The Syndicate

Spacedaisy wrote:I was pretty confident in SVS being civ until the following post. But I didn't read it until we got home from Austin, and neither did Austin. That said, I was pretty sure Epi was bad too, from the time just before I died on. I wouldn't have called Dom, but that is because frankly Dom, you are so far off your norm I couldn't figure you out and it wasn't like a meta change, I just chalked it up to real life stuff or something.

S~V~S wrote:I got stuck late at work.

Speedchuck, you are doing a super job of being sincere. I am having a hard time thinking you could be bad.

So at this time I am gonna vote for Sorsha, becasue I honestly don't think Epi or Dom are bad. If one of them is, it is more likely to be Dom, though. But I feel better about him than about Sorsha, I guess.

So I am gonna vote now, after I walk the dog I will eat in front of the computer.

I stayed away as much as possible after MP started giving out an assignment

I knew if I posted but didn't do it that would set him off.

He started assigning homework.

Linki nooooo you were great! You were hard to get around.

Epignosis wrote:I am happy that I no longer ever have to consider S~V~S' emotional bullshit.

Checks cashed.

I did it for Golden : shrug:

Quin wrote:intense

It's pandemonium!

Epi I am so sorry. If it helps I did it for Golden. After Quin was revealed as alive I blew an absolute hissy fit in BTS which made him feel bad. I had to make it up to him.

I got stuck late at work.

Speedchuck, you are doing a super job of being sincere. I am having a hard time thinking you could be bad.

So at this time I am gonna vote for Sorsha, becasue I honestly don't think Epi or Dom are bad. If one of them is, it is more likely to be Dom, though. But I feel better about him than about Sorsha, I guess.

So I am gonna vote now, after I walk the dog I will eat in front of the computer.

You're confirmed, and I would be shocked if Epi is bad based totally on how he reacted to me the other day. His points about how Dom posted during the Faraday kerfuffle make sense.

No hyperventilating.

speedchuck wrote:I'm new here. Are false flips (someone flipping as vanilla town, then actually being mafia, or some mod bastardry like that) common? Because where I come from, there would be an uproar if Quin/MP was scum after that flip. People would be literally angry, because of what they expect from a game.

But we've already had someone survive a lynch, so... I don't know what is considered mod bastardry on this forum. Please do fill me in, because I don't know what to expect.

linki: I'll answer that in a sec

I would not expect it in a Heist. It would be overkill, these games are supposed to be simple basic games.

And I will be here full time this afternoon post work, MP. Deep cleansing breaths.

OK, Epis analysis of Dom makes sense to me, which is good since I can't read Dom for shit. I always read him as bad, then give him the BOTD becasue it's MY bias and he winds up being a mass murderer or something. I don't think Epi is bad becasue, after the dog & pony show I put on the other night, had he been bad, he would have laughed coldly in my face and lynched me. Moving Quin is a civ.

So I think Epis analysis works best, POE. Since we have till tomorrow, hopefully Sorsha shows up; I don't like lynching people who are not here, but I also don't like lynching someone becasue the OTHER candidate is a no show.

I plan to read back over his stuff tonight. Between the other game and work, I did not get very far earlier today.

Oh, I get it. Then there would be only one baddie left. Smaller pool, fewer places to hide.

Why? So the baddies could kill again the next night and game over?

I have to catch back up, last night I looked in here there were several walls o'text from MP and after reading the other game my eyes hurt, lol.

Aw Golden, shit happens

Once I had to restart a game two days in because I screwed up the info.

Bye Faraday and Quin. Welcome, MP.

Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:It's based on phoning it in mainly. Also Dom backed off of me too easily when he poked me and I poked back re my misinformed suspish of G Man. I don't expect either of them to totally phone it in.

Also Sorsha seeming to think I was defending her when I was actually questioning why she had votes at all was a bit odd.

Linki, good point.
Why is this indicative of a bad Sorsha?

It was a bit of an extrapolation. It seemed an easy way to push suspish at someone. Sorsha is a seed planter when bad. she drops thoughts to pick up later. Although in her favor if she's moving, it could be she did not read deeply between that and Survivor.

It's based on phoning it in mainly. Also Dom backed off of me too easily when he poked me and I poked back re my misinformed suspish of G Man. I don't expect either of them to totally phone it in.

Also Sorsha seeming to think I was defending her when I was actually questioning why she had votes at all was a bit odd.

Linki, good point.

No don't think I have. That is based on reading back today.

When have I ever gotten your jokes?

Probably Sorsha or Dom. I still doubt Speed is bad. He acts too bad, if you know what I mean. He doesnt care how he looks.

Epignosis wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I post fine finely, or, if you prefer, well.

Just vote for me.

That^^

And with that I àm the hell out of here.

You have decided, and you are twisting everything to fit that idea. Why are we even talking? (And for me it's the same as talking which is why I say talking). You made up your mind.

I post fine.

Just vote for me.

No it really isn't my problem. I talk like I talk and you are the one who has problems with it, like how I say I don't like things somehow means something it foesnt, or how i am able to use different words to say the same thing ISN'T the same thing.

It is the same thing. Like I said.

And good mafia players should be able to read intent.

Don't sell yourself short.

Not my problem. If you want to keep clutching at reasons to suspect me, well, that fits your narrative, doesn't it?

*waits for semantics argument*

S~V~S wrote:Because I don't think you're bad? One thing we have in common, you never low ball when you're bad. You do at times when you are civ. I know that after I have a gave where my instincts were abysmal, as yours were in Red\Blue I tend to low ball.

But if you want to keep clutching at reasons to suspect me, knock yourself out.

Here^^

Not the words but the same intent.

Epignosis wrote:And, to add to that, my participation level will never be based on what happened in another game (like G-Man thought). Dom was right- I don't give a shit about any of that.

I sometimes take a hit in morale right after a poor lynch I directed, but I always remind myself: "You're a civilian. The best thing you can do is keep fighting to get the win for the person you just lynched."

I know you don't give a shit.

Some people don't play for the win. They play for the fun. I always take a morale hit because I ruined their game.

I think you misread what I said, but the point remains I don't think you're bad. I don't always think you're bad as you seem to think I do.

Like I said, you seem to be trying to make the facts fit your narrative. You are looking for things that make me bad. You have decided I am bad and are trying to find points to prove it.

Linki, hrs not gone, though.

Because I don't think you're bad? One thing we have in common, you never low ball when you're bad. You do at times when you are civ. I know that after I have a gave where my instincts were abysmal, as yours were in Red\Blue I tend to low ball.

But if you want to keep clutching at reasons to suspect me, knock yourself out.

I never saw either of those, I did not play that game. That's amazing, and I admire your bravery. I am impressed. You should post that in every game.

Spoiler: show

Epignosis wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Quin is the only one in this game talking any sense, so I am following his vote on Sorsha.
You put a second vote on someone becasue the first persons reason ("none whatsoever") was talking sense to you?
S~V~S has played with llama enough to know he posts like this and says controversial things that have no bearing on his alignment. She will admit as much later.

S~V~S wrote:I wonder if Sorsha noticed she had three votes when she was in here.

One vote on a person for a silly reason, ha ha lulz. Dropping a second vote on someone for a silly reason, not cool. Dropping a third vote, what baddie would do that?

I hope to see votes moving there or better reasons put forth.

So dropping a temp vote on Llama for lulz. If he takes his vote more seriously, I will too.
This is a case of S~V~S voting llama not because she thought he was bad, but because she wanted to punish him. "Not cool." Why wasn't it cool? He was a civilian, so even if his thoughts were weird, they were genuine. That's how llama is.

S~V~S knows that, as we're about to see.

Lastly, her final line in this post gave the illusion of open-mindedness, but it was conditional. Again, this was not a vote to find mafia- it was a vote to punish: "Take your (Day 1) vote more seriously or else." It was a threat, and it got a civilian lynched.

S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Who would you prefer I vote for, SVS?
At this point, I don't particularly know, the votes for Sorsha are the only thing to stand out to me so far. Who do you think I should vote for?

I just really dislike it when people put others in a lynchable position for lulz. Probably an artifact of when we did not have changeable votes.
Again, note the wording: "I just really dislike it when..."

Just because you dislike something doesn't mean you should lynch the person for it. It doesn't make him bad. It means (if you are civilian) that you need to reread the object of the game (find mafia), but I find that a lot of times, mafia resort to lynching civilians for things they dislike. And you, S~V~S, have known llama's wackiness for years. His vote against Sorsha was not worth lynching him over, and you know that, but went for it anyway.

S~V~S wrote:
speedchuck wrote:Those who have their vote placed on me:

Is it because you don't like what my actions have been? Or because you think they come from a scummy place. Do explain.
Personally, I think Llama looks scummier than you. He was the first to put a second vote on someone for a silly reason. I can't imagine someone being bad and piling a third silly vote on someone. That is why I voted for him, not you. But I have seen very bold baddies do very bold things to fall back on the wifom.

Are you a bold baddie?

Do you honestly think Sorsha is bad? If not do you plan to move your vote?
If S~V~S is bad, I would likely rule out speedchuck based on this exchange.

S~V~S said she can't imagine someone being bad and piling a third "silly" vote on someone. I think that's the most ridiculous thing said here. S~V~S has twice the Mafia experience I do, if not more, and I've seen some squirrely-ass things in my time. I've seen mafia kill their own teammates. I find it hard to believe you, S~V~S, can't imagine mafia not plopping down a third silly vote on someone. I've seen mafia do way crazier things than that.

S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Llama~

"What is LOST?"

Google results: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is ... 8&oe=utf-8

Took me 4 seconds

And I will take you seriously if you give real answers and stop goofing around. If you suspect Faraday, then vote for him! You don't feel even remotely sincere to me, and you put someone you don't actually seem to suspect in danger. That concerns me. Even goofing around, when you are sincere this comes through. I am not seeing it.
I don't google things I can ask my friends about. And if I vote for Faraday now, I put my own life in peril, which I am not in the mood to do.
I don't like to bother my friends with trivia, so I Google things. It takes all types to make the world go around.

So you would rather leave your vote on the person who you don't actually suspect, instead of the person you DO suspect, and who you already named as your suspect? Becasue voting for the person you actually do suspect will get you killed, whereas just naming him won't?

I know you like to be quirky and quixotic and cultivate this image, but you make no sense right now. I am Okey Dokey with my vote.

Iam taking another hit of Nyquil and going to bed.
In light of the fact that there has been a Mafia Godfather in both previous entries, this stands out to me. If my hypothesis is correct that DF is a traditional "Godfather," then S~V~S pushing llama to vote DF would be encouraging him to waste a lynch.

I note that S~V~S herself voted DF today (again, over something she didn't like).

Furthermore, in a Mafia context, I doubt S~V~S ever finds llama remotely sincere. That's his way. He's a snake oil salesman. He's a character from a friggin Flannery O' Connor story. Here he is now.

S~V~S even acknowledged his penchant for being "quirky and quixotic," but he's making "no sense right now." Outside of a blatant slip in which the slipper tries to save face, since when does making no sense on Day 1 indicate that someone is bad? Surely S~V~S has enough experience to know that it is civilians who tend to make the lesser amount of sense early on because there is no pressure on mafia to have to get their stories straight. On top of it all, it's llama.

S~V~S was okay with her vote because it was a convenient way to lynch a civilian. I'm calling her out on it.

So this jist of this is that you think I should know better about Llama. That was what I recalled before and reading it again reinforces that.

You're wrong. I am a tone reader, you know this, and llama has a tone when he's bad that he does not when he's civ, much as he would wish it were not so. In the recent GOC, where I was civ and he was not, I knew it pretty fast, and was sure enough about it that I false role claimed to get him lynched. That was not the first timeI read him successfully. I think I read Llama better than I read almost anyone. His pointless gambling with other peoples games has a more controlled element to it when he's bad. When he's civ, he doesn't care. When he's bad, he does care, about how he looks. I thought I saw that here. I was wrong.

Call me out all you like, you're wrong, just like you were in Blue/Red. You have no idea how to read me. So you misread me alot becasue you put your ideas about how people think onto me, but I don't think like other people and you know this.

I voted Faraday cause he's bad. I'm not.

Epignosis wrote:Why hasn't anyone commented on my case against S~V~S? That's where I'm voting today unless someone persuades me otherwise.

Right, becasue you like leaving confirmed baddies alive and lynching me instead

I will go over your case later, iirc part of it was "Llama does that all the time". I think I read Llama fairly well and have a good record against him, and he reminded me exactly of how he was in the GOC. So "Llama does this all the time" is not that valid. There are differences in how sincere he sounds to me, and he didnot sound even remotely sincere to me.

I will work to read him better next time.

Imma vote for Faraday, back later to look at your case.

Because it adds another parameter to his voting thingie?

Epignosis wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
DFaraday wrote:If someone could outline the case on me, that'd be great.
I voted for you becasue you asked me a question, I answered it, and then you said, basically, that I didn't answer it. Like as if someone had put me into a possible list of suspects, and you decided to suspect me. It felt opportunistic to me.
I'm voting for you because you keep voting for people for doing things you don't like as opposed to things that are indicative of being mafia.

I don't like them because I think they are indicative of being Mafia. I thought that was a given. Apparently not.

DFaraday wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
DFaraday wrote:If someone could outline the case on me, that'd be great.
I voted for you becasue you asked me a question, I answered it, and then you said, basically, that I didn't answer it. Like as if someone had put me into a possible list of suspects, and you decided to suspect me. It felt opportunistic to me.
No I didn't. I said your answer was unsatisfactory to me. I thought Llama's thought process was pretty straightforward: he voted Sorsha, started taking suspicion, then said he would switch to me if other people were willing, but for the time being he would stay on the most viable choice. In real life I don't agree with that strategy, but I understand it, especially in Mafia.

I think we are talking different languages. You put a totally wrong spin on one of my posts. When I explained this, you said nope, unsatisfactory without actually addressing what I said. This tranalates to me as suspecting me in order to have a suspicion.

DFaraday wrote:If someone could outline the case on me, that'd be great.

I voted for you becasue you asked me a question, I answered it, and then you said, basically, that I didn't answer it. Like as if someone had put me into a possible list of suspects, and you decided to suspect me. It felt opportunistic to me.

*and not any

G-Man wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
G-Man wrote:Functionality speaking, how does the element of surprise rather than baddie hunting help the civvies?
How does forcing artificial ties even after people try to save themselves by moving votes help the civvies?
Found out early on what happens if there is a tie. Also, the random factor could have resulted in a baddie getting lynched but we weren't that lucky.

Yeah but Llama tried to save himself any you would not let him.

That was why I was sniffing in your direction. Although I doubt you would have done such a thing when bad, it still was not a pro civ move imo.

G-Man wrote:Functionality speaking, how does the element of surprise rather than baddie hunting help the civvies?

How does forcing artificial ties even after people try to save themselves by moving votes help the civvies?

She is nice. I am sure she will appreciate that.

Since he seemed to blow off my answer without actually reading it, going to vote faraday.

Sorsha wrote:At the time when I had four votes on day one I was saying to myself there is no way they can all be civs. Two have been civs so far and that leaves speedchuck and Epi.

Df and svs come to mind as players who defended me pretty early while that vote was going on and now after, are going after those who voted me. As much as I appreciate them sticking up for me it makes me wonder if one, or both are bad trying to buddy me or going after some easy targets. I have to look over the last lynch to see what part they played in it.

I've still only skimmed, I just wanted to get a few thoughts out there.

I think you are misreading my intention. It was the pattern of votes I did not like. I would have reacted the same regardless of who the votes had been for.

@G Man, yeah I kind of did suspect you a bit. That whole forced tie screamed baddie to me, I hate that kind of thing. I was still in my "asking questions" phase when I realized you were not on the poll. Why do you think that is something I would notice? I can think of two games, one I remember which, the other I don't, where I misread my own role. One was MR's game a while back, the other was around the same time.

I mean, at the time you voted for her, she had only posted off topic.

speedchuck wrote:If there's anyone I can trust, it's Quin. And Llama. Yes.

SORSHA

(Fri 10:44 AM)

Here's her post history: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 7&sr=posts

And on a tangent, here is another post of you and I discussing the same thing:

speedchuck wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I just really dislike it when people put others in a lynchable position for lulz. Probably an artifact of when we did not have changeable votes.
Nah, it bugs the people where I come from too, and we never experienced unchangeable votes.

You seemed surprised this AM that this was a thing, yet here you say it is a thing where you are from as well. This morning:

speedchuck wrote:
S~V~S wrote:@Speed, this post from Friday afternoon.

S~V~S wrote:I wonder if Sorsha noticed she had three votes when she was in here.

One vote on a person for a silly reason, ha ha lulz. Dropping a second vote on someone for a silly reason, not cool. Dropping a third vote, what baddie would do that?

I hope to see votes moving there or better reasons put forth.

So dropping a temp vote on Llama for lulz. If he takes his vote more seriously, I will too.
Is it just accepted here that dropping a second vote on a random vote for no reason is scummy?

Because that's weird.

Sorry I missed it, this thread is slow moving enough that I thought I had seen anything addressed to me.

Faraday, when Llama initially voted for Sorsha, several people had one vote. He said he voted for her becasue he agreed with Quin.

Quins reasoning was:

Quin wrote:I'm voting for Sorsha. Reason? None whatsoever.

The conversation you quoted had nothing to do with any of that. He had already voted for Sorsha in his first post after Quins vote (7:50 AM):

thellama73 wrote:Quin is the only one in this game talking any sense, so I am following his vote on Sorsha.

The post you quoted was 7:46 *PM* and had nothing to do with why I voted for him. I asked him that question becasue he posted this:

thellama73 wrote:If three other people will vote for Faraday, I will join them, since he is an obvious baddie, but I'm not willing to go down with the ship just yet.

...yet he left his vote on Sorsha. And I totally did not get why, if he suspected you, he was voting for Sorsha rather than trying to get you lynched. It made no sense to me.

Also, @ Speedchuck~

speedchuck wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
speedchuck wrote:Those who have their vote placed on me:

Is it because you don't like what my actions have been? Or because you think they come from a scummy place. Do explain.
Personally, I think Llama looks scummier than you. He was the first to put a second vote on someone for a silly reason. I can't imagine someone being bad and piling a third silly vote on someone. That is why I voted for him, not you. But I have seen very bold baddies do very bold things to fall back on the wifom.

Are you a bold baddie?

Do you honestly think Sorsha is bad? If not do you plan to move your vote?
Am I a bold baddie? I could give you my metaread here, but it'd sound bad coming from me.

I suspect Sorsha more than Llama, and thus am unable to move my vote ATM.

Hm.

Vote Dfaraday

I knew I had explained this to you before. Also did you ever explain why you suspected Sorsha?

A second vote endangers a person. It might be a leftover from when we were less likely to have changeable votes.

For me, yeah, it is something that almost always gets my eye. It turned Sorsha from one of many people with silly Day One votes into someone who was a lynch leader.

Since the entirety of Day One was pretty silly, it was the thing that stuck out the most to me, so my temp vote became a permanent vote.

I think he means I explained why I found Llama suspicious.

It seems everyone is having the same issue here that I am. Day one was jyst so silly I am having a hard time wrapping my head around it.

@Speed, this post from Friday afternoon.

S~V~S wrote:I wonder if Sorsha noticed she had three votes when she was in here.

One vote on a person for a silly reason, ha ha lulz. Dropping a second vote on someone for a silly reason, not cool. Dropping a third vote, what baddie would do that?

I hope to see votes moving there or better reasons put forth.

So dropping a temp vote on Llama for lulz. If he takes his vote more seriously, I will too.

speedchuck wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
nutella wrote:I suppose I can see some merit in that analysis, but I'm not so sure what it tells us. I voted for llama because I thought he was suspicious.
Yeah, me too. I really disliked his piling a second frivolous vote on Sorsha for a very silly reason. It actually looked more suspect to me than Speen putting a THIRD vote on her for the same frivolous reason. Everyone was voting for frivolous reasons that day, put putting a second vote on someone is serious.
To the highlighted bit: Why?

I think i explained this when I made the vote; it would be incredible to me that a baddie would do something like putting a third vote on someone for a silly reason. Baddies worry too much about how they look, and that looked awful. I don't see a baddie doing it. I was a bit conflicted about it when Llama flipped civ; that's why I asked you why you were paralleling him.

Speed not Speen (when I first looked at the typo I thought it said "spleen" lol)

nutella wrote:I suppose I can see some merit in that analysis, but I'm not so sure what it tells us. I voted for llama because I thought he was suspicious.

Yeah, me too. I really disliked his piling a second frivolous vote on Sorsha for a very silly reason. It actually looked more suspect to me than Speen putting a THIRD vote on her for the same frivolous reason. Everyone was voting for frivolous reasons that day, put putting a second vote on someone is serious.

Search found 82 matches