The Syndicate

I switched my vote to DFaraday. I'm actually pretty happy with the candidates for how this lynch is turning out. My original theory on baddie recruiters was that they might pick someone like DF, and I think the fact many others are thinking that way has perhaps suggested that there is something to it in the end.

I think it ironic that the conversation that I had with SVS, that started epi's entire think with me, has ultimately been the same kind of thinking that is determining the lynch in the end.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:I think people would have been wise to vote epi, but oh well. Never mind.
Is there a compelling reason beyond the potential that he won't ever be on Golden's team?

Apparently there is no compelling reason.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me
You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?
might could be

Why? Whats the baddie motive?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:My best case scenario for today (and luckily, the statistically most likely one) is that we lynch a neutral.
Exactly. That's why I am saying that voting epi is a perfectly good strategy for me. Because I think he is probably neutral, and even if not he will be bad, not civ.
If I was a civilian recruiter I would be very willing to recruit Epignosis.

I don't mean he will permanently not be civ. I mean I do not believe his mindset is one of a civ right now.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me
You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?
might could be
Why? Whats the baddie motive?
I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

You are telling me that is is 'well established' that recruiters don't have control over the recruits. If that is true, what sense does it make that me being a recruiter would make any odds to my certainty?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.

Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.
Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.
I don't agree with that, especially not when he has been fielded in discussion as a good choice for a baddie recruit. More importantly, I perceive that as a huge guess and not as meaningful as actual suspicious behavior.

Well, no one wants to vote epi, who I think has had the most actual suspicious behaviour.

The other votes are mostly on bass, who I think is exactly the same as DFaraday.

I'm not opposed to a BWT vote.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me
You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?
might could be
Why? Whats the baddie motive?
I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?
You are telling me that is is 'well established' that recruiters don't have control over the recruits. If that is true, what sense does it make that me being a recruiter would make any odds to my certainty?
It HAS been established that recruiters don't get to pick a name to recruit every time because of the host post saying as much. That alone should tell you that you can't 100% guarantee that the two of you won't end up on a team. Are you really going to ignore this? You are smarter than that. You know very well that you can't make that guarantee but you continue to pretend like it is a legit perspective.

Rey - read this conversation back. You are contradicting yourself all over. Why does my original statement make me bad?

You say it's because it makes sense if I'm a recruiter.

Look at this:

golden wrote:If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

reywaS wrote:the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event

So which is it - that it's well established recruiters don't have control over the event....

Or that the comment makes me look like I'm bad because it makes me look like I have control over the event...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I really think we can do better than defaulting to a vote for a player simply because he hasn't been present on Day 1. I don't like the DFaraday option.
Why not? I didn't vote for him because he was absent on day one. I voted for him because he is a good choice for a baddie recruit.
I don't agree with that, especially not when he has been fielded in discussion as a good choice for a baddie recruit. More importantly, I perceive that as a huge guess and not as meaningful as actual suspicious behavior.
Well, no one wants to vote epi, who I think has had the most actual suspicious behaviour.

The other votes are mostly on bass, who I think is exactly the same as DFaraday.

I'm not opposed to a BWT vote.
What do you think of Bass's proposed theory re: MP and llama in his most recent post?

I'd lynch BWT before DF.

Bass's theory doesn't register as a ping on bass.

I agree that some hosts would make sure their recruiters would not be someone who is likely to flake. I think there are a lot of people in this game who are not likely too flake. Bass's theory makes it look to me like he is trying to solve the game, although putting it specifically on llama or MP, I dunno, I'll have to think about it.

JJ, what do you think of rey's recent posts. They read like he can't keep his thought process straight, to me.

I would be pretty ok with the lynch not being stopped.

@JJ - someone who seems like another role (ie they don't come back as themselves when their role card is revealed).

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:JJ, what do you think of rey's recent posts. They read like he can't keep his thought process straight, to me.
I interpret him as seeing what he thinks is a logical discrepancy in your content and perceiving it to be a sign of insincerity. I don't necessarily agree with him on that front, but I can understand why he'd take that position. What has he said that has suggested to you that he might be jumbling his thought process?

He said he thinks it shows the mindset of a recruiter who has control over recruiting (ie someone who is certain they can make sure they won't be on a team with epi), while simultaneously saying the original statement is wrong because recruiters don't have control over recruiting (ie I can't be certain I won't be on a team with epi).

Rey, where has it been established?

Oh, it's been established because there is one contest that I didn't enter?

That doesn't make sense, because if epi wins the contest I'm still not on his team. and I'm not going to be winning it.

Also, the recruiter still has control...

@JJ - I think he perceives a logical inconsistency in my posts where there is none, whereas I actually found a logical inconsistency in his posts which actually exists. I think any indicator that someone can't keep their thoughts straight is an indicator that their thoughts may not be genuine, and I see it as inherently negative.

@rey - having a dialogue with JJ regularly helps me interpret my own thoughts.

I voted BWT.

@dom - I'm listening. I haven't really noticed scotty this game.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:Oh, it's been established because there is one contest that I didn't enter?

That doesn't make sense, because if epi wins the contest I'm still not on his team. and I'm not going to be winning it.

Also, the recruiter still has control...

@JJ - I think he perceives a logical inconsistency in my posts where there is none, whereas I actually found a logical inconsistency in his posts which actually exists. I think any indicator that someone can't keep their thoughts straight is an indicator that their thoughts may not be genuine, and I see it as inherently negative.

@rey - having a dialogue with JJ regularly helps me interpret my own thoughts.
Are you serious? It's one specific recruitment, yes..but it sets a precedent. It tells us that the recruiters will not have 100% control over who they recruit every time. Therefore, you cannot be so sure that you will never end up on a team with Epig. FFS man. Are you really going to play this dumb on this?

If I never enter a contest, I can never be recruited by way of one. So it sets a precedent I have entire control over.

I cannot be sure I will never end up on a team with Epi, because who knows what the hosts have in mind, which I already admitted ages ago. I can only be certain that anyone who chooses to recruit me to that team is making a mistake.

The problem here is how you stepped to the next thing - the fact that I said that makes me bad, based on your own assessment that it is 'well established' I won't be able to prevent it.

You still haven't been able to give a good reason for why it makes me bad.

You said it's because maybe I'm a recruiter who has control over it, but that negates your entire premise.

linki @SVS - I'm sure it is. But I haven't played any of them, something that is 'well established' in the thread. So why does rey think it is so 'well established' that my comment is full of shit?

OK, well why does it make me bad, then?

Because that was your answer last time I asked. I don't hold tightly on to things because I feel like it. I hold tightly on to the reasons people give me themselves. That's the reason you gave me.

Just like with epi, when he originally said his view was one thing but then he changed his mind to something else.

I didn't need to no u you on this. I asked you why it made you ponder. It was an opportunity for you to think about it and realise that what I said doesn't actually make any more sense coming from a baddie recruiter than it does coming from anyone else. If not your original answer, please tell me why you think it makes more sense coming from a baddie than it does to be coming from someone who is neutral.

@rey - I'm not playing dumb with the details. If anything, I think you are playing dumb with the details, insisting they support your statements when they don't.

You've even played dumb with the details of my own posting this morning, ignoring the bits that don't suit you, like the times I've admitted that my original statement might not be correct.

Doesn't mean I didn't think it was correct when I made it, and you are pointing at a contest for a baddie recruit as the single bit of evidence that I should have known it couldn't be certain.

I've also made it pretty clear multiple times that my point is people would be wise not to try to recruit me on to epi's team.

Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:This post.

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

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.
Scotty has never played a RM before. Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous games. Scotty would not know about this. Scotty must have been told about this.
Unless I am misinterpreting the highlighted line...

Additionally, this is a huge contradiction. "Random vote"-->I think SVS is bad???
How do you suppose a Scotty with BTSC would have come upon this information? If his BTSC partner told him, how did that player know?
A person who had played RMs before would know.

I don't even understand the point that is being made? What would he have been told in btsc?

Rey, read your own post.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me
You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?
might could be
Why? Whats the baddie motive?
I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

The question I asked you is 'what is the baddie motive'.

Your response is really clear - that the only way it makes sense for me to say it is if I am a recruiter who has some control over recruitment.

BUT - the whole premise of the conversation was me saying 'why does it make me bad IF it has been well established that recruiters don't have control'.

Essentially, you are admitting yourself that - my post doesn't make any sense from ANYONE. Recruiters or otherwise.

So why does it make you ponder, and why does it make me bad? It's not that hard.

Oh, then I'm sorry I didn't understand that a response to my question 'what is the baddie motive' was not you answering my question.

But I'd still like you to answer it.

Oh, would it? That is interesting.

Who was it that said they were reading recruitment 3. Was that scotty or someone else?

I hope BWT is bad. I think it would have been wiser to lynch epi, but perhaps we could return to that tomorrow.

Boy, I don't think I've taken so much bullshit suspicion on day one before.

1) Answering a question thoroughly
2) Using the word but
3) Thinking that the point of recruitment mafia was recruiters recruiting.

I think thats a record for me.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:Oh, then I'm sorry I didn't understand that a response to my question 'what is the baddie motive' was not you answering my question.

But I'd still like you to answer it.
I don't know what the baddie motive is for it. If you read my post more clearly you would see that I said that it doesn't make sense for you to think that way even as a recruiter. That is not why I think you could be bad. You do not sound sincere to me. It's that simple. Epig basically made the same argument about a different post from you and you kept trying to argue semantics with him over the content of the posts like you are with me right now.

Fine. I think you are not being sincere. You seemed to recognise my argument with epi as civvie golden just fine.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:Oh, then I'm sorry I didn't understand that a response to my question 'what is the baddie motive' was not you answering my question.

But I'd still like you to answer it.
I don't know what the baddie motive is for it. If you read my post more clearly you would see that I said that it doesn't make sense for you to think that way even as a recruiter. That is not why I think you could be bad. You do not sound sincere to me. It's that simple. Epig basically made the same argument about a different post from you and you kept trying to argue semantics with him over the content of the posts like you are with me right now.
Fine. I think you are not being sincere. You seemed to recognise my argument with epi as civvie golden just fine.
I didn't perceive the events through Epig's point of view. I read it differently that he did. I drew the parallel to his argument because they are similar. Just because I read the two situations differently, it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Fair enough.

You are wrong, but I feel way better about you than I do about epi. Having worked through your thought process, I can understand where things went wrong and I do not think it was any intent on your part to misrepresent.

On the other hand, I think you should read my posts again and recognise that my posts about epi were (and are) emotionally charged and that my primary meaning is that I don't think epi would be wanting me recruited to his team and I won't recruit him to mine, and for this reason it is no skin off my nose to see him lynched. I recognise this falls short of the 'certainty' I said yesterday. But lynching someone who is best case neutral who I don't think will ever be aligned with me makes sense to me.

Spacedaisy wrote:And golden, you sound extremely over emotional. It doesn't help you to threaten to kill epi no matter what alignment you or he end up in.

I was over emotional yesterday. I am not today, even if I sound it. It may not help me to threaten to kill epi, but it helps others. No recruiter should be under any illusion and make the mistake of deliberately recruiting us both to the same team.

BWT also went awfully quiet when he started taking votes. Like someone who might not want to create any more potential incrimination, possibly.

Or like the person in control of the lynch stop, possibly, lol.

Black Rock wrote:
The day was ended early, unfortunately we were at work. We know have to count votes from that time back. Please have patience.

Interesting.

DharmaHelper wrote:Supreme Judge - Children of Serenity
Position 1: End day period early

?

I would assume so.

I wonder when.

Dom wrote:
bea wrote: I'm currently unsure of which is more user friendly - collecting all my thoughts in one long post with no quotes or posting like 1000 times as I catch up. I welcome suggestions but doubt I will see them till I get to the end of this. I'm so far behind I don't know how teefies flipped yet.
Neither do we.

We don't even know IF teefies flipped.

I voted 5 again.

I can't really remember the analysis I did about it last time but it was my preferred option then so I may as well stick with it.

I thought option 3 was bad, surprised to see it so popular.

Also, I'm 4 glad BWT survived. His comment when he thought he was lynched seemed sincere to me (and just a little sad).

Ricochet wrote:So my theory so far is shaping up like this:

if the stats are correct that a 1-vote 11-player tie took place and a player gets lynched through randomization, then it must mean the player who got lynched survived the lynch, according to his position 1

ergo any of the following players (BWT, Canuck, Epignosis, Golden, MP, Russ, SVS, Tranq, Unfurl, Wilgy - I'm not, but feel free to throw me in as well; I would have super dead and super pissed if I would have been lynched or if the Day would have ended with me having two votes) can be:

Ubzargan the Ruthless - Immune to NK/Lynch
Jilted Lover - Can’t die as long as ? alive

I don't believe that Lord of Thunder's +/-3 votes would have changed this situation, if he already manipulated something by the time the Day ended. either he added votes and then there is definitely a specific survivor, which Lordy may now choose to try to hint at; either he substracted votes and it's still a large pool of tied players and the theory above still applies, but with vague chances of pinpointing at anyone in particular

same with Windscout, we don't know how many votes he can take down, but I doubt it's up to 10

I'm not sure if The Immortal's random power can activate during the Day, but even if it can, it's really a stretch to imagine that he protected someone that early and the stars aligned so that the one person he randomly protected was the one person that randomly got lynched; plus, we haven't seen a second death

same with Terras. can he protect during the Day? if so, same stretch of the imagination

If I missed anything, let me know, but so far I believe this to be the conclusion: our non-lynched player today is Uzbargan or the Jilted Lover. unfortunately we have 11 candidates for this spot

My thoughts on your theory

1) BR and LC needed to figure out the vote situation, so I don't think it likely that the lynch was simply stopped (unless there is another reason for them to need to do the count back).

2) I'm not so quick to discount the Lord of Thunder. He could theoretically given +3 votes to anyone and the person he gave them to could be Ubzargan/jilted lover. This would still require LC/BR to do a countback. That means that there is a 50% chance that literally any player could have been leading the vote.

3) But there is a 50% chance thunder said minus three.

Ricochet wrote:
Golden wrote:
My thoughts on your theory

1) BR and LC needed to figure out the vote situation, so I don't think it likely that the lynch was simply stopped (unless there is another reason for them to need to do the count back).

2) I'm not so quick to discount the Lord of Thunder. He could theoretically given +3 votes to anyone and the person he gave them to could be Ubzargan/jilted lover. This would still require LC/BR to do a countback. That means that there is a 50% chance that literally any player could have been leading the vote.

3) But there is a 50% chance thunder said minus three.
I guess it's possible, lol, I did kinda forget added votes can include everyone else, but the "picking" in Thunder's role sounded like there would be need for something for him to pick from. Maybe this needs clarification? I didn't really discard him, however, what I said still applies: if anyone actually had more than 1 vote (thanks to him), that player's our survivor, but we can't tell and only Thunder can hint at that; if everyone was tied at 1, including players added thanks to him, we can't tell who survived; if anyone from the tie had his vote removed thanks to him, we can't tell who among the others is the survivor (and neither can him).

I don't get anything about the lynch stopping re: #1, did I say that or was it an additional thought?

It was an additional thought. If the lynch was simply stopped, why would LC and BR need to count back to figure out the vote situation when the day ended?

Ricochet wrote:
Golden wrote:Also, I'm 4 glad BWT survived. His comment when he thought he was lynched seemed sincere to me (and just a little sad).
I would agree, but what about his prior comment that sounded like "good luck getting a majority to lynch me" (which then totally happened lol, at least in the unaltered universe)?

Yeah, he said a few things like that which caused me to vote for him, but in that moment the reaction felt sincere to me.

Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I will try to respond to every post made later
Surely not every post made.

Only MP would undertake to respond to every post made.

I was not directly responsible for killing epi. I was intentionally baiting people into setting me up, though. I suspected that if I made enough of my intention to kill epi, someone else would do it.

I am very sad to see Typhoony die already, I agree with SVS it's a lame kill

hope you get a rezz, typh.

Dom wrote:
Golden wrote:I was not directly responsible for killing epi. I was intentionally baiting people into setting me up, though. I suspected that if I made enough of my intention to kill epi, someone else would do it.

I am very sad to see Typhoony die already, I agree with SVS it's a lame kill hope you get a rezz, typh.
you are making no sense tbh

What doesn't make sense, precisely?

@SVS - Multiple ideas are on the table with me at once.

I think epi could be neutral or bad, but I didn't think he was civ.

I also didn't think there was much chance of us ending up on the same team.

What I said is out there and I can see why it seems messed up. But I don't have a team right now, so it seems to me that taking out someone who I don't think will end up on my team is a smart move (I know, it's not certain, but I was trying to set up this move long before rey started pointing out to me that I was wrong to think it wasn't certain).

S~V~S wrote:Yes, although the story sounds like baddies killed Epi. But he said he was baiting them to kill him. He thought Epi was on a baddie team. So he had to be baiting the baddie team that he thought Epi was NOT on. If it was the Night 2 team, the baiting would be pointless.

I just never heard anyone say anything like that, I guess.

Not necessarily. I might have baited them into doing something night 2.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Golden wrote:@SVS - Multiple ideas are on the table with me at once.

I think epi could be neutral or bad, but I didn't think he was civ.

I also didn't think there was much chance of us ending up on the same team.

What I said is out there and I can see why it seems messed up. But I don't have a team right now, so it seems to me that taking out someone who I don't think will end up on my team is a smart move (I know, it's not certain, but I was trying to set up this move long before rey started pointing out to me that I was wrong to think it wasn't certain).
What exactly do you think is smart about being so openly anti-cooperative and ruthless?

It's probably not so smart. It's like MP in the Flash, lol. I just tend towards being honest about my motives, even when it might be smarter to keep my mouth shut. But I don't think what I've done in this game is uncooperative. I don't think epi was civ.

linki @MM - I think epi is a special situation.

MP, that isn't ALL the posts...

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Golden wrote:MP, that isn't ALL the posts...
I can't imagine how long it would have taken to respond to ALL of the posts since page 15.

Well, hey, you are the one who said you would

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Regarding Golden, I'm not at all surprised by his explanation. I find him genuine; he won't be receiving my D2 vote.
Fun strategy, is it not?

That said, I don't have any intention of copying it; I just wanted my thoughts on Golden to be made clear, since he's already a hot topic and will likely continue to be one.

I don't think it is a strategy that can be easily copied, or even replicated by me. The baddies may have even known I was doing it, but either way they are only going to see something like that through so many times. Now that I've said thats what I was doing, I can't do it again.

linki @DH - I'm a little unclear. Are you saying you think F and K are likely civ but G is likely bad? And you seem to have a lot in the yellow-orange band...

Spacedaisy wrote:I saw the move he was making before Epi died. Personally, I say well played. He wanted Epi out and he made it happen, either with a kill or baiting a kill. I can't say I am glad Epi is dead necessarily, but I'm impressed.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm 'glad' epi is dead either. I like playing mafia with epi. I just don't think him being alive was in my interests this game.

@MP - I agree with that for he most part, although it assumes the killer thinks like you or me (I think most of that list would). You can absolutely discount someone like Roxy or SVS, for instance. The problem comes when trying to determine whether or not it is helpful information given there is no evidence Typh's kill was from a baddie. It might help narrow down who is a in a specific role, though...

linki @MP - oh, right, gotcha.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Golden wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:I saw the move he was making before Epi died. Personally, I say well played. He wanted Epi out and he made it happen, either with a kill or baiting a kill. I can't say I am glad Epi is dead necessarily, but I'm impressed.
I'm not going to pretend that I'm 'glad' epi is dead either. I like playing mafia with epi. I just don't think him being alive was in my interests this game.

@MP - I agree with that for he most part, although it assumes the killer thinks like you or me (I think most of that list would). You can absolutely discount someone like Roxy or SVS, for instance. The problem comes when trying to determine whether or not it is helpful information given there is no evidence Typh's kill was from a baddie. It might help narrow down who is a in a specific role, though...

linki @MP - oh, right, gotcha.
Good point re: bolded/underlined.

I agree 100% on Rox and S~V~S though, as well as most of the list. I just can't fathom either of them making that NK. I suppose anything's possible though.

Yes, deflection or something is probably possible as well.

nutella wrote:Also, it's revealed that he was killed by the Brutal Executioner, and looking at that role we now know that Typh was a Sorceror. For what that's worth.

It's worth quite a bit. Good catch.

I wonder if it has to be someone whose clan is sorceror, or someone who is actually recruited. Probably the former?

Search found 324 matches