The Syndicate

Hi everybody! This should be an interesting change of pace. I'm not quite sure how to go about deciding who to send to court, but I expect to enjoy lying to you all anyway.

I'm going to preemptively suggest that we nominate the last person to check in.

DharmaHelper wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I'm going to preemptively suggest that we nominate the last person to check in.
I'm going to cautiously accept this suggestion. However if someone says something sketchy I will probably nominate them.

I don't know what kind of sketchy stuff you will be looking for, since there is no madia or "baddies" in this game.

Matt F wrote:Sorry for all the questions, derp...

INH - Is the picture with the "I O U" in the windows a clue, a part of the game?

Also, when scrolling down and right when I get to the picture, it goes white all of a sudden with words on it. Anyone catch what it says? Although, I guess if it's not part of the game, it doesn't matter, will wait to see INH's response.

It was a pre-game puzzle that I was unable to solve. Someone else succeeded, though.

This has already become complex beyond belief. It's going to be a fun game.

insertnamehere wrote:
thellama73 wrote:This has already become complex beyond belief. It's going to be a fun game.
We're still on Page 3.

That depends on your forum settings. You can't trick me, host!

Hedgeowl wrote:Omg i love this game already

That's pretty suspicious. I don't trust you this game!

Elohcin wrote:
A Person wrote:
Hedgeowl wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Hedgeowl wrote:Omg i love this game already
That's pretty suspicious. I don't trust you this game!

Owl be watching you.
I don't get it, why is it suspicious?

I was making a joke, because I have accused Hedgeowl of being suspicious every game and very recently was partially responsible for lynching her when she was a civ.

Wasn't that HILARIOUS?

A Person wrote: Not particularly. I was approached by both DH and then Matt F. Matt F said that DH had said I was his partner, which was odd but I thought it might just be a slight misunderstanding and that he meant he'd only pm'd me. I responded to Matt F's pm and then to DH's, saying I had already responded to Matt F's. There were no other claims/information involved so I'm not sure how there is any sort of confusion. Matt F's post saying something was going on was posted almost immediately after I responded, which is why I was mostly interested in watching.

I got a similar message from Matt F, after which he flat out admitted to trying to trip me up. He is full of tricks, isn't he?

A Person wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
A Person wrote: Not particularly. I was approached by both DH and then Matt F. Matt F said that DH had said I was his partner, which was odd but I thought it might just be a slight misunderstanding and that he meant he'd only pm'd me. I responded to Matt F's pm and then to DH's, saying I had already responded to Matt F's. There were no other claims/information involved so I'm not sure how there is any sort of confusion. Matt F's post saying something was going on was posted almost immediately after I responded, which is why I was mostly interested in watching.
I got a similar message from Matt F, after which he flat out admitted to trying to trip me up. He is full of tricks, isn't he?
Indeed. If that was his intention I can't blame him for it.

I can! I'm not sure if I want people who are going to be so slippery sticking around for too long.

FWIW, I don't see what incentive any of us has to lie at this point in the game unless we have something to hide... something bad! I have resolved to play a straightforward and honest game to the extent that that is possible. I promise to deal fairly with any of you. People who come right out of the gate trying to deceive me have a very good chance of getting my vote.

But you haven't been transparent at all! Did you make that claim or didn't you?

A Person wrote:
thellama73 wrote:But you haven't been transparent at all! Did you make that claim or didn't you?
Which claim? My post described everything that had taken place from my perspective.

Matt F says you claimed to be DH's partner. Is this true, yes or no?
DH says you claimed to be Matt F's partner. Is this true, yes or no?

A Person wrote:
thellama73 wrote: Matt F says you claimed to be DH's partner. Is this true, yes or no?
DH says you claimed to be Matt F's partner. Is this true, yes or no?
They both pmed me, the order of events was:
1. DH pm's me, but i didn't respond
2. Matt F pm's me, mentions that he was building an alliance with bullz and DH, and that DH had said I was his partner (which is untrue) but I figured it was a misunderstanding.
3. I respond to Matt F, saying yes.
4. I respond to DH, saying I'd pm'd Matt F, but told him yes as well.

If the confusion is over the partner thing it's nothing I claimed because I'm partnered with either, although they both asked to make an alliance.

So am I supposed to interpret that as "no" to both questions?
You have a very roundabout way of answering.

[quote="Matt F"]Llama, I don't understand why you would want to vote me for trying to catch the bad guys lying./quote]

What do you mean "the bad guys?" There is no mafia this game, so I fail to see how anyone is more of a bad guy than anyone else. I'm prepared to consider "the bad guys" as the people who have lied to me, which so far only includes you.

Bullzeye wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:I dunno. Ap seems to be just a misunderstanding. Something like you and I had in Homestar. He does have a tendency to avoid direct answers which is rather frustrating though.

Kinda makes you want to beat his head on the floor.
Yeah, maybe. I don't know how I feel about beating people's heads on floors though, that seems a bit mean. Unless the floor is soft.

Well obviously the floor is soft.

Snow Dog wrote:Welcome aboard Spacey ( fed up with calling you daisy now)

I think I will just call her "Zany." I am too invested in the player list to start making changes now.

I'm voting for Matt F, for his deceitful wiles.

Matt F wrote:I'm going to say it again, I refuse to be held responsible if AP turns up Sherlock or somesuch.

But wait, since there are no bad guys, that must mean there are no good guys either, therefore I don't have to worry about being responsible for anything anyway. Right Llama?

That's exactly right. I'm glad to see you're getting the hang of it. I struggled with getting that concept across in the game I hosted where there were no bad guys or good guys, just individual win conditions. I think many here have been so conditioned to think in terms of civvie/baddie that a new format is hard for them to wrap their heads around. I don't have any more reason to want Sherlock alive than I do anyone else. I want my team alive, and that is it.

Matt F wrote:I've only played one last man standing game, Llama, that was two years ago, my second game, when I first started playing.

So if we're not trying to catch bad guys, what are we doing when we vote? Just BSing our way through each lynch?

Also, what's the point to court if everyone that goes to court is just going to die anyway?

I'm seriously asking, btw, not being snarky.

The point is to survive and have your partner survive by any means necessary. It's a lot like the show Survivor. We have no reason to believe that anyone who goes to court will die. There are several roles that offer protections and there's no way of knowing what kind of alliances are being forged behind the scenes.

Matt F wrote:Snowdog, do you not want to lynch the players who have a NK capability? Would you not call them bad guys?

I'm not Snow Dog, but I want to answer this anyway. There are sixteen players, only one of which is my teammate. So the NKer has a 7/8 chance of helping my team toward victory rather than hurting us (assuming a random probability of NKs.) I am not in a particular hurry to lynch that role.

It is quite clear what snow was saying. He was saying that the mere presence of a night kill does not a baddie make. And he's 100% right.

Spacedaisy wrote: Llama, that sounds like a good approach until you consider that if we all think like that, someone is still going to die. You are just choosing to take your chances. Plus, we do have to have something to talk about in this thread, otherwise we all just sit by waiting and hoping the tides don't turn against us this time around. Trust me, I've done these last team standing games before, and once you are the one the tables have turned on, well you're screwed.

That's true daisy, but I want other people to be killed. Other people being killed gets me closer to my goal, and the odds are in my favor of surviving. Anyway, I don't understand how Matt's "probing" was supposed to reveal the person with the NK anyway. In normal mafia games, people have tells when they have BTSC, but everyone has BTSC here, so what are we looking for?

Matt F wrote:
thellama73 wrote:It is quite clear what snow was saying. He was saying that the mere presence of a night kill does not a baddie make. And he's 100% right.
Omg I can't help myself.

There are no baddies in this game, Llama so please stop using that word. The word baddie in a LMS game sends chills down my spine, and will probably vote for anyone who uses that word to describe a player in the future.

I said "not a baddie" which does not imply the existence of baddies. Are you misunderstanding me on purpose now?

Matt F wrote: Note how Llama never responded to my post about him saying he and Bullz were in negotiations. It's because they have prolly formed an alliance, and Bullz right now is lying, saying nobody will talk to him about forming one.

I declined Bullzeye's invitation, after giving it a little consideration. I have had no contact with Snow Dog.

Matt F wrote: Even Bullz and DH, and Llama, and A Person can all tell you I have been straight with everyone about what I've done in the thread. So no, I have not lied to everyone.

So your PM to me that you had created an alliance with Bullz and that he said we were partners was true then? Ha. Liar.

Matt F wrote:Llama, I said in the thread. And I openly admitted to lying to you in a PM, which now you are using to say I haven't been honest in the thread.

Who's twisting now?

I don't see a difference between lying in the thread and lying via PM. Sorry.

Matt F wrote:Llama, I see you're picking and choosing.

Yes, admittedly, I lied in PMs to both you and A Person. I've explained that.

Have you seen me lying in the thread? About anything I've done? At all?

Can Bullz say this? Or DH? Or A Person?

No, they cannot say I've been lying in the thread. Because I haven't.

I don't see a difference between lying in the thread and lying via PM. Sorry.

Snow Dog wrote:I guess we can discuss court procedings?

Anyone up for saving AP?

Who wants to play prosecutor and defender?

Maybe A Person can give us a compelling reason why we should vote to keep him in. Otherwise, I can't see much incentive to do so.

Elohcin wrote:
Matt F wrote:*birds chirping*

I don't see AP being saved unless the role that gets people out of court is either AP or his partner, or in an alliance with AP.

Otherwise, surely everyone else will be voting to kick AP off the island?
Way to state the obvious. I think players are just having fun with this, that's all.

Well, the nights are going to be mighty boring if we don't at least talk about the suspects, I guess. But again, I can't see a good reason to want to save people.

Epignosis wrote:
insertnamehere wrote: 12. This is only Phase 1.
This has made me wonder about any eventual purpose of those who will be in the bighouse.

Yeah, I noticed that too. If Twin Peaks is any guide, things are not as simple as they appear.

A Person wrote:
Vompatti wrote:I woudln't mind a partner.
wtf, we just told you to talk to more grils k

insertnamehere wrote: 15. Anyone who uses the letter "k" as a word will be banned. No exceptions.[/center]

Matt F wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Matt F wrote:Llama, I see you're picking and choosing.

Yes, admittedly, I lied in PMs to both you and A Person. I've explained that.

Have you seen me lying in the thread? About anything I've done? At all?

Can Bullz say this? Or DH? Or A Person?

No, they cannot say I've been lying in the thread. Because I haven't.
I don't see a difference between lying in the thread and lying via PM. Sorry.
Hey dude, I've thought on this, and you're right. I apologize for lying to you in the PM. It wasn't right, and though my strategy didn't work out as I thought it would (I don't have any reason to believe AP has a NK), I also apologize for the whole mess I made of the thread today.

Hopefully we're cool, and we can focus on getting players with NK now.

We're absolutely cool! You know I respect you as a player, so no hard feelings. I'm still going to vote for you tomorrow, though.

If I were to make a alliance with Matt, I would tell you guys. I'm not interested in playing this game deceitfully.

Snow Dog wrote:
Matt F wrote:
thellama73 wrote:If I were to make a alliance with Matt, I would tell you guys. I'm not interested in playing this game deceitfully.
Exactly! Thank you!
Wow. solid proof.

A brilliant illustration of why sarcastic orange is unnecessary and stupid.

Jigsaw wrote:Matt F. From what I have read so far (2 pages because of school) I don't see you being a possible suspect. So therefore I will not be voting for you to parish.

A suspect for what?

You guys sure are worried about that NKer. If I were in your shoes, I'd be more worried about the lynches.

Snow Dog wrote:I've been looking through the roles and I see only three potential killers. Moriarty seems to have only one NK and the Cabby has a maximum of two and a minimum of zero. Also the general can potentially kill 3 times if one fails his puzzles.

When Moriarty kills we can breathe a sigh of relief.
Cabby is a flip of a coin it seems, maybe..idk
The general...well let's hope these puzzles aren't too blinkin' hard.

This is a very good observation. It hadn't occurred to me that Moriarity would have only one kill, but upon rereading the roles, it appears you are right. That makes him much less scary. (not that I was particularly worried anyway.)

I worry about our host's safety when he's absent like this.

insertnamehere wrote:Still need some PMs.

Don't let people send in late PMs. It sets a bad precedent.

Well, I have to say I was not expecting that.

Hedgeowl wrote:Also, I love your name and owls are awesome.

The owls are not what they seem.

If Matt went to court and was found guilty, shouldn't he be in prison, not jail?

Matt F wrote:
thellama73 wrote:If Matt went to court and was found guilty, shouldn't he be in prison, not jail?
That sounded...on topic.

Not at all. Just pointing out that jail is where people go while awaiting trial. Prison is where they go after being found guilty.

DharmaHelper wrote:Zip Zap Zoodley Bap.

Snow Dog wrote: I can confirm it was tradeable. I can't show you nthe PM. Not allowed.

I think you should cheat. I'm going to.

Should of. Lol. Grammar much?

DharmaHelper wrote:Good job getting this far by the way guys, everybody in Phase 2 did great.

As opposed to the modkill, the guy who admitted to lying to EVERYONE on Day One and me. Thanks.

Search found 78 matches