The Syndicate

Yay Just checking in atm will pop back in in a bit!

Voting Prog not because it's my favourite. Nor is it my least favourite. It's the only option in the poll I have absolutely no opinion on either way and that makes it noteworthy to me.

DFaraday wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: What is a phylactery and what does it do?

A phylactery is a box with Hebrew scripture in it, worn during religious practice. I have no idea what it would do in the game though.

I believe liches and other such evil beings are also said to keep their soul/spirit/essence within them to give them immortality, and destruction of a phylactery is a sure way of killing a lich.

Source: I'm a massive nerd.

Turnip Head wrote:Obviously not something I can act on toDay, but this post by Bullz caught my hindsight eye. It feels like the least genuine vote for Prog.

Bullzeye wrote:Voting Prog not because it's my favourite. Nor is it my least favourite. It's the only option in the poll I have absolutely no opinion on either way and that makes it noteworthy to me.

Everyone else voted for their favorite option on Day 0. Bullzeye voted for a "noteworthy" one.

Do day zero votes have to be genuine now?

Didn't mean to press submit just yet. I have several favourite genres of music and felt that rather than pick one I'd just pick something different. I don't see why it should have to mean something.

Turnip Head wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Didn't mean to press submit just yet. I have several favourite genres of music and felt that rather than pick one I'd just pick something different. I don't see why it should have to mean something.

It doesn't have to mean something, but it could mean something, in a poll where we were told to pick our favorite genre and everybody did that but you. It is, at the very least, noteworthy :P And you saying "I don't see why it should have to mean something" instead of "it doesn't mean anything" also has me curious.

Well... It doesn't mean anything, but it doesn't have to either. You're the one trying to attribute meaning where it doesn't exist. Given that LC has confirmed there was info about one option, I think it's safe to guess there was info about others too. So I doubt everyone else voted for their favourite.

Turnip Head wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Didn't mean to press submit just yet. I have several favourite genres of music and felt that rather than pick one I'd just pick something different. I don't see why it should have to mean something.

It doesn't have to mean something, but it could mean something, in a poll where we were told to pick our favorite genre and everybody did that but you. It is, at the very least, noteworthy :P And you saying "I don't see why it should have to mean something" instead of "it doesn't mean anything" also has me curious.

Well... It doesn't mean anything, but it doesn't have to either. You're the one trying to attribute meaning where it doesn't exist. Given that LC has confirmed there was info about one option, I think it's safe to guess there was info about others too. So I doubt everyone else voted for their favourite.

That's fair, it's possible players lied about their favorite genre to gain some sort of edge. But it's easier and theoretically more productive to question the one guy who didn't vote for his favorite genre (and gained an edge) than it is to question the 29 that ostensibly voted according to the poll's question.

Question away. I didn't have any info. All I thought was "oh look it's day zero, there is a poll, I don't know what to say is my favourite with such a varied taste in music so I'll vote for the one that stands out because I don't know enough of it to really have an opinion". I don't take day zero seriously.

nutella wrote:I see I've already gotten a vote for not being around much. I'm just now checking in, I am having quite a busy week.

I think that Bullz is, or is one of the teammates of, one of the people who got info. That means that I think there is more than 1/3 chance that he is bad because I think it is likely that the baddie who got info told their teammates. As Epi points out I find it unlikely that all of the team members would vote for it, I wouldn't doubt that a couple of them would, and that there is therefore a greater chance that Bullz is on a baddie team than that he is a civ or indie.

Unfortunately, of course, I can't vote for him. So I'll have to resort to other Day 1 crap. Like maybe the Mac/Matt thing, but as I already said I think that both of them are fucking around uselessly and I'm kind of indifferent to both.

Who says I had info at all? If I did, and especially if I was the baddie who did, what logical reason would I have for making my vote stand out? It just doesn't make sense.

MacDougall wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

nutella wrote:I see I've already gotten a vote for not being around much. I'm just now checking in, I am having quite a busy week.

I think that Bullz is, or is one of the teammates of, one of the people who got info. That means that I think there is more than 1/3 chance that he is bad because I think it is likely that the baddie who got info told their teammates. As Epi points out I find it unlikely that all of the team members would vote for it, I wouldn't doubt that a couple of them would, and that there is therefore a greater chance that Bullz is on a baddie team than that he is a civ or indie.

Unfortunately, of course, I can't vote for him. So I'll have to resort to other Day 1 crap. Like maybe the Mac/Matt thing, but as I already said I think that both of them are fucking around uselessly and I'm kind of indifferent to both.

Who says I had info at all? If I did, and especially if I was the baddie who did, what logical reason would I have for making my vote stand out? It just doesn't make sense.

I find it far more likely that you selected prog because you had a reason than because you just did. I don't think it necessarily makes you bad, but it may later.

Fair enough. I was actually asking LA specifically since she jumped straight to that conclusion but I do invite anyone thinking I had info to consider the question. It's WIFOM, but so is the argument that I did have info.

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

nutella wrote:I see I've already gotten a vote for not being around much. I'm just now checking in, I am having quite a busy week.

I think that Bullz is, or is one of the teammates of, one of the people who got info. That means that I think there is more than 1/3 chance that he is bad because I think it is likely that the baddie who got info told their teammates. As Epi points out I find it unlikely that all of the team members would vote for it, I wouldn't doubt that a couple of them would, and that there is therefore a greater chance that Bullz is on a baddie team than that he is a civ or indie.

Unfortunately, of course, I can't vote for him. So I'll have to resort to other Day 1 crap. Like maybe the Mac/Matt thing, but as I already said I think that both of them are fucking around uselessly and I'm kind of indifferent to both.

Who says I had info at all? If I did, and especially if I was the baddie who did, what logical reason would I have for making my vote stand out? It just doesn't make sense.

So you didn't have info? I'm not really sure where the 'bullz has info' thing came from.

No, I did not. Some people have theorised that I might have had. No idea why nutella leapt to the conclusion that I definitely did. I don't really have anything more to say about it though.

sig wrote:The only reasoning you gave for a Dom lynch is that you think from his tone you could be bad. So anyone else who votes on Dom would either think the same thing or follow your vote based on good faith/trust of your read. Also I don't trust you enough on day 1 to follow your vote, which is why I'm not your vote comes down to nothing but a small meta/tone read. I find it very curios MM voted for Dom.

@MM why did you go with a Dom lynch.

See, what I find unusual is that you saw fit to explain this but didn't mention why you haven't followed anybody else's vote. It's not as if Epi's thoughts on Dom have been a hot topic. Your specific mention of it comes a little bit out of the blue IMO.

I want to get my vote out now so I can get to bed since I'm super tired. I will be *Voting Sig* because I feel like his random mention of the Epi/Dom thing looks like a forced attempt to appear involved. It just doesn't sit right with me. I have an eye on Nutella for similar reasons.

sig wrote:First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

The phrasing of this post bothers me... There's been one mafia kill all game, so how can you say what they're 'currently' doing? One point isn't even a line, let alone a pattern. It makes it sound to me like you know what the mafia's current plan is.

HamburgerBoy wrote:"Currently" just means "at present", which is clearly the case if we're talking about the most recent nightkill, even if it was only a single one. Not to mention that it assumes a scumteam made some kind of mandate that they are going to exclusively kill low-posters in the future; I seriously doubt a scumteam would be that inflexible. That case looks like a forced "scumslip" that rarely actually catches someone, and from what I can tell, people have a habit of doing it to sig with poor results. Note that Long Con, who flipped scum day 2, was going after sig for that.

Thank you, DictionaryBoy, for explaining what currently means :P It's still an odd way to phrase it. If there'd been a few kills in this game so far, it'd make more sense IMO. In my experience baddies often do make specific plans for how they're going to kill, by no means set in stone but as a "if we don't need to kill anyone in particular we may as well kill a low poster". Saying "the baddies are currently killing low posters so Timmer's death is unsurprising" doesn't make sense given that the baddies of this game weren't 'currently' doing anything until they killed Timmer. It was just something that caught my eye, but the fact that so many other people seem to agree with me makes me more confident. Especially when this is at least the second time I've noticed you defending Sig this game.

Linki - nice NO U there. I have other suspicions than you and wasn't necessarily going to vote for you today, but keep digging that hole.

sig wrote:Just dropping this underlined is one of the times Bulls puts words in my mouth.

Bullzeye wrote:
Thank you, DictionaryBoy, for explaining what currently means :P It's still an odd way to phrase it. If there'd been a few kills in this game so far, it'd make more sense IMO. In my experience baddies often do make specific plans for how they're going to kill, by no means set in stone but as a "if we don't need to kill anyone in particular we may as well kill a low poster". Saying "the baddies are currently killing low posters so Timmer's death is unsurprising" doesn't make sense given that the baddies of this game weren't 'currently' doing anything until they killed Timmer. It was just something that caught my eye, but the fact that so many other people seem to agree with me makes me more confident. Especially when this is at least the second time I've noticed you defending Sig this game.

Linki - nice NO U there. I have other suspicions than you and wasn't necessarily going to vote for you today, but keep digging that hole.

While I actually said

Bullzeye wrote:

sig wrote:First off I don't find Timmers death strange at all. The mafia team is currently killing low poster/lurkers he made almost no posts so nothing to trace back to the mafia team. This reminds me of SVS strategy in Frisky Dingo but that is quite a common mafia strategy so it probably nothing. But it was worth noting.

Besides that I would be willing to lynch Canucklehead right know but it appears she is off the poll.
@BUGLABUSH current thoughts on the game?

The phrasing of this post bothers me... There's been one mafia kill all game, so how can you say what they're 'currently' doing? One point isn't even a line, let alone a pattern. It makes it sound to me like you know what the mafia's current plan is.

I don't like this at all, he jumps at me for a wording choice and then twist and even changes what I say to fit his view.

I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.

It's relevant because you're trying to create the narrative that it was unsurprising because he knew about the timmer kill before the rest of us did. You're willfully ignoring the context of that post, where golden had described the kill as "very odd". Some people found it surprising, so he provided his explanation for why he didn't.

That isn't what I'm doing at all. What I'm saying is his explanation doesn't add up. His comments implied an observable pattern to the baddies' actions that does not exist in this game. You and he are majorly overreacting to the suspicion that the comment brought on, which gives me cause to suspect both of you even more.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

LoRab wrote:Also, why is Hamburger Boy defending you? And with almost the same words?

Anyone know if HB is the kind of player to defend a teammate?

I defended him the exact same way during Talking Heads, and even put him at the top of my rainbow for good measure on the feeling that scum almost never gets hit by weak "scumslip" accusations. There have been plenty of cases on RYM where I defend players because I feel they are being targeted for minor things (scumslips, low post count, etc), in multiple games. And it's not altruistic, I think that scumslip arguments are lazy and distract players from trying to find real scum.

It's not just the slip though, it's his reaction too. Not to mention your continued defense. If he does turn out to be a baddie, I'll be voting for you next.

Linki - So you think someone who claimed to have been surprised by Timmer's death was lying? Meaning they knew in advance he'd be killed? Who?

Also you literally say not finding it strange means you weren't shocked. Shocked and surprised mean the same thing unless you're talking about electricity.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I fail to see how rephrasing not finding his death strange to being unsurprised is twisting your words. If you didn't find it strange, how can you have been surprised? You're really overreacting to what started off as a fairly minor thing.

It's relevant because you're trying to create the narrative that it was unsurprising because he knew about the timmer kill before the rest of us did. You're willfully ignoring the context of that post, where golden had described the kill as "very odd". Some people found it surprising, so he provided his explanation for why he didn't.

That isn't what I'm doing at all. What I'm saying is his explanation doesn't add up. His comments implied an observable pattern to the baddies' actions that does not exist in this game. You and he are majorly overreacting to the suspicion that the comment brought on, which gives me cause to suspect both of you even more.

That entire argument is based on his use of the word "currently". Do I have to be DictionaryBoy again? "Currently" does not inherently make a statement of what has happened previously. If you're going to make a semantic argument to lynch a player, make sure that you at least get it right.

My argument for Sig being bad is now based on his reaction to the argument that he might have had prior knowledge of the baddies plans based on his use of the word "currently". While it is a fine word to have used, and does indeed simply mean at the present time, it still suggests that there is something in progress. Timmer is the only person to have been NKed so far. To say that the baddies are 'currently killing low posters' based on that information is as accurate as saying they're currently killing people whose names begin with T, or are planning to eliminate all the men.

sig wrote:Just as I said in my last post this was the same way LC tried to get me lynched and many others in the past.Bulls is know using the threat that if I'm bad they will lynch HB next in an attempt to get HB to stop defending me. This is a very typical scum threat when someone opposes a lynch.

linki: Your know just being foolish, why would either of your things make sense. It is a logical thought especially for day 1, are you saying I would make such a scum slip, and in said slip reveal the mafia plan to only kill low posters? I'm quite insulted you think my scum play would be that bad.

HB is welcome to defend you all he likes. I'm just saying that he should know what to expect.

Neither of those things make sense, that is true. But your point makes as much sense as they do, there is the same amount of supporting evidence for each one. Which is why your comment is a strange one to have made for someone who doesn't have access to what the baddies are planning. The feigned offense is also a classic baddie move. I've got it perfected.

HamburgerBoy wrote:So what is it about his reaction that particularly pinged you? He didn't even reply until three people suddenly bandwagoned your case within a single hour. Your response to his reply was literally "nice NO U there" when he actually asked specific questions pertaining to the case on him.

Okay so first there's you responding to the suspicion for him: Comes off as potentially a defense from a teammate.

Then there's the fact that rather than simply address the suspicion he immediately went to "the person suspecting me is a baddie".

Referring to me as "attacking him".

Claiming I was twisting his words by using a synonym.

Going as far as to play the classic "you must think I'm stupid" card.

He has scrambled to take the case against him and twist it into his own argument for me being a baddie trying to set him up. You are his stalwart protector, guarding him at every turn. It just doesn't look good on either of you.

sig wrote:I am seeing the difference . When people in the thread pretend to be so shocked by his death. This is more scummy then myself not being shocked by it and I still say there is a difference. it is very small wording but paraphrasing what I said in a way that appears to make what I said slightly more scummy is pingy.
"so hope you don't think I'm twisitng your words by saying baddie" You seem to be acting slightly inmature here. baddie scum it is the same changing my words right after quoting me isn't. Especially when Bull's argument revolves around a SPECIFIC word, if Bulls argument is based on that which it is then yes it does matter when later in trying to get me lynched he says I said something I didn't say. That you fail to comprehend the importance when Bulls whole argument is based around my wording is strange.

Okay you said shocked instead of surprised, but unless you meant to say "I was not electrocuted as a result of Timmer's death" then it's quite fair to rephrase your shock as surprise. The difference between baddie and scum in a mafia sense really is the same as the difference between shocked and surprised.

shock
verb
past tense: shocked; past participle: shocked
1.
cause (someone) to feel surprised and upset.

I don't think it makes you appear any more or less scummy if I refer to you being surprised rather than shocked at something

a2thezebra wrote:Stupid fucking English language is going to cost us the game lmao

"Us"?





I'm just kidding :P

for now

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Okay so first there's you responding to the suspicion for him: Comes off as potentially a defense from a teammate.

Then there's the fact that rather than simply address the suspicion he immediately went to "the person suspecting me is a baddie".

Referring to me as "attacking him".

Claiming I was twisting his words by using a synonym.

Going as far as to play the classic "you must think I'm stupid" card.

He has scrambled to take the case against him and twist it into his own argument for me being a baddie trying to set him up. You are his stalwart protector, guarding him at every turn. It just doesn't look good on either of you.

My defense has nothing to do with his reaction, that's not an answer.

You are attacking him, just as I am attacking you now. That's how you build cases and lynches in the game.

The other points seem valid in this kind of an argument. You are taking a couple of words he used and trying to make them into grounds for suspicion. If he flips civvie, how do you think that will make your case look, if it is discovered he had no special insight?

If he is a civ, it will be a shame for him to be lynched. However, I alone will not be responsible for such a thing. I've not even voted yet. I'm probably going to vote Sig when I do, yes, but unless everyone else's vote doesn't count mine alone won't kill him. Plenty of people are wrong in their suspicions every game. I think the case against Sig is strong, and if he flips civ it will still have been a strong case. A wrong case, yes, but not one that was inherently bad.

I don't think he is a civ though. I think he is bad for his reaction and for the fact that you are so adamantly defending him despite having no obvious reason to do so. I don't think his points have any validity to them. He acts as if I'm doing some terrible malicious thing by replacing a word with one of its synonyms and claims I'm a nitpicking baddie all because I'd made one post saying his choice of words looked strange.

Linki - I'm one of the civs. I was making a joke because "us" could refer to any of the factions at play here.

sig wrote:This isn't my thoughts but is basically the same as Bulls argument on me I just substituted the situation.

Notice In my third line I said Zebra said our team instead of us this is basically the same by definition but just different enough to make it seem slightly more sinister.

linki: Notices Bull's has already set up there defense for when I flip civ? Just the right amount of remorse while already pinning the blame on the other people who might vote for me and even though Bulls is the one pushing my wagon it won't be their fault. This is a strong case no matter how I flip so even when I flip civ it won't mattersince my case was strong, I wasn't the first to vote for him, and it will be to bad.

Three things scum so commonly say when trying to lynch a civ, also another point Bulls says he isn't the first to vote for me this is true, however he is the one pushing my lynch and is waiting until it gains enough steam to vote on it. This stops Bulls from looking as scummy. His whole posts reeks of scummyness he has just pre lynch given his reason for why he won't be a baddie when I flip civ. This doesn't seem strange that Bull's is already defending his vote on me as if I already flipped civ and he is in the hotseat for pushing a civ wagon>

I'm not defending my vote I was responding to a hypothetical situation. I'm not pushing this case. I'm defending it from your attempts to twist it and make me out to be bad. If other people see what I'm seeing they're welcome to follow me in a vote. I think you're bad. If I'm wrong I will admit to having been wrong and will accept whatever consequence people deem necessary but I won't pretend that being wrong makes me bad. I'm not waiting for anything to gain steam. I'll vote you now if you like.

*Votes Sig*

The reason I'd held off on voting, and the reason I almost always do, is because I like to wait til near the end of lynches to cast my vote. It comes from years of playing games where votes can't be changed, so my mindset is that before I commit to anything I'd like to have seen as much discussion as possible and taken advantage of the available time to weigh my options. Even though I know changeable votes are practically the norm now, I still can't shake the attitude. Old habits.

sig wrote:Zebra I don't have much off an opinion on you right know I will ISO and have one tomorrow. I'm not sure about you, but today wouldn't be a good day to vote for you would it.

I still think Bulls is mafia, but I would like other peoples thoughts on matter both this and non related.
@Turnip head, Epi, and Matt what are your views on Zebra and Bulls?

I'd also like to point out I think Bulls has know placed a vote on me based around my previous post. I think I was completely right about his post and he is trying to make it seem like this isn't true by know placing a vote.

I voted you because I hadn't voted for you yet. I'd have voted you before going to bed anyway. You just asked for it (in a figurative sense, before you accuse me of twisting your words again) and sped the process up by like an hour.

sig wrote:linki: Zebra I don't thing you understand me pointing out the Us thing at all. Iim NOT trying to get you lynched by saying that I am showing how absurd it is. My point is that it is so stupid and makes no sense since it takes a simply word and twists it to mean something it doesn't which is the same thing bulls did do my post. Then any response given will be bad since he is lynching me with no case but based off of a little word. There is no way to properly defend yourself when there is no case and everything I've said in my defense has been shot down by people who want me lynched. Since I'm either reacting wrongly, or my tone is based or my defense is weak.

I think she is right that ridiculing the case against you is not a civ move. The reason your defenses are being shot down is that your defenses don't address the suspicion properly. Rather than acknowledge that the overall meaning of your post can be interpreted as if you had accidentally revealed baddie plans, you twist it around and make it about the meanings of individual words as well as accusing your accusers of being bad based purely on them suspecting you.

sig wrote:So tell me how should I have responded? Should I have ignored Bulls then I would be accused of scum for ignoring his case.
I change my mind about the early post I think both Bulls and Zebra are scum.

Ignoring me would've made me bring the case back up and ask you for comments directly. If you'd have continued to ignore me I'd have strongly considered voting for you. Immediately NO Uing me had the same effect. There are ways you could have approached this case - calmer, more reasonable ways. You didn't choose those ways.

Linki HB - Meta is only worth so much in cases based on something that was potentially an unintended slip. The whole point of the suspicion begins with the idea Sig said something he wasn't supposed to say, without thinking of the consequences. You can't really use intentional past actions to dispute that IMO.

Matt - I'm only accusing HB if Sig is also bad. Even you can't deny it's weird to be so strongly invested in the continued existence of someone whose alignment he shouldn't be able to know.

sig wrote:@LoRab your right it was rude of me to call you inmature and I'm sorry for saying it. However I still stand by what I say while baddie/scum mean the same the word difference that Bulls used is I believe to be done on purpose in an attempt to make me look less clean. I dislike what you said and I believe you purposely missed my point. Because I will stand by what I said there is a difference between my word and his..

See my previous post re: definition of shocked including the word surprise. The word difference I employed was not an attempt to do anything.

sig wrote:So I should have admitted that your case was right when it isn't? I'm notgoing to validate why you should lynch me I'm going to defend myself. What I'm interpenetrating from your post is no matter what I could have done you would have pursued my lynch. I've caught a few people in the past by doing this and I find the reason for your suspicion to be suspicious as well as your response. Your argument started based around individual wording, I've played mafia games with people who purposely change wording just enough or use small things to further their case. Look at my past game (TH) and you can see the reason I first mentioned LC was based around calling me the other guy, something thatwhen I said nobody took seriously but he ended up flipping mafia. It is the same with you changing my wording.

How should I address the suspicion on me? In my early posts I in fact did I said why I mentioned Timmer, gave the reasoning for mywording, and even answered the question people kept asking in the thread about Timmer. You ignored what I said and then said that was weak so you're wrong here I answered you just ignored it.

I would never expect someone to 'admit my case was right' regardless of whether or not it was. That would be silly. My point is you didn't acknowledge the actual reason for the case against you and instead chose to go for the strawman. You are just flinging out accusations to those who disagree with you and picking at minor things like synonym use (adverb theory on drugs?) for no clear reason.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Stupid fucking English language is going to cost us the game lmao

Who's "us"?

I already made that joke.

HamburgerBoy wrote: and the only other person to reply was Bullzeye who took his request and tried to use it as a case against him, since he was already going against sig even on day 1. Interesting that he makes the same argument against sig being made this day: sig making a mountain out of nothing, and that nothing ends up ballooning into a bandwagon anyways.

When I voted Sig on day one, it was for a minor ping because I didn't have anything better to go on other than my trusty fallback of the day 1 low poster vote. The fact that Sig continued to make me even more suspicious of him is nothing to do with me, if he hadn't made the post that kicked off today's discussion I might never have voted for him again. You and he are the ones who've made mountains out of molehills.

Golden wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:"Currently" just means "at present", which is clearly the case if we're talking about the most recent nightkill, even if it was only a single one. Not to mention that it assumes a scumteam made some kind of mandate that they are going to exclusively kill low-posters in the future; I seriously doubt a scumteam would be that inflexible. That case looks like a forced "scumslip" that rarely actually catches someone, and from what I can tell, people have a habit of doing it to sig with poor results. Note that Long Con, who flipped scum day 2, was going after sig for that.

I agree that sig gets lynched for scumslips too often.

I also don't think the word 'currently' is a scumslip, but I'll see what I think of sig as a whole when I see his responses. I would use the word 'currently', if I felt it was a trend that was existing on the site over several recent games.

Take the word currently out of the post entirely. Then it just says the baddies are killing low posters. It still doesn't make sense because you can't infer a pattern from one point of data. It still looks suspicious IMO. It's not the fact he said currently that I find suspicious. It's the implications behind the post as a whole. I would encourage you to read sig and HB's responses, and also consider why HB is defending sig so hard if they aren't teammates.

sig wrote:Did Splint say why she votedfor me or was it just a fly by?

linki: Nevermind Splint did you read my initial post and Bull's reasons for pursuing me? Do you find me saying the mafia is probably killing low posters to be suspicious?

The word probably was nowhere near that post. You said it was something they were doing. There was no implication of uncertainty.

sig wrote:I am
In regards to Epi's initial post not only was I not scum I was the only player who was correct and voted for the remaining scum.
Know I'll admit I can come across as scummy when I'm not but with zebras comment on scumtells. As scum I don't usually make these tells only as a civ do I do this. THis usually only happens within the first few phases when someone finds a reason to start a bandwagon and multiply people jump on it. Usually the people who push my wagon and start them are scum, such as Bull's. Quite possibly zebra as well, but I'm unsure on that.

The fact that your immediate defense is to call me bad for ever daring to suspect you is why you look so bad to me. Literally the only reason you're calling me bad is because I said it about you first.

Golden wrote: I do feel, though, like nutella is racking up the connections while literally no-one but me is coming to sig's defence. I think thats what it is mostly. It doesn't even feel like anyone is subtly leading the thread away from him. Sig had such an early and easy bandwagon, with no-one who wanted to stand up for him. It seemed very easy.

Literally nobody was defending Sig? No one at all? Ever? I must have hallucinated HB's constant pushy defense of him (which began before Sig even started to defend himself). That's one of the big reasons I suspect him, the fact that HB has been so obsessively defensive of him. I don't think you understand my case against Sig at all.

Golden wrote:What really amazes me is that noone is taking their vote OFF the sig train.

Isn't it obvious by now? It feels like it to me.

Even if I hadn't been in bed at 2am, I'd have left my vote where it was. What's so obvious?

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:Golden, how sure are you?

Well, I mean, how long is a piece of string?

But I do really feel it, like, what is there to sig's case. He used the word 'currently' when describing the mafia's kill. No-one has really been sticking up for him until I started to. He was the run away early leader in the lynch. He is like the cliche easy town bandwagon.

If you think the word currently is seriously the foundation of the Sig case, you don't understand it well enough to be arguing against it.

Surviving a lynch tells us nothing about alignment. I'll most probably continue to vote Sig as he remains my top suspect.

I prefer cats. Dogs take more effort, cats are happy to take care of themselves for the most part. Plus I've always had pet cats.

sig wrote:@Bulls your right I didn't say probably but this once again points to what I said right before the day ended, the amount of posts and the lengths of the posts plus the amount of time I spent defending myself, the fact I'm gonna need to do it again tomorrow and just RL tiredness, it will be easy to find a small thing to pick at which you just did.

Also it was what they were doing. I already said why I think you're bad I didn't call you bad day 1 did I when you originally voted for me? I said you were bad based on your posts and the reason for your lynch vote on me. You've literally made excuses to when I flip civ how it isn't your fault that is scummy.

Your reason for thinking I'm bad basically amounted to me being the first person to point out the suspicious nature of one of your posts. I haven't "made excuses" at all. What I said was that if you are a civ (or even if you aren't) then I alone am not responsible for your lynch because others will also have voted. That doesn't mean I'm not at all responsible, just that finding a suspicious civvie suspicious doesn't make someone a baddie. The case against you is strong because you are simply not acting in a pro-civ manner IMO. If you are a civ, this knowledge doesn't retroactively make everything you've said and done okay.

Typhoony wrote: I don't think sig is bad, but from just reading his posts, I cannot fault anyone for voting him. I hope we don't have the same endless discussion surrounding him Day 3, since all that could be said surrounding it has been said imo. Let's move on.

I partially agree with this. I still think Sig is bad and will probably continue to vote for him, since I think he should be lynched. However I'll be looking at other suspects as well tomorrow since there's nothing new I can say about Sig - we just go around in circles and it's helping nobody. In fact it might actually be helping baddies since they have this big thing going on that they can use to be blendy and hide around.

Possibly a stupid question but are we able to cast one vote now and add the second later or do both have to be cast at the same time?

Note: I'm not asking if it's allowed, I'm asking if it's possible.

Awesome. In that case: *Voting Sig* now and gonna go look at the group 2 members to decide which one of them I also want to lynch.

I have a couple of hours to spare, might do a bit of a read-through of the group 2 members to see if I turn anything useful up. My group 1 vote is almost definitely staying where it is, though I do have two other potential suspects in there.

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Awesome. In that case: *Voting Sig* now and gonna go look at the group 2 members to decide which one of them I also want to lynch.

Are you really just going to tunnel down this road?

If so, then I'm really just going to tunnel down the road of trying to prevent sigs lynch, again.

Tell me why I shouldn't.

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Awesome. In that case: *Voting Sig* now and gonna go look at the group 2 members to decide which one of them I also want to lynch.

Are you really just going to tunnel down this road?

If so, then I'm really just going to tunnel down the road of trying to prevent sigs lynch, again.

Tell me why I shouldn't.

Because you are incorrect, even though I believe you are sincere.

But that isn't a real explanation. I've already pointed out the flaws in your argument against Sig's lynch and to be honest, your claim to be the only one defending him (when probably a third of HB's posts are doing the same) makes me wonder about your intentions.

Golden, please explain to me in your own words the main points in the case against Sig. I genuinely believe you don't either properly understand it or have deliberately misrepresented it in the past.

Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

It's not a solid theory, I'll grant you. But you could be hoping he's civ, you could even be completely genuine in your belief he's civ and still be defending him to gain credit. If he's independent (and not blatantly civ-unfriendly) then I'll still be sorry to have gone after him because indies aren't baddies and I'm in the business of lynching baddies.

Linki - I don't see why he couldn't be on the team that killed Timmer. In fact that was the basis of my initial ping which he overreacted to. I also don't see why he wouldn't have killed Zebra - arguably she was pursuing him more aggressively than I was. It takes away some of the heat and now there's only one voice arguing for his death and three arguing against it. Perhaps they did want to kill me and I just wasn't in range for any of them to get me. Either way he benefits from her death and nobody wants to get into the WIFOM pit of would he or wouldn't he kill someone who suspected him.

I'm not setting you up and I don't think I'm tunneling. I have a suspicion and I'm sticking with it because I haven't seen any reason not to. You yourself admit I'm sincere. All you've given me in Sig's defense is "don't lynch him because I say so" and misrepresentations of why I suspect him in the first place as well as obviously false statements about being the only person to defend him.

As far as Nutella and Bubbles are concerned, I vaguely suspect Nutella (for possibly outdated reasons so I'll be returning to her later/tomorrow) and haven't got up to Bubbles in my read yet.

Here are a handful of opinions on the various members of group two. I will get around to doing group one as well either later tonight (depending on how long this takes) or tomorrow).


Almost nothing at all to go on. Would like to see more content from him which is actually useful. I know he's new, but I feel like if he were bad he'd be being coached a lot better than this. Bugla, if you do need help understanding the game feel free to ask questions in the thread no matter how stupid you think they might be. None of us are total dicks who will laugh at a newbie trying to get into the game. Your current lack of content makes it difficult to get a read on you and eventually many of us will be forced to assume that's deliberate.


Fewer posts than Bugla but more content. Interestingly, her day 1 bandwagon vote for Banana (who was already leading the lynch with 2 votes against a random selection of 1s) had possibly the weakest reason to vote for a newbie on day 1:

Canucklehead wrote:

Golden wrote:I'm looking through ISOs to try and find some pings to actually work off and I'm getting a really clear picture.... so many people are not giving much, it's no wonder there is little to go on.

So, I'm going to ask some specific people some specific questions, and I really want these people to answer these questions. It's time to start generating content.

Bubbles, Canuck, dfaraday, Timmer, splints, rey?

Where are you guys? Are you civilian-aligned? Do you have any opinions on people you think are town? Do you have any opinions on who you think are bad?

I'm here on my couch with my dog, about to leave for curling in about 10 minutes. I support the civ cause. I do not. I do not.

I'm voting banana for having an obnoxious username.

This is then her only defense after the lynch:

Canucklehead wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:nutella, explain to me what you mean by "pseudo-random" and then tell me why she shouldn't be my number one suspect. I have played with her before and granted, it's been a while, but I am familiar enough with her meta to understand how lightheartedly she plays, which is why I made clear that if her throwaway vote was on a throwaway candidate, or even herself, I could understand. But Banana, after two votes at that point? Hell no. That is inexcusable.

I don't actually think we've ever played together....
I also can't fathom why in the world you'd think I needed my vote to be "excusable".

Odd post, this.

I can't fathom why in the world she'd think she didn't need to excuse her incredibly flimsy bandwagon vote. This doesn't look good for Canuck, IMO.


Yay, somebody with content to read! I don't think I agree with Epi that Dom's day 1 posts are full of bet-hedging. I think he went about asking a reasonable set of questions for someone trying to find something to sink his teeth into the way Dom does. Some of his later day 1 posts come off as annoyed, but understandably so IMO. Self-preservation vote on the Bananawagon is forgivable - everyone would've done the same. It also didn't make any difference since he was last to vote and Banana was already 1 ahead, so I don't think it means much at all. I don't think this post makes much sense though:

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:What are your top, say, three or four scum reads Epi? This question is open to SVS as well. And Floyd. And anyone.

Dom, S~V~S, and nutella.

So anyone who disagrees with you?


TBH, Epig, your suspicion of me boils down to the fact that you like to suspect people and you needed someone to latch onto-- and it hasn't been me for awhile. I'm not bad and you STILL haven't told me if you are or not.

Llama would be rolling in his grave (as should you).

Why would Epi tell you if he was bad? It makes me think of the urban legend that undercover cops have to be honest if asked whether or not they're a cop. It's not a damning point against Epi that he hasn't (at that point) denied being bad.

As far as the stuff between him and Mac goes, I'm not sure exactly how I feel yet. If someone told me one of them was definitely bad I'd lean towards Mac just based on Dom's content. I don't think I've ever seen a baddie Dom but what I'm seeing here isn't wildly different from his attitude in many of the games I've played with him as a civ. Ultimately though, I'm not 100% sold either way. Going with neutral for the time being.


All I can really say about her based on her 8 posts is that her vote for Banana seems pretty well justified. It was because of his actual behaviour (ie his vote) and not his name or out of self-preservation. Need more content before anything more can be said of her, but then that's not too unexpected of a civ Elo.


Anyone want a good example of why low poster =/= low content? 10 posts here but a decent amount to look at. She's clearly putting in some effort and that alone makes me think well of Splints here. Fairly blendy though, especially with regard to the Sig case which she apparently "sees" despite there being a couple of different perspectives. What do you like/dislike about the case?

This:

fingersplints wrote:I'm not sure "no one is sticking up for him" is the great indicator of civvieness that Golden is making it out to be. Baddies bus each other all the time. Especially early and when a potential slip is involved.

Is a good point but Golden wasn't telling the truth anyway and anyone familiar enough with the Sig case should've known that since one of the major points is HB's constant defenses. She does read a little blendy but also like she's trying to get involved and have her voice heard, if that makes sense. I'm not too sure how to feel about her.


Okay so I should admit I'm coming into this one already biased since I suspect HB is a Sig teammate. These defenses actually started on Day 1, where he criticised my practically-a-throwaway Sig vote and eyed Epi for questioning him. If Sig does flip bad, I'll be voting HB next.

When he talks about things that don't involve the Sig case, he actually comes off fairly genuine. However, I really don't trust him and any analysis of his posts is going to be affected by that, so I will leave him for others to read over and make their own choices. I will say that I do think he's onto something with Golden though. More on that in a later post, but the gist is I also think Golden is potentially bad just not on the same team as Sig and/or HB.

As HB is only a suspect of mine depending on Sig's alignment, I don't think I'll be voting him today.


Slightly more talkative than his fellow new players (not too surprising given one is dead), I will extend the same invitation to Luke that I did to Bugla earlier in this post: If you're struggling, ask people questions. He has been doing that a little and his posts feel reasonable. I'd say Luke looks more civ than Bug does. He comes off as someone who is genuinely alone in the game and trying to find his feet IMO.


3 posts. No content, nothing to form an opinion on. I seem to recall LC saying he was getting replaced? Kind of a shame, I like playing with Rey


I always want to trust SVS. I don't understand her day 1 vote though. For someone who dislikes voting newbies on day 1, it seems a fairly weak reason to break this tradition. Not to mention, I'm not seeing how Banana's vote was "opportunistic" in any way given that it was the very first vote of the game. Her vote also broke the three-way tie between Banana, Bugla, and Dom. Could be significant later on if either of the other two turn out to be bad - I could see a baddie SVS voting a newbie and hating having done it just to save her own teammate's neck. This is all completely hypothetical though and I don't currently suspect either of the other two. That's also the only point I really see against SVS here, otherwise she looks relatively clean IMO. Not the best looking in the group, not the worst either.


Having seen Floyd's baddie play at work, I don't think I'm seeing that here. It was no lie that he was lost in TH. Here he seems to have a better grasp on things, and looks more confident in his position. I don't think I'm seeing his baddie game here, but I would like to see more content from Floyd in general.


I do think it's suspicious that she seems to imply she isn't bad in this game because she has yet to be a baddie in other games. Not saying "I'm not a baddie" is not an inherently suspicious thing - nobody is going to honestly say the opposite so it's a meaningless gesture really. But to say that she's a civ because she always is isn't right at all. I'm 99% sure LC didn't think while assigning the roles that he'd best give Bubbles a civ one as is tradition.

I also find it suspicious that she NO U's Golden saying that he of all people should be able to tell she's not mafia. Why should he? This makes no sense and does not make Bubbles look good.


He has a fair amount of posts but I don't have an awful lot to say about him. He seems legit enough to me, I don't think he's bad.


Not seeing a lot to make me suspicious of Typh here. His Bugla vote on day 1 feels weird to me even with the explanation but I don't think that means much.


Overall this hasn't really achieved much. Most of the people here are neutral to civ reads for me atm. I think the people who look most suspicious in group 2 are:

HB (mostly for reasons related to my Sig suspicion)
Bubbles (for implying we shouldn't suspect her because she's never been bad before)
Canuck (terrible reasoning for her day 1 vote, refusal to explain)

Splints would be a very distant fourth because she does slightly come across as blendy. I think she's significantly less suspicious than the other three though. Everyone else I'm either neutral or leaning civ. I will vote for Bubbles or Canuck as my group 2 vote since my suspicion of HB depends on my being right about Sig.

2 hours of linki - mostly with myself!

Going to make a start on Group 1 as well now - Since that last post took 2 hours and 20 minutes at least, I might end up cutting it short and carry on in the morning.

juliets wrote:Nice analysis Bullz. I agree with you on almost everything. I'm currently looking at sig for my group 1 vote and not sure for group two. I did put some questions out to Tiny Bubbles and Canuck though because I need to get a little bit better read on both of them. They are both considerations for my vote in the group 2 category.

I saw your questions to Bubbles in the linki, JC, and the phrase 'great minds think alike' came to mind :P I'm torn between deciding who looks worse of those two (though it is possible to vote both since Bubbles missed the night vote) and am hoping for them both to post today so I too can get a better read on the pair. I don't honestly know which I'd vote for right now if there were only 10 minutes left on the poll.

Yes your vote was silly Canuck, but it was also a silly vote smack in the middle of a civ bandwagon and you must admit that looks suspicious.

Golden wrote: I know him being on the team that killed timmer is the basis of your original suspicion. It's also the basis for me saying the case doesn't stack up. Because I am all but certain sig is not on the team that killed timmer. That is why I'm so strong on defending him.

Like I say, I could be otherwise wrong that sig is not on the other bad team or not indy, but I know that case (that he is on team circle of decay) is bad. That's why I'm defending him so hard.

But WHY are you so sure? You've given me nothing to work with. If you're right then I want to be convinced by you. I have a lot of respect for you as a player and value your opinion if you're civ but you are not helping me at all here. All you're saying is Sig isn't bad and you know it. HB put more effort into defending Sig than you have tbh and yet you've claimed to be Sig's only defender, which does not sit well with me. What exactly is so bad about the case? Don't say it's because of the word 'currently' either. I've already said that if you remove the word from the sentence it still implies knowledge of the baddies' motives. Besides, it's Sig's (over)reactions to the suspicion that are why I suspect him. That and HB's continuous defenses.

Golden wrote:Perhaps we could lynch bubbles and it might give you some insight into, at least, whether or not my ideas as to who killed timmer can be trusted

I've given you everything I can, bullz. I've made it clear that the problem with my case is that I do not believe sig killed timmer, and I will never believe that. It's not the word 'currently', although I do think the entire case revolves around that because it's sigs responses to the conversation which make him look bad to you, but just like normal civ sig digging his own grave to me.

But primarily it's because for sig to have insight he would have to be on the team that killed timmer, and I do not believe he is.

I can't say I mind lynching Bubbles, but that won't tell me an awful lot about you given that she is a generally suspicious person this game. As for Sig, it's entirely possible to me he's on the team that didn't kill Timmer and just overreacted to people discussing suspicions of him and saying that there was a decent case to be made. I've already explained why I don't think it's unreasonable for his team to have killed Zebra.

Linki Sig - I don't know what you'll flip but strongly suspect it will be mafia. I'm not prematurely defending myself. I haven't twisted anyone's words (and have proven, with dictionary definitions, that it wasn't wrong of me to replace 'shocked' with 'surprised') and I'm quite within my rights to suspect people who defend people I suspect. That is a reasonable and logical thing for a person to do.

sig wrote:If I'm on the team that didn't kill Timmer then we killed Zebra tonight? That makes no sense it might have removed someone who would vote for me but it increases mychances of getting lynched.
Know I think your on the team that killed Zebra, in an attempt to get me lynched.
Obviously team 2 is trying to get me lynched Zebra had only many gone after me and this further puts me in the hot seat.

I wouldn't have killed Zebra because she was agreeing with me a lot. I don't kill people I think will stick by my side. WIFOM, but ask anyone I've been bad with. I like to have friends in the thread when I'm a baddie. Killing Zebra works in your favour because now I'm the only person arguing you should be lynched, while three people (You, HB, Golden) are arguing against me. You'll also get a lot of people wavering with the typical "surely he wouldn't have done something so obvious" WIFOM.

Turnip Head wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote: I know him being on the team that killed timmer is the basis of your original suspicion. It's also the basis for me saying the case doesn't stack up. Because I am all but certain sig is not on the team that killed timmer. That is why I'm so strong on defending him.

Like I say, I could be otherwise wrong that sig is not on the other bad team or not indy, but I know that case (that he is on team circle of decay) is bad. That's why I'm defending him so hard.

But WHY are you so sure? You've given me nothing to work with. If you're right then I want to be convinced by you. I have a lot of respect for you as a player and value your opinion if you're civ but you are not helping me at all here. All you're saying is Sig isn't bad and you know it. HB put more effort into defending Sig than you have tbh and yet you've claimed to be Sig's only defender, which does not sit well with me. What exactly is so bad about the case? Don't say it's because of the word 'currently' either. I've already said that if you remove the word from the sentence it still implies knowledge of the baddies' motives. Besides, it's Sig's (over)reactions to the suspicion that are why I suspect him. That and HB's continuous defenses.

Per the underlined, what does sig gain from sharing knowledge of the baddies' motives to the thread if he's bad? I don't think it makes any sense for sig to make that post if he has inside info, because there's nothing to be gained from posting it in the first place.

Per the bolded, you are the poster boy for overreacting to suspicion.

I don't think he intentionally shared info. He said the baddies are killing low posters as if it was a sure thing that we all understood to be the case in this game. How could he know that? As to your other point I'm not sure what exactly you expect me to say to that.

Okay here are a handful of opinions on the people in group one. I have exempted those who missed the night poll and fell into both groups. If you can't live without reading my perspective on Elo, Rey, Bubbles, or TH, then feel free to check the group 2 post I made earlier (probably like 9 hours ago by the time this is done).


Civviest of the civs. Very attractive, very intelligent, very awesome. Not much more needs to be said.


Always a quiet one... His vote for Sig is actually supported by his own views, which goes a good way toward making him not look like he's trying to be blendy IMO. It would've been easy for him to just sneak onto that bandwagon. I also don't see anything wrong with his two votes today. Neutral read for now, not enough content to make me lean strongly one way or the other but I do think his attempts to not be blendy look good for him.


I disagree with his suspicion of Dom but I think he's genuine in his pursuit of it. I find him generally good, if a bit nitpicky about language (but when isn't Epi?). He does make a good point against an otherwise relatively decent seeming SVS here:

Epignosis wrote: "I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs." Full post here.

Look carefully. The first sentence talks about new people. After that, she only talks about low posters.

Not the same class of people.

S~V~S does not like lynching new people Day 1. Yet she lynched a new person Day 1.

That warrants discussion.

I think Epi comes off as his usual civ self here. Not seen anything crazy to make me think bad.


I've already made some of my views on Golden known. I have a slight suspicion of him based on his defenses of Sig - namely that he mischaracterises the case against him and claims to have been Sig's only defender despite HB's ton of posts arguing in Sig's favour. I'm actually surprised HB didn't make a bigger deal out of that. If I'd put in a lot of effort to do something and then someone else showed up trying to take all the credit, I'd have a few things to say to them. HB also actually put in real effort to defend Sig while Golden's defense adds up to "I say don't do it". I think HB's defenses are more real than Golden's.

Anyway... forgetting all of that, his points about Bubbles are good. As I've already said, I don't think not claiming to be civ is a thing to be suspicious of, but he is right to suspect her for pointing out her track record as evidence of her civ-ness. I don't have much else to say about him really. I lean towards distrust.


I like what I'm seeing from JC. She comes across very sincere and is making genuine attempts to find suspects. Her Banana vote is also one of the more reasonable. Her Sig vote on day 2 is also well put together and thought out. I think she's civ.


Y'know, I'm surprised to see LoRab only has 37 posts so far. I thought I'd seen loads from her. I think her day one suspicion of Mac comes from an honest position and she did raise some reasonable points against him that could be worth keeping in mind. Has supported me a fair bit on the Sig case and overall hasn't said anything I disagree with. I don't think she's bad, leaning towards a civ read.


He has too many posts, let's lynch him. On a serious note, as above, I do think LoRab was justified in suspecting Mac on day one. His whole thing against Matt is not a civ-friendly thing to do and he doesn't come off well in his discussion with LoRab IMO. Of course, his vote didn't end day one with Matt. He voted Dom in deference to Epi, which is not something I associate with civ-friendly behaviour as he puts all the accountability for his vote onto Epi. Bounced his vote around a ton on day 2, which makes it hard for me to figure out who he actually suspects and whether at any point he intended to leave his vote on a person only to change his mind or if he always meant for it to end up on JC. Overall, I don't think I want to trust him at this stage. Neutral/bad read.


Standard Reasonable (as opposed to Crazy) Matt here. I never really know what to think of him. I don't have reason to suspect him yet though.


Meh, I dunno. He doesn't seem bad but he doesn't seem all that great either. I'm finding it hard to form an opinion either way based on all he's said so far. Neutral read for now.


I had some suspicion of her on day one for similar reasons as Epi suspected Dom - I felt like she was trying to look involved by getting out non-controversial opinions on topics she wouldn't have to commit to. I was her number 1 suspect until it became possible to vote for me, for instance. She also has defended Canuck more than Canuck has defended herself. She said she was wary of the Sig bandwagon but then voted him anyway. Interestingly, hers was the 7th vote for Sig and she had four (out of an eventual five) herself at the time, yet implies her Sig vote was motivated by self-preservation. Not sure how much I buy that. Comments on Sig's survival that it's 'interesting' but doesn't tell us anything - we already knew that so this just looks like an attempt to be blendy IMO. If she were in Group 2 I'd probably vote her today.


Do you even have to ask? My number 1 suspect.


Was a civ, and since he's replaced back in he clearly hasn't had the chance to say anything. So I'm leaving him out of this since there's no point analysing what doesn't exist.


TH makes a good point that most of Tranq's posts only focus on Floyd, Bugla, and Luke. It's really easy to focus on low-posting newbies (and I still consider Floyd a new player - especially if he's civ in this game it'll be his first time alone). He's since shifted to look at Bubbles and mentioned Nutella as well so I'll see how that progresses but for now I don't feel great about Tranq.


A few suspects here. In order, I'd say I find the following people suspicious:

Sig
Nutella
Golden
Mac
Tranq (very distantly, probably more accurate to say I think he's the least not-suspicious of Group 1)

Obviously this omits those who are in Group 2, as well as my suspects from that Group. I suppose in order of most-least, my suspicion list would look something like this:

Sig
HB
Bubbles
Nutella
Golden
Canuck
Mac
Tranq
Splints

Tranq and Splints are fairly close to being off that list altogether, while Mac is also someone I could easily be talked away from.

Turnip Head wrote: My point is why would sig even say that? It doesn't benefit him to say that. It makes no sense. That makes me think he was just speculating and worded his speculation poorly.

So why not just say that instead of immediately NO Uing everyone who dared to question his intentions?