The Syndicate

Bullzeye wrote:Also I knew SVS' role for about half the game. On night 1 I got sanity check info regarding MP, then on night 2 I asked for a secret about SVS and was told she targeted MP the previous night. Wasn't hard to put 2 and 2 together after that.

I was also kinda hinting that I sent you the info~

Fun and unusual game Llama, I love the winning mechanics, really creative

Last time I looked he was still alive~?

Kate wrote:Its a creepy scary party.

Indeed it is, but I tend to like that kind of thing

Well, I have some ideas on who it is NOT, and who I will vote to protect. I feel good about the same people as before. Since someone I feel good about is saying they feel Snowy is OK, I will also keep him in the circle of trust. Although i would rather wait on developments and vote for protective purposes, I have to vote now as my online time this weekend is severely limited (my family is doing the whole 4 day weekend "Yay Us We're Awesome" extended BBQ/Pool Party/Beer/Wine/Sangriafest this weekend, and they are actually kinda fun, lol, ).

So voting Hedgeowl, sorry if you are not a twin, but based on what I think, I am not sure who else could be so

Yah, a very scary crazy lady

Vompatti wrote:I'm currently under the impression that someone has been posting false hints about their role and that someone is either Bullz or Mongoose.

I am not sure what you are getting at here, but these are two of the people I think I would like to seee alive.

So voting Vomp, on break, gotta vote now.

Multi linki~

Vompatti wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Mongoose wrote:I am going to be heartbroken if we kill off another good character. I don't want to lose Mrs. Torrance. I think I would lose a piece of myself.

If this is true, I may have been wrong about two (2) people I've somewhat trusted so far.

I would think Danny can prove you're not wrong about him

Really, how?

This response confuses me a bit.I think

I need no onedead, and I need one role alive. Based on several things, I. Think it is one of 3 people.

I will vote to protect those people if need be.

I'm a sad panda that all the talk in this thread happens while I am at work linki x many

Vompatti wrote:I wonder if the evil spirits in llama's post are the twins or has someone else been possessed or something -- and are we supposed to "exorcize" them by "lynching" them?

Do you have any ideas on who they may be?

Mongoose wrote:

Vompatti wrote:I poured baking soda on it, I hope that won't damage it. Rugs are very expensive in Finalnd.

I make a paste out of vinegar (white distilled or even apple cider) and baking soda. It will clean anything for cheap. Since your rug is expensive, I'd just try a test patch underneath to make sure it doesn't stain.

OMG, I do everything with vinegar, baking soda and borax. I make all my own home cleaning products, use vinegar to keep the weeds down in the yard, etc., I have not bought a single thing in the cleaning products aisle in ages. Although that Natures Miracle stuff is an enzymatic thing, it actually digests organic matter, which is why it works for beer, or anything smelly, its good stuff.

And yay for no death, either we have a very patient/unlucky killer, OR there is no killer. I think there isn't one.

Once again, this close to the end, i plan to wait to see if we have any aggressors. I'm a peaceful person, I wish no one any harm if they wish me no harm.

I think King was the only killer, Jack would probably have become one IMO had he gotten BTS with Grady, I believe.

Going into the cozy side room, probably has limited access. And I like "cozy"

Plus RIP MP iywg, and I had Grady down as a question mark. Although I would guess that the death of Jack left you hanging.

Vompatti wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Kate wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Well, I'm glad about that result! Although I am now questioning how good our resident sanity checker is, as I don't see how anybody could think that that guy seems sane. I'm gonna follow Kate's logic and go to the kid's room, they do tend to be safer than adults in this sort of film and honestly I'm still a bit of a kid myself, so it might be a good idea.

We can make a fort out of the blankets. It will be safe under there.

I think we have to now that you've said that. Does anyone else want to join us in our awesome blanket fort?

Side note, me and my flatmates next year have decided we're going to actually make a Community-inspired blanket fort in our flat at some point. Because we're all mature and sensible grown ups about to be graduating into the real world and become the sort of people you'd totally want in education, business, or psychology.

Linki Vomp - nobody said anything about sleeping with children, just that we're stealing their room. They can leave if they don't like that.

Stealing the children's room is not a very nice thing to do.

Whos stealing? I am sharing Plus blanket forts are the best

If no one else is refraining, neither will. I.

Sorry MP, but maybe the person you want dead is me or the person I need alive.

Lemon FTW

Hedgeowl wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Well, so far so good, no night kills

So I plan a totally defensive vote, if I am forced to vote at all. I will vote to save myself, or someone I feel good about that is possibly being railroaded. Since I need someone ELSE alive to win, and don't know who it is, I feel that my best chance lies in as many people being alive at the end as possible. Including myself :nod:

If we choose to lynch no one, and someone dies anyhow, I will rethink this.

This strategy could also work with my win condition. However, there is a risk for all of us. If someone is lynched anyway, then all of us will basically be putting ourselves out there. I haven't decide yet whether I am willing to take that risk, because dying is losing for some of us at least. Of course if someone makes a Gin and Tonic at the After-party the way I like, then maybe I'd get over it.

Well, I intend to take a wait and see attitude. See who pushes to kill, and who does not. I would be willing to try a non lynch, but then there is the possibility of a random factor.

And yeah, I have to be alive at the end as well.

MP, I named no names since I want to see what develops. I think I have been fairly obvious, but maybe not. I will say that some folks have quieted down somewhat since we have had no NKs and have had talk of win conditions. I will say that for me, you are "Third", MP. Based on your posts, and the fact that you seem pretty sane to me, I want to trust you. But your violent win cons make me nervous, as the remnants of the baddie team that never formed may have violent win conditions, or if not, perhaps your conditions conflict with mine~ perhaps the person you need dead is the person I need alive. And, of course, others can be lying about their conditions. As could i, really.

BUT some people who seem fairly violent to me seem to be pushing a suspicion of you, and it is possible for one role i can think of to require people to be dead in a totally non-evil-qhost way. I think we got pretty lucky losing both Stephen King & Jack as early as we did.

So

I just want to live, and I want everyone else to live, too

Well, so far so good, no night kills

So I plan a totally defensive vote, if I am forced to vote at all. I will vote to save myself, or someone I feel good about that is possibly being railroaded. Since I need someone ELSE alive to win, and don't know who it is, I feel that my best chance lies in as many people being alive at the end as possible. Including myself :nod:

If we choose to lynch no one, and someone dies anyhow, I will rethink this.

I guess I think there may be some somewhat malicious roles still out there, but i don;t think they can kill, I think Jack was scheduled to be the other killer. My guess is they may want the rest of us dead to meet THEIR win cons. If this was a more traditional game without finite time limits, I would think those of us with non violent win cons would NEED to make those who need us dead, dead themselves. But all I need to do is evade being lynched by them for three more time periods.

If a kill DOES happen, though, that will have to change. But if it does not, I think that if I, and those like me with non violent win conditions, only have to make our non aggression clear, and keep an eye on those who keep trying to promote suspicion based lynches, we may be OK. I intend on saving my vote and either not voting, or using it to save myself or someone I feel may have "SVS Friendly" win conditions.

There are two people I feel pretty good about, potentially a third, and although this person has been pushing the suspicion envelope, ANOTHER person whom I do not trust AT ALL has been pushing suspicion on my potential third, which makes me feel better about Third, if that makes sense

I feel not good about one (as said above) and am on the fence about the rest.

thellama73 wrote:Dex, you are not allowed to vote for real options in these polls. I don't care how zany you are!

While he calls himself "Zany Dex", i would think that "Mad as a Fucking Hatter Dex" might be more appropriate. Even out of the context of this game.

Just sayin~

Well, i got one, and i don't THINK I'm any more insane than normal. All the host told me is, "Someone sent you a drink, you were thirsty, you drank it". No consequences or effects.

If it made me insane, i am unaware of it.

Ebwop, I missed your earlier reply, fast moving thread.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:EBWOP~ My guess is no lynch. Why would the host intrude into the game in that fashion? If we choose to lynch no one, why would he lynch anyone?

I know that when I host -- if there are no votes for anyone, someone still has to die, and thus I randomize among everyone. Maybe it's different here though.

i guess thats an individual host thing; the players decide if someone has to die. Sometimes no one dies. That is up to the players, not up to me. And i certainly would never randomize a lynch if there are zero votes. No one *has* to die.

Has that ever happened in one of your games?

Also, did I get you right before, people need to die for you to meet your win conditions?

EBWOP~ My guess is no lynch. Why would the host intrude into the game in that fashion? If we choose to lynch no one, why would he lynch anyone?

I mean based on what is happening in the thread, i have reconsidered baddie hunting as being my primary objective in this game, my role is not one anyone else has named as one people might consider to be baddies. My win conditions have not changed~ just my interpretation of the thread and the game. Normally, I play for the sake of the game, and winning is a secondary thing for me. In this game, i think they are the same; with differeing win conditions, the game each of us plays may be different, and judging it based on standard games would be pointless.

So you need people to be dead in order to win?

Well, MP, having reassessed this game, i think perhaps they could be bad news for someone else, but not for me, or that they could have been (Grady still worries me, tbh). With Stephen King dead, and with Jack also dead (who i really think was set to become a potential second killer) I don't know that there is anyone left killing at night. If there isn't any night killer, then I am willing to not show aggression towards others, having said that I don't need any of them dead. I am willing to give up my night power as well, in order to do so.

If people try to lynch me, then i will have to reassess this stand. But as of right now, I see no reason to get up in anyones face. My conditions require certain others being ALIVE, and does not require anyone being dead. Since I don't know who has the roles I need alive, I would be just as happy killing no one.

Does your role require people to be dead?

Linki @ Snow Dog~ maybe it also means I was role blocked, role checked or something like that. The role says "secret". So we don;t know, which is why I asked if it had happened to anyone else.

Did you read my post?

I had no choice. the host TOLD ME I drank it.

Well, llama said we could choose not to vote~ we will then be role blocked at night. My power is not "all that" that I am unwilling to give it up. I may choose to not vote tomorrow. My conditions involve others being ALIVE, not dead. So I would have no problems with no more death.

If other people choose to vote, that is cool, so long as they don't vote for me~

RIP Nevin~ I hope you really did want to die

Voting Advocaat~ my Bestefar used to drink that nasty shit all the time

Having Nev flip Halloran is interesting, since that character was treated differently in the book and the movie. But I could (guessing here) see that possibly his win condition is linked with Dannys. Maybe. Based on how things ended up for Halloran in the movie, not in the book.

Hedgeowl wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Nevinera wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: Linki SVS: Seems you and I are in the same boat. I have no interest in lynching anyone who doesn't want me out of the way to win.

I've changed my mind, we should lynch bullzeye and SVS. I have secret information that almost guarantees that their win condition involves eliminating several of us.

LOL, thats ridiculous. You have no such info becasue it isn't true, at least not about me. And Bullz isn't acting all that bloodthirsty as far as I can see. Like I said, my win conditions don't involve anyone being dead. Quite the opposite, actually. So either, A, you got false info, or B, you are making it up, and I am going to guess B.

Also, I would like to discuss drinks. I was served a drink last night, but was not told what, if anything, it did. Just that i was thirsty and drank it. Has that happened to anyone else?

Yes it happened to me as well and I have no idea how to interpret it at this point.

Nev is clearly desperate to get lynched and blatantly lying, saying he's lying, and altogether seemingly going insane. I am not going to vote for him in this scenario. It just doesn't make any sense. Unless it supports your win condition, why would you vote to lynch Nev if that's his win condition. And if killing someone supports your own condition clearly you may be a threat to the rest of us.

No, he clearly replied to my question. If he is implying he needs to be lynched, I have no problems helping him. I think his string of posts is crystal clear. It does not hurt me to do so, so

That is very possible, Vomp, but based on Nevs response to this post:

S~V~S wrote:Now, see, my problem with people that keep saying that there are no good/bad people is that assuming we all have different win conditions, some peoples conditions might require other people to be dead. To me, those people are potentially negative for me. BUT like someone else has said, the game is 6 days long, we are on Day 3. I don't want/need to necessarily defeat other peoples win conditions of they don't conflict with mine. I do not need anyone to be dead to win, so lynching people does not interest me as much as staying alive. And if Nev WANTS to be lynched, well, he is not trying to lynch me, so I am willing to go for it.

As far as I know (and there are a lot of things we don't know in this game) helping someone else meet their win condition won't hurt me. I will wait a bit to vote and see if Nevin has anything to say about this, but at this point, I am considering a vote for him.

I think I am OK with my vote. I basically said that so long as someone does not want to kill me, i have no problem with them, and wanted to hear what Nevs thoughts were on this. Then Bullz made a similar statement.

Nev replied with:

Nevinera wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: Linki SVS: Seems you and I are in the same boat. I have no interest in lynching anyone who doesn't want me out of the way to win.

I've changed my mind, we should lynch bullzeye and SVS. I have secret information that almost guarantees that their win condition involves eliminating several of us.

Which leads me to think that, by making a "threat" to two people who just said they have no aggression against anyone, not needing anyone dead in order to win, that Nevin is indirectly replying to my previous post. He even quoted Bullz post saying that he has no interest in lynching anyone who doesn't want him, Bullz, out of the way, and said, basically, "Hey, I want you out of the way".

Is this making sense? It is crystal clear to me, but not sure I am expressing it well.

Linki, yeah, and theres that, too. Thanks Nev, I didn't think you did

Also, I am not interested in lynching people if they are not a threat to me. Nev, after I basically said this, made a direct threat to me, which makes me think I can help him out with a vote.

So *Voting nevinera*

I did not have a choice, it just said I was thirsty and I drank it. the host told me, he did not ask me. The way the bartender is written, I got the impression that he sends different drinks out with different effects. As far as i know, or can tell, it had no effect on me, or it did something of which I am unaware. I double checked and the PM did not say not to discuss it, so

Linki, I don't know Vomp, do you have a theory?

Nevinera wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: Linki SVS: Seems you and I are in the same boat. I have no interest in lynching anyone who doesn't want me out of the way to win.

I've changed my mind, we should lynch bullzeye and SVS. I have secret information that almost guarantees that their win condition involves eliminating several of us.

LOL, thats ridiculous. You have no such info becasue it isn't true, at least not about me. And Bullz isn't acting all that bloodthirsty as far as I can see. Like I said, my win conditions don't involve anyone being dead. Quite the opposite, actually. So either, A, you got false info, or B, you are making it up, and I am going to guess B.

Also, I would like to discuss drinks. I was served a drink last night, but was not told what, if anything, it did. Just that i was thirsty and drank it. Has that happened to anyone else?

Now, see, my problem with people that keep saying that there are no good/bad people is that assuming we all have different win conditions, some peoples conditions might require other people to be dead. To me, those people are potentially negative for me. BUT like someone else has said, the game is 6 days long, we are on Day 3. I don't want/need to necessarily defeat other peoples win conditions of they don't conflict with mine. I do not need anyone to be dead to win, so lynching people does not interest me as much as staying alive. And if Nev WANTS to be lynched, well, he is not trying to lynch me, so I am willing to go for it.

As far as I know (and there are a lot of things we don't know in this game) helping someone else meet their win condition won't hurt me. I will wait a bit to vote and see if Nevin has anything to say about this, but at this point, I am considering a vote for him.

Linki~ considering many of the characters in the original book/film WERE dead/spirits it seems quite possible.

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:MP, now i am seeing your point, I am not a Grady Twin, or any kind of Grady. I do agree they are baddies, or most likely to be potentially baddies.

.

As I said above. there are no baddies this game. We all seem to have our own win conditions.

I disagree; it would not be a Mafia game were there not potential enemies, people that could kill us. Stephen King could kill us, but I doubt he was the only one. Having seen this movie several jillion times, and worn out the book twice, i would guess that Jack could have gone bad, and I would also guess that the gradys could go bad. Possibly the bartender. But what would be the point of lynching anyone if there are no baddies?

I waffle on the hotel. But I am pretty sure about the Gradys.

Your theory earlier was interesting; you say you think that the checker makes people insane. Apparently you made a role hint yesterday that got some play, but I did not catch it, I seldom do, plus I try to NOT look for them, since they are not my favorite thing in the world. I will have to go look for it, i guess. Becasue I am very much thinking I see something else, and it is not good, to my eye.

Nevin says he has to get lynched, and he was saying that yesterday as well. *sigh*

Good question, curious about that answer myself.

Do you live in his mouth?

I did think Tony was a separate role, too, though. Kind of like the twins are one listing, but two roles. So maybe Bullz is right and it is an info sort of role?

That could be, because in the story, Tony was not an actual corporeal person existing in the present.

12 players, 12 roles counting Tony and Danny as one, not two.

MP, now i am seeing your point, I am not a Grady Twin, or any kind of Grady. I do agree they are baddies, or most likely to be potentially baddies.

And quiet as I have been, I must say i have also not mentioned Dex at all until he died, Bullz until I voted for him, or pretty much anybody, not just Kate. So you may want to do a chart showing all the people who have not mentioned each other before using that as a litmus test, or as an indicator of guilt.

And she reads me better than i read her. Although shotgun voting like she did here is not associated in my mind with Bad kate, who is more careful. Civ Kate is braver that way.

Linki~ did we count the players/roles? I assumed it was 2 roles.

Bullzeye wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Zany Dex wrote:I think we are looking for someone who is being blendy. Looking at the lowest posters after BWT,

Nevinera 7
Bullzeye 8
vompetti 9

All have twice as many posts than BWT though.

There's a difference between low posting and being blendy IMO. Being blendy means to go along with others and not put yourself out there at all while low posting is just not having much to say.

Not gettingthe warm fuzzies from you, Bullz.

On phone @ work, will elaborate later, voting +ullz, don't wanna vote someone who looks to be trying for votes.

Unless it's the fact I've not posted much (which says nothing by itself) I don't see how that can be the case owing to the fact that I've not really had much to say

I have no idea who I want to vote, probably not Snow though for the reasons that others have mentioned.

This ^^

Becasue you are a person who can fool me really smoothly, I need to know where you are in most games, and try to find out early. This reaction makes me feel pretty OK.

Good catch on Dex, (Burn, Stephen King, burn~) any other suspicions? I have more in the way of good feelings than bad, tbh.

Linki~ yeah, you are pretty forthright, but you soften the edges nicely. Feel free to blush

Linki @ MP~ not sure about Kate, but I have seen nothing from her to comment on She and I can tend to get too paranoid about each other, we discussed that after a recent game, and I am trying not to overanalyze her any more than I do anyone else (except Bullz, lol)

Bullz is a very forthright guy, and his remark about the definition of blendiness did not sound like him, tbh. So since I was not wanting to vote Snow since I thought he wanted to get votes, and I did not want to vote Vomp for being Vomp, I voted Bullz to remind him I was looking, and hoping he was nice, normal sane Bullz With my "gotta rush, posting from phone" vote, I did not expect him to get any more votes.

I only skimmed in the few minutes since I got home, will reread and post more in a few after catching up.

Linki~ um, yeah. You seemed to be trying to drum up suspicion, Snow.

Bullzeye wrote:

Zany Dex wrote:I think we are looking for someone who is being blendy. Looking at the lowest posters after BWT,

Nevinera 7
Bullzeye 8
vompetti 9

All have twice as many posts than BWT though.

There's a difference between low posting and being blendy IMO. Being blendy means to go along with others and not put yourself out there at all while low posting is just not having much to say.

Not gettingthe warm fuzzies from you, Bullz.

On phone @ work, will elaborate later, voting +ullz, don't wanna vote someone who looks to be trying for votes.

Not liking that we seem to have someone who wants to take votes.

Mongoose wrote:

Simon wrote:

Mongoose wrote:.gnillet gnieb pu dedne sesnopser eht tub ,teews os saw tI .dab era yeht if enoyreve ksa ot emag siht ni nomiS dah ew hsiw I .noos ni etov ym teg ot gniog ma I os ,rekaerb-eit eht eb ot tnaw t'nod yllaer I ,lleW

I'm here Mongoose! Are you Duncan? If so, I'd like to shunt with you at the narrow gague railway - at the shunting yards.

Hiya Simon! I wasn't Duncan, I was Thomas himself! Glad to see you are still around.

I was Duncan, I died like Night One and am also glad to see you, Simon~

Linki~ OK, Nevin, that makes sense. Thanks

Well, I think that jacks insanity, for instance, would have ratcheted up once he met up with Grady. I am guessing they were potentially set to become the baddie team, perhaps. Again, I think this may be an affinity check.

You seemed to imply that you thought this was a negative power, and I am not sure why that would be. Can you tell me what I am missing?

Nevinera wrote:Rereading the roles and I noticed this one:

Each night, can check a player's sanity level and PM that info to one person

Anyone at all concerned about that implication?

I would imagine that is kind of like an affiliation checker, people who flip insane are more likely to be bad? Maybe?

What would be the bad implication of this?

I def agree re Stephen King and the gradys. Maybe the bartender, too? He was a big part of driving Jack insane, after all.

Maybe the hotel, it could be a Last Man (or building) standing role, or it could just be a "live till the end" kinda thing.

Zany Dex wrote:Is it just me or does anyone see another golden!?

Anyways, as I read, I see a frustrated epig making threats, that'd not cool.

And MP what seems to be enjoying winding him up,

I always saw golden as a baddie so I'm not going to vote epig just yet, give him a chance I think.

YES. Totally, Epig reminds me of Golden very much. If Golden comes off of break again, it will be interesting to see them play together.