The Syndicate

Checking in - all games I'll be a little less present, probably, this and Dune need to be my last games for the year, I'm just a bit too busy to play as much as I'd like. But I'll be about.

Hosties - If someone loses their win condition, does that mean they are unable to win while they have no win condition - or does it mean that they have a different win condition?

I've satisfied myself as to Mac's motives in the Dune thread - I don't feel the need to rehash it here.

I will only say, that I will not be voting MattF for policy reasons, and I would never vote for anyone because I had decided they were unhelpful for the town. Even if I could make that judgment, for all I know, in any given game, that person is the cop and they will be very helpful and nail the entire baddie team. I just don't agree with the logic. I agree with those who say it feels unproductive.

I haven't seen anything which leaps out at me yet, but I'll put a preliminary vote on Sorsha since votes are changeable. I'm not sure what is going on with her posting that same thing in both threads but it gave me a bad vibe, like it's covering for something in one game or the other. The problem is I have no reason to determine which one.

Also, I probably won't vote for Epi, just for saying 'man titties'.

Hey LoRab, you are twirling early. I assume that means you have nothing to hide?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:I've satisfied myself as to Mac's motives in the Dune thread - I don't feel the need to rehash it here.

I will only say, that I will not be voting MattF for policy reasons, and I would never vote for anyone because I had decided they were unhelpful for the town. Even if I could make that judgment, for all I know, in any given game, that person is the cop and they will be very helpful and nail the entire baddie team. I just don't agree with the logic. I agree with those who say it feels unproductive.

I haven't seen anything which leaps out at me yet, but I'll put a preliminary vote on Sorsha since votes are changeable. I'm not sure what is going on with her posting that same thing in both threads but it gave me a bad vibe, like it's covering for something in one game or the other. The problem is I have no reason to determine which one.

Also, I probably won't vote for Epi, just for saying 'man titties'.

Epignosis is off the poll sillypants.

Well, I definitely won't vote for Epi, primarily for saying 'man titties', but also in part for not even being competent enough to get himself on the poll.

Sorsha wrote:I posted it on both games because he said the same thing in both games! Lol.. I don't get how that's suspish but ok!

I have the feeling if I hadn't said it in both games someone would say "why'd you say that here but not in the other game?"

It's not the fact you posted it in both games that is suspicious. It's the fact you posted it at all. I think it sets you up for an easy MattF lynch, which could be to your advantage. In at least one game.

Sorsha wrote:So if I go with that train of thought I'd be more likely to vote Mac, since this could be seen as the same type of situation, I think.

I completely agree with this. The irony of Mac's original stance was strong and virtually was begging for a vote. But in the Dune thread I drilled down a bit more, and was satisfied with Mac's answers, and so my final thinking was that I wasn't going to go for that train of thought at all. If Mac had continued to avow a desire to vote for MattF on every day of every game until MattF died, rather than simply expressing a policy lynch concept and looking for reactions, I would have been very likely to vote for Mac.

Typhoony wrote:So when is the game actually starting?

Now. Games don't start until you arrive to get the party started.

S~V~S wrote:i am a bit confused with this. Are you saying that becasue his answers in the Dune thread were to your liking, that you think he's good in THIS thread?

But you're voting for Sorsha for posting the same thing in both threads, although Mac did the identical thing?

No, to both.

I am saying that I am comfortable that I don't find the Mac stuff suspicious in itself.
And that I find Sorsha suspicious, but not because she posted the same thing in both threads.

sig wrote:BANANA vote is interesting won't put to much weight into it right know would like to see some posts though don't worry i won't bite...........much.

This Mac/Matt thing and so many of the same players is confusing me, but I might as well state the same thing. I know off policy lynches I dislike policy lynches, but MAc's vote isn't that suspicious.

@Golden why do you find Sorsha suspicious?

Golden wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I posted it on both games because he said the same thing in both games! Lol.. I don't get how that's suspish but ok!

I have the feeling if I hadn't said it in both games someone would say "why'd you say that here but not in the other game?"

It's not the fact you posted it in both games that is suspicious. It's the fact you posted it at all. I think it sets you up for an easy MattF lynch, which could be to your advantage. In at least one game.

Because I think Sorsha agreeing with Mac's policy lynch is far more suspicious than mac having raised it in the first place, and I felt like it is not what I'd normally expect from civ sorsha (feels kinda off) and because its an easy way to set up for a Matt vote later.

Also:

Long Con wrote:I guess I should say something. It's a generally understood rule that you don't discuss ongoing games outside of the game thread. No more Dune talk. It doesn't matter what's going on in that game when you are here.

I want to make clear again that I do not suspect Sorsha because of anything she did in any place except this thread.

I apologise for raising the point that she said what she said in BOTH threads. I clearly confused people, including Sorsha. It's hard to navigate around why you find someone suspicious for something when they say the same thing in two games at once, without acknowledging that fact. As with Sorsha, I didn't want the fact that I was only saying something in one game to be used against me. I find the comment from Sorsha suspicious. Full stop. I voted for her because votes are changeable. I hope this clears up any doubt that I am trying to bring another thread into this game, it is not my intent.

@SVS - perhaps it's not how you read it because I'm trying very hard NOT to conflate the threads, which then becomes something which you sort of think I am doing.

But, for me, posting the same thoughts on the same people in both threads would only further hurt the attempt to separate the threads, but I think I did the opposite instead.

My point is:

I don't find Mac suspicious for his MattF stuff
I do find Sorsha suspicious for following Mac into the MattF stuff.

I don't think Mac is 'good' because I find his answers to my liking. In a rainbow list, I'd have him in the middle, grey neutral.

Friends may stick together, but don't forget that you might be on different sides in this game.

Matt F wrote:In case anyone is interested (without having to go check the polls thread), voters of Progressive include:

Metalmarsh, Bullzeye, Floyd, SVS, Epig, BWT

If one baddie was told this would remove them from the lynch poll, I'm willing to bet he told his team. Unless LC barred such action?

Do we suppose the civ, Mafia, and indy were told that Long Con would tell the town that "one civ, Mafia, and Indy knew at the outset?" or did our host keep that info to himself when letting these players know?

You'd have to be daft to have your whole team pile on, though, right?

Plus, in the case of at least some of these people (Epi, Marmot, I'm pretty sure SVS), I know prog is also the truthful answer.

I feel like my minor ping vote has been on Sorsha long enough, for now I'm moving it to Timmer the absent, someone who I want to hear from.

I'd also say that... being taken off the poll is not really friendly towards any one particular faction, the way that often different options are when each faction has a person with info on the poll. Do we know people had info or are we theorising? Should we assume that, if someone had info that prog would take you off the poll, that person would be bad?

Communicating outside the thread does not necessarily mean illegal btsc. I'd say, for instance, that if I had a close friend playing who I was introducing to mafia its entirely possible we might talk about the fact of playing and co-ordinate to be around and post at the same time without it being illegal btsc.

And you did forget the fourth possibility, which is actual game btsc that is not illegal, although that seems unlikely.

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.

MattF - if we are to read into day zero polls - and I'm of the view it can be useful sometimes - I agree that SVS seemed the most deliberate and careful vote. It's not even a ping, for me, nothing to justify a vote any time soon. But it could be something that becomes more relevant to look back on if we have the chance to learn more as the game goes on.

LoRab wrote:And you miss the other possibility, that they have BTSC in the game. While Golden throws that out as not likely, I'm not so sure. Occam's Razor and all.

Well, not so likely that four real life friends, three of whom are playing for the first time, happen to all be a faction with btsc (eg baddies). So from my perspective it was an Occam's Razor thing too, not a firm statement.

I'm going to continue to vote for an absent canadian, but I feel like canuck is the better bet to timmer right now. I'd like both to turn up and contribute, though.

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?

Buglabush, Banana, Luke?

How are you finding this game so far? Are you finding anything confusing? Do you feel like you have a good idea of what to do? Do you have any opinions on specific people? Why are you all so quiet?

Tranq, Typhoony?

What is your perspective on the game so far? Do you see anything that you think is noteworthy? Is there a reason that you are not saying much, and if so what is that reason?

Nutella, BWT, Eloh?

You have been a little involved, but haven't said much to give me an idea of your perspective on things. Are you civilian aligned? If I claimed you were just trying to look involved, and not really being involved, would you call that a fair assessment? Who would be your biggest suspect right now?

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:I'm going to continue to vote for an absent canadian, but I feel like canuck is the better bet to timmer right now. I'd like both to turn up and contribute, though.

Why do you think Canuck is a better bet? Do you think her no-showiness (until just now, lol) is more suspicious than Timmers no-showiness (until just now too)?

And although I generally don't love voting for nubs on Day One, not a fan of Nanananas vote. It seems pretty opportunistic to me.

In reading my ISOs, Canuck's little pedantic pink extract felt like someone who had paid more attention to the game than many of the other absentees.

@SVS - what are 'all the other things going on in the thread'. In my assessment, there is virtually nothing going on in the thread. That's exactly why I asked all those questions?

I have to vote for someone. Some people who I actually do have minor pings on (Floyd and MM) aren't on the poll.

I did just explain exactly why I voted for Canuck. There is nothing more to it, you can look at her iso yourself easily enough. Whereas other absentees feel like they may not even be paying attention, clearly Canuck is.

I don't intend my vote to remain on Canuck, but I'm trying to find the best option in circumstances where I'm not feeling great about the options. I'm hoping that my discussions might begin to lead to some conversation that would allow an informed vote.

linki - wtf @ bugla and floyd?

That helps, for now. Buglabush is already a better option, so that's where I'll vote for now.

BUGLABUSH wrote:Wanna be friends guys

I'll be your friend if you give opinions on other people in the thread and explain whether you think they are good or bad and why

MacDougall wrote:This buglabush stuff is strange as fuck. He has barely made a post of any substance. Epi's point on Dom has very little post content to go by but is rational. These buglabush votes are there with no pretense. There are far better lynch candidates. These votes are too effortless.

Why would anyone who values their vote low enough to throw it away on buglabush not instead put epi's scumdar to the test on a dom vote? If your fucking vote means so little to you put it here please.

It is rather effortless, I agree. But that three post passage... buglabush saying hi, floyd voting buglabush, buglabush saying bye.... that three post passage...

Well actually, thinking more about it, it feels almost like a ploy to try to get buglabush lynched, so maybe i shouldn't be so hasty.

Why do you think Epi's gut is worth testing? I think I already have a pretty good read on epi's scumdar, without needing to use dom as a lab rat. In this case, he may be right or may be wrong, but I'm also wary of the possibility of Epi doing something to his own ends.

Switching my vote to bubbles.

Bubbles would normally say 'I am town'.

For her to say "Am I bad? Go by my track record" looks to me... suspiciously like someone trying to avoid saying that she is civ.

I think Dom is town.

If bubbles is bad, I'm prefectly happy to give you partial credit, zebra. My point, though, is specifically meta, in that bubbles more or less leaps out of her skin to claim she is civ in every game.

Sorsha wrote:Voted for Black Rock

Voted for Long Lizard.

On the subject of SVS and epi, I don't see anything that makes me think either of them are bad, but if I knew one of them was bad my money would be on epi.

Also, I find the timmer kill very odd.

Voting nutella, for an early placeholder. Matt, I think your case holds a lot of merit.

@Mac - why do you think dom, specifically, was getting the save? Could it not have been buglabush? Even yesterday, you seemed to be quite firm on the idea of Dom being bad, but I'm not sure I've ever really caught the gist of why you suspected him (then). I agree with your points about Dom being opportunistic today, but I've been in heated arguments with Dom before where I've thought his reactions to my suspicion of him were opportunistic NO U approaches, and he has been civilian.

I feel like you've almost flipped a switch between earlier day one 'lets test epi's scumdar' and later day one putting a lot of pressure on for Dom to be the lynch. Is it all about the voting patterns and it feeling like a save came in? Or is there more to it I haven't quite understood.

nutella wrote:Why were you two, Golden and Dom, so quick to jump on me for something that wasn't even explicitly a case on me, and why did neither of you mention Sorsha at all?

Because votes are changeable and in those games I like to be 'quick to jump on' whatever I see that I find convincing.

Would I have jumped on it as quick if votes were not changeable? No.

Also, because I already suspected you before Matt's case, and although I might not have jumped in with a vote so early in the day, you were still my first point of examination for today. And I think it's inaccurate to say Matt's case is on Sorsha not you. My read is that the case is that you and Sorsha are baddie teammates, but I find the statements about you more convincing... Sorsha could have been distancing, but it also could have been virtually random. The fact it didn't break the tie, however... I know how conspicuous it can feel to do that when bad, it's a real lose lose. Actually it's a lose lose when you are civ too.

This is a long way of saying that... before catching up on whats happened in the thread today, you are my top suspect. I see sig is taking some votes, but I don't know why yet. It's not like I'm determined you are bad... but I feel like you are a good place for a vote.

Dom wrote: Golden, can you explain what I've been opportunistic on?

I feel that Mac is inconsistent at best or a liar at worst.

Separate post for addressing Mac now.

Your Mac suspicion.

But opportunistic does not necessarily mean insincere. All I meant to express was 'I can understand Mac's suspicion today, but not before that'. I don't think Mac is right about you.

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.

I've caught up on all the sig stuff and... I think voting for sig is a bad idea.

I don't think the case is strong, and besides that it seems like more or less everyone is happy lynching him. The bandwagon is coming together far too easily. It doesn't feel right to me.

@Sorsha - the more you post, the more I feel like my initial instincts about you were wrong. You are feeling relatively townish to me at the moment.

@Mac - you remind me a little of talking heads mac, in that I can't quite get a read on what parts of what you are saying are serious and what parts are not. I don't think this is necessarily a bad sign for you (even though you were bad in that game) but I would like to get a clear sense of, I guess, the hierarchy of your suspicions, since you seem to be throwing a lot out there.

I don't agree with a lot of the votes going on in this day. A lot of the people who are taking a lot of discussion and votes I have an active civ vibe from. HBoy, SVS, Dom... I think all are civ.

Why I really think Nutella might be bad, though... just a hunch.

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?

Buglabush, Banana, Luke?

How are you finding this game so far? Are you finding anything confusing? Do you feel like you have a good idea of what to do? Do you have any opinions on specific people? Why are you all so quiet?

Tranq, Typhoony?

What is your perspective on the game so far? Do you see anything that you think is noteworthy? Is there a reason that you are not saying much, and if so what is that reason?

Nutella, BWT, Eloh?

You have been a little involved, but haven't said much to give me an idea of your perspective on things. Are you civilian aligned? If I claimed you were just trying to look involved, and not really being involved, would you call that a fair assessment? Who would be your biggest suspect right now?

I was paying careful attention to who answered what of the questions I posed each of them. Here was nutellas response to me:

nutella wrote:

Golden wrote: Nutella, BWT, Eloh?

You have been a little involved, but haven't said much to give me an idea of your perspective on things. Are you civilian aligned? If I claimed you were just trying to look involved, and not really being involved, would you call that a fair assessment? Who would be your biggest suspect right now?

I am catching up when I can, a couple times a day, and posting once per catch-up. So I am not putting a huge amount of effort into getting involved, but I'm also not deliberately holding back. I always find it hard to have many thoughts on Day 1. I suppoooose my biggest suspect is Bullz, sorta, kinda, just for lack of thoughts on other people at this point. But I can't vote for him. I'm a little curious about the Epi/Dom discussion (but Epi is also off the poll and idk if I'd be convinced to vote Dom). I am very confused by Buglabush and might consider a vote there.

It did not escape my attention that nutella did not answer one question... specifically "are you civilian aligned". It didn't bother me so much in the moment, but...

Then I called out bubbles for the same thing, that she had not answered that question, and nutella said...

nutella wrote:The Bubbles catch is interesting indeed. I don't feel like it merits a vote yet -- I'd like to see her response first.

The whole thing just irks me. Then Matt pointed out the stuff around the Sorsha vote. It all just adds up to a lot of shadiness from nutella, for me. Things that don't add up.

And then nutella comes right in and makes me doubt by agreeing with sorsha lol.

I will say... the problem I have this game is I'm getting a lot more civ pings than scum pings. Nutella is my biggest scum ping, but its much smaller than I feel I'd usually have by day 2.

nutella wrote:Alright, fair enough. I kind of fail to see how Sorsha and I could look like teammates, but okay, you are welcome to suspect me. I have nothing to hide

I don't think you look like teammates, either, but I wasn't convinced by the sorsha part of his case. I guess - well, as you'll see from above, I already had my eye on you.

It makes me doubt my read on you. That post is the one I've got the best civvie vibe from you on.

nutella wrote:The fact that Bubbles hadn't stated that she was civ was particuarly notable since that is her signature MO.

I completely agree with this. It's why I found bubbles suspicious and didn't really find it notable that you missed the question, at first. If it had pinged me the first time around I would have been saying I was suspicious of you at the time. It was only, all the things adding up together, you know what I mean?

I honestly don't know what to do with my vote today. Luke's vote for sig feels most bandwagonny, but it's not like a newbie vote worked out for us yesterday... not that I'm saying it wouldn't today. There is the possibility the banana vote was a save, but if so... I wonder if bugla is the likelier option than dom.

juliets wrote:

Golden wrote:

nutella wrote:The fact that Bubbles hadn't stated that she was civ was particuarly notable since that is her signature MO.

I completely agree with this. It's why I found bubbles suspicious and didn't really find it notable that you missed the question, at first. If it had pinged me the first time around I would have been saying I was suspicious of you at the time. It was only, all the things adding up together, you know what I mean?

I honestly don't know what to do with my vote today. Luke's vote for sig feels most bandwagonny, but it's not like a newbie vote worked out for us yesterday... not that I'm saying it wouldn't today. There is the possibility the banana vote was a save, but if so... I wonder if bugla is the likelier option than dom.

Golden, you voted for Bubbles yesterday are you considering voting for her today? If so, for the same reason or is there something additional?

I'm not considering a vote for bubbles today. She isn't on the poll.

I don't think Sig is a good choice for the lynch, I think his bandwagon has come together too easily, and I would probably use my vote in his defence if needed. I am not really sure how he stands at 5 votes.

a2thezebra wrote:sig's defenses make no sense from a civvie perspective. Who else would I vote for, Golden?

Civvie sig's defenses rarely make 'sense', as such, he ties himself into knots. I don't think, however, that as a baddie he would come out and say that the baddies are 'currently' doing x, it doesn't make sense to me as being a scumslip. Plus, the bandwagon has been too easy.

Who else do you suspect? What do you think of the points that have been made on nutella? Are there other people I should be looking at? I don't really have a good idea of who people should vote for, but I think I've had a decent idea of who we shouldn't vote for. I'm not putting my vote anywhere in the dom/svs/epi triangle.

@Sorsha - there are not specific players in there that I'm suspicious of, as such, but it wouldn't surprise me if the existing votes include one or two mafia. I think Bullzeye was sincere in making his case.

a2thezebra wrote:I have a neutral read on nutella right now. Gun to my head, civvie or baddie, I would go with baddie. But I don't trust that lynch.

Is that because you don't trust me?

I feel like votes for bugla were justified as well. I took mine off by the end, but if I hadn't I would be sticking up for it. And if I'd been around for end of day and seen banana coming up like that, I would probably have put my vote back on bugla.

Sorsha wrote:I wasn't particularly suspicious of Nutella for voting me yesterday, at the time the only thing that pinged me was it kind of being a throw away vote when there was a heated race going on.

SVS- how good of a judge do you think you are of Nutella based on past games?

Same question to Matt and golden.

A mixed judge. I don't have any meta reasons for suspecting nutella.

I don't really have a sense of Mac's affiliation in this game, but he made his upcoming absence pretty clear yesterday. I'm not going to look favourably on any mac bandwagon that happens in his absence.

linki@epi - why on earth would I start anything with 'kathy bates is hot'? Is this what you teach your kids when you are mixing film analysis with grammar lessons?

S~V~S wrote:Epi, quick tip~ in Brooklyn, "That's bullshit" means everything from "I had to stay 5 minutes late at work" to "my spouse is having an affair" to "I swear, Mom, I did not cut class" to "I think the blue carpet is better than the beige one". It's fairly inclusive as opposed to being exclusive.

Sorry for lack of clarity; I thought I answered it, it did not occur to me that you literally wanted to know what i meant by the actual word "bullshit" lol. I was talking about the content of the bullshit.

I thought you were from Minnesota?

S~V~S wrote:Linki @ Golden, WTF? I used to live in Montana, for almost 20 years, but I grew up in Brooklyn, and have been back in New York for almost 4 years.

I must be getting you confused with Henry Gale.

(Also known as - slight geography fail. Minnesota... Montana... that's not so far off...

I knew you were in New York for the last few years, but I didn't know you were born there!)