The Syndicate

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:33 pm Timmer is cool.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:23 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:21 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:21 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:12 pm if my sister was still alive i know she'd be on my side

It's a game with full role outing and open BTSC.

I'm not interested in hints.

im aunt barbara you nag

Never saw the film, so this means nothing to me.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:21 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:12 pm if my sister was still alive i know she'd be on my side

It's a game with full role outing and open BTSC.

I'm not interested in hints.

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:05 pm I just wanna congratulate my fellow Quin voters.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we got 'em

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:39 pm Quin is most assuredly getting my vote. Instead of fighting or working toward a civilian win condition, he asked who he's taking down with him.

Hopefully your teammate.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:39 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:37 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:33 pm

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:06 pm Starting to feel pretty bad about Long Con but I guess we'll see.

Nothing he has done since the beginning has made me believe he is a civilian. I probably should have been killed Night 3, but that would have exposed Long Con. Or maybe he's comfortable keeping me around since I'm holding up my end of the deal.

Did I sub in to almost immediately bus Long Con?

I don't know. Did you?

Epignosis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:33 pm

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:06 pm Starting to feel pretty bad about Long Con but I guess we'll see.

Nothing he has done since the beginning has made me believe he is a civilian. I probably should have been killed Night 3, but that would have exposed Long Con. Or maybe he's comfortable keeping me around since I'm holding up my end of the deal.

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:02 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:00 pm Self-pres doesn't seem to be an option for me at the moment. So, who am I taking down with me? My vote is still in the wind.

A kind man would break up the LC/Epi bromance

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:23 pm

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:57 pm When, during my long mafia career, have I ever fooled anyone?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:54 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:53 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:50 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:41 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:38 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:20 pm How do you feel about nutella, Quin? The mafia player, not the hazelnut spread.

I am unimpressed by the context in which she first voted for me. For reference, it was that 'look me in the eyes' thing. I agree with Epi's thoughts that she's less likely to be bad since she called Epi out on his lie rather than keeping it to her team, though.

She'd also just named as one of her final 3 candidates for lynching (at the time). I think that's a good enough basis for an early-phase vote.

That skipped my mind. I just remembered me talking to you and her jumping in with a vote.

Did you have any thoughts on her prior to this vote?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:50 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:41 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:38 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:20 pm How do you feel about nutella, Quin? The mafia player, not the hazelnut spread.

I am unimpressed by the context in which she first voted for me. For reference, it was that 'look me in the eyes' thing. I agree with Epi's thoughts that she's less likely to be bad since she called Epi out on his lie rather than keeping it to her team, though.

She'd also just named as one of her final 3 candidates for lynching (at the time). I think that's a good enough basis for an early-phase vote.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:38 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:20 pm How do you feel about nutella, Quin? The mafia player, not the hazelnut spread.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:32 pm

speedchuck wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:27 pm Rainbow without color:

Nutella
Epignosis
Timmer
LC
DH
Quin
SVS
Sloonei

Is that really all the players? wow.

When I asked you why I was your top suspect (or at least the recipient of your vote) earlier, you said it was because you were following DH (who is currently plopped right in the middle of this list). Is that still the case, or do you have a substantial reason to choose me over Quin and SVS?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:31 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:23 pm Wary. Not opposed. I'm not going to constantly reiterate my suspicion whenever I mention someone.

Snipped.
This still does not address the essence of my point, which is that you seemed to totally ignore your supposed suspicion of llama when composing those middle two posts. If you had a substantial reason to vote for llama, why make two posts in which you directly oppose the lynch? By "oppose" I mean you took a stance which was contrary to the act of voting for him. You can say that you were wary of the bandwagon and this is true. But this does not change the observable fact that you have two posts which are opposed to the idea of lynching llama, sandwiched between two posts in which you support his lynch.

nutella wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:25 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:46 pm

timmer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:59 pm My catch-up took all of about 3 minutes, but when I read my role PM it made it pretty clear that I'm a good guy, thus I too am skeptical of LC not knowing there were civs and others in the game. Barring developments, that is a pretty sizeable Day 1 ping.

I suspect timmer for this post. My role card came in with my character name, a whole load of flavour and then my super definitely town alignment as a side note at the very end. It was not 'pretty clear'. There is room to forgive LC for his LMS thought process.

What made you just pull this out of nowhere? Playing the "convincingly civ description of my role card" card, four game days after timmer's post but fairly soon after I said it's a major reason I trust him?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:04 pm Quin, talk about this succession of posts:

Quin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:31 pm llama did not vote for alignment reveals.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:09 pm I figured I'd take a look at llamas posts to see what's going on there. I don't really see anything that leads me to read him any way or another. I do notice that he mentioned making a deal, and I don't know what's up with that.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:13 pm I don't reject the idea that a distracted llama might kill a heavily suspected person, but with 6 votes on him already, I'm not inclined to vote there. My other top of mind options are Epignosis or LC.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:08 pm Reiterating that llama chose to vote for double voting or something over alignment reveals last night. I remember a baddie doing something along these lines happening in The Office, and I didn't pursue it then. So yeah, gut scum read for that.

A gripe I have with Long Con is that he's been vocalising his suspicion of Epi since Day 1, but it was only on Day 3 that he started to discuss it with people who were not Epi. On top of that, he only did that when Sloonei cued him to do so. I don't get the impression he really believes in his case.

First you take note of an odd Llama moment. Then you drop it a few days later, do a quick ISO of llama and come up with nothing conclusive and denounce the wagon that's starting to form against him, but an hour later you're suddenly on that wagon for the initial oddity you had observed two days earlier. You think this computes over here?

Wheewww yeah this series of posts by Quin really stinks to high heavens.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:09 pm I'm interested in Nutella as a player right now. Her Process of Elimination magic has whittled the game down to three possible baddies occupying two available spots. There does not seem to be a whole lot of suspicion around her. If I'm not misreading things, she almost seems like a trusted player to some degree. I've seen her as an excellent townie in past games. If she says she is confident that 2 out of 3 players are scum, and I am one of those three players, then that is something I am going to take interest in. Like I said before, if she is right then I have a 100% chance of voting for scum today by following her.

So what do we think of nutella's thought process? And could you provide more elaboration now, nutella?

I'm trying to let up a bit on the POE and open up to a couple other possibilities of players who could be fooling me, like speedchuck or DH maybe. I could turn my previously rather black-and-white list into a more nuanced rainbow if you like.


BTW, is it just me or has LC completely dropped off the face of the earth? (As has SVS obviously.)

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:26 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:20 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:17 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:16 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:15 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:13 pm I subbed in after sprityo was killed, and Dizzy wasn't inactive on Day 1. So explain why these set of night kills makes me look bad, Sloonei.

Have you not stated elsewhere that you're having trouble getting caught up in this game?

No. I just stated that I wasn't going to play catch-up.

Which suggests some degree of blindness to events in the thread, no?

Yes, but unless all of my teammates are as misinformed as I am, that won't affect the night kill choices. If I'm bad and all my teammates are misinformed, then I'm going to figure out what's going on, aren't I?

I don't know the answer to this question, but it seems a little contrived. I don't know much about what you've done in this game period. I just know that, as a replacement, you're one of the less informed players left, along with myself. This means you would fit into DharmaHelper's criteria for suspicion. Note that it's not my criteria for suspicion. I never said I agree with the assessment, just that it's fair to say that either of us are suspicious if one is using DH's thought process.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:19 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:17 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:14 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:10 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:04 pm Quin, talk about this succession of posts:

Quin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:31 pm llama did not vote for alignment reveals.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:09 pm I figured I'd take a look at llamas posts to see what's going on there. I don't really see anything that leads me to read him any way or another. I do notice that he mentioned making a deal, and I don't know what's up with that.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:13 pm I don't reject the idea that a distracted llama might kill a heavily suspected person, but with 6 votes on him already, I'm not inclined to vote there. My other top of mind options are Epignosis or LC.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:08 pm Reiterating that llama chose to vote for double voting or something over alignment reveals last night. I remember a baddie doing something along these lines happening in The Office, and I didn't pursue it then. So yeah, gut scum read for that.

A gripe I have with Long Con is that he's been vocalising his suspicion of Epi since Day 1, but it was only on Day 3 that he started to discuss it with people who were not Epi. On top of that, he only did that when Sloonei cued him to do so. I don't get the impression he really believes in his case.

First you take note of an odd Llama moment. Then you drop it a few days later, do a quick ISO of llama and come up with nothing conclusive and denounce the wagon that's starting to form against him, but an hour later you're suddenly on that wagon for the initial oddity you had observed two days earlier. You think this computes over here?

I don't know where you got the idea that I dropped it. Where did I say that I dropped it? It was a big reason as to why I suspected llama in the first place. Another thing you've got wrong. I thought the existing cases against llama were good. But with 5 people on the wagon before even halfway through the day and more being added onto it, I was hesitant because it seemed like an obvious runaway.

The bolded text is where I got the idea that you dropped your suspicion of llama. Where I come from, "I don't really see anything that leads me to read him any way or another" is not a statement of suspicion. Your post trajectory reads like this: Mildly suspicious of llama -[2 days pass]-> Neutral on llama -> opposed to lynching llama -> quietly return to original suspicion of llama an hour later.

His posts didn't give me any reason to read him one way or another. Does that help you?

A little bit but not enough. You're still opposed to his lynch in those middle two posts, but in favor of it in the two on opposite ends of the chain. If you continued to be suspicious of llama for his vote, then why did you neglect this in your read of llama in those other two posts?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:17 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:16 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:15 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:13 pm I subbed in after sprityo was killed, and Dizzy wasn't inactive on Day 1. So explain why these set of night kills makes me look bad, Sloonei.

Have you not stated elsewhere that you're having trouble getting caught up in this game?

No. I just stated that I wasn't going to play catch-up.

Which suggests some degree of blindness to events in the thread, no?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:17 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:16 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:15 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:13 pm I subbed in after sprityo was killed, and Dizzy wasn't inactive on Day 1. So explain why these set of night kills makes me look bad, Sloonei.

Have you not stated elsewhere that you're having trouble getting caught up in this game?

No. I just stated that I wasn't going to play catch-up.

Which suggests some degree of blindness to events in the thread, no?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:14 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:10 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:04 pm Quin, talk about this succession of posts:

Quin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:31 pm llama did not vote for alignment reveals.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:09 pm I figured I'd take a look at llamas posts to see what's going on there. I don't really see anything that leads me to read him any way or another. I do notice that he mentioned making a deal, and I don't know what's up with that.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:13 pm I don't reject the idea that a distracted llama might kill a heavily suspected person, but with 6 votes on him already, I'm not inclined to vote there. My other top of mind options are Epignosis or LC.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:08 pm Reiterating that llama chose to vote for double voting or something over alignment reveals last night. I remember a baddie doing something along these lines happening in The Office, and I didn't pursue it then. So yeah, gut scum read for that.

A gripe I have with Long Con is that he's been vocalising his suspicion of Epi since Day 1, but it was only on Day 3 that he started to discuss it with people who were not Epi. On top of that, he only did that when Sloonei cued him to do so. I don't get the impression he really believes in his case.

First you take note of an odd Llama moment. Then you drop it a few days later, do a quick ISO of llama and come up with nothing conclusive and denounce the wagon that's starting to form against him, but an hour later you're suddenly on that wagon for the initial oddity you had observed two days earlier. You think this computes over here?

I don't know where you got the idea that I dropped it. Where did I say that I dropped it? It was a big reason as to why I suspected llama in the first place. Another thing you've got wrong. I thought the existing cases against llama were good. But with 5 people on the wagon before even halfway through the day and more being added onto it, I was hesitant because it seemed like an obvious runaway.

The bolded text is where I got the idea that you dropped your suspicion of llama. Where I come from, "I don't really see anything that leads me to read him any way or another" is not a statement of suspicion. Your post trajectory reads like this: Mildly suspicious of llama -[2 days pass]-> Neutral on llama -> opposed to lynching llama -> quietly return to original suspicion of llama an hour later.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:15 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:13 pm I subbed in after sprityo was killed, and Dizzy wasn't inactive on Day 1. So explain why these set of night kills makes me look bad, Sloonei.

Have you not stated elsewhere that you're having trouble getting caught up in this game?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:10 pm

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:05 pm Sprityo
Ricochet
Spacedaisy

All three kills, all three pretty much useless. The mafia (even without llama) are not paying attention and/or have no idea who to kill.

This is a good reason to suspect me, I don't object. It also seems like it could be a good reason to suspect SVS and Quin. Cool.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:04 pm Quin, talk about this succession of posts:

Quin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:31 pm llama did not vote for alignment reveals.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:09 pm I figured I'd take a look at llamas posts to see what's going on there. I don't really see anything that leads me to read him any way or another. I do notice that he mentioned making a deal, and I don't know what's up with that.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:13 pm I don't reject the idea that a distracted llama might kill a heavily suspected person, but with 6 votes on him already, I'm not inclined to vote there. My other top of mind options are Epignosis or LC.

Quin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:08 pm Reiterating that llama chose to vote for double voting or something over alignment reveals last night. I remember a baddie doing something along these lines happening in The Office, and I didn't pursue it then. So yeah, gut scum read for that.

A gripe I have with Long Con is that he's been vocalising his suspicion of Epi since Day 1, but it was only on Day 3 that he started to discuss it with people who were not Epi. On top of that, he only did that when Sloonei cued him to do so. I don't get the impression he really believes in his case.

First you take note of an odd Llama moment. Then you drop it a few days later, do a quick ISO of llama and come up with nothing conclusive and denounce the wagon that's starting to form against him, but an hour later you're suddenly on that wagon for the initial oddity you had observed two days earlier. You think this computes over here?

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:00 pm See now statistically between the two of you someone's got to be blowing smoke.

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:54 pm I could move off Sloonei onto someone else. I'm kinda wondering how far Speedchuck is going to take the "I do what DH Does" schtick. I had my suspicions of Dyslexicon but I thought they might be an Indie and not a mafia. IDK. Quin might be a good vote. IDK.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:47 pm

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:43 pm

Epignosis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:31 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:19 pm I was "treading carefully" because I scum player voting to protect another play on Day/Night 1 is a steaming pile of WIFOM. I gave it a "for now" because I'm in the beginning stages of my formulation of reads. I'm not jumping to a conclusion about Quin/Llama because literally all I've read of their interactions is llama's vote to protect Dyslexicon. What treasure troves of information should I pretend to have gathered from that?
I currently have zero information on their interactions. I hope to find new information by reading things that have already been said, if I feel like that's a thing I should do. Do you think that's a thing I should do?

I know this is nearly-end-game for you, but my thought processes are still in Day 1 mode. You seem to be treating me as if my reads should be as developed as yours.

It's Day 4. Your opinions should not be in Day 1 mode. If you had a problem keeping up (and I genuinely am sorry for your illness), you should have sought a replacement.

DyslexiQuin right now is my top suspect, and you gave him a pass because thellama73 voted to protect him because of "WIFOM City," as you put it. Isn't that what that is supposed to do? Why not look at Dyslexicon and Quin on your own and make a decision?

Do you really think this?

Now, would I lie?

timmer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:59 pm My catch-up took all of about 3 minutes, but when I read my role PM it made it pretty clear that I'm a good guy, thus I too am skeptical of LC not knowing there were civs and others in the game. Barring developments, that is a pretty sizeable Day 1 ping.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:31 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:19 pm I was "treading carefully" because I scum player voting to protect another play on Day/Night 1 is a steaming pile of WIFOM. I gave it a "for now" because I'm in the beginning stages of my formulation of reads. I'm not jumping to a conclusion about Quin/Llama because literally all I've read of their interactions is llama's vote to protect Dyslexicon. What treasure troves of information should I pretend to have gathered from that?
I currently have zero information on their interactions. I hope to find new information by reading things that have already been said, if I feel like that's a thing I should do. Do you think that's a thing I should do?

I know this is nearly-end-game for you, but my thought processes are still in Day 1 mode. You seem to be treating me as if my reads should be as developed as yours.

It's Day 4. Your opinions should not be in Day 1 mode. If you had a problem keeping up (and I genuinely am sorry for your illness), you should have sought a replacement.

DyslexiQuin right now is my top suspect, and you gave him a pass because thellama73 voted to protect him because of "WIFOM City," as you put it. Isn't that what that is supposed to do? Why not look at Dyslexicon and Quin on your own and make a decision?

nutella wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:29 am POE is pretty self-explanatory, yeah? Each of the other players I think is more likely civ than not, and you guys are left. What more elaboration do you need? That's... that's just what POE is.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:47 am Are there any players you feel you have paid enough attention to to offer a firm read?

No one can honestly say they have a strong read on me in this game. I've not done enough to merit that.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:36 am

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:09 am

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:08 am

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:56 am

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:41 am EBWOP: 100% chance

Look into side eyeing Chloe's eyes and tell her that she's bad.

You're bad. Is this statement true or false?

It is false.

What do you think of nutella's process of elimination? SVS and myself were the other two players she named. Are we both bad? One of us? Neither?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:08 am

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:56 am

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:41 am EBWOP: 100% chance

Look into side eyeing Chloe's eyes and tell her that she's bad.

You're bad. Is this statement true or false?

nutella wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:02 am Okay.
*votes Quin*

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:41 am EBWOP: 100% chance