because I would have felt like I might have saved a more important and engaged civ for a lesser one. I would have been wrong, but thats what I would have felt, and in fact what I was feeling when I chose vomps as the direction I wanted to push the lynch. I think there is a lot of merit in the idea that the civvies often lose on this site because the baddies can just stay out of it and let each other pick them off. If you aren't adding value, I don't mind lynching you. If Zombs was good, she was adding lots of value. She wasn't, but I can only go on what I can see. I'd have preferred a vote for A Person too, but it was clear that had no traction. Now I doubt I'd vote for A Person, since Zombs did.

5) I can and frequently do have multiple conflicting theories in my mind at the same time. I thought zombs could be millionaire and you could be feeding her votes. I also thought zombs could be oliver oliver, which is the reason I was trying to save her, because that role could help connect the town. I very nearly turned on zombs and voted for her after you did, because your vote made me feel worse about zombs. But I chose not to because I thought she might take the option of having btsc with me on the next day if I fought for her. That whole thing makes no coherent sense, and it's because the entire period I was weighing up the possibility of millionaire vs the possibility of oliver. I didn't think she could be anyone other than those two (because of the 'ruined my role' statement).

6) And, for me, a theory is not something I think must have happened. It's just conjecture, an idea. So, I'm very happy to say that MY theory is that the baddies can transfer items between themselves, and this might be why Zombs doesn't appear to have had anything on her. Which doesn't surprise me at all, if the baddies could move things around amongst themselves. But honestly, at this point, what is meant by a theory doesn't even bother me. What bothers me is why you seemed so upset that I suggested you had a theory? What exactly is wrong with having one, so much so that it made you say I was twisting your words? You haven't answered this yet...

7) You can change your mind... but if I do, its a no u? Think that through, especially in light of the fact that of the two of us, the first to build a case on the other was me.

8) "What if Vomps had died and had flipped civvie? I think it would have sounded more civvie to say you felt better about a Vomps vote than a Zomba and you hope you're right." - First thing about me is this. I put my money where my mouth is. If I feel better about vote a than vote b, that's what I'll say. If I feel someone is civ and I am deliberately setting out to convince the town to vote with me and put in the save, then that's what I'll say. I wasn't explaining my vote. I was setting out to get vomps lynched to save zomba. Not to lynch vomps. To save zomba. I just picked someone I thought had enough people saying they would be happy to vote that way. Canuck, JC, SVS, splints... a few different people were saying maybe vomps. So I went to vomps, and tried to convince the others already saying they were thinking of that to go with it. I'm not gonna pretend I wasn't trying to put in the save when I was.

But I've explained why I was trying to put in the save, and people have to choose whether to believe it or not.

Long Con wrote:I believe Zomba said she burned her Stock Certificate when I suggested it. As a baddie, she could be lying about it, but if she had nothing, then it could have actually happened.

Or, LKs theory could be true, and baddies may be able to swap items amongst themselves.

LizKeen wrote:

Golden wrote:I haven't tried to twist anything.

LizKeen wrote:Transfer and traded are two different things. So I would say it could be possible for a teammate to give an item to put in the safe.

What is this if not a theory? And, why is it bad for you to have theories, anyway? Why would I need to twist your words?

I said it was a possibility, not "Oh, I bet Player 1 gave Player 2 an item to put in the safe"

Well, if your possibility is correct, maybe Dom didn't get a stock certificate, right? Maybe he got nothing. Because, maybe the baddies knew zombs would be lynched and transferred everything away from her so she wouldn't have anything on her.

I don't know why you are so defensive about this? And, I don't know the difference you see between a possiblity and a theory. To me they are the same.

It wasn't so bad at my pc.

When I went away and used a device with autocorrect? Horrendous.

But I didn't know what epi meant by the 'full participant' thing either. The only things I can think of are: 1) picking items, 2) sending in a picture, 3) voting for streets - I've done all of those things. What other participation is there? Unless he is talking about participating in something that you get selected for eg being enthralled.

It's a long bow to draw to suggest that because the curse gave someone a vote per vowel in RR, it did the same here.

Also, Dom, you seem to have missed where I asked you a question.

Given SVS appears not to have gotten zombs items, did you get one given you voted for her first eg her stock certificate?

There is lots that is quite odd about your game, LK...

Like, for instance, the fact that you, yourself, kept saying you were suspicious of Vomps, yet you are now quick to jump on someone who actually went after him.

I was bothered by your zomb vote on day 1 after you spent the whole day saying you were looking at three other people (low posters), followed by another early zomb vote last night. Last nights one made the least sense of all... with virtually no-one voted yet, you decide to do this:

LizKeen wrote:I'm in a royal quandary as to what to do because I know there's very few people who are going to get votes and I feel like it's going to be me or you Zomb, but I don't feel good enough to put a vote on you either. And I'm most definitely not self-voting. I have no problem going after a low poster but I don't think that's going to get any traction today either.

Golden wrote:@LK - I think we can get traction for someone other than you or zombs. I think it can be done.

LizKeen wrote:I do have to attempt to get some sleep though and I'm going to have to vote now or miss the vote again. I wish I could feel confident I'm not going to get lynched but I just don't and I won't be here before the vote to defend myself anymore. So I feel I don't have much choice but to vote Zomberella. If you're civvie I hope you understand, but I hope you're not so this isn't a total mistake.

I found this whole thing last night pretty odd. It nearly turned me back to thinking zombs was the millionaire, actually, and you thought you could get a sneaky vote in while I led the lynch in another direction. Obviously zombs wasn't the millionaire, but it's a great strategy eh?

LizKeen wrote:I was not enthralled, I've stated already I simply missed the vote because I was out with my kids and didn't have my phone. And I don't know why you put it that Zomb was explaining both our non votes for that. She said she was arrested. And she had no way of explaining my missed vote for me. I'm glad I said I couldn't clear you last night because I'm wondering if you and she weren't thinking you could try and get me on board for pushing the lynch in a new direction. Seems odd you didn't catch that bit in the night post about Michigan Ave. as you seem so astute.

You are throwing shade on me in this post, and you are doing it on the basis that I seem astute...

Golden wrote:LizKeen - thats the second time you've given some derivation of me being astute...

We have never played each other before. I'll I've done in this game is lynched civs, and nearly saved baddies, and clearly, as you say, missed things like Michigan Street in posts.

So where have you gotten the idea from, so early in our collective mafia dealings, that I'm astute?

LizKeen wrote:And I said "seem" astute, not OMG you're so brilliant! And you say maybe we should go ahead and lynch you because it might give us info? Civvie comment? Not much. Even if you are going on vacation that's not helpful. You 're really trying to twist my words or words said about me.

And I want to hear LC's response to Epi.

OK, but here is the thing, right? You say I seem astute. But you are calling me out on things that don't seem astute. And you've never played with me before. You are suggesting I'm bad because I'm not being astute.

So, if I'm not being astute, how do you get the impression that I seem astute? Don't skip the question... "And I said "seem" astute, not OMG you're so brilliant!" - thats not an answer. What have I done that seemed astute to you? I don't think I've done anything in this game which should give you the impression I'm so detail focussed.

LizKeen wrote:And you say maybe we should go ahead and lynch you because it might give us info? Civvie comment? Not much.

Guess you didn't play King Arthur

Call it whatever you like, a hunch... we now may get some evidence that you were right.

I haven't tried to twist anything.

LizKeen wrote:Transfer and traded are two different things. So I would say it could be possible for a teammate to give an item to put in the safe.

What is this if not a theory? And, why is it bad for you to have theories, anyway? Why would I need to twist your words?

Feel free to look at me... I have to sub out anyway after tomorrow's lynch, at least lynching me might give the town some info.

@bass - in this case, I think I should have stuck with my head (the thing telling me that the newspaper post was obviously a baddie attempt to salvage zombs game) and ignored my gut (telling me zombs sounded good).

LizKeen - thats the second time you've given some derivation of me being astute...

We have never played each other before. I'll I've done in this game is lynched civs, and nearly saved baddies, and clearly, as you say, missed things like Michigan Street in posts.

So where have you gotten the idea from, so early in our collective mafia dealings, that I'm astute?

Who voted zombs first? Whoever it was, I'm interested to hear if they got an item. Since SVS apparently didn't either. LK's theory of baddies being able to transfer items between them could be put to the test.

@elo - it makes me someone who is claiming more responsibility for the zombs save train than it may appear at face value.

S~V~S wrote:So does this mean my theory was actually right?

Yeah, lol. I think it does.

@elo - may as well own up to the truth. I spent the last few hours trying very hard to win hearts and minds to voting vomps to save zombs.

Frankly, I'm ok with being lynched tomorrow because of it, if thats how it goes down.

OK, so what really surprises me is this... Zombs was not Reed Bardeen.

I always thought, from the moment Zombs said 'you ruined my role', that she was intentionally role hinting. I think she looked at Reed and said 'no-one can think bf would ruin that role, but he might ruin others... like oliver oliver'.

I believed fully that the newspaper article came from the baddies. I was stupid to change my mind. but the reason I did is because I saw zombs make another thing I thought was a role hint at Oliver Oliver... and I thought, if she is that role, then being her biggest fan ought to let me find out for sure tomorrow.

It was a calculated risk, and it backfired. Sorry to anyone who is good and voted zombs because of it.

You know, it would be pretty funny if there weren't any.

Elohcin wrote:Anyone know who began the Vomps case without having to go back and look?

Me.

Bullzeye wrote:Well. Save attempt, anyone?

Definitely. I worked very hard to save her.

Well done people who didn't listen to me.

Zombs, I will never trust you again.

Out of interest, BR, who would you have voted for?

@JC - no I think I am making an aassumption.

Oh, good point JC. I just went for two people who I would have expected to vote lol.

@Canuck - lol, I need to read back on that, but I think its what zombs said happned to her and LK last night.

I assume BR and sophie were enthralled and unable to vote, the same way lk and zombs were yesterday...

And I really wish LK had listened when I said we could get this moving in another direction, but oh well. Looks like a tie needs to be resolved.

@Bass - I think every one of them is a saint.

this is quite something!

It's not the votes I feel I've learned from, it's the posts.

Ok rabbit, but only because you said please.

rabbit8 wrote:

Golden wrote:Well, it looks like I failed, but at least I feel like this lynch has finally told me some things

Do tell?

I think we finally may have had some people come out and vote zombs to protect teammates.

Well, it looks like I failed, but at least I feel like this lynch has finally told me some things

LC and I distanced once...

We went down in flames, but it was glorious.

So Dom, do you find SVS suspicious for backpedalling hard off someone SHE built the case on...

Whats the argument here, that SVS did her upmost to get her teammate lynched, and then when she realised she was successful did an about face in the hopes she might save her?