The Syndicate

Congrate G Man!!

4

Sorry I fixated onyou, but you fixated on me first

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:After all that I still think S~V~S is the most suspicious by a pretty wide margin. If anyone disagrees with that, please say so and say why. Time is limited and anyone might be dead shortly.

After this game, we can have a long talk about how you read me and personal bias re game style IF you are a civ this game. And I don't want to hear about how I am a crap civ becasue my standards of civ behavior aren't yours. That post about how I was marching to my own drummer, I meant that.

So you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is?Good to know. You think people are bad based on their association with me, but you won't lynch me.

I am gonna vote for G Man, which is where I am gonna vote every cycle I am alive.

If you are actually a civ, Jay, this is where you learn about me. I will happily lynch my vanilla ass to expose the baddies. I would NVER lynch my bad self for any reason.

Well, Wilgy, I personally was trying to get JJJ to take a stand; tpput his money where his mouth is. Why do you no longer think I am bad?

I tied it Jay. This way you can lynch ME, and then worry about those associations, right?

Rather than trying to lynch people based n their association with me, why not just lynch me, Jay? Itwill be easy since I am not really around t defend. This wa we won't lynch G Man,which I am guessing i your point, plus al of those posts about who is associated with me will be tons more valuable

Here, I will Help.

I hate posting on this phone, lol. I miss my old phone.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:S~V~S, when faced with a lynch, has given us nothing but return-fire aggression at the player who most wants to lynch her. She has rejected his cop claim thoughtlessly and immediately jumped to him having bussed Elohcin. I see no healthy consideration of the sides of the discussion or the variables in play, I only see desperation.

She has put close to nothing in this thread in the way of suspicion until now, but she has always been present enough to defend herself as needed. This stuff is textbook baddie IMO.

But it isn't textbook SVS. It is *I have almost no internet and agreed to play so Rico could get started* SVS. Which is kinda why the people who actually know me have not been voting for me.

I don't play like you, Jay, and don't plan on trying anymore. If you suspect me for that, OK.

I am a vanilla civ. Based on my read of him I think G !an is bad and have thought so since he chose to follow someone else's weak ping on day one instead of his "biggest suspect" Scotty. He further claimed lather that i had had more traction than Scotty even though that was not true since he was the first vote for me.

So I am thinking Scotty is possibly his teammate. But I have no plans on changing my vote. I hope you lynch G Man, but if you lynch me you lynch me

maybe that will get you to lynch him next. Since I am not the only one to suspect him.

And Wilgy, why u lie?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think that looks bad because she was actually entertaining the notion that Elohcin might be a civilian based upon the most obvious lie in the thread (the one she was responding to with the three laughter emojis).

I have barely read the thread. I would not know the most obvious lie in this thread if it bit me in the ass. And you are trying to make it bite me in the ass.

You are reading incredibly into this. I am a plain vanilla civ. And that's the truth. G Man on the other hand is lying. He "feels" to me exactly as he did when I read his posts in BSG (even before I *knew* he was bad, I just KNEW it, you know?).

G Man threw her under the bus.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Purely in an off-topic fashion:

As far as I've seen, "Jailkeeper" and "jailer" pretty much always = role block + protect (doctor).

I have also seen jailers that get BTS with their subject, sometimes Jailer also means "silence". It can vary. When I have had one when I host, it is BTS & block.

Rico, does the target know s/he has been jailed?

Also, since they are changeable, I am voting for G Man. I don;t believe a word he says tbh. He has zero issues with strategically bussing a teammate, and that is what I think he did with Eloh.

You left yourself out.

G-Man wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I am replacing in here; I was under the impression that I was going to be announced by the host earlier, but life is crazy in Nauru, amirite?

Haven't read the rules etc yet, just checking in. Also I think H. Swank is hot, a person doesn't need to be traditionally beautiful to be hot. She & Chloe Sevigny (another hot but not really pretty per se actress) burnt up the screen in Boys Don't Cry, which is mainly where I recall Hilary Swank.

Linki, also plan on marching to my own drummer this game.
Brace yourself for automatic suspicion from me. I'm prepared for and anticipate reciprocation.

Second post of the game. If he has the means to clear up "automatic suspicion" I would think he would have

Well, I would. And since he thinks I am so scary when bad that he auto suspects me for no real reason, and said as much in one of his first posts, I would think he would want to know for sure that I am on his side.

Also can you try to make it make sense for me? I would like to hear your reasoning if it has evolved past "becasue Rabbit" and the timing of my absences which I have explained, and have in fact been replaced out of the other game I was playing due to no wifi and time constraints. I also would like it if you check me tonight, if you are indeed the Peeker.

You were the first vote for me. Why do you think there was traction for an SVS train? Both Scotty & I had zero votes when you voted for me. Rather than trying to lynch Scotty, you instead followed someone elses self admittedly weak suspicion, weak enough that he did not even vote for me himself.

EBWOP, I mean when I have an info role, that is what I do. Last game I was an info role, The Office, I checked the person I voted day one on night one.

G-Man wrote:
S~V~S wrote:So on Night one you did not CHOOSE Scotty to peek? I know nothing about peeking, tbh.
Both my Night 1 and Night 2 peeks were chosen by me. My Day 0 peek was given to me by the host.

3.21

Why did you not choose the person you voted for on Day One, me, to role check? Especially since earlier this day phase you were STILL mentioning me as potentially suspicious. Isn't role checking the people you suspect the point of being a role checker?

So on Night one you did not CHOOSE Scotty to peek? I know nothing about peeking, tbh.

This may sound like a dumb question, but here goes.

When someone gets a peek, do they pick their target, or does the host provide the info? Basically, is this the same as a role check? Or is it random info?

Elohcin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I voted for Eloh. Since she appears to be bad for sure, why backburner her?
B/c I just wanted to see how gullible you all were in a game where infodumping is allowed.

You are willing to get lynched as a civ over an opportunity to laugh at how gullible the rest of us are?

Linki, I have barely read the thread, and I am the suck at hints for the most part. I read into what people say, I don't spend a lot of time on surface questions. One of the reason I don't like playing games with hints allowed.

I voted for Eloh. Since she appears to be bad for sure, why backburner her?

Also I find recently that my game seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way; so, I am sorry about that. I yam what I yam.

Agreed, but since you seem to be in agreement with me re the rest of G Mans argument, why are you bringing this up? Also that remark was directed at G Man, not in general, and HE will 100% know what I am talking about, having had *lots* of Meta discussions when we were bad together last game. I am making a point to HIM; his argument is specious, and he knows it

What he is saying about me in that instance applies to him as well.

And if I was gonna revenge kill Polo (something I don't really do) I would have done it ASAP. You are also someone who might want to revenge kill him, or kill him since he read you as well as he did I in BSG.

Yeah, I got on at someone elses house while we were watching a movie. I have not had internet. I have not been onsite since that post.

Hi guys, I knew this was going to happen but it happened sooner rather than later.

I will have internet only at work for the next 2 to 3 weeks, so no night or weekends. I have spotty 4G in my apartment, so I am not going to post on phone since it is infuriatingly unreliable.

Will do my best to get caught up today, and again, my apologies.

Linki, no don't throw SVS in there. She isn't bad.

OK, I don't get the Jay cases or the INH cases. I am going to vote for G Man, since he was the person to most ping me independent of any other cases.

Sorry folks, I am here & reading so I can make an informed vote.

Elohcin wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Have you ever dangled a baby in front of a shark to see what would happen? That's what I'm doing. Anyone wanna vote SVS?

This is post 22 of day 1... I think I'm clear.
Inquiry to if anyone wants to lynch svs is different than lynching svs. Never did I say I wanted svs and that people should lynch her.
What was your intent?
Provide an option for those who didn't want to vote Vompatti. As an American I believe in freedom, and I will share that freedom. Yo.
If you don't want SVS lynched, then why name her of all players?

My guess would be because I had votes and was most lynchable because of it.

Sorry Vomps

That should have been green, sorry. And this is spam post 21.

Its called Labyrinth of Lies.

I am watching a German movie with subtitles so I have to pay attention. Gonna vote Vomps just in case.

G-Man wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I just was reading your posts and while discussing 3Js peek you said Scotty had some good thinking.

And if you are willing to lynch Scotty, why aren't you trying to? Just making a vote from paranoia? I don't particularly suspect anyone (except maybe you, and that's a possible no u kneejerk, not sure yet) but you say you have a strong suspect. Where's your fervor?

And the baddies have not talked yet, right? This is general, not at you specifically,lol. Maybe.
Burrowing on JJJ is the one thing Scotty has to his credit right now but it's not enough to overcome my seeming auto-trust of JJJ. Heck, baddies often raise very reasonable lines of thought. I tried to do it in BSG. It's early in a heist game. If the baddies can set somebody up early, it's like an extra leg up on the civvies, which would require something dramatic and awesome like what happened in Arrested Development to stop them.

1.24

Gotcha. But if he is your biggest suspicion, why you trying to lynch me instead oh him? You did not address that. And really, bai.

And anyone that votes no lynch now is basically outing themselves and Vomp, imo.

I have no idea how many posts I have today. I think this is 17. Guest is here, will be back to vote and make a safety post ha ha.

Linki, OK, so you are voting for me becasue Rabbit & I have been a good baddie in the past, so you think I am bad in this game too, hrm, sig? Your gut is not good if you think I am bad, siggi.

That was at G Man, not you Jay.

I just was reading your posts and while discussing 3Js peek you said Scotty had some good thinking.

And if you are willing to lynch Scotty, why aren't you trying to? Just making a vote from paranoia? I don't particularly suspect anyone (except maybe you, and that's a possible no u kneejerk, not sure yet) but you say you have a strong suspect. Where's your fervor?

And the baddies have not talked yet, right? This is general, not at you specifically,lol. Maybe.

So you are willing to lynch me to quench your appetite and for admitted paranoia?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:S~V~S, you've been in self-defense mode most of this day phase. I'd like to know where you stand on everyone else at this point.

I forgot the game, like I said. And self defense mode is my default for civ, I say something ill considered and everyone who has ever seen me be bad thinks I am bad. I have no idea t this point who is bad. Both sig & G Man basing their vote on someone else who is not sure enough to place an unequivocal vote on me is a pang thing, but not sure how much of it is the knee jerk no u reaction.

This was what I meant by my own drummer; it takes me time to build up suspicions if something does not strike me, and nothing much has in a negative way. I dislike the way G-Man led with "you know imma suspect you, right?" and pretty much surfed that. If I did not have to worry about a save I might place a statement vote there, but I will have to save. And I willput my money where my mouth is regarding a nolynch.

Interesting that both G Man and sig are voting based on Rabbit, who himself says it is just a day one ping based on history. Maybe then they can blame him if I flip civ? (and I will

)

I am going to vote to stop a no lynch more so than to stop my own lynch. I am not in Mafia mode, and maybe something can be learned from my lynch. When I said I would rather be lynched than have a no lynch, I meant that.

I have someone coming for dinner, so I will definitely vote before the end, but prolly not say much more unless I find something in my readback. I just quick reread Vomps, and he did not seem all THAT topical, if you know what I mean.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I will catch up when I get home, why does Jay want to lynch Vomps?
He has shown more personal investment in his stake in this game than I'm used to seeing (asking why people voted for him, looking for input from people about where to place his vote). He plopped a fourth vote on the no lynch wagon.

I don't pretend it's a terribly compelling case. I don't think a compelling case is possible with Vompatti though, whether on Day 1 or Day 10. He doesn't allow that when he spends his posts saying whatever he feels like saying. If I perceive any reason at all to suspect him, that means more to me than the average player -- because he has to be dealt with somehow and this represents a unique opportunity where it might be based on something instead of "he's not helping us".

OK, I just saw this. Thanks. I will look for that, cause yeah, he does tend to be more on point when bad. He is a responsible teammate.

G Man, you think I sound too congenial? What does that even mean?

G-Man wrote:Better vote now while I have time. I am voting for S~V~S. I think rabbit was on to something.

1.21

I think you're paranoid

I am as vanilla as a wafer.

No one posted the Vomps thing, and not sure how much catch up time I have. But I will try. I would rather die than vote for a no lynch, so I won;t do that to save myself if push comes to shove. Then the people who complacently said things like, "I think he was on to something" or "I would rather lynch SVS than..." without any reasoning will be exposed. We already had Day Zero, we don't need it again.

Linki, Or that vote for instance. Way fishy. Why, sig?

rabbit8 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Guys, I am so sorry, I completely forgot about this game. Between rl & my recent "mafia break" mindset, I totally lost track.

Will catch up after work, and you always want to lynch me, Rabbit. I am not bad, and lynching me would do no good, although you would not be losing a valuable role with me, either.

It's possible. It's only day one and you're my biggest ping.

it's true

I will catch up when I get home, why does Jay want to lynch Vomps?

Guys, I am so sorry, I completely forgot about this game. Between rl & my recent "mafia break" mindset, I totally lost track.

Will catch up after work, and you always want to lynch me, Rabbit. I am not bad, and lynching me would do no good, although you would not be losing a valuable role with me, either.

rabbit8 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
sig wrote:
sig wrote:@HOST why is there no rule number 3?

Also I'd like to bring attention to this.

5. The Mafia team can only interact in BTSC during the Night phase.

I'm not sure how much this helps us, I know the last game we had with this was the Scrimmag, I was mafia and it did make things more hectic and we had much less planning. However, it also made the links less clear. So I think we should keep in mind the mafia doesn't have day chat.

Any thoughts on this?
Rule number 4 not 3.
This is the only thing to get my attention so far,and as pings go, it's *meh*, so just saying it to say it, basically. It actually could be making me think sig is civ more so than the other way around, but it is hard to say this early. It just stuck out to me.

Sig has obviously read the rules including the on famous rule 10,

10. >>>Players are advised not to end any phase throughout their game with 4, 9, 13 written posts or multiples of those numbers.<<<
There isn't a rule 9, either. This seemed like saying something for the sake of being seen having something to say, BUT like I said, *meh*. This seems like a thread full of people playing it safe so far. So I am liking risk taking more than not.

I was not expecting to be playing, and have a crapton of stuff to do tonight (which is why I stole Ricos thunder and self announced, I only had a limited time to post). Toodles, citizens & Mafioso.

Linki, I hate no lynch. Grrr.
You said something to say something, not unlike sig may have done. Only your something was a quasi accusation with a CYA meh to say "not really". Then you reiterated the point in another say something to say something accusation, clarified with a "but like I said..."

I can't tell if you're accusing Sig or saying hes a civ. It makes your post read ambiguous, which seemed purposeful. Casting shade on Sig while saying you think he's a civ, only to defend with, I was poking to see if someone would accuse sig of trivia? Classic. Say something then hide behind the old, wanted to see what you would do routine.

You threw out something looking for a response. Only if you would have just waited for someone to go after Sig for trivia before you defended with it would have looked more civvie. Throwing out the Sig is always lynched for this behavior only when you're called out on it looks bad, IMO.

You are reading into me as you always do. I only noticed one thing about another player in my catch up, so I mentioned it. The thing sig mentioned was what he seemed to have thought to be a host error,when it actually was nothing of the sort. Mentoning player behavior that caught your eye isn't the same.

But again, I don't particularly think sig is bad becasue of it, but still thought it odd. Conversation about other players is good.

Even about me

DrWilgy wrote:@JJJ, theres no reason, it just happened to catch my eye. On another note, YOU'RE BAD, I KNOW YOU'RE BAD, GET LYNCHED RIGHT NOW.

@svs, yo you bad again?

@Quin, I appreciate your memes, I'll vote with you.

No, I am town. You?

And doh re post counts. Morning catch up.

Elohcin wrote:Just a weird combination for my eyes with the dark grey background, but don't change it just for me.

I generally run the light background for work friendliness, it looks like the same colors as our intranet screen; it is very clear on that background. When the host uses yellow, though, I have to switch to the dark scheme, alot of the brights are hard to see on the light.

That said drinks & delegates, xo

*14*

This multiples of 4 thing is a bitch. Right now I have 12, multiple of 4. Now I need to make 2 posts to get out of that so I can go watch the convention. Cause this will be post 13. So again sorry for the multis. One more to come.

No, I brought it up becasue it was the only thing that struck me on my initial read, that he mentioned 4 was missing, but not 9? It was weird, but sig gets lynched alot for trivia. So I noticed it, but did not necessarily think it suspect. If you actually read what I said in whole, rather than one sentence (as sig obviously did

) I don't particularly suspect sig, and would be ore likely to suspect anyone who does make moves against sig for trivia. I was wondering if anyone would try to pick that ball up and run with it.

Similar to what I said to Scotty here, actually:

S~V~S wrote:
Scotty wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Elohcin wrote:
Scotty wrote:
This isn't anything new, but it's very intriguing to me. In so many other sites and venues the day 1 is literally random. Like, literally in the sense that in a group, most the time people will vote for someone based on a dream they had, or not liking the name of a person, or what have you. But this site especially has a weird way of dogpiling on someone that has a certain air if suspicion for doing something out of the ordinary. It's always amazing to me that votes on the first day are so justified here. I can't recall the last time I went back to day 1 conversations to get a confirmation of a tonal read on someone. Only to look at votes and who voted for whom, and when.

This is very interesting to me. I love to hear about how things go on other sites, even though I don't plan on ever playing anywhere other than here. I can only imagine how I would be grilled for voting someone Day 1 just because I didn't like their name or had a certain dream about them. Of course there is the occasional random vote on Day 1 here, but it always seem sot be a controversial issue. And it's usually professed as "random", not excused with a silly explanation.
In our original home cultures, Day 1 votes have, for the most part, generally been srs bsns. Someone is gonna die based on our votes, how not srs? People always tended to take flak for trivial voting reasons, randomizing, etc.

@G-Man, yeah, I always tend to get a residual baddie BTS effect the next few games, lol. Oddly, it tends to effect me the opposite way, I tend to want to trust my bad partner from a recent intense game like BSG was.
Scotty wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Scotty wrote:Ah yes, you know I agree with this criticism. Day 1 lynches produce more info than no-lynches, but why even invite a self-lynch. In what world would that benefit town if you are town?
I didn't invite a self-lynch. This is the first suspicious post of the game.
In your opinion.
In my opinion, too, tbh.

I understood clearly what Jay was saying. I am not sure how you would interpret it otherwise?
I've already answered this. I can't help if you, GMan and JJJ find it suspicious. But good to know you think that post is also the first suspicious post of the game.

My current propensity is to vote Polo today, unless he shows up.

Post 20
Sorry for lack of clarity, Mr Word Reader Into guy (to be fair, that is what we do in Mafia, but still )

"In my opinion, too" referred to Jay saying, "I didn't invite a self-lynch.", not the "first suspicious post of the game" bit. I don't necessarily find it suspicious. I think that recently we rely too much on tiny nuances of semantics, and we jump too much on people who talk and pick apart their posts for lack of anything better to do. But I also think it is important to comment on what we notice as we go along, it leaves a trail to be followed. So part of "following my own drummer" means commenting on what I notice; it does not mean I find it suspect. I just like to shake the tree and see what falls out, I guess.

Shaking the tree, bunny boy. Shake shake.

Epignosis wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Having issues with the poll timer. Despite having added "2" in the Days box, it ends up telling me that poll will run until Tue Jul 19, 2016 (3:45 am - my time zone, but it basically means one hour and a half from now on). Help?

So until I can fix it, the poll will stay timer-less. If it'll run like this during the whole Phase, I will post often reminders of the deadline.

linki: Hard as in too dark or... too red?
You have to delete your polls each time. You can't just change the options.

Well, you CAN change the options, you have to add the days to the ORIGINAL poll, so if the original poll was for 2 days, you change the options and make it 4 days, and that wll advance it properly. Thats how to make a poll end at the same time every time without necessarily changing it at the exact time, see? Although he had an open end poll for Zero, didn't he? So this is for future reference

Search found 60 matches