The Syndicate

hi pals fancy seeing you here

I'll vote when I get home from uni. Impress me in the meantime

DrWilgy wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:Hello peoples and yay game!

The first two people to quote my post with an added close up of Steve Buscemi's eyes will get my vote for prefect.

DrWilgy wrote:What is good everyone?

My name is DrWilgy and I am most definitely...

Actually... I'll follow INH's example and vote for the two people who tell me what I most definitely am first!

Linki - Hi Quin... Cheeky...

smelly

insertnamehere wrote:
Quin wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:Hello peoples and yay game!

The first two people to quote my post with an added close up of Steve Buscemi's eyes will get my vote for prefect.

Nope. You can't just quote somebody else's picture of Steve Buscemi's eyeballs and call it a day. Find your own Steve Buscemi's eyeballs, Quin.

Turnip Head wrote:Prefect - (n) a chief officer, magistrate, or regional governor in certain countries.

Is anyone qualified for such a position? And if you are qualified, please explain your qualifications as creatively and amusingly as you can. My vote is up in the air.

I made my cat hi5 me once.

Turnip Head wrote:
Quin wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Prefect - (n) a chief officer, magistrate, or regional governor in certain countries.

Is anyone qualified for such a position? And if you are qualified, please explain your qualifications as creatively and amusingly as you can. My vote is up in the air.
I made my cat hi5 me once.
That's great... is there anything else on your resumé?

Just a bunch of stuff do with my business and management degrees. It's not particularly relevant.

I posted my votes on the wrong thread.

I voted those who voted for me, and thankfully they're both people I could count on to do a good job.

DrWilgy wrote:Oh ho ho ho ho~

Turnip Head wrote:Prefect - (n) a chief officer, magistrate, or regional governor in certain countries.

Is anyone qualified for such a position? And if you are qualified, please explain your qualifications as creatively and amusingly as you can. My vote is up in the air.
I just noticed that I joined the Syndicate a year and 3 days ago, does that count for anything?

Jan wrote:Hey Wilgy, I remember you from Jesus Toast.

I'll vote for you if you convince me.
Hello Jan, good to see you. How have you been?

sig wrote:I think I should get to be a prefect.

DrWilgy wrote:What is good everyone?

My name is DrWilgy and I am most definitely...

Actually... I'll follow INH's example and vote for the two people who tell me what I most definitely am first!

Linki - Hi Quin... Cheeky...
A Doctor!

So the way I see it the top three players voted on will become prefects, I assume this will give them extra abilities or items.
Sig gets my first vote.

Give me a vote, Nurse Wilgy.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Is there anyone here not too busy to play this?

It's not so much that I'm busy ...moreso my face just really hurts

If I had a third vote, itd be for Scotty. His love for cherry tomatoes is all I need to put him at the top of my rainbow list.

I agree with you Luffy, about JJJ. While I didn't vote that way, Id suggest that one way to deal with a hard to read a character like him is to give him as much power as possible and see what he does with it. It looks like he'll be one of the prefects anyway, though.

I mean, this makes sense in my head at least.

Turnip Head wrote:
Quin wrote:If I had a third vote, itd be for Scotty. His love for cherry tomatoes is all I need to put him at the top of my rainbow list.

Scotty wrote:What do I stand for? Listen, I'll tell you what I don't stand for. Liars. Purple People Eaters. Slugs. Cherry Tomatoes. Especially Cherry Tomatoes.
Your entire life is a lie.

I take back what I said. I'm a hot mess.

It's possible I'll be even less active than I was going to be originally. My wisdom tooth socket got an infection so I'm now taking more medicine for that, which is making me kind of sick. I've got two assignments due on top of that so whenever I'm feeling good I'll probably prioritise that. With that said, I promise I'll still post and vote every day but I can't guarantee that you'll be hearing from me a lot (at least until tuesday - the day my assignments are due)

Please bear with me, but if you can't, I understand.

---

On a game related note, I'm curious about the dialogue between JJJ and TH. TH picked out the 'anti-JJJ paranoia' thing from JJJ's posts and he's kind of run with it as though it's something more significant than I think it is. What's your thinking behind this, TH?

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Quin wrote:It's possible I'll be even less active than I was going to be originally. My wisdom tooth socket got an infection so I'm now taking more medicine for that, which is making me kind of sick. I've got two assignments due on top of that so whenever I'm feeling good I'll probably prioritise that. With that said, I promise I'll still post and vote every day but I can't guarantee that you'll be hearing from me a lot (at least until tuesday - the day my assignments are due)

Please bear with me, but if you can't, I understand.

---

On a game related note, I'm curious about the dialogue between JJJ and TH. TH picked out the 'anti-JJJ paranoia' thing from JJJ's posts and he's kind of run with it as though it's something more significant than I think it is. What's your thinking behind this, TH?
Why are you curious about that dialogue and not mine with JJJ?

I'd just read that first post and that caught my attention so I went through his conversation, which left me wanting. I didn't even think to go back and read what you had said actually. It was like 2 in the morning.

I've since read yours though, and I don't think I'd have asked you anyway. You've given lots of detail and I agree with your sentiments.

Boomslang wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.
I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.
And thats assuming our civilian read is right too.

So you are counting on the read being right, the civilian being a warrior, and the dice liking you. Are you sure those odds are that good?

While if you vote for two baddie suspects, you are diminishing the effects of the duel while focusing on one variable: the quality of your reads. If they are good, you have better odds of lynching a baddie.

I don't think that can be calculated, but I think the later sounds more likely to work.
Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right. So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.

That's exactly what we need to do. Just because we think we have one baddie nailed doesn't mean we should give up on scumhunting until we get a result for the current suspect. I don't understand anybody right now who thinks putting a suspected baddie up against a civ is a good idea.

Glorfindel wrote:What the HELL happened to Night 0?

I don't recall ever having a Night 0. Doesn't it always just go from Day 0 to Day 1?

MovingPictures07 wrote:I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

I have like 3 posts of meat. I can't help but wonder exactly what I've done to earn a green read from you.

The guys MP is civ reading are in my opinion, pretty much just the most active people in the thread right now. I don't like it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Quin wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?
I have like 3 posts of meat. I can't help but wonder exactly what I've done to earn a green read from you.
Why don't you ask then instead of trying to antagonize me?

Well, that was me asking.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.
Let me get this straight, you believe that a mafia player would suggest that we should vote for two mafia in the duel polls and a civ player is more likely to suggest we take a risk?
Yes, absolutely. The former option is obvious and easy, the latter is not.

Where do I place then, JJJ? You missed me.

Quin wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote: Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.
I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.
And thats assuming our civilian read is right too.

So you are counting on the read being right, the civilian being a warrior, and the dice liking you. Are you sure those odds are that good?

While if you vote for two baddie suspects, you are diminishing the effects of the duel while focusing on one variable: the quality of your reads. If they are good, you have better odds of lynching a baddie.

I don't think that can be calculated, but I think the later sounds more likely to work.
Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right. So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.
That's exactly what we need to do. Just because we think we have one baddie nailed doesn't mean we should give up on scumhunting until we get a result for the current suspect. I don't understand anybody right now who thinks putting a suspected baddie up against a civ is a good idea.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
Quin wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?
I have like 3 posts of meat. I can't help but wonder exactly what I've done to earn a green read from you.
Yeah I dont get it either. If anything you look slightly suspicious to me.

Oh.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Catching up. MP looks angrier than his hsual self. Wonder if that is alignme t indicative.

I'd sooner put it down as being due to the stress of his PhD than being alignment indicative.

I didn't realise that the survivor of the duel wins things. It appeases my curiousity as to why people were on board with the idea of pitting a suspect up against a civ. Even still, I'm not gonna support that way of thinking.

I think one of my votes will be going to MP today. His civ reads last night are the strongest ping I've had so far. I'm not really sure where I'll go with my second vote. I might pull a Scotty and vote for whoever hasn't checked in yet.

Turnip Head wrote:It's pretty suspicious that I am the marmot's only neutral read. I wonder if I am his teammate.

I don't mind that Jan hasn't found the content to be relevant so far. I would feel pretty detached if this was my first game with 30+ other players and nothing of consequence had happened yet.

What do you mean? Marmot's reading you as civ, unless he does his rainbow lists differently or something. Why do you think it's suspicious? He's only listed three people.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:MP is my top town read. I know frustration can come from either alignment, but it tends to come in different appearances and under different circumstances. MP blew up at the first sign of suspicion while he had no votes on him -- this is not how baddies tend to behave at all. That is how someone who is on edge outside a game behaves.

He was trying to get the thread moving in a productive direction, so he put some reads into the thread. He didn't force any red reads while he had none (baddies would force at least one). I think he'd be a dumb candidate for a duel and I don't envision myself supporting that any time soon.

I don't think that the way he responded initially is how a baddie acts, nor do I think it's how a civ acts. I think it's how someone who is very stressed out acts, and I don't think it's got anything to do with his alignment.

It's not his lack of red reads that I'm suspicious of. It's who he chose for his green reads. I agree with MacDougall when he not-so-delicately said that it looked like buddying.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:MP is my top town read. I know frustration can come from either alignment, but it tends to come in different appearances and under different circumstances. MP blew up at the first sign of suspicion while he had no votes on him -- this is not how baddies tend to behave at all. That is how someone who is on edge outside a game behaves.

He was trying to get the thread moving in a productive direction, so he put some reads into the thread. He didn't force any red reads while he had none (baddies would force at least one). I think he'd be a dumb candidate for a duel and I don't envision myself supporting that any time soon.
I don't think that the way he responded initially is how a baddie acts, nor do I think it's how a civ acts. I think it's how someone who is very stressed out acts, and I don't think it's got anything to do with his alignment.

It's not his lack of red reads that I'm suspicious of. It's who he chose for his green reads. I agree with MacDougall when he not-so-delicately said that it looked like buddying.
I think that is too complex an accusation for the circumstance being assessed. MP's green reads were players who had mostly been active in the thread so far -- that makes sense, because those players had something to judge. He'd also specifically engaged those players in conversation before posting that list, so it's not hard to follow the progression that got him to those reads. The reason he got so frustrated was that he knew it was coming -- every time someone posts reads early in a game, people get on their case for it. It's stupid. I got the same crap in Triskaidekaphobia for doing basically the same thing.

MP is a calculated baddie. He is well aware that posting a bunch of greek peeks at the start of Day 1 isn't going to earn him town credit.

Take a look at the dialogue between MP and I. Would you civ read me after that? Although it's true, my excuse sounds sketchy af.

linki: I don't want to let his frustration indicate alignment for me, because I think it's completely independent from the game. I can appreciate why you think it's a civ lean though, because at the very least it's definitely not baddie indicative. I need to take my brother to work, so I'll sit on this for a while and focus on candidates for my second vote for now. I've also got to get back to my assignments.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Oh yeah I totally forgot to explain my post about Quin.

Quin wrote:If I had a third vote, itd be for Scotty. His love for cherry tomatoes is all I need to put him at the top of my rainbow list.

I agree with you Luffy, about JJJ. While I didn't vote that way, Id suggest that one way to deal with a hard to read a character like him is to give him as much power as possible and see what he does with it. It looks like he'll be one of the prefects anyway, though.

I mean, this makes sense in my head at least.
I found this post to be somewhat uncommital. I didn't get whether Quin was agreeing with me or not.

But then he made more posts which felt more decisive so he kind of went to neutral read again.

Anyway, later.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:You agree with me about "don't vote Jay" then immediately suggest we give as much power as pissble to Jay?

Im confus.

I don't remember the conversation, only that I agreed with you. Let me remind myself and I'll elaborate.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:
Elohcin wrote:
Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Honestly the fact JJJ is such an active civ is one reason for me to put him on my "do not trust" list, not the opposite.

Specially sice I've seen him admit he tries hard to make his baddie meta as civ-looking as possible.
I'm not sure I really understand your point. I think most people are voting JJJ because: #1) He is a thorough player and #2) He is an active player and we know he won't flake on us a few days in.

And, don't we ALL try to make our baddie meta as "civ-looking" as possible? I've never known anyone to get a baddie role and try to look bad...well, except maybe MovingPictures that one time
Not exactly. We want our bad metas to look like our civ metas, but a lot of us have civ metas not as thorough or pro-active as they can be, so the baddie counterpart to those metas are easier to make. We don't look that good all the time, so when we actually are bad, people don't detect it that easily.

But Jay? Like you said, he is the perfect civ. He is the town leader, the pro-active guy, the king of TL;DRs. And he tries to make his baddie meta look exactly like that (Ive never seen it myself, but he has described it that way). And that makes him a more dangerous baddie than most. Its harder to pull that metaboff successfully, but if he does it, we have a problem.

So I tend to be paranoid and avoid easily trustingnplayers like him. A good parallel to that is Marco from my forum, who plays a similar way.

This, Luffy. I agreed with you on your analysis of JJJ's meta. Because he is such a difficult to read player, I suggested voting him as I was under the impression that our prefects would be put in a position where they would give us more meat to work with, making them easier to evaluate. I didn't agree with the idea of not voting him, in the post I was answering to, you didn't say anything about that - you might have earlier but I don't think I read it. You dig?

sorry for, butchering, basic english, punctuation

As far as Day 1 goes, I still do think that MP has come across as the most suspicious to me, so I'll vote there. I'm also going to vote Bubbles, because she's just one of (a few) who haven't checked in yet.

and now I'm off to bed.

Glorfindel wrote:
Glorfindel wrote:Given there was no NK, may we assume that Zhang Jiao is one of the non participating players in this game so far? Someone who perhaps didn't post from the latter part of Day 1 onwards perhaps?
I'm not usually a proponent of lynching low posters but in a circumstance where we have TWO teams with NK ability (one of which has BTSC and still can't get their shit together) and there is no NK, I think I'll be looking at the low/non posters a lot more seriously this game

Doubtful. Given that there's 8 baddies able to perform night kills right now I can't see a situation where they are ALL inactive.

It's possible that a secret role stopped the kill of at least one faction, and the other might have tried to kill Dong Zhuo.

linki: waddup
linki 2.0: nvm

Bubbles wrote:Ok I voted JJJ and Scotty because I would like to see a dual between them, and they seem like they'd put up a good fight from what I know from their past games

This sounds like she thought that the two most voted people would have some sort of task to complete at the end of the day. I could go on a little more about this but I'd like Bubbles to come back and clarify her thinking here first. What were you thinking, Bubbles? What did the duelists have to do, did you think? What would happen in the end?

Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:Do I even have to explain why this is bad?
Yes.
Don't trust this guy. Folks, we got another liar on our hands !

(c) Paid for by dom/Nju2016

Do I even need to explain why this is suspicious?

I don't like Dom's vote either. Not gonna quote it, because I don't feel like looking at huge chunks of text right now. I've written two reports in four days, with massive lack-of-tooth aches in between, if I might add.

3J did a good job of highlighting the relationship between Wilgy and the marmot. 3J, you mentioned that marmot voted Wilgy both for prefect and for the duel, though separately. Put them together, and I think it's suspicious for someone to vote to lynch someone the day after they tried to put them in power.

Bubbles wrote:hi all to explain the last post, yeah i wasnt exactly sure what a duel was ! I figured it was just a battle of wits, where the players had to solve some kind of puzzle backstage or something to that effect, im just stupid didnt read through everything before hand, to be honest my heart is really not into mafia i probably shouldnt have signed up, if you guys are ok with it and if there's a replacement available i'll be happy to bow out otherwise just going to play in this way & hope you're okay with that

I'm just worried that even though you thought it was going to be like that, you intended on either 3J or Scotty being lynched. Your reason came across as though the vote was just for pure entertainment value.

I can't confidently call it suspicious, though.

I've not entirely excluded MP from my suspicion pool but I don't have anything new to adjust my read yet, and I don't want to tunnel based off of a Day 1 ping. I'll give him more time.

One of my votes will be going to marmot. I find it interesting that he's being defensive against 3J about his counter-productive Wilgy votes, rather than being pro-active and questioning me, who was the one who put that part of the argument together. I don't think he's tried to scum hunt at all since he came under fire.

I'm also voting Dom, based on the ping I got from an earlier post (just ISO me - I also mention the marmot there). He abandoned a discussion about something he thought was so clearly suspicious when prodded.

Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:I've not entirely excluded MP from my suspicion pool but I don't have anything new to adjust my read yet, and I don't want to tunnel based off of a Day 1 ping. I'll give him more time.

One of my votes will be going to marmot. I find it interesting that he's being defensive against 3J about his counter-productive Wilgy votes, rather than being pro-active and questioning me, who was the one who put that part of the argument together. I don't think he's tried to scum hunt at all since he came under fire.

I'm also voting Dom, based on the ping I got from an earlier post (just ISO me - I also mention the marmot there). He abandoned a discussion about something he thought was so clearly suspicious when prodded.
Folks, this is absolute garbage. Wanna see what Quin originally said about me?
Quin wrote: I don't like Dom's vote either. Not gonna quote it, because I don't feel like looking at huge chunks of text right now. I've written two reports in four days, with massive lack-of-tooth aches in between, if I might add.
So folks, Quin has got nothing substantial to say about me at all! Sad !

(c) Paid for by Dom/Nju 2016

Not quite nothing. I can pull up the posts I'm referring to if you'd like.

Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:
Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:I've not entirely excluded MP from my suspicion pool but I don't have anything new to adjust my read yet, and I don't want to tunnel based off of a Day 1 ping. I'll give him more time.

One of my votes will be going to marmot. I find it interesting that he's being defensive against 3J about his counter-productive Wilgy votes, rather than being pro-active and questioning me, who was the one who put that part of the argument together. I don't think he's tried to scum hunt at all since he came under fire.

I'm also voting Dom, based on the ping I got from an earlier post (just ISO me - I also mention the marmot there). He abandoned a discussion about something he thought was so clearly suspicious when prodded.
Folks, this is absolute garbage. Wanna see what Quin originally said about me?
Quin wrote: I don't like Dom's vote either. Not gonna quote it, because I don't feel like looking at huge chunks of text right now. I've written two reports in four days, with massive lack-of-tooth aches in between, if I might add.
So folks, Quin has got nothing substantial to say about me at all! Sad !

(c) Paid for by Dom/Nju 2016
Not quite nothing. I can pull up the posts I'm referring to if you'd like.
Fibbin' Quin! You said you spoke about this earlier and you barely mentioned it in passing.

So... I did speak about it? Thanks for clarifying.

Please address why you abandoned your stance that something 3J said was so obviously suspicious the moment you were questioned about it.

Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:
Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:
Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:I've not entirely excluded MP from my suspicion pool but I don't have anything new to adjust my read yet, and I don't want to tunnel based off of a Day 1 ping. I'll give him more time.

One of my votes will be going to marmot. I find it interesting that he's being defensive against 3J about his counter-productive Wilgy votes, rather than being pro-active and questioning me, who was the one who put that part of the argument together. I don't think he's tried to scum hunt at all since he came under fire.

I'm also voting Dom, based on the ping I got from an earlier post (just ISO me - I also mention the marmot there). He abandoned a discussion about something he thought was so clearly suspicious when prodded.
Folks, this is absolute garbage. Wanna see what Quin originally said about me?
Quin wrote: I don't like Dom's vote either. Not gonna quote it, because I don't feel like looking at huge chunks of text right now. I've written two reports in four days, with massive lack-of-tooth aches in between, if I might add.
So folks, Quin has got nothing substantial to say about me at all! Sad !

(c) Paid for by Dom/Nju 2016
Not quite nothing. I can pull up the posts I'm referring to if you'd like.
Fibbin' Quin! You said you spoke about this earlier and you barely mentioned it in passing.
So... I did speak about it? Thanks for clarifying.

Please address why you abandoned your stance that something 3J said was so obviously suspicious the moment you were questioned about it.
If you read my posts you'd see that that is, not, in fact what I ahve done, believe me.

I don't believe you.

sig wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
sig wrote:Okay, I think it is an equal probability, or it is possible that it is more likely for mafia to do that. True a townie could come in and screw it up, but I think that is highly unlikely. If it was planned ahead of time.
Frankly I think it's already unlikely that a baddie team decided in BTSC to concoct a "Buscemi eyes" scheme in the first place. The entire conversation starts with that complete speculation.
Any conversation to do with prefect voting does, why do you seem to be discounted this view.

Turnip Head wrote:I've come around a lot on the dueling thing. I've now seen its merits. If we ever have a consensus mafia read, we should force them to challenge Scotty the People's Champion.

Metalmarsh89, would you like to duel Scotty?
I don't like this for two reasons.

One is Scotty is seen as a solid civ why sacrifice him? This seems like a plus for the mafia in case they come out on top.
Two why should we have one player go over and over again? This seems like a good way for said player to die since at some point the dice aren't going to go in your favor.

I like sig already.

sig wrote:I'm going to hold back on voting for the time.

I find JJJ a little pingy, due to his logic on the day 0 votes, but he is being active and seems civvie. I think we should keep an eye on him and maybe have him duel soon.
Dom as well my gut is reading scum, I think he is being scummy with his posting style, and I think he is getting a free pass by some players for the way he is posting. It is in little clips so he appears active, but content wise he isn't giving us much at all. I feel like he is attempting to fly under the radar, yet not be accused of being inactive.
MM for the reasons laid out by JJJ, I'd rather not lynch MM today though.
Jan slightly for his most recent post wondering why I wasn't active. This is also a minor ping though.
TH for his thoughts on Scotty.

Matty seems civvie so far.
Mac and DF both look good imo also, this is mainly a gut feel.
The last few people who voted for Wilgy are most likely not on his team, but they still could be mafia.

I don't see how bubbles vote was that bad, it seems like typical bubbles to me?

linki: Why? or was that sarcastic.....

You were the first to call out TH for his 'let's keep pitting Scotty up against whoever' thing. I thought the exact same thing when I read it.

sig wrote:aaa okay, what do you think that says about TH?

IF he is mafia I could see him wanting to eliminate Scotty and having him duel would/could do that. Espaiclly if for some reason the mafia tried to NK him and it failed. Yes this is extreme tin foil hat, but I don't see why you'd say we should force someone to duel over and over again.

I think it's just bad logic. I don't have a reason to suspect him outside of this yet, but I need to give him more attention.

--
My internet is having issues again (frankly it has been all morning) so I'm going to give up on mafia for a few hours and hope it sorts itself out.

If I still had a vote, I'd support the nutella train.

I don't think I've ever seen so many people viewing a thread before

Spacedaisy wrote:I have in no way caught up. I decided to cast a vote for a couple people for self voted. When I looked at who self voted there were three, so then I looked at who they voted for other than themselves and I found that of the three Bullz only voted for himself. Therefore I voted for the two guys who self voted and yet still voted for someone else too.

Voted bwt and Bass.

Sorry for being such suck, but I am nearly done moving most of my crap and Psych just ended. So it will get better here.

If this was your logic, I would have expected to see you put a vote on timmer, who didn't even vote for himself. Why not?

Quin wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:I have in no way caught up. I decided to cast a vote for a couple people for self voted. When I looked at who self voted there were three, so then I looked at who they voted for other than themselves and I found that of the three Bullz only voted for himself. Therefore I voted for the two guys who self voted and yet still voted for someone else too.

Voted bwt and Bass.

Sorry for being such suck, but I am nearly done moving most of my crap and Psych just ended. So it will get better here.
If this was your logic, I would have expected to see you put a vote on timmer, who didn't even vote for himself. Why not?

This is expected you voted for those who self-voted because they were voting randomly. This point is moot if it's not where you were coming from.

Boomslang wrote:Yeah, site has been a bit wonky for me as well in recent minutes. Following up my previous vote for MM and casting a shot at Jan to hopefully bring more attention for tomorrow.

Me too, but I thought it was just my internet connection again.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Goin Russ + Timmer

Hi there.

Spacedaisy wrote:
Quin wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:I have in no way caught up. I decided to cast a vote for a couple people for self voted. When I looked at who self voted there were three, so then I looked at who they voted for other than themselves and I found that of the three Bullz only voted for himself. Therefore I voted for the two guys who self voted and yet still voted for someone else too.

Voted bwt and Bass.

Sorry for being such suck, but I am nearly done moving most of my crap and Psych just ended. So it will get better here.
If this was your logic, I would have expected to see you put a vote on timmer, who didn't even vote for himself. Why not?

Quin wrote:
Quin wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:I have in no way caught up. I decided to cast a vote for a couple people for self voted. When I looked at who self voted there were three, so then I looked at who they voted for other than themselves and I found that of the three Bullz only voted for himself. Therefore I voted for the two guys who self voted and yet still voted for someone else too.

Voted bwt and Bass.

Sorry for being such suck, but I am nearly done moving most of my crap and Psych just ended. So it will get better here.
If this was your logic, I would have expected to see you put a vote on timmer, who didn't even vote for himself. Why not?
This is expected you voted for those who self-voted because they were voting randomly. This point is moot if it's not where you were coming from.
Forgive me Quin, but I don't have the first clue what you mean. I think perhaps you have misunderstood what my reasoning for my votes were, which is my fault because I don't think I explained well.

My first thought was, I should just self vote because I am not an informed voter.

Then I realized, hey I have two votes! This makes it invalid for me to vote for myself and then one for someone else because I would basically be placing an uninformed vote anyway for my second vote.

Then I thought, well maybe should vote for myself and someone else who self voted, because clearly they are in the same place and me and we are probably the least engaged players so far, so it would make the most sense for me to put my vote there.

Then when I came in and saw that there were three people who self voted, I had to decide how to choose which one to cast my second vote for. As I was looking at their own second votes, it hit me that two of them (bwt and Bass) cast their second vote for someone else, not a self voter. But BUllzeye, he only cast one vote, for just himself. This was a true self vote. But these other two struck me as disingenuous because if you are already casting an uninformed vote for someone, why even bother with the self vote? It becomes a moot point. And moreover, it is a fairly safe vote. So I chose to vote for two self voters who also cast votes that I found to be slightly questionable.

:shrugs: I know it isn't something solid, but it is how my brain worked.

What do you think about timmer? Your argument suggests that you were putting your vote down on someone who made uninformed votes, but timmer not only made two (one more than the two you voted for) but the two he did vote were leading the lynch train at that point in time.

Oh, maybe I'll actually get to see the lynch post. I've gotta run in about 20 minutes.

I GET IT! I GET THE THING!

Thank you Ricochet. For the thing.

I'm off to uni so I'll likely just be observing the thread until I get home but right now I agree that timmer has some explaining to do.

Night 1 was without a night kill and tonight had 2. I'd imagine that there are criteria that have to be met before the Yellow Turbans can make a kill (just like in Psych). As for the Nanman, maybe they went after Dong Zhuo night 1. I highly doubt five (well, four) mafia members were all inactive.

Apologies if this has all been said. I'm a bit wonky this morning and don't have much else to say at the moment.

They might even have both gone after Dong Zhuo, really. It's statistically improbable but if Dong Zhuo is someone who came off as threatening to the baddies it could happen.

Search found 309 matches