The Syndicate

Some stuff came up last night and when I checked the thread it was locked. Sucks to lose Wilgy, a very useful role to have for the civvies.

I guess the Keeper showing up means they have completed their epic challenge. The timing seems to fit. Hi keeper!

Synonym wrote:I have also been having a running discussion with LC over night actions. I have missed every single deadline thus far due to time differences. I have subsequently learned that I'm allowed to submit actions in advance of the phase change.

So, by all means lynch me today. As I said, I'm unaligned so my death will not hurt the civilian quota, however it won't diminish the mafia's either. I can also say that if I were to be recruited by mafia I'd expose myself to the thread and anyone I learned about. As you will be able to read in my bio for Roxy's upcoming game, I abhor being mafia.

How can time zones prevent you from submitting PMs? Nights are roughly a full day so this sounds like bullshit to me. And threatening to expose your team and ruin the game for everyone (because who wants to win or lose like that?) is fucking pathetic and if I were hosting this game I would modkill you for even seriously considering it. I don't know where you have played Mafia before but if that is your attitude you can kindly fuck off.

Voting Synonym

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

aapje wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:This is very true. I don't think anyone would rez someone not on their team.

What if the rezzer is not on any team?

Then it would be a pretty dumb move since it would actively hurt their chances to win :P

How?

Because resurrecting someone not on your team decreases your chances of winning.

What if that someone is not on any team?

If that someone is not on any team, how can someone not on any team ressurecting someone not on his non-team decrease his chances of winning (which are not team-based, but individual)?

Prolongs the game = more nk's and lynches = greater chance to end up dead = not winning. Pretty easy really.

Ricochet wrote:

aapje wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:This is very true. I don't think anyone would rez someone not on their team.

What if the rezzer is not on any team?

Then it would be a pretty dumb move since it would actively hurt their chances to win :P

How?

Well assuming they stay unrecruited they need to be alive at the end of the game to win. Rezzing people prolongs the game and thus their chances of not staying alive that long. If they end up recruited they only benefit from your rez if they end up on your side.

Ricochet wrote:

aapje wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

aapje wrote:The main point though was calling bullshit on your unrecruited status and your insistence that you have no idea why you were rezzed.

Call bullsuit on my status, then, make a case; but, as I've pointed out, there's not much to tie it to my rezz.

LoRab asked me why I think I was rezzed, it's not like I came out of my tomb and started opinionating on my own.

Well the thing is, I can see a reason why the Shaman would bring back certain people, even if they have not been recruited. But since you said you have no idea why you were rezzed I think we can safely rule that out now. The fact that you have been rezzed and your reaction to it is basically all I need to think you are up to no good.

I don't get it. I'm no good because I'm being honest about not knowing why someone else (that I can't even put a face on) did to me what he did? How am I supposed to defend or argue for someone else's anonymous intentions? What was I supposed to say, up to your standards and experience in how rezz people behave?

You speak in vague, introspective terms ("I can see a reason why", "your reaction to it is all I need") I don't know how to argue against.

I'm leaving in 15 mins.

I don't see why I should spell it out. It's obviously you don't know what I am referring to so I can rule out that other logical explanation for your rez. Leaving the one that you are recruited.

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:This is very true. I don't think anyone would rez someone not on their team.

What if the rezzer is not on any team?

Then it would be a pretty dumb move since it would actively hurt their chances to win :P

Ricochet wrote:

aapje wrote:The main point though was calling bullshit on your unrecruited status and your insistence that you have no idea why you were rezzed.

Call bullsuit on my status, then, make a case; but, as I've pointed out, there's not much to tie it to my rezz.

LoRab asked me why I think I was rezzed, it's not like I came out of my tomb and started opinionating on my own.

Well the thing is, I can see a reason why the Shaman would bring back certain people, even if they have not been recruited. But since you said you have no idea why you were rezzed I think we can safely rule that out now. The fact that you have been rezzed and your reaction to it is basically all I need to think you are up to no good.

Ricochet wrote:Well that sounds like too much reliance on old meta. Secret baddie team? As in a third bad team? Recruit by rezzing? Yeah, nothing of this kind is in the description. I'm not saying everything has to be written to be possible, but this is too deep into the imagination.

I died N5. D6, Team Azura recruited, then team Caelia recruited, then I was rezzed. I came back unrecruited. No recruitements happened since my rezz. Equals I'm unrecruited. Doubting I'm unrecruited is by all means acceptable, but then go back to my first life.

Well I was mostly pointing out that the rezz recruit isn't totally unheard of. Especially with these hosts. The main point though was calling bullshit on your unrecruited status and your insistence that you have no idea why you were rezzed.

thellama73 wrote:So, funny story guys. I n the past three days I have gotten a) sick b) most of the skin on my hand removed by a cat c) a painful rip injury from trapeze and d) poisoned by Nando's.

oi lad u went for a cheeky nandos? ur a ledge

@LC: Is Rico supposed to be off the poll?

Ricochet wrote:I keep saying I'm unrecruited, you must mean. What rezz recruitement possibility?

I don't know what I'm supposed to say about my rezz, really. I was unrecruited when killed, so I was out and done (i.e. loser). I don't know why the Shaman brought me back, of all people, but it didn't come with any recruitement. I'm still unrecruited and I'll still go down and lose the game if I stay that way and get killed again. I'd like to get recruited by the civs, because I'm fairly convinced I won't survive the game unrecruited. Team Azura clearly didn't like me and I doubt they like that I'm back either. I helped lynch Bubbles, in fact growing suspicious of her ever since her Golden D3 flip-flop, so I doubt team Ubzilly are fond of me, either.

Hmm, I made an error in assessing MoSh, it seems. I thought position 5 was up the night Dom was killed, so that MoSh couldn't have been targeted. But with position 4, you're right, MoSh is eligible.

Yeah I meant unrecruited. I've played a game in the past where rezzed player joined a secret baddie team. I think it was Recruitment Mafia 1?

Sorry I've been barely playing the game. Keeping up with the breakneck pace at the start after such a long hiatus kinda burned me out I guess. In retrospect, signing up for a massive game like this probably wasn't the best idea.

Wilgy being silenced seems convenient for him since people are always reluctant to vote for someone who can't defend themselves. I feel like he has been recruited but I'm undecided on which team he has joined.

Ricochet wrote:Not sure if it matters in the big scheme, but if Wilgy is truly silenced today by the Assassin, then I have the late Dom in my sheets down to two possible roles: the War Monger or the Immortal.

What made you rule out the master of shadows?

Speaking of Rico, I don't trust his rez. He keeps saying he has been recruited but why would anyone bother to bring him back if he is? Not to mention the rezz recruitment possibility.

@Hosts: Is Rico supposed to be off the poll?

LoRab wrote:A few thoughts, then responses. I find it fascinating that synonym goes from I'm new here to nothing for 6 days, to I don't really understand the game. And then, 12 hours later, to make 4 posts within an hour on SVS. With some caveats of--well, I could be wrong and it could be nothing...I don't really know her and haven't played with her, so I could be off base, but this is what I see from baddies. His accusations ring false to me, and it seems odd to me to go from zero to fangs out. I also believe that baddies who replace in often use the time they can to avoid being caught up while they catch up in BTSC. My eyeball is moving towards synonym's direction.

This also caught my eye.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm not accustomed to tracking votes like many of you folks do since we handle them so differently on RYM. This might be a good time for an aapje chart.

I copied over the day 5 votes with the day 6 votes before realising I hadn't actually entered them into my spreadsheet yet, but if anyone has them I could graph them for you.
Waiting for the picture of the day 6 poll before I'll make that one.

As for the lynch, not totally unexpected that it was switched I guess. Still it is annoying that so many positions screw with the lynches. If I had been around at the end I doubt I would have voted for Wilgy.

Scotty wrote:

aapje wrote:So I take it the point is Ahriman did not try to kill you?

Are you saying you think that DH thinks that SVS is Ahriman? Or are you just setting him up here?

No set up here. Just checking something.

Ricochet wrote:Aap's D6 contribution gives me pause and I think it adds up to his overall contribution as well, although I'd need to re-read. His posts are just focused on mechanics, speculations (the Speakers being dead because he hasn't sent messages? how are you sure about that? it's an old story, but what if his positions 2-5 aren't messaging?), skeptical about Wilgy WIFOM and something about Ahriman not killing DH? wut? Anyway, I don't see so far how his input aligns with the current topics and leads, so I'm starting to be wary of him.

I like mechanics, they lie a lot less than the actual players :P And I never said I was sure, I just mentioned it was likely. Having played a lot of Long Rock games there are usually some secret parts to roles but never outright false parts. At least not that I can recall.

Ricochet wrote:The talk about Host Posts containing hints (nutella, aapje) doesn't seem positive to me. LC was clear that we shouldn't look too deep into the story. What's the point to say that LC could still be lying about it or something (aapje, I think)? According to the N5 story, I'd be an Ahriman recruit, but I'm not (I'm unrecruited), so yeah, story is story.

That would be me. And having played most of LC's games I stand by it. LC usually slips some stuff in, although not always intentionally. Which incidentally is the reason why BR no longer allows me to chat to LC during games

I'm going out now and don't know if I will be able to come back to the thread. SD's post on llama resonated with me and I think she could be right about him.

Voting llama

So JJJ has cast at least 3 votes (JJJ, Bullzeye, BWT) now without making a post. I guess he is silenced?
The Druid got to silence someone last night so I guess that makes sense. It would be nice if he stopped messing with my spreadsheet though :P

Tranq wrote:I've been trying to figure out the switch to unfurl.

- Ubzargan wanted to get rid of unfurl
- Ubzargan wanted to get rid of unfurl's role: the Technohacker

The Technohacker is not a very dangerous role. Except for maybe one position:
Position 4: Knows how many non-voters are evilly-aligned in the previous lynch

The only thing i can come up with is maybe Ubzargan knew unfurl's role, knew atleast 1 teammate would certainly miss the vote, anticipated Position 4 would be picked next as that was the only one that hadn't been used yet, and decided to switch the lynch to her for that reason. The players that missed the Bubbles-unfurl lynch-switch-vote are Bass2.0, reywaS, Roxy and TH.

This sounds a bit far fetched to me. Also Roxy and TH didn't miss that vote, they both voted for JJJ.

DharmaHelper wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:If SVS were good, I would be dead right now. Her team didn't NK me because it would have led right back to her.

If I am wrong then you can go ahead and lynch me right after.

You seem to be saying I am on Team Uzburger. Azura killed last night. Make up your mind.

Good point, Guess you didn't get the chance to kill me last night.

So I take it the point is Ahriman did not try to kill you?

Roxy wrote:

nutella wrote:

aapje wrote: Based on the writing it sounds like the Pyromancer could very well be on team Azura. First the lynch that hinted at immolation and now him having taught the Pyromancer.

I'm pretty sure LC said he wouldn't reveal stuff like that in the flavor text. I don't think we can assume anything from that.


I'm trying to reason through DH's confidence about SVS. It's possible that he had a check and actually has some information about her alignment. It's also possible he's been Hungered and is being forced to go hard against her. He's been so adamant and stubborn about it that I could see this being the case. Or he could genuinely just really strongly suspect her.

I'm still suspicious of Rey and want to hear more from him today.

Other than that I'm kinda lost for this lynch. I'd like to find Bubbles' teammates but I haven't the first clue how.

And you are right LA:

Long Con wrote: It is important to note that a blocked kill, a kill attempt on a protected person, and a failed kill will look the same in the night post, and be indistinguishable to the general player. Please do not try to read too deeply into the host posts for game mechanics clues, because they are intended to be entirely for creative purposes. Unless I hide something in there. Who knows? I don't want to close the door on that possibility, but as far as failed kills go, you don't know which it was for LoRab.

LC always says that but every game stuff creeps into his posts regardless

Tranq wrote:The game has gone quiet ever since DisguntledPorcupine died.

Wow, quite a lot of deaths tonight.

Based on the writing it sounds like the Pyromancer could very well be on team Azura. First the lynch that hinted at immolation and now him having taught the Pyromancer.
Again no message from the Speaker so I think we can safely assume that role is dead.
And I guess we have a SK on the loose now

I don't feel like Wilgy was on the same team as TB. Would he really defend her like he did if they were teammates? Especially since the odds were pretty high that she would be lynched anyway. Could be a massive wifom but I don't think he would have taken that risk.

DrWilgy wrote:Wait... Can't we just get everyone to say, "I'm afflicted by Hunger?" to find out who it is?

Only if you'd want some people to die.

Long Con wrote:Caelia frowned slightly as he exited, noting the obvious implication of using her name, and not the title of Luminarch.

TinyBubbles has been lynched. She was the Keeper of Order, and was recruited by Team Ubzargan.

Great result.

So the temptation won: Voting DP, hopefully for the last time

allegiance* good*

timmer wrote:aapje, I'd be willing to shift my vote from Bubbles for the right candidate, did you have an alternate in mind? I'd gladly vote DP, for instance.

There's a difference, imo, between what I'm doing, which is playing as a neutral, and what DP is apparently doing, which is just complete apathy. If his plan is actually to deliberately coast through and never contribute, I'd be good with kicking him out.

You sure know how to tempt a man.

DrWilgy wrote:@Monkey Dude, The Bubbles lynch was swapped to Unfurl to frame Bubbles.

You made it sound like TB voted for unfurl which was confusing me, since I don't think she ever did such a thing.Since I believe that Nubzargan (how is it possible nobody came up with that name yet?) would have used the lynch switch regardless of who was in the lead I'd say the fact the lynch was switched has no bearing on TB's alliance, either food or bad.

DrWilgy wrote:Am I the only one seeing frame play at work here? Killing Unfurl with Bubbles vote so that we waste on Bubbles? because she's obviously evil. killing Epi because Golden will get lynched? obviously golden was evil too

I think the reason I'm so bothered by bubbles lynch can be defined by a old saying, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, well I'm dumb." let's not be dumb here. Why am I defending someone who won't even help themself D:

What do you mean by that part?

I'm a bit torn. On one hand there is TB. She made a couple of posts that didn't sit right with me, chiefly amongst them the reaction to the lynch. For this I would have no problem voting for her. However, there are two things giving me pause: how easily people are jumping on her and DP's who just comes into the thread with a smug face as if he has nothing to be ashamed of.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

aapje wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

aapje wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Hello friends. I will try to answer some questions.

I'll try one. When are you planning on playing the game?

I am.

So apart from your lack of reading skills do you have anything of value to add to this thread?

I don't follow. My response made sense. You asked when I plan on playing, and I told you that I am playing.

And sure. I requested questions for a reason. For the record I plan on voting TinyBubbles again. She doesn't feel good to me.

Ah that would be why that response didn't make sense to me. We have a different definition of playing.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

aapje wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Hello friends. I will try to answer some questions.

I'll try one. When are you planning on playing the game?

I am.

So apart from your lack of reading skills do you have anything of value to add to this thread?

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Hello friends. I will try to answer some questions.

I'll try one. When are you planning on playing the game?

@Hosts:
Any/how many missing PMs?
Did you take a screenshot of the N4 votes?

Position 4: Choose three players, nothing can happen at night and none can be lynched the next day

What happens if any of those 3 players receive the most votes?

Ricochet wrote:Further uestion to everyone: If Ubzarg did this, do you think or find it more likely that a) Bubbles is part of the team and he openly saved her or b) the situation didn't put himself or his teammates in any danger and he just performed the switch for sport and chaos, just like he locked the thread at a two-way tie point?

If b), do you think him and his teammates still tried to blend in during the Day and hunt or even vote for the main wagons or did they wander off, bringing out other ideas or suspects, sidelining etc.? If Uzbark's action is clear nonchalance, how can we profile him within the thread - or his teammates for that matter, how would they have behaved, knowing they'll totally manipulate the lynch?

I think they would use it regardless, it's not like there is a real downside to it unless they wanted to get rid of TB badly.
I know I'd love to get rid of TB if I had it, medically speaking :P

LoRab wrote:And I did not twist your words--you said that you might not respond if my post wasn't worthy of your thought process. Which I paraphrased. And if you are thinking that I implied anything more than you implied in the posts I paraphrased, well then, you are the one that is twisting.

Riiight, I can totally follow this
The whole Rico - LR interaction has my head spinning and I have no idea what to make of it. It mostly feels like a pissing contest.

Ricochet wrote:Wow, MM's really not letting go of position 5, whenever it's up on the poll. This time he's the only one currently going that path.

Now that you mention it, he has been campaigning since D0.

thellama73 wrote:JJJ, I read your case on Dom, and I have to side with Dom here. He was not being inconsistent in criticizing MP's hypocrisy while acknowledging his propensity for outbursts. Those are not the same thing.

I agree with this post.

DharmaHelper wrote:I think spacedaisy has played with MP more than anyone. Congrats on the wedding again, by the way.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Devin, why do you suppose your Golden and Sorsha votes would have been risky as a baddie?

Because at the time of each of my votes I broke a tie between 2 vote-getters. If the people I voted were to be lynched and flipped civ, I would probably be the first person up for questioning. Doesn't mean that I regret either of my votes, though. Just means that it wouldn't have been a very smart or strategic thing for baddie Devin to do.

So you do not regret that Golden was lynched?

Long Con wrote:MovingPictures07 has been killed by Ubzargan the Ruthless. LoRab was not killed by the Brutal Executioner.

Probably not the worst possible player who could be killed. At least it will save him some stress.

TinyBubbles wrote:and fair point about not getting others to bring the game to me. i know you will think im acting again, but i said that because i thought the thread moves fast and people would have different questions by the time i posted.

This doesn't make sense to me. Someone pointed out she has played a bunch of games before, was she as evasive in those as she is in this?

Scotty wrote:@Dom's demeanor has been hovering somewhere around antagonistic, but I've never seen him play a game before. He's been pretty vocal about several people and so far hasn't been successful in catching a baddie (such as Golden, MP and me as examples) which doesn't sit well with me.

How can you be so sure MP wasn't bad? Not saying he was but it's certainly a possibility.

Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Jay, and I did it for science. I'll vote for him again though, I think he's been recruited.

What makes you think that?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Sorry for the lack of presence lately. Work has been crazy.

But I am here and will be for the rest of the day. I have.....only 17 pages to catch up on.

Going to start on it now.

I feel for you man

I'm caught up Although I admit to skimming most of the Rico/LR interaction.

TinyBubbles wrote:RIP unfurl ? and i am confused, why did unfurl get lynched and not me,according to the poll i got the most votes...?? if by some miracle im still alive i will be happy to address any questions! somewhat caught up and have time today

This read really insincere to me. Especially when a quick glance at the role would give you the most obvious scenario almost right at the top.

TinyBubbles wrote:Im sorry, i was working overtime had no computer access! i wanted to come back before poll closed ,but didnt get time ><

and whoever saved me, you have my thanks, nutella was right the mods didnt make a mistake. i kind of dont expect to live another night though, 10 votes man... sheeeesh. and RIP unfurl, you didn't deserve to die

my biggest suspect right now is Devin,based on his voting patterns and also the vagueness of his posts, which MP made a good case on. good vibes on MP btw, nothing out of the ordinary in his posts, sounds like he's normal MP baddie hunting. feeling good about JJJ, Ricochet, Roxy, timmer, neutral about metalmarsh,. metalmarsh is hard to read though, i dont think i recall him being bad in a previous game, so cant compare. somewhat annoyed/suspicious about disgruntledporcupine, feel like his vote on me was bandwagony, his lack of posts/explanations isnt very encouraging either (i know, im one to talk). golden suspected rey was bad and for that reason, i also think so since i believe golden's usually right about his reads. as for boom, i was bandwagoning on him with the first vote , second vote was based on some points made by JJJ, his arguments against golden sounded weak and disingenuous. i havent played with him before though so its hard to tell

Something that stood out to me.

aapje wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Let's talk about some other players, shall we?

How about Devin, Tranq, aapje, and unfurl?

Devin, Tranq, unfurl, and BWT just jumped onto Sorsha. What do players think of their vote explanations? I'll take a look at them myself and let you all know.

aapje seems content to continue waiting on his baddie hunt, even though it's Day 4 and each team is clearly cemented now, and focus entirely on low posters. I can entirely relate with why he's fixating on them, but does anyone else find this disconcerting?

If you'd read my previous post you would know that I've simply not have had the time to do so yet.

Turns out this post predates my posting about not having enough time. Colour me ashamed

Still on page 93, that's all the time I have for now. I hope I will have more time later tonight.

Linki: Yes LA = Nutella. I probably should be a bit more consistent in my spreadsheet with names :P

Updated my vote graphs:
Day 1 short
Day 1 full
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4

Ricochet wrote:What am I misdirecting towards? How or where did I imply that "the prior lockdown was also connected to his [err The Judge?] role"? The prior lockdown was Ubzargan's. What I implied is that, compared to Ubzargan who most likely reveled in locking the thread at a point of a two-way tie, Judge seems much more cautious. I also implied by his vigilence that he's clearly been active and responsive with his past actions, so I do not doubt he'd be ready to lockdown this Day, if he sees fit, but the fact that he hasn't yet is further implication of his cautious view on the current development.

Also, yeah, I can't count properly. Oooo, evil.

It's kinda ironic that you say here that you can't count since by my count the votes weren't tied that day (Golden 7, Boomslang 6).

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why? And what the fuck does your list even say about this?

Overreaction?

I don't have any reason to suspect you heavily at this time; you are in the light orange section of my rainbow list, but you're the lowest of the top 5 posters. Rox asked me about high posters so that's what I told her. I can't make heads or tails of your gameplay, but I do think you're more apt to be recruited/recruiter at this time than me (duh), Jay, Rico, and DH. I don't have a strong assertion of suspicion of you by which to back that up; in fact, it's the weakest possible, but I was asked, so.

Do you have any suspicions?

Wow, I never realised MM has that many posts. None of his posts have really registered with me so far.

Turnip Head wrote:I switched my vote.

Weird post by TH, not even specifying to whom or why he switched his vote.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Gonna go with TinyBubbles.

Thanks for your great contribution to the game yet again

Re: the whole MP frustration extravaganza: I can see where he is coming from since I've often felt many of the same frustrations. That said, I think he took it a bit too far. On the upside, some of MM's posts have now registered with me :P

Long Con wrote:unfurl has been lynched. She was the Technohacker, and unrecruited.

Can't say I am surprised the lynch was switched but I am a bit surprised at who it was switched to. Unfurl was getting her fair bit of suspicion.

Having seen more context for EoD I feel like can safely conclude it means end of day.

Linki:

Catching up some stuff that caught my attention:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One point that I'd expand on is this: I think baddie players are more likely to post B/S in this thread than non-baddies even with two baddie teams present. They can merely baddie-hunt like the civilians/neutrals, but there's more to their situation than that. What do I mean?

They are a team. Their priorities are different.

Here are the priorities for civilians and pro-civ neutrals:

1. Lynch baddies

/end

Here are the priorities for baddies of either team:

1. Lynch players that aren't members of their team, regardless of alignment

2. Lynch baddies of the other team

~~~

Because of that top priority for baddies, they'll be more likely to gleefully join errant bandwagons (any bandwagon for a player not on their team) even if it means they have to manufacture a fake reason for doing so.

I'm not sure I would agree based on the win conditions:

Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1

Each baddie group only needs to eliminate half of the civvies and none of the neutrals, while having to eliminate all of the other baddies. Then take in account they will take over the other team's kill if they are all eliminated and it would make the most sense for them to actively go after the other baddies.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Let's talk about some other players, shall we?

How about Devin, Tranq, aapje, and unfurl?

Devin, Tranq, unfurl, and BWT just jumped onto Sorsha. What do players think of their vote explanations? I'll take a look at them myself and let you all know.

aapje seems content to continue waiting on his baddie hunt, even though it's Day 4 and each team is clearly cemented now, and focus entirely on low posters. I can entirely relate with why he's fixating on them, but does anyone else find this disconcerting?

If you'd read my previous post you would know that I've simply not have had the time to do so yet.

Bullzeye wrote:Aapje's single-mindedness in his pursuit of the lowest posters is concerning to me. I'll happily lynch a low poster on day one to let active people stay on, and will even extend that willingness through to day two in a really quiet game. But on day 4 of a ridiculously talkative game? Like a third of the players have had their names thrown out at some point already. Focusing on low posters purely because they're low posters seems off to me. Is aapje usually like that? I don't think I've played with him since some of my very first games.

It would be unwise to ever underestimate how much I dislike how DP is playing this game.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, I'm here. I have more to accomplish, but... I really want to be a part of this EoD.

EoD? Is there a glossary of terms used on this site since it seems there are a lot of terms that were never used on the other sites.

Less than 10 pages to go now, will probably post more along the way

Voted for position 4, other than the poison I don't see what's so bad about it. Also I'd rather not face any consequences.

Checking in, I don't have time to read 10 pages so I kept it to the host posts and did a search on my name.

I saw some people called me out for not hunting any baddies yet and claiming I said I would have started by now. Here is the relevant quote.

aapje wrote:I will likely start hunting some baddies after the weekend, or maybe on Friday if I have time then

Turns out the time I did have on Friday was fully spent catching up with the thread.

Other people have mentioned me voting DP again. The reason for that vote is twofold.
1. I really really really hate the way he plays this game. The reason why I pick him out of all the less active players is because he has been doing this for years now and it annoys me to no end.
2. I didn't have time to properly read up on the main suspects and I'd rather not blindly jump on a bandwagon.

I've overestimated the time I would have available to spend on this game and I've underestimated the time needed to just keep up with it. Now I'd love to be able to say I'll catch up on Monday but with the speed this game is going I don't think I can even make that promise. If I keep being unable to keep up with the thread I will ask for a replacement because I don't think it's fair for the active players to have to play with someone who is barely here at all. Also it would make me a massive hypocrite for hating on DP as much as I do.

I've reread all of Sorsha's posts. It's been quite a while since I've played with her but she sounds like I remember her. Although I can see her being on the team that killed Epi.

I will probably not be around until the end of the day and there is a good chance that Monday is the next time I will check in again. Sorry for that!

My thoughts on some players who don't seem to be contributing a lot:
DP: If you aren't going to play, at least have the decency to ask for a replacement like DF did. You have literally added nothing of substance I wouldn't be opposed to lynching him. DP is getting a free pass so far and will likely make it far into the game. As much as I detest his playstyle, it's very effective at staying alive. Would make a great recruit because nobody can ever be arsed to lynch him.
DH: Looks like he is finally joining the game. About time if you ask me
MM: Didn't post at all during D3 but was around voting (at least 3 times by my count). Seems to be hinting that that was out of his control. Said he would contribute today.
Tranq: Hasn't posted since N2. Where the hell did he go? Hope he checks in again soon.

I hope I'll have time to read up on Boomslang, Sorsha and TB later today but until then I'm voting for DP because fuck that shit

Hey DP I see you are reading this thread. Any chance of you participating?

Spacedaisy wrote:I am Registering a vote for Sorsha

No you didn't.

Sorry I forgot to congratulate you as well Bea

I went back through Golden's posts after the failed lynch to see if he would mention any suspicions right after. He doesn't and the first player he goes after Bass and we all know how that turned out

Some people were talking about a tie. According to my count Golden was ahead by a vote. Did I miss something?
Day 1 short
Day 1 full
Day 2
Day 3

Ricochet wrote:Ok, I'll treat it as very plausible, thanks for the clarification.

In that case, yes, there's a 50% chance Golden knows who survived the lynch if Thunder added votes and if Thunder did that in time for the early Day end. This would also be valuable info, given that the lynch survivor was probably Uzbargan or Jilted Lover (so 50% chance Golden may have known Uzbargan?).

The 50%, however, has to be lower, actually since a) the requirement to even begin projecting such odds was for both Golden and Thunder to have made their move in time, and b) if Golden picked in time, but Thunder took off votes, there's still no valuable info to result from that D1 lynch.

Based on

Golden wrote:I'm not so quick to discount the Lord of Thunder

I think we can safely assume Golden got his action in on time, why else mention it?

I'm off to bed, I really hope I won't wake up to another 10 pages or so

Ricochet wrote:

aapje wrote:The Wielder of Lightning and Lord of Thunder work together with their power. One of them picks who is targeted and the other picks the target. So the Wielder (Golden) picked player x while the Lord of Thunder decided to add or subtract 3 votes.

I assume the Lord of Thunder will now wield those powers alone, but the hosts wouldn't confirm that:

Long Con wrote:

aapje wrote:What happens to Thunder and Lightening if one of them dies? The other one cries. And the powers will change.

Definitely an interesting deduction - the "picks players" mix between the two would make sense, indeed - but was it confirmed anywhere? I checked your posts for asking about this and couldn't find anything, but I could be wrong.

I thought it was obvious so I didn't explicitly ask. But there is this which seems to confirm my reading of those roles:

Black Rock wrote:

aapje wrote:

Wielder of Lightning - Brotherhood Clan
Lord of Thunder - Brotherhood Clan

Interesting buddy system! You like it?

The Wielder of Lightning and Lord of Thunder work together with their power. One of them picks who is targeted and the other picks the target. So the Wielder (Golden) picked player x while the Lord of Thunder decided to add or subtract 3 votes.

I assume the Lord of Thunder will now wield those powers alone, but the hosts wouldn't confirm that:

Long Con wrote:

aapje wrote:What happens to Thunder and Lightening if one of them dies? The other one cries. And the powers will change.

Ricochet wrote:

aapje wrote:

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote: I don't believe that Lord of Thunder's +/-3 votes would have changed this situation, if he already manipulated something by the time the Day ended. either he added votes and then there is definitely a specific survivor, which Lordy may now choose to try to hint at; either he substracted votes and it's still a large pool of tied players and the theory above still applies, but with vague chances of pinpointing at anyone in particular

My thoughts on your theory

1) BR and LC needed to figure out the vote situation, so I don't think it likely that the lynch was simply stopped (unless there is another reason for them to need to do the count back).

2) I'm not so quick to discount the Lord of Thunder. He could theoretically given +3 votes to anyone and the person he gave them to could be Ubzargan/jilted lover. This would still require LC/BR to do a countback. That means that there is a 50% chance that literally any player could have been leading the vote.

3) But there is a 50% chance thunder said minus three.

This posts is a lot more interesting now that we know Golden was the Wielder of Lightning. He would know with 50% certainty the player who survived the lynch, assuming Thunder picked +/- 3 in time before the day ended.

Err...?? You're talking about Lord of Thunder's vote manipulation, but Golden was the Wielder of Lightning. How would he be aware of Thunder's actions?

Because he picked the target for the vote manipulation

Black Rock wrote:Wielder of Lightning - Brotherhood of the Inner Eye

Position 1: Picks Player
Position 2: Picks Protect or Block
Position 3: Picks Player
Position 4: Picks Positive or Negative Boon
Position 5: Picks an element, if Thunder picks the same element they both use that element’s power

Lord of Thunder -Brotherhood of the Inner Eye

Position 1: Picks 3 minus or plus votes
Position 2: Picks Player
Position 3: Picks Alignment or Role Check (they both receive info)
Position 4: Picks Player
Position 5: Picks an element, if Lightning picks the same element they both use that element’s power

Golden wrote:

Ricochet wrote: I don't believe that Lord of Thunder's +/-3 votes would have changed this situation, if he already manipulated something by the time the Day ended. either he added votes and then there is definitely a specific survivor, which Lordy may now choose to try to hint at; either he substracted votes and it's still a large pool of tied players and the theory above still applies, but with vague chances of pinpointing at anyone in particular

My thoughts on your theory

1) BR and LC needed to figure out the vote situation, so I don't think it likely that the lynch was simply stopped (unless there is another reason for them to need to do the count back).

2) I'm not so quick to discount the Lord of Thunder. He could theoretically given +3 votes to anyone and the person he gave them to could be Ubzargan/jilted lover. This would still require LC/BR to do a countback. That means that there is a 50% chance that literally any player could have been leading the vote.

3) But there is a 50% chance thunder said minus three.

This posts is a lot more interesting now that we know Golden was the Wielder of Lightning. He would know with 50% certainty the player who survived the lynch, assuming Thunder picked +/- 3 in time before the day ended.

I hate you all right now. So many posts

Ricochet wrote:Catching up on the stats, for now

Team Azura recruited and Teams Caelia & Ahriman launched a contest D3, so, except a few of the night victims were recruits, I assume this is the standing right now, or?

Team Caelia - 4 players
Team Ahriman - 4 players
Team Ubzargan - 3 players...?
Team Azura - 4 players

How did you arrive at 4 Azura? My count has them at 3.

Scotty wrote:[I mean, I'm not gonna go back into whether this is a civ vs. baddie game, because it is to an extent, but even civ factions are vying against each other for power. So as a neutral party, how would you know if someone is your future employer or not? I look at it as a business practice- you're vetting the potential employer as much as they are vetting you. If you can't pull the trigger on a kill, then how does that make you look, even if you did kill one of their own?

This didn't make sense to me since the civvie teams win together, they both need to eliminate both baddie teams.

Wow this is a pain to catch up to
I've literally been reading for hours now

First of all congrats BR, hope you have a great day.
I didn't like the sound of the lynch post, the whole situation sounded ominous to me.
What does ISO stand for?

A lot of people throwing out stuff like: they are probably (not) bad because a baddie team would absolutely/never recruit that player. I think it's not a bad idea to keep in mind that for most of the recruitments the teams will have very limited knowledge on who they are recruiting.
Sure maybe they wouldn't knowingly pick player X for their team, but that doesn't mean those players will not be recruited.

Also going to vote DP for now. Come and play dude. It's not like you are never online, you just refuse to post

Scotty wrote:

aapje wrote: Here is the full response TH made:

Turnip Head wrote:You're right, it wasn't a very civvie minded thing to say. It was a neutral thing to say.

And I don't want to be recruited yet because I like keeping my options open. I played RM I and III, and this is the first time I've made it past Night 0 without a team. It's quite liberating. Team Neutral 4 Life yo.

A reply which made sense to me. As you have already noticed, I am not yet in baddie hunting mode. I'm sure I will get around to it, if I had to guess I'd say somewhere after the weekend. As for now I'd rather get rid of some non-contributors.

This comes off as baddie to me because you're still making compromises like it's Day 1, but it is not. There are ample posts in this thread so far that could give you info to baddie-hunt. The fact that you are just openly choosing not to baddie hunt is troubling to me.

Our strategies are very different, and you could just come back and say as such and move on. But in your strategy, you're picking off people that talk very little. That is not only the easiest fallback option if you're bad, but also the longer we wait to look for scum, the more scum will be recruited. I think you understand that reasoning, and are just choosing to ignore it. It doesn't make sense to me if you are good.

I honestly don't understand your reasoning, how will it lead to more baddies being recruited? Someone correct me if I am wrong but didn't the baddie teams in past games just grew until they reach 5 or 6 members and then they stop recruiting.
Also I didn't just point out 2 people who are not posting a lot, I'd be hard pressed to say if they are even playing the game. If I had the power to modkill or replace them I would do it in a heartbeat. No(t a lot of) offence meant but it just annoys me greatly how some people always hang on without participating at all.

Scotty wrote:I would normally be concerned if aapje was already recruited by the civ leaders, because then I wouldn't vote for him. But his gameplay thus far isn't giving me qualms about that being the case yet.

unfurl wrote:aapje,
besides from low posters
hypoteticall case, you join the good side will you look for baddies? or still playing more like a neutral?

Like I said, I will likely start hunting some baddies after the weekend, or maybe on Friday if I have time then, the reason being I will probably not have the time tomorrow or during the weekend. If I were a civvie I wouldn't be hunting baddies at this point. At least not publicly. I'd rather not have a massive target on my back.

Scotty wrote:A name that pop up to me as I read his posts:
aapje

aapje wrote:So what is up with DF and DP? DF has missed both polls and DP hasn't contributed anything so far. I honestly wouldn't mind lynching either of them. If we are lynching neutrals anyway we might as well get rid of people who aren't really playing the game to begin with

I gave Russtifinko a pass since he asked to be replaced.

I disagree with the strategy of lynching no-shows this game. While they haven't been strictly no-shows, and I usually operate under the mode of "Come to play" I thought we were actively looking for baddies, not just neutrals. As a matter of fact, the more we look at lynching neutrals, the longer the bad recruiters have chances of recruiting more people.

No if they were total no shows they would be modkilled / replaced. Although I have good hopes of DF missing his 3rd vote in a row
Also if the last recruitment games are any indication all teams have a limited number of recruits.

Scotty wrote:

Spoiler: show

aapje wrote:

Golden wrote: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.

I can see why people could be suspicious of TH.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't want to be recruited. Y'all better leave me alone.

Could it be he doesn't want people to try and recruit him because he's already on a team?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Doesn't sound very civvie minded either.

All in all not a whole lot to go on but I can see why people would consider voting for him.

I had to manually create linkbacks for this post like some kind of peasant

He lists reasons why "people" would be suspicious of voting TH, and even admits that he "doesn't sound very civvie minded either"
He follows this up by VOTING FOR DisgruntledPorcupine for not posting.

When TH responds with a "yeah, it wasn't a very civ-thing to say," aapje says:

aapje wrote:Fair enough. Wasn't planning on voting for you over it anyway. Was just checking what you actually said when people were voting for you.

Ho-hum. To state that he thinks something sounds not civ-like to immediately discrediting himself when TH literally admits to such claims is sketchy at best. It's not enough to warrant a vote, ok. But to say he wasn't going to vote for him at all for sketchy behavior raises my red sails.

Here is the full response TH made:

Turnip Head wrote:You're right, it wasn't a very civvie minded thing to say. It was a neutral thing to say.

And I don't want to be recruited yet because I like keeping my options open. I played RM I and III, and this is the first time I've made it past Night 0 without a team. It's quite liberating. Team Neutral 4 Life yo.

A reply which made sense to me. As you have already noticed, I am not yet in baddie hunting mode. I'm sure I will get around to it, if I had to guess I'd say somewhere after the weekend. As for now I'd rather get rid of some non-contributors.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

aapje wrote:Didn't get to record all votes live but I think this should be pretty accurate:

Day 1 short
Day 1 full
Day 2

What insights have you gleaned from this compilation so far?

Mostly that changing votes are a bitch to keep track of :P

Speaking of votes, I see MM was the 1st (or second, can't be sure since Scotty changed his vote) to vote without posting. It wouldn't surprise me if he were silenced today.

Scotty wrote:ALSO A REMINDER TO EVERYONE!!!

Uzbekistan can lock the thread today, which I'm assuming means for the entirety of the day phase, so if you have something you want to say, it may be a good idea to get it out sooner rather than later.

Not the entire phase:

Long Con wrote:

aapje wrote:How long is the duration of a thread lock? 4 - 6 hours.

Scotty wrote:

aapje wrote:So what's a rainbow post? Other than the thing DH posted

Some would say they are posts that are outwardly supportive of Gay rights.

Do you have any rainbow posts you would like to share with the class, aapje?

Oooh I know just the thing! I'm sure some people will appreciate this classic:

So what's a rainbow post? Other than the thing DH posted

Roxy wrote:

aapje wrote:So what is up with DF and DP? DF has missed both polls and DP hasn't contributed anything so far. I honestly wouldn't mind lynching either of them. If we are lynching neutrals anyway we might as well get rid of people who aren't really playing the game to begin with

I gave Russtifinko a pass since he asked to be replaced.

Somehow I always expect *more* from you.

I think this is an awful plan - I personally would rather track down baddies and their recruiters.

See the thing is this: I don't know yet with which team I am going to win (yes I plan to win :P ) so for now staying alive while other people die is my main objective. Since I'm not yet particularly interested in who lives or dies (other than myself) I'd rather get rid of those who aren't really contributing anyway. I don't like giving people a free pass for not participating. Not to mention the danger those who fly under the radar pose, MP won the last edition of recruitment mafia.
Is it so wrong to want to play with people who are playing the game as well?

Voted for the dragon

So what is up with DF and DP? DF has missed both polls and DP hasn't contributed anything so far. I honestly wouldn't mind lynching either of them. If we are lynching neutrals anyway we might as well get rid of people who aren't really playing the game to begin with

I gave Russtifinko a pass since he asked to be replaced.