The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:And I confirmed that just now. blindfaeth's first post in my current game was toward Golden.

DFaraday wrote:

Golden wrote:Oh, I hadn't even clicked there were less things than people. By my count, rabbit may not be the last to check in either?

Yes, now that I checked, it appears to be 21 items and 25 players.

Epignosis wrote:Well, I was going to try to post using quotes, but all the profanity has now tripped my work's "Adult Material" filter. So now I can't read anything further on page 3. I am only able to post this from the quick reply feature on another page of the thread. Thanks rabbit!

Dom, I used the verb tense I did because it made the most sense. Why do you find it odd that there are fewer Day 0 choices than people?

S~V~S isn't an acronym unless you pronounce it "Svvvsss."

llama, I like moving things along.

Bullzeye wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:No, not role outing. It's an educated guess. All I know is whose will I have and that I get a lot of money when they die. Lots of money sounds like a millionaire to me.

Well if I were that person - regardless of the accuracy of your guess - I would certainly feel outed/infodumped against/unfairly treated.

Golden wrote:I disagree strongly with bullz statement.

I can't remember a time when the person lynched on day one didn't feel it was unfair, no matter what the reason. Day one lynches always suck.

Whats the difference between it being unfair because someone has a hunch that their item is a role hint, and it being unfair because someone sees some minutiae in the thread? I don't see one.

I don't like that it is being made some kind of moral issue. It's a host setting - either it's ok or it isn't. (and my eye is squarely on bullz for his comment).

Bullzeye wrote:
Why is your eye not also on Dom for agreeing with me? It's very rare for he and I to agree on anything actually. I've half a mind to check Hell hasn't frozen over.

blindfaeth wrote:Yes but my point is, the two people I think are suspicious PRIOR to my item are acting in a way I would expect them to if they were worried about me being correct, namely, that I know the identity of their teammate. Bullz and TH can certainly defend against this, don't you agree?

Black Rock wrote:I can see now what I saw on Day 0 was not the same as BF. What I saw was this:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Hey folks! Just popping in, haven't read anything yet, and very likely won't have the chance until tomorrow evening after my microeconomic theory seminar midterm, between studying for that and dealing with Death Note.

Yay game! See you soon!

Not at all suspicious.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Thanks, you too, Zomba!

Guess I better pick an item while I'm here. I would have picked the stock certificate, but it seems my fellow accountant beat me to that option. I'll go with the clock.

Now will be back tomorrow to read posts and such!

Until this. For someone who hasn't read anything yet looks like he knew to comeback, pick an item, and be the first to vote on that item. Did his BTSC let him know?

That's what I saw on Day 0.

Epignosis wrote: And if you are right, blindfaeth, you squandered your opportunity. You should have gone hard after the owner of the will and observed what happened.

blindfaeth wrote:SVS, I always buddy with golden. He is my bestie, get over it. Why does the fact I ignored your comment bothering you? I didn't feel the need to address it.

blindfaeth wrote:Dom, I was not suspicious of you because I was taking my first suspicion and overlapping it with who was worried about my item. Which turned out to be them both IMO.

Golden wrote:What are you thinking Dom?

And before you brush it off, remember... you were demanding answers to your questions, so I expect the same back.

blindfaeth wrote:

Dom wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:SVS, I always buddy with golden. He is my bestie, get over it. Why does the fact I ignored your comment bothering you? I didn't feel the need to address it.

What if Golden is bad?
What if you are bad?

Golden does not seem to have the same blind faith ( ) in you. Does that bother you?

blindfaeth wrote:Dom, I was not suspicious of you because I was taking my first suspicion and overlapping it with who was worried about my item. Which turned out to be them both IMO.

Why did you not react whatsoever to my distrust of you?
Why are you going after only these two?


Golden-- care to answer my question from before?

I don't understand the context of your first questions. I can't believe this gets brought up every game. Golden and I have friendship that transcends mafia. I will objectively listen to his input until I have reason not to trust him. We genuinely enjoy each other's company. Sorry but not sorry.

I've already answered your fourth question. I couldn't care less if you distrust me.

Linki.

thellama73 wrote:Hey everyone!
Since we have a little extra time today, let's have a fun game. The roles on the front page need pictures to go along with them. Please submit a picture of your role to me via PM by the end of Night 1. My favorite gets a prize. Please nothing too racist for the Celestials.

blindfaeth wrote:

Dom wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:

Dom wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:SVS, I always buddy with golden. He is my bestie, get over it. Why does the fact I ignored your comment bothering you? I didn't feel the need to address it.

What if Golden is bad?
What if you are bad?

Golden does not seem to have the same blind faith ( ) in you. Does that bother you?

blindfaeth wrote:Dom, I was not suspicious of you because I was taking my first suspicion and overlapping it with who was worried about my item. Which turned out to be them both IMO.

Why did you not react whatsoever to my distrust of you?
Why are you going after only these two?


Golden-- care to answer my question from before?

I don't understand the context of your first questions. I can't believe this gets brought up every game. Golden and I have friendship that transcends mafia. I will objectively listen to his input until I have reason not to trust him. We genuinely enjoy each other's company. Sorry but not sorry.

I've already answered your fourth question. I couldn't care less if you distrust me.

Linki.

You don't understand the context of the questions?
I'm asking why you place blind faith in Golden. Because you like each other is a losing strategy.
I like a lot of people playing but I don't place blind trust in them.

I'm sorry, please point me to the post where I said i trust golden.

If golden is bad, it won't take me long to find out.

Turnip Head wrote:Dom, can you talk a little bit about why you chose the Promissory Note item on Day 0?

MovingPictures07 wrote: Dom, I'm not mad at you or anyone else, don't worry, that'd be silly of me. I understand BR's observation, and I understand why she wants me to respond. My response is forthcoming:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I really can't deal with a nonsensical suspicion of me in a game yet again, so if this reasoning actually gets momentum, I would love to bow out and just get lynched Day 1 so that I don't have to worry about it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm voting myself. What a load of crock.

Metalmarsh89 would be so proud of you.

I know he would, and I know how ironic this is of me, but seriously, this is insane. I said I didn't mind answering BR's question, because I didn't, but if people actually want to vote for me on Day 1 because I posted 6 minutes later, construing it as "OMG BTSC LOL" and yet offered an absolutely sensible explanation for my posts, then I will respond to that absurdity with some of my own.

S~V~S wrote:Juliets. I was suspicious of BF before the info thing. Personally I doubt he knows the ID of the millionaire unless it is his teammate. I think maybe he's trying to bait the item stealers, one of whom is a civ and one an Indy.

I thought he was suspish before any of that. The excessive buddying plus the refusal to mention just who had pinged him until day started even though there were no night powers in play.

His whole general presentation has felt bad to me pretty much from the get go.

I have to reread what MP said when not on phone. His outrage and indignation at being suspected is becoming kinds passe, he does it every game it seems to me, good or bad.

Black Rock wrote:I'm going to start slapping these early self voters.

Long Con wrote:

Dom wrote:

Black Rock wrote:I'm going to start slapping these early self voters.

I might vote one of them tbh.

Oh yeah! MM also has my eye for his opportunistic self-vote.

juliets wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Dom wrote:

Black Rock wrote:I'm going to start slapping these early self voters.

I might vote one of them tbh.

Oh yeah! MM also has my eye for his opportunistic self-vote.

Me too. I can't abide people voting for themselves early and expecting us to take them seriously as civs.

juliets wrote:

Dom wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Dom wrote:

Black Rock wrote:I'm going to start slapping these early self voters.

I might vote one of them tbh.

Oh yeah! MM also has my eye for his opportunistic self-vote.

Do you think this might indicate that he is bad? Does your experience with Metalmarsh point to this?

juliets wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Dom wrote:

Black Rock wrote:I'm going to start slapping these early self voters.

I might vote one of them tbh.

Oh yeah! MM also has my eye for his opportunistic self-vote.

Me too. I can't abide people voting for themselves early and expecting us to take them seriously as civs.

"us"?

us = others playing the game that feel the same way I do.

Long Con wrote: Dom, I'm going to make an assumption here. You're looking to suggest that juliets meant "her baddies teammates" maybe?

Golden wrote:Dom got my eye for it too... it's a big stretch.

blindfaeth wrote:

Golden wrote:Dom got my eye for it too... it's a big stretch.

That and he posted like three times in the other current game day 1. "hi everyone" "raise ur hand if ur bad", why is this dom so drastically different?

Golden wrote:Dom, sorry, what evidence am I supposed to have behind me?

It did sound as though you were asking JC if 'us' was her and her baddie team - to me. It sounded like you were calling her out for it.

Golden wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:^^I think that's what Dom was getting at. But that's a streeeeeeeeeetch.

So, Dom, did you just choose to ignore the post right before mine? Rabbits one right there ^ ??

I do not know what you mean by 'I did not seem to care'. I just spoke my mind about what I saw. I do care if I am right or wrong.

Turnip Head wrote:Honestly Dom I got the same impression from your post that LC, rabbit, BF and Golden did, and now that you've clarified that that wasn't your intention, I actually have NO idea what you're getting at re: juliets. Asking her if she was addressing all civs by saying "us", what does that even mean, what is your point re: juliets? Your follow-up question to her makes no sense to me, but I guess I'll wait to hear juliets' response to it in any case. But it feels like you're backpedaling.

Golden wrote:Dom - anyone who tries to trip someone up on minutiae looks bad to me.

You would say 'us' as civilian, or as mafia.

I said it pinged me, because it pinged me. Frankly - when basically every single person in the thread saw it the same way - I think you might realise that actually it looked a bit sus.

I have no control over what bf comes into the thread and says after me. You got my eye for it - you still do have my eye for it. I think baddies like to ask questions that look like they are trying to trip people up but in reality have absolutely no value.

You can, later on, decide to interpret that question whichever way suits you.

It's not a massive ping for me, I was simply stating that it caught my eye. It was the second thing that caught my eye - after you asked me why I hadn't responded to a post that I had (two) just before my third ping on you - that you called me and bf out (the people with heat in the thread) but not rabbit.

If I hadn't thrown my vote away, I'd be looking very strongly at a vote for you.

Golden wrote:I didn't 'run with it' and I didn't 'present my anything as fact'.

All I did was stated that you got my eye for it. Once. It's you who has run with it.

As for the first one - go read the thread. I said the reason I hadn't responded to you was because you were linki and I had to run for work. But anyway, why would I respond specifically to you when all you did was said, essentially, 'yeah golden, what the other person said'... why would I not just answer the first person?

And honestly - I don't need to make you 'look' bad for it. I think the reaction of the thread tells you all you need to know, frankly. You did look bad for it. But your reaction is the kind of thing I look for which I find, frankly, to be much MORE indicative of a baddie... blowing everything well out of proportion.

As I said - it's VERY easy of you to claim a particular interpretation now, after everyone has 'misinterpreted' it. Which I don't think I actually did misinterpret it. I think, in fact, your interpretation is the very one I was thinking when I gave you the eye. I know LC stated 'JC's us meaning the baddie team'... but you just got me eye for calling JC up on it at all. Because I don't think there is anything about it which is possibly indicative of someone playing a baddie game, and I don't buy it when you say it fits a pattern of what you have observed as typical baddie behaviour.

Everyone says 'we' and 'us'. It's normal.

blindfaeth wrote:Oh well, if people are interested in lynching me I suppose I'll share what I know. At least if I die, SVS won't be able to lie to you about whose will it is. It is Zomberellas will. The reason I did not come after her in the thread as many of you suggested is because she was literally absent for so long. Which I think is oddly convenient, but whatever. Final thoughts, I think dom is bad, he's only analytical like this when he has a team. I think epi and bills are bad. Think SVS is misguided. Good luck

blindfaeth wrote:

Golden wrote: @dom - Do you read mine? Because, the starting point of my suspicion of you was when you didn't, and tried to stir up more heat on me (when I already had it from other sources) without reading my posts properly. I find you suspicious for the call you made on JC. I can keep saying it all day if you like. I didn't find it overly suspicious, but I never said I did. Nothing you can possibly ever say will make me take back that I found it suspicious. The only thing you can do is to continue to make me think your overdefensiveness is the sign of someone who didn't like to be called out for something they don't feel they did, but know that the ultimate truth is still the same - the Aces defence, if you want a recent example.

This.

He's already made two posts calling me nonsensical and saying I don't know his game at all, even though I'm basically refusing to respond directly to "brick wall number 2" - or is it 3? Anyway, why is he so worried about my opinion? I think it could be because he knows I'll flip civ.

Golden wrote:
@dom - Do you read mine? Because, the starting point of my suspicion of you was when you didn't, and tried to stir up more heat on me (when I already had it from other sources) without reading my posts properly. I find you suspicious for the call you made on JC. I can keep saying it all day if you like. I didn't find it overly suspicious, but I never said I did. Nothing you can possibly ever say will make me take back that I found it suspicious. The only thing you can do is to continue to make me think your overdefensiveness is the sign of someone who didn't like to be called out for something they don't feel they did, but know that the ultimate truth is still the same - the Aces defence, if you want a recent example.

bea wrote:Dom - do you think Golden might be bad? or are you just super defensive because he suspects you? Is there any way you could see him as misguided?
I feel you being super defensive - because you are feeling attacked. - I'd like your input as to where you think these attacks are coming from. Is there any way you think you both might be right but just not seeing the other side of the coin?

(this btw - was the post I should have prolly made to MP in the time we don't talk about - I'm sorry for handling that poorly - but I was really trying to get to the same thing as I am here)

Sophie wrote:Hi everyone !
This game looks fun

So, im doing a long distance trip to my hometown today, by bus, so you are gonna have to be pwtient yo me until at least tomorrow, where i start the cqtch up. Ill be less busy after wednesday, but i will try to catch up anyway this weekend. Just want a bitb of patience the first couple of days.

Im glad im playing again

juliets wrote:Thats an interesting thought MM. But wouldn't that only be profitable if SVS were bad?

juliets wrote:

Dom wrote:

juliets wrote:Thats an interesting thought MM. But wouldn't that only be profitable if SVS were bad?

I don't think, at this point,we have baddie SVS-- do you?

No I don't at all. Which makes that idea for me a non-starter.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:TH-- I'm juggling suspicions? Please-- look at how many different people BF has thrown shade at for no reason. Do you suspect BF for the same reason then? I just don't understand why suspecting 2 people (MP and BF) makes me someone who is throwing things out for no reason. I questioned juliets. Do you find it unusual for me to question people? I doubt that.
I'd rather not talk about the MP situation given the last time we did the result that ensued. I don't think we need to rehash that? Like... what else was I supposed to post? MP had a total meltdown over me asking 2 questions and didn't answer the second one. I felt responsible for MP's meltdown. I don't want to explore it again?

I don't think you questioning people is unusual (thanks for answering for me before I replied though :P ), but questioning juliets specifically, about that specific thing? I did think that was a little over the top. It felt like a normal juliets thing to say and I thought you would have agreed with me on that point.

Fair enough about MP.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

juliets wrote:Thats an interesting thought MM. But wouldn't that only be profitable if SVS were bad?

Nono, I was refering to Zomba and BF in this case. I was just responding to SVS's post.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Epig said it before, it was convenient for BF that the "name" on the will was someone who hadn't been around to discuss or defend herself. BF pointed it out as baddie behavior, but I feel like we already know why Zomba wasn't around, and it speaks nothing of alignment. And on that note, I didn't post at all until about the same time Zomba did, and nobody's pointing fingers at me for it.

I would find it more believable that the player's role name would be listed on the will rather than the player name.

Linki: Hi Bullzeye.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:TH-- I'm juggling suspicions? Please-- look at how many different people BF has thrown shade at for no reason. Do you suspect BF for the same reason then? I just don't understand why suspecting 2 people (MP and BF) makes me someone who is throwing things out for no reason. I questioned juliets. Do you find it unusual for me to question people? I doubt that.
I'd rather not talk about the MP situation given the last time we did the result that ensued. I don't think we need to rehash that? Like... what else was I supposed to post? MP had a total meltdown over me asking 2 questions and didn't answer the second one. I felt responsible for MP's meltdown. I don't want to explore it again?

I don't think you questioning people is unusual (thanks for answering for me before I replied though :P ), but questioning juliets specifically, about that specific thing? I did think that was a little over the top. It felt like a normal juliets thing to say and I thought you would have agreed with me on that point.

Fair enough about MP.

If it makes you feel any better-- I was satisfied with juliets answer.

But all her answer did was confirm that she was talking about the civs... which is what I thought you were suspicious of her for?

juliets wrote:

Dom wrote: "us"?

us = others playing the game that feel the same way I do.

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:zomb hasn't played all that much right

She's a few games in and knows what she's doing.

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:zomb hasn't played all that much right

She's a few games in and knows what she's doing.

Has she been "outed" yet?

Outed? almost. She tried to claim a role and I called her a liar.

S~V~S wrote:What would be interesting is if she really was the Millionaire. Then by mentioning her name, BF would be getting her votes, but her lynch is far from a done deal. He did not mention her name until he had several votes. So if she is that role, BF would actually be helping her get some votes, which her role could use if she is not lynched. And if she was lynched, he would get tons of cred.

When life hands you lemons, make lemonade, right?

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote:What would be interesting is if she really was the Millionaire. Then by mentioning her name, BF would be getting her votes, but her lynch is far from a done deal. He did not mention her name until he had several votes. So if she is that role, BF would actually be helping her get some votes, which her role could use if she is not lynched. And if she was lynched, he would get tons of cred.

When life hands you lemons, make lemonade, right?

maybe... something to think about for sure.

Shouldn't BF have voted for her in that case? Zomberella's response also made me feel like he definitely didn't have her permission to do this :P

blindfaeth wrote:Don't be sorry, please pile on the votes, I would rather die than talk to walls

Bullzeye wrote:A lot of people are way too quiet for my liking in this game... I think I'll random between the most silent and give them a vote to wake them up.

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:

bea wrote:Golden - I know you are getting the drfunk bea you've missed so much -but isn't what I'm saying logical? Maybe? Just maybe? it wasn't the best move for BF to make. Maybe- just maybe - he should have kept his info to himself - instead of painting a target on someone (zombra ) who has a 50/50 chance of being a civ. As well as anyone who would inherit his will post his demise. If BF is a civ - he's painted a target on two other potential civs. On Day 1. How is that logical "civ" game play?

Your perspective absolutely is logical, bea. Which is why I hoped bf would survive, and some unknown civvie would steal the will from him. But I don't think two opposing points of view can't both be logical. I think bfs move was risky, but I also think it was logical.

Anyway, now that he is a proven civ, I guess that's easy for me to say! So, I'll just move on from my defence of bfs move and say... Once again I think some unknown civ should steal the will from svs tonight, so that there is no longer a target associated with the will (other than on zombra...)

It's pretty clear bf played it wrong in hindsight, but at the time I would have done the same, I think.

Does the will really matter any more at this point? Unless BF lied about what it said, we already know everything about it, right?

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:
@dom - Do you read mine? Because, the starting point of my suspicion of you was when you didn't, and tried to stir up more heat on me (when I already had it from other sources) without reading my posts properly. I find you suspicious for the call you made on JC. I can keep saying it all day if you like. I didn't find it overly suspicious, but I never said I did. Nothing you can possibly ever say will make me take back that I found it suspicious. The only thing you can do is to continue to make me think your overdefensiveness is the sign of someone who didn't like to be called out for something they don't feel they did, but know that the ultimate truth is still the same - the Aces defence, if you want a recent example.

You didn't find my overly suspicious but wanted to vote me?
Nothing I could say could change your suspicion of me that is based on things that did not happen?
Sounds like you are #1) a liar and #2) someone who does not hold high regard for facts.

I don't think I could say anything to you. You'd twist it into a suspicion of me for no reason whatsoever other than I suspect Blindfaeth because you two have apparently decided whose opinions matter and whose do not in a game about opinions. You two have said that you trust each other, that you do not care what anyone else thinks. Please, do tell, how the hell anyone is supposed to have a discussion with that?

Yaeh, I do want to know how I'm supposed to have a discussion with someone who keeps calling me a liar and saying I don't care what you think. And accuses me of not being able to read their posts when clearly they don't read mine... or choose to twist them.

I do care what you think, Dom. I'm listening to every word you say. Unfortunately, right now, every word you say is telling me that you are pissed at me for suspecting you, and you don't think I have a right to. I do have a right to. You might be better off looking at your own actions and recognising that, actually, they did look a little hinky. You might be better off realising that, actually, someone might suspect you for it. But you would definitely be better off realising that you are calling me out for making an 'assumption'... that near everyone else made too... while you are busy assuming things about me.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:There is no way we're both right because both Blindfaeth and Golden have decided I am bad (I am not) on shaky (at best) presumptions they have made. These presumptions are essentially outright lies. I seem to be the only one calling them on this. Tell me, Bea, am I only analytical when I am on a team?

It's very frustrating to talk to a pair of people who have literally said they do not care what anyone else thinks. It's also very frustrating to try and point out why someone is wrong when they literally say, "Nothing you could say could change my mind" when their mind was made up on an incorrect supposition.

How can you not see why I think you are bad when you say stuff like this:

You call ME a liar just for making an presumption while ACTUALLY lying about what I've said. I've never said I don't care what you think.

I have said 'nothing you can say can change the fact your question to JC looks suspicious'. Yes, because it can't. You made that comment, it pinged me, thats that. All you can do is choose how you play the rest of the game. A ping is a ping. I never lose sight of what has pinged me. I have never said 'nothing you could do could make me change my mind about your alignment', and that would be frankly ridiculous.

This game is about making suppositions, to figure out who is bad, I don't know why you are having so much of a problem with that.

Golden wrote: Unless there are some facts I'm missing that you don't think I'm taking into account - like, not your opinion about what you meant when you made the JC post, but actual facts? In which case - tell them to me and I'll listen.

Long Con wrote:I voted Archer Ave because maybe my Ivory Arrow will become cool.

Dom, I think that you have explained yourself sufficiently, and there is still a ping on you from it.

For all I know, I could have been absolutely right about your intentions with the "us" comment, and you're a baddie, and you came up with a very reasonable explanation for the whole exchange. It's not like that's not within your mental capabilities. The explanation was sound, but that doesn't make the original ping get deleted.

I find that the earliest thing people say on a subject is the most useful, because after it happens, explanations and excuses swirl and form that could be fake or real. You can talk your way out of anything, and that's something important to remember.

Golden wrote:I do not think I created 'suspicion' around the comment, no. You think I did. I disagree. I don't think rabbit and my intent was any different. I think you chose to read different intent in by the way we phrased it. This is you choosing to have an opinion about what I meant. Just like I'm choosing to have an opinion about what you meant.

I think YOU created suspicion around my comment. Honestly, I wasn't doing anything but simply saying the statement pinged me, and not that much. It's your reaction to it which has led to this big conversation.

I have never acted like you didn't clarify. All I've said is that I'm suspicious of the statement itself, because I believe you can clarify it whatever way you like, but the original statement itself is still meaningless - the kind of statement one makes to put suspicion on someone else without ever getting real data back. I believe your clarification could be true. I also believe it could be false. Either way, I agree that your statement has literally zero bearing on my suspicion of you, because I think its what a civ would say in the situation, and what a baddie would say in the situation. Do you get what I'm saying there? In that sense, yes, I see your clarification as worthless to my own suspicion. But I did not pay it no mind. I expressly said on at least two occasions that I did not think your clarification altered my ping either way. This is what I mean when I said 'nothing you can say would alter my original ping'... literally you would say the same thing if you were good or bad.

Of much more interest to me was the overall tone and approach of your reaction. Saying things like you did in your last post... 'you are leaving things out for your own benefit'... that kind of stuff. Calling me a liar, but still not pulling what my apparent lie is even when I challenge you on it. Saying I've said I don't care, when I've actually tried to get you to present answers to me but all you do is go at me, with a lot of words but not a lot of content.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Here is something that caught my eye today. First we have blindfaeth's original revelation that regarding the will.


Now this post doesn't match up with blindfaeth's statement. blindfaeth suggested he would inherit "a large sum of money". SVS stated that she would inherit "everything she has". SVS then confirmed that the "everything" meant items.

If SVS is on Zomba's team, this is a perfect result. SVS now has the will, and can manipulate its content to the rest of us if she wants.

If SVS is a civvie, I feel that events would have unfolded differently. Would she have voted for an "infodropper" early and before everyone else?