The Syndicate

Ay up ducks! This should be a very fun game.

aapje wrote:Yay game

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Votes are not changeable in this poll. Just sayin'.

So why position 5?

Actually I might vote position 5... It's where most roles seem to have the coolest options, so it could make for an interesting start.

I've voted for 5 based on my previous comment about it being interesting.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Position 5 results in the least amount of death.

Linki: listen to me when I'm talking to you DH.

This is actually a very valid point. Worth bearing in mind when people decide how to vote!

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Position 5 results in the least amount of death.

Linki: listen to me when I'm talking to you DH.

This is actually a very valid point. Worth bearing in mind when people decide how to vote!

We have to cycle through all five positions. It might actually be that we are better off getting kills from baddies out of the way now... we should think about and discuss best use of kills. Definitely better to avoid positions with civ kills for now, I would think.

I was working under the assumption we'd get to vote on it each time and could work it out strategically along the way. Was that wrong?

Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Metalmarsh89 wrote:He hasn't posted yet.

Aha! Going after the low posters early are we?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Russ, you managed to use the word interesting twice in pne sentence which is even worse than using adverbs. You're so bad.

is this serious or sarcasm?

In this moment, I am not being serious.

But I do believe that mafia is more apt to use descriptors like "interesting" or "odd" because they call out behaviours without stating their own opinion.

Can interesting and odd not be opinions? For instance: "I think your face is odd". That's an opinion!

I do know what you mean though and I'm guilty of having done it myself on occasion. If something is "interesting" or "odd" or "the most ludicrous idea since the silent fire alarm", say why!

Epignosis wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Adverb theory is so dumb, anyone who takes it seriously should punch themselves in the face.

By calling it "adverb theory," you've demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the concept itself and also what a theory in general is.

I swear if this game devolves into ranting about adverbs for too long I'm going to start accusing a new linguistic concept of being worse than Hitler for each post made on the subject.

timmer wrote: How are people going to handle the unrecruited side of things? Last game, I rather infamously flamed out, and it all started when I admitted that I didn't give a crap who got lynched since I was neutral. There was more to it than that afterwards, but that was essentially the big issue. It was pointed out that the rules of R3 said that an unrecruited player was sort of a civ, but in THIS game, I see the rules state that an unrecruited player is neutral and has only to survive to win. So how does that play out this time? Are you guys still feeling like it makes more sense to "think civ"? Or is this sort of a LMS format that segues into a more traditional team format, with an awkward middle?

I'm happy either way, I just need clarity for my own sense of sanity, lol.

Well I'm expecting this game to be much like Fight Club was for me, where I spent the whole thing openly advertising how much I'd love to be recruited only for it to never happen until it didn't really matter any more. So this issue probably applies to me. I think it always makes sense to "think civ", but I've never played a recruitment game before (despite it being one of my most favourite game mechanics ever) so maybe I'm wrong.

And sanity is overrated.

The discussion of the thread lockdown ability is interesting to me. This might be a stupid question but would such an ability still be voluntary? If so the person might choose not to use it at all if they wanted. I've never seen a game have it before though so I'm not sure.

Ricochet wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:The discussion of the thread lockdown ability is interesting to me. This might be a stupid question but would such an ability still be voluntary? If so the person might choose not to use it at all if they wanted. I've never seen a game have it before though so I'm not sure.

According to the Hosts, not sending in powers will not affect the PScore, so personal decisions in how to use (or not) a position might happen. As for the lockdown itself, I imagine it being used to the utmost advantage of the player or his team (if recruited already)... although the idea that by postponing the use of that (or of any position, in fact), you'll have to wait for another rotation and hope to live enough to get to use it again might inspire most to simply use their positions when they're enabled.

In all honesty I'd probably use a power like that for purely selfish reasons - to make everybody else shut up so I can catch up. I expect you're right about how it will be used. IMO that means it's unlikely to be used immediately and perhaps isn't ever guaranteed to get used unless the person holding that power actually needs it.

Boomslang wrote: The whole adverb thing is ridiculous. I don't see why it would be relevant for the theme (in terms of being a requirement for a given role). I also think generalizing that baddies use adverbs as a form of distancing or overexplaining is spurious at best. Also, MP clearly has a few sentences that don't use adverbs, so he's not even completely consistent.

As someone else already said, it doesn't work anyway if you don't take into account individual differences in language use. The past seven years in education have conditioned me to use loads of adverbs just to pad out my writing and get closer to expected word counts. Doesn't mean I'm secretly evil in real life and planning to kill off my lecturers or something...

unfurl wrote:What is all this averb talk, am I taking a grammar class?, I did not know thats what I signep up is over my head
,

Adverbs are evil. Look up the phrase adverb in the dictionary and you will find it says "A sure sign of malice". Maybe. Probably not.

thellama73 wrote:

Black Rock wrote:Hello my busy bees, has everyone checked in yet?

Yes. Start day 1.

Actually assuming everyone who has posted in this thread that isn't the hosts or mod is playing, we're still missing four people. Also around 10 people haven't voted yet.

timmer wrote:So two recruitments have happened already? And yet my inbox is empty.

Mine too... Forever alone.

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:So two recruitments have happened already? And yet my inbox is empty.

Huh?

From the recent host post:

"Azura Nokomis stood over a map of the realm, carefully arranging the ornate pieces that represented the concentration of the forces of various factions. A polished scrying stone stood to her left, and as she turned to gaze deep into it, she could see Ubzargan the Ruthless clasping hands with a shadowy new ally. "So, cyborg," she hissed. "You too are recruiting powerful allies to your faction!" She grinned evilly - the only kind of grin anyone ever saw on her face. "Your pathetic brutes cannot hope to stand against my mastery of the very elements that compose our existence! And my own new ally will be particularly... useful."

So we've had at least two recruitments, already.

It's possible we've already had as many as four, given BR requested picks from all the leaders near the beginning of day zero.

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Why all this fuss about adverbs? Personally I've always found nouns to be the most suspicious part of language...

Can you expound on this?

Sure! Sometimes I make jokes when I think something is silly.

I want to be recruited by all four sides so I can play them all against each other as a shadowy mastermind.

Golden wrote:@Bullz - am i wrong in assuming you can only be recruited by one?

I have no reason to believe you are wrong. In fact I think you're right.

G-Man wrote:

Golden wrote: I do, however, agree with JJ that begging for a recruit is not at all desperate, obscene or try-hard, so I present for you my own unique skills.

Roger Rabbit
Death and Taxes
Biblical

Unfortunately, I have no link to me juggling, but it wouldn't convince anyone.

Biotch please, you know you had a LOT of help from my ASS in Biblical. Don't try to pass that one off as a solo achievement.

Help from your ass? Now I had to drop out of Biblical early because of reasons but it sounds like I missed a hell of a game!

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki, ending someones game for something so trivial is ill done, imo. Especially when based on a nonsensical premise. "She said so". Well, she also said "not so". Make up your mind.

But you just said it was stupid to make up my mind so early. I think the fact that I haven't voted yet is a pretty good indication that I haven't actually made up my mind of who to vote for, not completely. TinyBubbles remains a frontrunner, but 48 hours is a long time.

Do you seriously think she should be lynched over something that obviously wasn't meant seriously? That's a weak reason even for Day One...

Russtifinko wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

timmer wrote: How are people going to handle the unrecruited side of things? Last game, I rather infamously flamed out, and it all started when I admitted that I didn't give a crap who got lynched since I was neutral. There was more to it than that afterwards, but that was essentially the big issue. It was pointed out that the rules of R3 said that an unrecruited player was sort of a civ, but in THIS game, I see the rules state that an unrecruited player is neutral and has only to survive to win. So how does that play out this time? Are you guys still feeling like it makes more sense to "think civ"? Or is this sort of a LMS format that segues into a more traditional team format, with an awkward middle?

I'm happy either way, I just need clarity for my own sense of sanity, lol.

The bolded/underlined is what I'm thinking will happen.

But, then again, I imploded in The Flash because everyone was talking 'civ civ civ' when it was clearly a faction game, so my thoughts may be different than others'. :P

Well, the baddies will be trying to kill you regardless, so I think neutrals should align with the civs.

Of course they should. It's the easiest and possibly smartest way to play neutral IMO. I just assume all neutrals are civ-aligned, hence my contribution to the massacring of the apparently baddie-friendly neutral team in HSK. You never know though, some people might think it's more fun to align themselves with the baddies before they've even been recruited.

Russtifinko wrote: Also, if there is a vote that looks to me like someone choosing something because they wanted a certain role power, it's Sorsha's. As someone else said, that may be more helpful later on when there are not tons of roles left, but it's worth bearing in mind.

Because it's her favourite number? I'm sure I saw at least one other person vote for the same reason... Definitely worth bearing in mind but also possible lots of other people voted for the specific position they wanted for their role. Not necessarily seeing that as a bad thing when the vast majority haven't been recruited yet.

Russtifinko wrote:And MP, BR specifically said we may not have to cycle through every single position. I think that makes a pretty strong case for going for the least bad case. Now, in reality it seems we'll hit each at least one time, but don't we at east want the worst ones less often? If we start on a bad one, since we don't know what will happen in the future, it guarantees nothing except that we have to deal with bad stuff and mayhem for a day.

Definitely. Makes the most sense to me if we continuously try to avoid the scariest/most dangerous powers.

bea wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I want to be recruited by all four sides so I can play them all against each other as a shadowy mastermind.

I KNEW IT!!!! BULLZ IS A TYPH SOCKPUPPET!!!!!!

linki - sorry epi - I'm sadly one beer left and this far behind. I can't tell yet if I want you to tear apart golden's response or not.

Actually if you read my DBZ game submission thread you'll realise I'm a sockpuppet from the X-Men game that achieved sentience and carried on playing here anyway.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Well the host labelled two of the groups as civvies, and those two groups seem effectively to be allies who only need to eliminate the baddies. That makes them civvies IMO.

Black Rock wrote:Win Conditions

Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm less interested in the same old Day 1 debates surrounding the same old super talkative and aggressive players such as Epi, Golden, and Llama.

Right now, I'm much more interested in these folks:

DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

Hiding to avoid attention?

Personally (as usual) I'd rather vote a low poster/no-show than an active participant on day one if nothing more meaningful shows up.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

bea wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Check out MP's adverb usage before and after my interaction with him, and then check out his adverb usage during my calling him out about being bad for using adverbs. Drastic jump. Got em.

Might be something to it. I don't like to use the whole adverb "thing" (since we can't agree on the difference between "theory" and "concept") as my basis for a case on someone. But it could very well influence it.

This feels like you want to agree but you want wiggle room out of it. I'm curious as to why this is the day 0 thing you chose to comment on.

I also want to highlight this post because I feel it has some merit.

What do players think of BWT's post? bea's post?

I think Bea has a point. I just didn't have anything to add. BWT does kinda come across like he's planted himself firmly on the fence but is willing to jump to one side or the other at a moment's notice.

Surprising amount of linki. Will post before I read it!

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: So what do you want to talk about?

I already talk what I wanted to talk about, I said my 2 cents and I feel good about it
Freedom of choice, everyone is free to talk about whatever makes then feel they are playing

Of course. That's why I asked what you wanted to talk about. If you didn't want to discuss low posters, then what did you want to discuss?

How do you propose we uncover a recruiter today?

Like I said I have no ide how to uncover a recruiter is finding a needle in a haystack, but maybe the people who talk a lot are able to find a solution :P

Are you going to try? I don't know how to find a recruiter either but I'm not going to just let other people do it for me. This post makes me feel like that's your attitude though.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote: This is not true, is it? Haven't all four recruiters (2 baddie and 2 civvie) had the chance to recruit once already? So really, there are 4 actual baddies in the game now, and four actual civs.....right??


Also, hi everyone! Sorry I wasn't around yesterday. It's super upper hella busy time here right now, but I will do my best to stay involved and active.


YAAAAYAYYAYAUYAYYUUUUYYYU RECRUITMENT GAME! Thanks for letting me sneak in last minute, beauteous hoagies!

Based on what the hosts have posted, I think you may be right. Have we had specific confirmation though?

Well BR said this yesterday:

Black Rock wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Official Announcement

All PM's must now be directed to both hosts (the other one being Long Con) as I am leaving for work soon and he will be home.

ALL Leaders please submit a list of three players for options of your first recruit.

There will be 4 by days end. We are just waiting on something before the recruits will be officially told.

Which suggests to me that there should now be 4 recruits in the game.

I'd probably recruit the players I like the most first, difficult as that would be to narrow down. I'd also recruit either:

People who make better civs than me (if I were a civ recruiter)
or
People who make better baddies than me (if I were a baddie recruiter)

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

bea wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

bea wrote:

Golden wrote:@Bullz - am i wrong in assuming you can only be recruited by one?

I hate those musketeers.

Those musketeers. Their last-minute swashbuckling antics ruined me.

I see that Golden cited me as an example of someone who often avoids getting lynched, which is very much not the case. Nearly every game I play ends with me getting lynched for being blendy.

And every game you survive deep into is because 1000 veterans, myself included, say "DF always reads blendy - that's not indicative of alignment." You remember the losses, he remembers the times it worked for you. Both are true.

me too. Jerks.

This is not an anti-town post, I will not vote bea this phase and I will fight anyone who suggests otherwise. That might seem a curious read to some; call it intuition.

I don't remember anybody saying they were going to vote for her...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I don't remember anybody saying they were going to vote for her...

I don't either.

So what made you feel the need to come out so strongly in her defense?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I don't remember anybody saying they were going to vote for her...

I don't either.

So what made you feel the need to come out so strongly in her defense?

Call it preliminary defense. I have no actual idea whether anyone is going to voice suspicion of bea. I had an intuition and shared it with clear language. There can be no doubt about my take on bea given that post.

Do with it what you will. What do you think Bullzeye? Why did I come out so strongly in her defense?

I don't know. Hence why I asked. It just seemed such a strange thing to suddenly come out with from nowhere.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I don't know. Hence why I asked. It just seemed such a strange thing to suddenly come out with from nowhere.

It probably is strange. What do you think the implications might be of me making a post that could be called strange?

I just don't see how your intuition came about from such an unremarkable exchange. It's not that it tells me anything about you so much as I just can't figure out why you said it or what inspired such confidence.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm less interested in the same old Day 1 debates surrounding the same old super talkative and aggressive players such as Epi, Golden, and Llama.

Right now, I'm much more interested in these folks:

DFaraday 3
DisgruntledPorcupine 3
Typhoony 3
Bass_the_Clever 2
Spacedaisy 2
Devin the Omniscient 1
DrWilgy 1
Sorsha 1

Hiding to avoid attention?

Llama, won't you join me in a crusade to interrogate low posters to at least get them talking? Possibly lynched?

Hmmmmm....not a bad idea actually.

Makes me want to look at voting for a low poster, as well as getting some to talk more.

Maybe if we keep up a discussion of low posters and their potential lynchable status they will all come crawling out of the woodwork to explain why they shouldn't be voted for, and the least satisfactory answer gets votes?

Linki - question about recruiters not specifically addressed to me, but I think it depends on the player. I think a lot of people would just try to act cool and normal like nothing is different so that nobody picks up on a change in their gameplay.

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:
I think Bea has a point. I just didn't have anything to add. BWT does kinda come across like he's planted himself firmly on the fence but is willing to jump to one side or the other at a moment's notice.

Surprising amount of linki. Will post before I read it!

Bullzeye, does that make you think BWT is bad? You might have expounded upon this further, but I don't remember.

It doesn't make me think he's not bad. There's really nothing I can say about it that I haven't already, I think BWT looks like he's trying to be blendy. That alone at this stage of the game doesn't immediately scream evil at me, though if it was a traditional set up with pre-defined mafia teams it might. I won't be voting BWT today based on that post alone.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I also think we should lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, because I would feel bad lynching someone who is at least trying and wants to be here when the odds are so high they are unaligned.

Unsurprisingly I agree with this.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

aapje wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

Where did TH get invited?

It appears everyone who starts with the letter T is invited.

MP, let's form a pact since we are the only M-players in this game. I will not be voting for MP today.

T is for The Baddies?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I also think we should lynch someone quiet and uninvolved, because I would feel bad lynching someone who is at least trying and wants to be here when the odds are so high they are unaligned.

Unsurprisingly I agree with this.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

aapje wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:I feel unreasonably sad that I am not hypothetically invited to be on the imaginary Tranq/Typh/TH/apples/SVS superteam.

Where did TH get invited?

It appears everyone who starts with the letter T is invited.

MP, let's form a pact since we are the only M-players in this game. I will not be voting for MP today.

T is for The Baddies?

Something like that.

T begins "Teamwork"
T begins "Tier"
T begins "The baddies" who will take your beer!

Not the beer! Damn those villainous villains!

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:
I think Bea has a point. I just didn't have anything to add. BWT does kinda come across like he's planted himself firmly on the fence but is willing to jump to one side or the other at a moment's notice.

Surprising amount of linki. Will post before I read it!

Bullzeye, does that make you think BWT is bad? You might have expounded upon this further, but I don't remember.

It doesn't make me think he's not bad. There's really nothing I can say about it that I haven't already, I think BWT looks like he's trying to be blendy. That alone at this stage of the game doesn't immediately scream evil at me, though if it was a traditional set up with pre-defined mafia teams it might. I won't be voting BWT today based on that post alone.

Did you notice that you just did the exact thing you find BWT ping-y for?
Or nah?

Because as I see it, you just put yourself on the fence on whether you'll vote BWT or not on a moment's notice. . . the exact thing you criticized BWT for.

I think I'm gonna go with "Or nah?". Basically, I find that post of BWT's suspicious. However, it's one post. I don't think that alone is worth turning into a huge case and pushing against him like I'm Epi or something. BWT seemed like he was trying to avoid locking himself into one particular stance on a topic whereas I'm taking a stand here and saying that I currently have some suspicion toward BWT and will keep an eye on him for the foreseeable future but won't be voting for him unless I have more to go on. If today or on day 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc you see me vote BWT purely because of that one post he made, then you know I'm clutching at straws and you should probably vote for me at that point tbh.

Scotty wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.

How does Epi know anything?

I feel like Epi just knows things, dude.

Like, he just sits around and knows all the live-long day.

Ya feel me?

He's good at Mafia (don't tell him I said that) but he's not psychic and he can get things hilariously wrong just like everyone else. See LMS for an example of Epi not knowing anything to the point I was actively mocking him in the thread for his wrongness until it got too annoying and I just wanted to shut him up. Here I don't think he or Golden are actually bad.

timmer wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

^THIS. While I believe Long Con and Black Rock have styled the four factions as Civ 1 &2, Baddie 1&2, namely by having limited BTSC in the civ team but larger numbers, going by things they've said, does it really behoove us to think that way? Are not all four sides ultimately trying to rule this realm? Why can't people embrace the LMS-hybrid quality of this game? Why wrap yourself in the civvie flag when there are 4 civs or so out of 30+ players right now?

But the civ teams can seemingly win together, and are therefore aligned as one overall civvie unit. Right now we're mostly neutral but later on the game seems like it will evolve into a more complex version of your traditional civ teams vs bad teams.

timmer wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
I think your argument against Llama strikes of bias, since you and he always butt heads.

You really think Llama's behavior indicates that he is a recruiter?

Furthur to this, why does someone being a recruiter mean anything? If they are one, they might be a civ recruiter, which means eliminating them will hurt the civ cause. There are equal numbers of bad and good recruiters. And once you are eventually recruited to a team, that's your team, so why gun for a potential recruiter when that may end up your own team down the road?

I don't understand your logic here. Yeah nobody wants to lynch a civ recruiter. But why not go after the bad recruiters? If I think someone's posts indicate to me they're building up a group of evil friends to scheme with then I'll point it out to everyone and vote for that person. Sure they might be hoping to recruit me but they might also be planning to kill me. Better safe than sorry. I guess I'm just playing this like I normally would as a civ rather than thinking neutral?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The exchange of votes between Golden and Epignosis looks to me like the literal definition of OMGUS (I think y'all call it "no u"). I doubt I'll support a lynch of either of them on Day 1.

You are correct on all fronts. I think this is whatever passes for civ v civ in a game of mostly neutrals.

Golden wrote:@bullz - I love that you have time to play. It's good to have you being able to be in the thread.

Thanks! I hate signing up to things and not being able to play - so sometimes I just won't bother if I'm not 100% sure I can commit. I felt so bad in Dom's game when I just couldn't contribute at all, and even when I tried to get back into it I was so far behind. All I've got to do now is write my dissertation and find a job - equally impossible tasks but at least I can have a Mafia game open in the background to look in on every now and then!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Question from a foreigner: what does LMS mean?

Last Man Standing

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Less than 2.5 hours remain and a ton of votes are still off the board. Y'all get in here and help us kill someone.

Currently weighing up my options. Leaning toward a low contributor, but first I want to go back over Unfurl. I found her seeming unwillingness to get involved suspicious early on and think I might look to see if anything she's said since can change my mind. I know a few people seemed to write off the case against her saying it's just her way of being.

Maybe its just me MM but my name feels very conspicuous there in amongst a bunch of low posters...

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Boomslang is online now. I will not vote for Boomslang today.
I also recall Bullzeye being a strong contributor today. I will not vote for Bullzeye today.

Linki: speak of the devil.

Linki 2: you're off my list you.

I wouldn't have minded being on it, I just felt like you were lumping me in with a bunch of people who had less than 10 posts and it made me think you were saying I wasn't taking part.

Linki JJJ - That's basically what I mean. People who know her well agree with her defense to that one point so I want to see if there's anything else. I'd sort of forgotten her altogether until I saw her vote for MP just now. Having played quite a few games with Unfurl I've never really felt like I know her or her style all that well so I still might defer to the judgement of those wiser than me. Or I might not. We shall see.

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:
I think Bea has a point. I just didn't have anything to add. BWT does kinda come across like he's planted himself firmly on the fence but is willing to jump to one side or the other at a moment's notice.

Surprising amount of linki. Will post before I read it!

Bullzeye, does that make you think BWT is bad? You might have expounded upon this further, but I don't remember.

It doesn't make me think he's not bad. There's really nothing I can say about it that I haven't already, I think BWT looks like he's trying to be blendy. That alone at this stage of the game doesn't immediately scream evil at me, though if it was a traditional set up with pre-defined mafia teams it might. I won't be voting BWT today based on that post alone.

Did you notice that you just did the exact thing you find BWT ping-y for?
Or nah?

Because as I see it, you just put yourself on the fence on whether you'll vote BWT or not on a moment's notice. . . the exact thing you criticized BWT for.

I think I'm gonna go with "Or nah?". Basically, I find that post of BWT's suspicious. However, it's one post. I don't think that alone is worth turning into a huge case and pushing against him like I'm Epi or something. BWT seemed like he was trying to avoid locking himself into one particular stance on a topic whereas I'm taking a stand here and saying that I currently have some suspicion toward BWT and will keep an eye on him for the foreseeable future but won't be voting for him unless I have more to go on. If today or on day 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc you see me vote BWT purely because of that one post he made, then you know I'm clutching at straws and you should probably vote for me at that point tbh.

OK, but you ignored the point of my post. So, like... ?????

I didn't? You said I was doing what I was criticising BWT for, I explained why I wasn't. Unless there's another point I've missed?

S~V~S wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Boomslang is online now. I will not vote for Boomslang today.
I also recall Bullzeye being a strong contributor today. I will not vote for Bullzeye today.

Linki: speak of the devil.

Linki 2: you're off my list you.

I wouldn't have minded being on it, I just felt like you were lumping me in with a bunch of people who had less than 10 posts and it made me think you were saying I wasn't taking part.

Linki JJJ - That's basically what I mean. People who know her well agree with her defense to that one point so I want to see if there's anything else. I'd sort of forgotten her altogether until I saw her vote for MP just now. Having played quite a few games with Unfurl I've never really felt like I know her or her style all that well so I still might defer to the judgement of those wiser than me. Or I might not. We shall see.

You made this post yesterday AM (NY time):

Bullzeye wrote:

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: So what do you want to talk about?

I already talk what I wanted to talk about, I said my 2 cents and I feel good about it
Freedom of choice, everyone is free to talk about whatever makes then feel they are playing

Of course. That's why I asked what you wanted to talk about. If you didn't want to discuss low posters, then what did you want to discuss?

How do you propose we uncover a recruiter today?

Like I said I have no ide how to uncover a recruiter is finding a needle in a haystack, but maybe the people who talk a lot are able to find a solution :P

Are you going to try? I don't know how to find a recruiter either but I'm not going to just let other people do it for me. This post makes me feel like that's your attitude though.

It looks to me like you are trying to justify a vote for Unfurl. You just got mine

?

I literally have nothing else to say to that. Are my opinions not allowed to change over time?

SVS hasn't exactly explained her beef with my post, but I'd already decided to give Unfurl the BOTD for now as I couldn't find any other reason to suspect her further than the one initial ping I had. Instead I shall vote for someone who hasn't contributed very much, if anything, to the game so far.

Gonna be a sheep and join the bleating herds voting for *DFaraday* due to his non-commitment to the game. Shame, I always like playing with him!

Sorsha wrote:I see my name being mentioned for a vote and that's fine, I know I haven't been posting a lot but I was hoping I'd get the botd since I'm out of state for a funeral. After tomorrow I should be able to participate more.

I really don't feel comfortable voting today. If you guys want I can throw out a random but I'm really not informed as well as I'd like to be to make an informed vote. I don't think it would be fair for me to be a tie breaker either.

You could always vote Bass to re-instate the tie I just broke? I'm not overly familiar with the case against him though. I don't think you're really being discussed all that much and I think everyone appreciates your circumstances - I can say I'd ruled you out as my low poster vote once you explained the situation. Dunno if it's wise to miss the vote, our lovely benevolent hosts might not take kindly to it!

S~V~S wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:SVS hasn't exactly explained her beef with my post, but I'd already decided to give Unfurl the BOTD for now as I couldn't find any other reason to suspect her further than the one initial ping I had. Instead I shall vote for someone who hasn't contributed very much, if anything, to the game so far.

Sure I did. You sounded like you were looking to justify a vote for Unfurl. You brought her up a few times. Other than flirting with the BWT wagon, she was the extent of the baddie hunting you did, yet you proposed to vote for her for, essentially, her lack of baddie hunting. Meanwhile, several people have basically said, "I'm neutral, meh with alienating potential teammates."

Although not sure if Wilgy really just wants to be friends with Unfurl, or what

Not counting the posts I've made in the past hour, exactly one of my now 43 posts is about Unfurl. In the other two that mention her, I say I'm undecided and then say that people who know her better than me think what I'm seeing is nothing special.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What exactly is a "seemer"? I'm unfamiliar with this role/ability.

A role that "seems" to be another role when lynched. Like say you're a baddie with seemer power and we lynch you, you appear as the bestest but most believable civ when your role is revealed and we all cry a lot thinking we killed someone good.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What exactly is a "seemer"? I'm unfamiliar with this role/ability.

A role that "seems" to be another role when lynched. Like say you're a baddie with seemer power and we lynch you, you appear as the bestest but most believable civ when your role is revealed and we all cry a lot thinking we killed someone good.

Oh okay. Roles like that are taboo where I come from; I'm definitely not accustomed to them.

I'm not a huge fan of them personally because not only do they tend to wind up with the person whose role was faked outing themselves and being lynched to prove it, but they also create an excuse of "oh they showed up civ but they were totes the seemer guys, I haven't just bandwagoned a civ". I remember a game where that showed up like 3 lynches in a row.

Linki Dom - Because I said I'd probably vote a low poster if nothing else. DF is a low poster. I'm not married to my vote staying there though, if something fun happens in the next however long we've got left maybe I'll swap.

Dom wrote:Are we going to talk about how Scotty's post clearly indicated he has BTSC?

Which one?

Dom wrote:This post.

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

Scotty has never played a RM before. Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous games. Scotty would not know about this. Scotty must have been told about this.
Unless I am misinterpreting the highlighted line...

Additionally, this is a huge contradiction. "Random vote"-->I think SVS is bad???

With you on the contradiction. Can't remember if he ever addressed it but it's something I picked up on. As for the rest... I dunno. He obviously should've known everyone has a power by now and there were only ever a handful of vanillas. But then even if someone in a BTSC chat said to him "hey did you know in the past we were all vanilla for this game??" I don't see why he'd turn around and say having a power is unusual. He was presumably given a role himself at the beginning of the game, as we all were... So in sum, I dunno. I'd like to see him address this.

Planning to finish my dissertation draft while it's (hopefully) quiet, so don't expect me to be around much if at all until later tonight. Going to vote option 2 just cause.

Okay I have 2 and a half hours before I need to go get torn apart by my supervisor, perfect time to catch up. If I don't return after 3pm GMT assume I've been murdered by an angry lecturer and come over here to avenge me.