The Syndicate

I was also right in that LC got bussed so yay me

Congratulations scum, we were absolutely DESTROYED. I still have no idea what happened, my only really confident read the entire game was thellama73 and at least I was right. I'm betting he was Tyler.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Keterman wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:A number must be selected by all.
Including us dead folk?
No.

Well then don't forget to not count DH's vote for 2.

MovingPictures07 wrote:A number must be selected by all.

Including us dead folk?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

*votes MovingPictures07*

thellama73 wrote:
Long Con wrote:How do I fit the bill as a Tyler recruit under your theory?
I'll let you know after the lynch result comes in.

lmao

Hermmm....

Hermy herm herm.

We'll see.

Vompatti wrote:I won't vote because LC is winning anyway and I want to see what happens if I don't vote.

Shit I forgot to not vote! I wanted to do the same thing! Maybe the fight will punish me instead.

It's the wine, bea. It's the wine in front of you. Now for my first selfie on this forum.

And apparently someone needs to look up what bussing is. Good morning and good night.

I said practically confirmed town. If he flips scum then that just makes the two of you a bus collision.

I'll refer you, llama, to the post I made in the Wilmington thread that you never adequately responded to, instead merely responding to a small point with "civilians lie all the time". And now Long Con, on death row practically confirmed town, points the finger at you, making a good point that a townie has been lynched because of your theory and that outside of that theory you have been completely lacking in scumhunting, and you respond to that with "well that has nothing to do with my alignment", when it has everything to do with your alignment. Scumhunting or lack thereof is not an alignment indication? Are you shitting me? Are you shitting town?

Your.

Defenses.

Are.

Absolute.

Fucking.

Shit.

And you should be lynched.

linki - Did you see those recent posts, bea, and did you take a mental note that they were posted when LC has no chance of surviving?

And the fact that you're pushing for a LC lynch when it's pretty fucking clear that he's town does not make things look better for you.

I've thought you were bad nearly the entire game, llama.

What do you think of bwt, Long Con?

Two votes with about twelve hours left.

Snack time for me, I'll catch up soon.

I'd like to fight. I've only fought once and lost.

Leamiteo wrote:My mother is town for my last free weekends for many moons to come. I'm voting SVS because she is dead wrong about me.

I'll be back off and on throughout the week, but I have lots of training to receive and to give. My RAs arrive on Thursday and I have a lot to accomplish before then!

So, a blatant OMGUS vote.

Russtifinko wrote:Will be busy graduating tomorrow! Voting Vomps. Only someone who's been recruited would say they wouldn't mind being recruited.

Um...no? That's not true at all? What?

I'm voting BWT for that and the reasons I mentioned the previous day.

I'm voting Canucklehead to get closer to a tie vote.

juliets wrote:Lea, there is no bandwagon. At this point there is SVS saying she is suspicious of you and me saying there was a conversation with you and DH that I thought was odd and I will probably take a look at your posts. You sound more defensive than this amount of activity calls for. Is there something I'm missing?

My thoughts exactly, at first Lea was a neutral read for me but no more. That was an extreme overreaction coupled with a poor defense.

Haha he's even get Tyler in his profile picture.

Dom wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Heck, I'm not even sure about Bullz. I was all gung-ho to vote for him again today, but his defenses are starting to come off as more sincere to me.

Quoted for truth.

Also as I mentioned earlier he attempted to reason that he wasn't lying by referring to an earlier public post, as if he couldn't have been lying there either. It's not that the reasoning is weak, it's that it's scummy weak, as if he was trying to find a desperate way to prove his innocence, which wasn't even called for in the first place because I was the only one to call him out.

Regarding birdwithteeth11, It's not the defense itself that's unbelievable, but his manner of posting in that short period. First he excuses himself for not voting Chicago, without making a comment on my soon to be poorly-received theory. I tell him I don't think I buy his excuse and this is his response, in two different posts:

"Uh...really? Why not?"

"Or you could just go look at the respective thread. That would give you your answer.

"

First he's caught off guard and asks me to explain why I don't believe him as if that's something I can put to detail. Then a minute later he gains confidence out of nowhere, as if to make up for his nervousness. Then it's not until a few posts later that he goes after me for my "theory" and all my "assumptions". Why not before, why not even to prelude the post of his excuse? The tone of those posts in context fit a scum thought process far too well.

I'm going to vote for birdwithteeth11. The vibes he gave me earlier were abysmal.

Bullzeye wrote:
S~V~S wrote: Linki, I had forgotten Keterman had said that. i did not think the Vomp lynch was particularly strong, it was a tie.
Not to mention the lynch was spread all over the place. 20+ votes across 12 people, Vomp only got 5. I definitely don't find it surprising that he hasn't received any yet today, maybe some of his voters from yesterday will want to try again but his vote count would suggest the majority don't suspect him. I doubt he'll get my vote today but then I don't have any idea who will yet. I guess Keterman just isn't used to playing round here yet so it seems unusual to him that join first place in the last lynch isn't automatically on the chopping block today but if you look at the numbers involved that should explain it I think.

Fifteen votes? I would call that strong, even in a game with much larger numbers to begin with. Really any number that results in either a lynch or a tie lynch would be considered strong to me. Also keep in mind that I wasn't declaring that it was strange that he had no votes yet already, I was in fact asking the general community if not automatically being on the chopping block the following day was standard here. Apparently it isn't. Carry on.

Although it puts me in a nice practically-confirmed town position, I have to admit that I don't think the "Tyler has to be in the room to recruit" theory is good enough to base reads on. It is a very good theory, but it's no Theory of Relativity. It could be wrong, and if it is, that's a LOT of misguided reads that would come from it. I'm sticking to basing my reads entirely off of posts, which I admit might also be a bad idea.

My eyes are primarily fixed towards vompatti, birdwithteeth11, and the llama73.

I'm curious as to why no one's voted vompatti yet. Is it normal over here for a strong yet failed lynch to garner no votes for quite a while the following day?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'll admit, I thought you were putting all of those voters together, which is why I found your idea a bit out there. But at the same time, I don't see how you could argue that going/not going to Chicago or any other location could be harmful or harmless.

I applaud you for trying to think outside the box, but in order for me to be willing to look at a new theory, there has to be at least some logic behind it. And I don't see the logic behind yours I'm afraid.

This was a sly response. As I said, it's hardly a new theory. It was shared with the main intention to emphasize how the logic behind unfurl's theory was lacking as well, and I would say moreso.

I admit that in my post I might of made it seemed like I was putting everyone on the chopping block. But I thought that by default it was clear enough that I wasn't, just because of how insane that would be. Do you really think that I would try to propose that not one player voted to not go to Chicago for a harmless reason?

You say "the non-Chicago voters" as if I was referring to all of them. Obviously not voting to go to Chicago doesn't automatically make you scum. I'm saying that I'm generally more weary of the players who didn't want to go than those you did. I find it odd that no one accused unfurl of thinking that everyone in her theory's list was scum, but with me, you did, even though as you yourself pointed out that's about 2/3 of the players. Do you really think that I would be trying to push that as fact?

Like Leamiteo, you're taking my speculation, which was really more of a defense against being a potential suspect for being on the list of those who did vote to go to Chicago, as an actual theory that I'm trying to push. It's not, I'm just saying that in general I'm more weary of those players. With Leamiteo I can understand getting defensive for being in that pool of potential suspects, but you just seem like you're trying to pin me as reaching when I'm just throwing out possibilities. And why are you so passionate about assumptions? I already reminded Leamiteo that most of what we have to go on has to be reasoned with using assumptions.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Keterman wrote:...I don't think I buy that.
Uhhhh....really? Why not?
Or you could just go look at the respective thread. That would give you your answer.

As if you somehow couldn't have lied there as well? Give me a break.

Leamiteo wrote:
Keterman wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
unfurl wrote:Fair point about DP!

haha, i can not help to notice Bullz name is among the people wanted to go to chicago,
as I voted for the previous period
and then people say they dont see a connection bewteen him and DH
Of course I voted to go to Chicago. It was an entirely new place and I assumed everyone would be drawn there. Go read my posts, I said on the last night in Wilmington I thought that since a lot of people would presumably vote for the new place that Chicago would be a good place for discussion and building theories. How was I to know where DH had voted? We were in separate threads. There's no connection between me and him just a few minor interactions given more importance than they deserve. I've already established that he didn't help me get my fight on day two in any way and nor have I defended him against any accusers while they were present in the same thread.
Same here. And although it goes against the pet theory at the moment, I'm more weary of those who didn't vote Chicago. A new city to check out and they didn't vote for it? Why the lack of curiosity? Do they already know what the rest of us were going to find out?
I think there are a lot of assumptions going on in this sentence and they aren't strong enough to make cases against non-Chicago voters. I didn't vote Chicago because DH was getting cranky at me and so I promised to give him space and head back to my city of origin, New Castle, though I really did want to see the new city.

Nearly everything we say at this point is an assumption, why are you trying to act like my theorizing stands out as unorthodox? And why are you trying to act like I was going to use those assumptions to make actual cases? Your reasoning sounds decent enough, but why so quick to be defensive because I used the w-word (weary)?

...I don't think I buy that.

Bullzeye wrote:
unfurl wrote:Fair point about DP!

haha, i can not help to notice Bullz name is among the people wanted to go to chicago,
as I voted for the previous period
and then people say they dont see a connection bewteen him and DH
Of course I voted to go to Chicago. It was an entirely new place and I assumed everyone would be drawn there. Go read my posts, I said on the last night in Wilmington I thought that since a lot of people would presumably vote for the new place that Chicago would be a good place for discussion and building theories. How was I to know where DH had voted? We were in separate threads. There's no connection between me and him just a few minor interactions given more importance than they deserve. I've already established that he didn't help me get my fight on day two in any way and nor have I defended him against any accusers while they were present in the same thread.

Same here. And although it goes against the pet theory at the moment, I'm more weary of those who didn't vote Chicago. A new city to check out and they didn't vote for it? Why the lack of curiosity? Do they already know what the rest of us were going to find out?

thellama73 wrote:Yes, I have to apologize to you Keterman, because I got the winner of that might mixed up in my records. I'm still watching you, though.

And I, you.

thellama73 wrote:
Keterman wrote:I think we're all a little too eager to jump on the vote-for-those-that-haven't-fought-yet train. I don't think it's a bad idea either but let's consider all of our options before we choose one.

Keterman wrote:I want to fight Hedgeowl because we're both from Wilmington and why not.
I don't like this one bit. Keterman wants to be thoughtful and consider all options, then a short time later he votes because "why not"? Also notable is that he voted to fight someone clearly weaker than he is, since Hedgeowl has lost one fight and he has won one. This would be understandable if he was admittedly trying to incapacitate a known or suspected baddie, but "why not" is not a good reason to put Hedgeowl's life in jeopardy.

I don't like it one bit.

It seems like this has already been cleared up, but just to address it, I admit I was rather inconsistent there in a rather short time, but here's why. When I say we should consider more options, I just mean we should do just that, consider more options. But the night is short and I don't see the harm in going with any particular plan until we get more answers. Voting doesn't necessarily mean declaring that my way is the right way, and in fact I thought my "why not" was indicative that I didn't feel strongly about what I was doing. The reason why I did it anyway was because at this point in the game there's no way to know if I'm making a bad decision or not, it's all speculation as you demonstrated yourself.

As for my fighting credentials, I've fought once, I lost, and I didn't get a PM, which Sockface said then and said more recently does not have any effect on the game. He's a cruel mod but I don't see why he would outright lie, he just leaves questions unanswered instead. At first I didn't like how you "didn't like" what I did as I thought it was pretty innocent, but if you were trying to start a bandwagon towards me I don't think you would make such a glaring error and then dismiss what you said earlier, so you're okay for now.

I want to fight Hedgeowl because we're both from Wilmington and why not.

Good then.

timmer wrote:Some thoughts about tonight's fight.

I have a hunch that Tyler recruits from fight clubs where he is present. Alex is a genius when it comes to designing a game's mechanics, and I just don't think he cut us up into four fight clubs for nothing. I think it to make Tyler have to think about positioning, etc.

So with that in mind, I checked back and cross-referenced a bunch of notes, and of the players left alive, I count six who have never been in a fight club with DH at any given time. (And please double check that I've gotten this right, if you have the time): Boomslang, Hedgeowl, juliets, Keterman, unfurl and Spacedaisy. If my hunch is right about Tyler, none of those players should be him. And OF those six, going back to my notes, it seems there are four who have either not yet fought, or if they did fight, they lost and are presumably still at fight level 1: Boomslang, Hedgeowl, juliets and Keterman. (Again, double-check if you have time).

I bring all of this up because it seems that there are two ways to kill Tyler now; lynches and fights. But Tyler is likely strong, I could see him starting out higher than the rest of us, so I don't want to accidentally let Tyler fight a level 1 player and make him stronger. I will likely vote for one of the above to fight tonight. I think a fight of low-level players who don't seen to have a connection to DH is safest, personally.

This seems contradictory to me. If you don't want to let Tyler fight a level 1, win easily, and gain power from it, why then will you likely vote for one of us Level 1 players? Unless you mean you want two level 1 players to fight each other so one of them can gain power, in which case why did you say "one of the above" as opposed to two? You know you get two votes tonight, correct?

I think we're all a little too eager to jump on the vote-for-those-that-haven't-fought-yet train. I don't think it's a bad idea either but let's consider all of our options before we choose one.

thellama73 wrote:
Keterman wrote:I wish by now we at least knew what's the cause for potential death in the fights. Really even the smallest piece of information would be greatly useful in deciding who to vote for to fight, but as it is, I'm just not sure. I'm leaning towards vomps now as the next lynch candidate, but I'm not sure if him being in a fight would be a good idea. What if we wins and gets a lynchproof prize or something? Everything is speculation.
I'm assuming (without much hard info) that the fights are determined by comparing the fighters' strengths, plus some kind of randomized process to introduce uncertainty, and that a final difference between fight levels determines whether the loses is injured or killed.

I'm leaning towards agreement with you, but that's a lot of assumptions without much hard info as you admit yourself. And even accepting that this is the case, the public isn't aware of this final difference between fight levels that you speak of so we don't know who would be a wise candidate against whoever we want dead.

I wish by now we at least knew what's the cause for potential death in the fights. Really even the smallest piece of information would be greatly useful in deciding who to vote for to fight, but as it is, I'm just not sure. I'm leaning towards vomps now as the next lynch candidate, but I'm not sure if him being in a fight would be a good idea. What if we wins and gets a lynchproof prize or something? Everything is speculation.

Way to say that they were "lynched" rather than "modkilled", too. Damn you MP.

It looks like MP chose randomly between the two tie-votes, along with straight up killing every single person that didn't vote, all of which were unrecruited civilians. Holy fuck.

Search found 65 matches