The Syndicate

Fixed so easy on eyes.

Spoiler: show

Azura Nokomis - Sorcerers of the Elements
"There is no good and evil, there is only power...and those too weak to seek it. Better to save your own life and join me."
Kills on odd nights!

Position 1: Power Steal
Position 2: Chooses a player. Votes for her go to that player, and votes for that player go to her
Position 3: Immune to NK/Lynch
Position 4: Curse
Position 5: Choose 3 people to force votes

The Apprentice - Sorcerers of the Elements
At the beginning of the game he has a 10% chance of any of his powers working. Every night his chances improve. Once he is recruited the changes increase by 20% and continue to improve. Sometimes when a power fails they fizzle, other times a random effect happens.

Position 1: Insanifier
Position 2: Random Potion
Position 3: Silence
Position 4: Negative a vote
Position 5: Position Switch

Windscout - Sorcerers of the Elements

Position 1: Randomly blows votes
Position 2: Random Redirects 4 night powers
Position 3: Every X vote is doubled
Position 4: Seemer
Position 5: Team Seemer

Pyromancer - Sorcerers of the Elements

Position 1: Cremates a body
Position 2: Fireshield
Position 3: Firetrap
Position 4: Fire Vision
Position 5: Immolate

Chaos Dancer - Sorcerers of the Elements

Position 1: Switch three roles powers
Position 2: Switch two players targets
Position 3: Pick a player, that player's target is put to sleep instead
Position 4: Chaos Curse
Position 5: Bind two people

The Magnetarch - Sorcerers of the Elements

Position 1: Magnetically repel night powers to random targets
Position 2: Magnetically repel every third vote to a random player
Position 3: Choose a player to be a vote-magnet
Position 4: Choose three players, and steal an item from one of them
Position 5: Electromagnetic pulse removes half the votes from each player on the poll

The Gambler - Sorcerers of the Elements

Position 1: Select a number X. If the vote-leader in the next lynch receives X number of votes, you may utilize any one of that player's position powers the following night in addition to your own. If the vote-leader in the next lynch does not receive X votes, then your vote will be randomly forced the following lynch phase.
Position 2: Your vote is worth double, but you also start the day with one extra vote.
Position 3: Choose a clan to get a random power from. You will gain a vote each time the player whose power you have used gains a vote on the following day cycle.
Position 4: If you are targeted with an odd number of night powers, they will all be negated. If you are targeted with an even number of night powers, you will attract the direction of another night power for each one you are already targeted with.
Position 5: Select a number X. X random players will receive one additional vote against them this day phase. If any of these X players votes for you, their vote is worth double.

Tranq wrote:This post stood out to me. Why would you assume BWT wouldn't flip? Note Golden posted this before the lynch post revealed BWT didn't flip.

I had no idea what the voting situation was at the time the night ended early and I didn't figure out the difference in time zone, but just from a basic calculation it seemed early enough that there was no reason to assume BWT would flip. He only really led within the last hour or so.

I didn't assume no-one would flip, but I'm not sure why anyone would assume BWT would flip on a day that the night ended early. I was responding to Bea who hadn't caught up enough to have realised the night was ended early.

I understand where MP is coming from completely. I don't get the suspicion on him, I won't be voting for him today. I don't see anything off about his responses to llama.

I don't intend to vote llama - when he says he's been away, hasn't been able to fully read and is voting hunches, I believe him.

@tranq - DrWilgy is new to me and new to the site. His behaviour is certainly... different. None of it has specifically pinged me yet, but should I read him back?

And just as I say that, I get to this.

He votes llama, then votes MP? Eh?

DrWilgy wrote:Vote registered for MovingPictures07

Boomslang wrote:Now that we've got this MP/Llama stuff, can be return to talking about Golden? The whole "I baited the baddies into a making the kill for me" line seems... unlikely to me. How could he have known that Epi was on the baddie team opposite from the one making the kill, unless he himself was on the baddie team making the kill?

I've already addressed this, in quite thorough detail...

S~V~S wrote:
Black Rock wrote:
Speaker of Serenity wrote:Please lynch Turnip Head. That is all.
Ah, I did not realize that this was from the Speaker of Serenity, and I was confuzzled.

Linki @MM, yes that was confusing ha ha. I was like why would the game mod tell you to do things lol.

I dunno, but if I hear the voice of Mod, I will follow.

It is a placeholder vote for now, really, but I'm happy to join the train and vote

bass_the_clever

And keep him from the pain of having to catch up on the thread.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Golden wrote:It is a placeholder vote for now, really, but I'm happy to join the train and vote

bass_the_clever

And keep him from the pain of having to catch up on the thread.
Cop out. Why didn't you do the same for MP?

I don't think MP is bad. I'm voting you to tie the vote, because I don't want MP to be lynched. Why did you jump on a bandwagon?

S~V~S wrote:
Golden wrote:
Boomslang wrote:Now that we've got this MP/Llama stuff, can be return to talking about Golden? The whole "I baited the baddies into a making the kill for me" line seems... unlikely to me. How could he have known that Epi was on the baddie team opposite from the one making the kill, unless he himself was on the baddie team making the kill?
I've already addressed this, in quite thorough detail...
I would imagine quite a few people are going to ask for an explanation of this seeming dichotomy. You might want to have your original explanation in cut & paste. I would not mind hearing it again.

There is no point cutting and pasting the same thing into the thread. It's still there if people want to hear it again, it isn't going anywhere.

I do not think epi was civ. I think he was neutral or bad.

It didn't matter what baddie team he was on if he was bad. I could have baited a kill on night one or night two. Why does it matter?

I wanted epi dead because I do not believe he was ever going to end up on the same team as me. This game isn't as simple as civ vs bad and I'm not sure why people are trying to force 'epi was bad' into my motives. I'm not saying epi was absolutely certainly bad. I'm saying epi was absolutely certainly not civ. I still think it most likely he was neutral.

@JJ - I'm really sorry to hear that man! I hope things are looking up tomorrow.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Golden wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Golden wrote:It is a placeholder vote for now, really, but I'm happy to join the train and vote

bass_the_clever

And keep him from the pain of having to catch up on the thread.
Cop out. Why didn't you do the same for MP?
I don't think MP is bad. I'm voting you to tie the vote, because I don't want MP to be lynched. Why did you jump on a bandwagon?
Well Since I only have like 4 or 5 post and 2 of them are about me think MP could be bad I think it would be odd if I didnt vote him. If you were just trying to save MP from being lynched why not just state that instead of giving a bull shit excuse?

The 'bullshit excuse' is also a real reason. You (or, more accurately, the person who admits to not keeping up with the thread, whoever they are) would be a perfect recruit for a baddie team.

It's about timing, not about who. Voting for you right now is to bring back the tie. Why are you voting for MP right now?

Bass, put it like this.

You theorised that the recruiters were likely to be people who are known for always participating fully. That might take the heat of you as being a recruiter. I don't think you would be likely to make that statement if you were a civilian recruiter. You might if you were a baddie recruiter. I saw that statement as being likely neutral.

But, who is more likely to recruit the person admitting they aren't reading the thread?

It sounds a bit mean, but you've kind of admitted it yourself. You wouldn't make a great recruit. At least, not for the civilians who need to solve the game. But someone like that can also be very hard to lynch. Not a bad candidate for a baddie recruit.

In any event, with you I see a worst case scenario of being neutral, and that is ok with me. I'm trying to avoid lynching people who are civs. I don't think you are civ.

But the reason I voted for you RIGHT THEN was to keep it level with MP, otherwise I would have waited on it longer. I don't think you are a bad vote (a better vote than MP) but it is definitely far more about saving MP than lynching you.

S~V~S wrote:Well, if Golden doesn't get Bass lynched, he will just get the baddies to kill him for him.

This is quite unfair.

I see no reason not to want a sorceror back generically speaking. Although if Typhoony is the pyromancer, I'd prefer him not to return.

S~V~S wrote:Is it really? Everyone else that voiced an opinion on you & Epi seemed to think it was civ on civ. You unilaterally decided that you & he could not coexist, although no one else felt that way, and basically then bragged that YOU had solicited his death when he was NKed.

I have never seen this Golden. I played the very first game you played, and I was one of the people who watched, and understood, yur King Arthur sacrifice. But i have NO idea who is playing this game. None.

I've never played a game in which 90% of people started the game neutral. Every other game I've played has very defined sides. I've never even played a game like the Flash which is Factional. This is literally the first game I've played that is not a normal bad vs civ game of mafia. I have a very strong civ meta when I'm civ, and set out to replicate it when I am bad. But what am I supposed to do when I'm one in a sea of neutrals, and hardly anyone is yet civ?

From my perspective, the best approach in these circumstances is taking out people who I think are least likely to be civ, since I think I'm more likely to end up civ, and also people who I think are least likely to end up on the same team as me.

I'm not sure why this does not make sense, or how many times I would need to explain it to make it make sense. I am not a civ. Nor am I baddie feeling the need to try and be a civ. Nor am I, like in BoB, someone who will eternally be independent, knowing that all I need to do to win is to survive.

In this game, what I need to do is increase the odds of my team winning, even though I don't yet know which team that is. I'm finding my own feet in trying to figure out how to achieve that.

Do you understand it?

I can't really do much if anyone thinks the move was distasteful. Honestly, if you have a problem with me because I did it, and you want to vote for me for that reason, I'll understand.

I'm trying to play this game in the spirit of the game, which is to say, it is not a game that is civ vs baddies and I'm trying to play it for what it is.

I do not think epi being alive was in my best interests.

There is only so many times I can say this. If people are upset with me for it then I will take my punishment on the chin, be it a lynch or whatever. I've tried something out, obviously there are some people who are upset. It's like I said to JJ yesterday. From my end, there is no spite or malice intended. Epi has his methods and they are what they are, but in the past when I've been on the end of them I've come out worse off (admittedly in Death and Taxes it allowed me to sub back in and win, but golden 1.0 was worse off). I do think epi being alive was bad for my game, and I specifically wanted to show that in the absence of having a kill there are ways of fighting back. Epi said the feud needed to end and I agreed, so I set out to achieve that. There was no guarantee I would, but it is what I set out to do.

I also do think epi understands a game is a game and knows it isn't personal, but if epi needs an apology I'll freely give it. Epi is the kind of person I feel like, if we played Survivor together, when one of us made the move that beat the other we would turn around and say well played, and hold no grudges. I wouldn't do it to anyone that I didn't think would understand.

S~V~S wrote:
Golden wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Is it really? Everyone else that voiced an opinion on you & Epi seemed to think it was civ on civ. You unilaterally decided that you & he could not coexist, although no one else felt that way, and basically then bragged that YOU had solicited his death when he was NKed.

I have never seen this Golden. I played the very first game you played, and I was one of the people who watched, and understood, yur King Arthur sacrifice. But i have NO idea who is playing this game. None.
I've never played a game in which 90% of people started the game neutral. Every other game I've played has very defined sides. I've never even played a game like the Flash which is Factional. This is literally the first game I've played that is not a normal bad vs civ game of mafia. I have a very strong civ meta when I'm civ, and set out to replicate it when I am bad. But what am I supposed to do when I'm one in a sea of neutrals, and hardly anyone is yet civ?

From my perspective, the best approach in these circumstances is taking out people who I think are least likely to be civ, since I think I'm more likely to end up civ, and also people who I think are least likely to end up on the same team as me.

I'm not sure why this does not make sense, or how many times I would need to explain it to make it make sense. I am not a civ. Nor am I baddie feeling the need to try and be a civ. Nor am I, like in BoB, someone who will eternally be independent, knowing that all I need to do to win is to survive.

In this game, what I need to do is increase the odds of my team winning, even though I don't yet know which team that is. I'm finding my own feet in trying to figure out how to achieve that.

Do you understand it?
Can we talk about Epignosis? You unilaterally decided that he was bad, iirc NO ONE voted for him but you. It is very plausible that it was not your fault that the baddies killed him.

But then you came in & basically bragged that you solicited his death. No one thought he was bad but you. Very seriously. But you didn't care,did you? If i had done this, I would have had 20 votes already, lol.

I have reacted exactly to Epi as you did in this game when bad, then turned around and killed him & WIFOMed my way out of it. But this:

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.
I honestly don't know whether to take you at face value or not. It's almost like someone has hacked into Goldens account.

Linki @ Golden, I still think you are missing the point, but OK. Thank you for at least mentioning Epi in that post.

Linki @ Gman, you're wrong. It isn't garbage, when a person plays one game a year, killing them on night one, for people who know him, is rude. I doubt most of the people on MPs list would have killed him on night one. Not dissimilar to not lynching nubs on day one.

@SVS - I feel like you are missing the point too. I think we are just talking at cross purposes.

There are some things which I will point out about this point which may help.

1) I never decided epi was bad. Not unilaterally or otherwise. I decided it was in my best interests that he was dead. I think he was more than likely neutral, but that he was definitely not civ. I think you still don't fundamentally understand this. I didn't set out to kill epi because I was determined and tunneling on the fact he was on one of the two mafia teams. I just don't think we would have ended up on the same team, and that means it doesn't matter WHAT alignment epi had, it was not in my interests that he was alive.

2) I didn't intend to brag and sorry if it came across that way. I wanted to be honest about my own motives, that is all. And I didn't want to say 'that kill had nothing to do with me' when I feel like the honest truth is that it may have had something to do with me. If I had not been going on about killing epi, then the baddies may not have killed him (they also may have - I don't know. You are right that it is plausible it has nothing to do with me, I did not say what I said to claim credit for it. I said it because for me, saying that it had nothing to do with me would have felt dishonest because I felt like it DID have something to do with me, or at least may have). As I said to DH, sometimes it is probably smarter for me to keep my mouth shut, but I always try to be as honest as I can when I've executed a plan (obviously I couldn't say thats what I was trying to do before hand).

Ricochet wrote:but in essence, if your vibe/gut/read is that a player X isn't civ or is unlikely to be recruited as a civ, why trust him, why not suspect him and why want him progress. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't focus on actual civ/mafia aligned vibes, considering the game currently has such factions formed and the dichotomy will keep expanding, settling into traditional alignments eventually. But that's why it's a third factor.

Thank you Rico for understanding where I am coming from... you've completely nailed it.

Ricochet wrote: Unfortunately, the flaw in Golden's perspective, if indeed this is his perspective, is that by simply saying "I never expected player X to end up in the same team as me" is that, if that team of yours is civ, you're forgetting about the second civ team player X might end up in. However, if that team of yours is bad, you genuinely need that player gone, whether he'll be your opponent in the other baddie team or a civ opponent. Hmmm.

You can see that as a flaw, and my viewpoint becomes less and less strong the fewer neutrals there are. At his point of death, I do not think epi was a civ. I am not reducing the number of civ recruits that are going to occur in the game. So I don't agree with the flaw in terms of its application to epi. All in all, I still think epi was a person least likely to end up on my team, reducing his overall chances of having a win condition compatible with mine significantly compared to others. In addition, he was trying to get me lynched. I didn't really see any down side.

linki @SVS - but the rest of you are not necessarily going to be on my team. I mean, some of you will be. Obviously, there are some of you who would have ended up on epi's team. It's not in those people's best interests. But those people, I don't think they would have ended up on my team either, so their best interests are not the same as mine.

The other thing that shouldn't be lost sight of is when I made my move to set up epi, I was frustrated with him as well. I have said that before, but perhaps not emphasised it enough.

I'm trying to explain what my thinking was, and exactly why I did it. I'm not trying to tell everyone my approach is better than your approach, my approach was certainly impacted by frustration. I'm just trying to state the facts of how I was thinking.

@MP - I want you in the game.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't think everyone fully comprehends that most players are truly only looking out for themselves right now, even if still are trying to do it all under the guise of helping the civilians.

I am beginning to realise that for players like you and me, it is possibly a flaw in our style to be honest about that fact.

But I really do think it should be reiterated.

rey, it looks like you need some company.

What are your current thoughts on the game? On balance, would you support or be against a bass lynch? An MP lynch?

Do you think anyones behaviour isn't being talked about enough?

What about DrWilgy's odd flip from a llama vote to an MP vote, what do you think about that?

Can someone please recruit G-Man? He deserves it.

@rey - I agree it's the motivation, not the action, that matters. That's why I kept asking why does it make me bad? You've claimed I've done certain things, but you haven't provided any motivation for why I would do them when bad. You've just said they don't read genuine. But why would I lie about those things?

That's also why I went back to epi setting out the exact thought process behind the post where he claimed I gave four different answers to what I would do when recruiting. Epi did not seem interested in motivation either, even though the obvious motive for me even starting that particular conversation was to see if we could narrow down the field of potential baddie recruits so as to better find a baddie, but he also declined to provide any motive for why it would be a bad thing to do.

But whatever. Sometimes people tunnel in on you and you don't think it is entirely logical. When I really understood where you were coming from, I found your suspicion on me genuine. I can't disagree that in trying to get you to see what I was saying, I was skimming over some of the points you were trying to raise, because I was trying to get you to see that there was no baddie motivation for your allegation. But nm.

MM, are you getting the snip?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Golden wrote:MM, are you getting the snip?
Where's your daily shit-colored case? :P

I have no witty comeback.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:No worries. I'm just drinking beer and enjoying watching this game unfold.

Do you want to lynch Bass, or are you just voting him for the time being?

I'm not opposed to lynching bass. But I'm mostly voting him for the time being, in order to protect MP a little. I am not a fan of the votes on MP. Any of them. That includes Bass's vote, even though it could be construed as self-defensive.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Golden wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:No worries. I'm just drinking beer and enjoying watching this game unfold.

Do you want to lynch Bass, or are you just voting him for the time being?
I'm not opposed to lynching bass. But I'm mostly voting him for the time being, in order to protect MP a little. I am not a fan of the votes on MP. Any of them. That includes Bass's vote, even though it could be construed as self-defensive.
Why are you so worried about trying to save MP?

I don't think he is bad and I do not trust the votes against him.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Golden wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Golden wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:No worries. I'm just drinking beer and enjoying watching this game unfold.

Do you want to lynch Bass, or are you just voting him for the time being?
I'm not opposed to lynching bass. But I'm mostly voting him for the time being, in order to protect MP a little. I am not a fan of the votes on MP. Any of them. That includes Bass's vote, even though it could be construed as self-defensive.
Why are you so worried about trying to save MP?
I don't think he is bad and I do not trust the votes against him.
So you think i'm bad?

Are we going around in circles? We already had this discussion about 10 hours ago.

Golden wrote:Bass, put it like this.

You theorised that the recruiters were likely to be people who are known for always participating fully. That might take the heat of you as being a recruiter. I don't think you would be likely to make that statement if you were a civilian recruiter. You might if you were a baddie recruiter. I saw that statement as being likely neutral.

But, who is more likely to recruit the person admitting they aren't reading the thread?

It sounds a bit mean, but you've kind of admitted it yourself. You wouldn't make a great recruit. At least, not for the civilians who need to solve the game. But someone like that can also be very hard to lynch. Not a bad candidate for a baddie recruit.

In any event, with you I see a worst case scenario of being neutral, and that is ok with me. I'm trying to avoid lynching people who are civs. I don't think you are civ.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
nutella wrote:I really don't understand you Dom. Like I never understand most of the things that cause you to "eye" people, they're always the weirdest, most meaningless little things. Like how hard you went after Scotty for something you contrivedly read as a "slip" when it clearly wasn't (I think quite a few others were as baffled by your interpretation as I was.) And now you're eyeing me for placing an early vote in a changeable poll?? What??? I guess it's just how you play though, going doggedly after little things like that, but honestly if you weren't like this every game I would call you out for being opportunistic. But I'm generally always completely baffled by your extreme nitpickiness.
If he nitpicks you, that means he likes you.

Dom never nitpicks me.

Do you have nits?

We are all out of unfurl's league. Unfurl is super-awesome.

I like that post from DrWilgy a lot. I won't end up voting that way today (you are right MM, I like doing that). Thoughts on Bass pretty much mirror my own, although the problem I have is somehow bass always seems to be mafia, so I'm not sure how much of bass's civ meta I have to go on. (lol at Bass the Cleaver though...)

I will say one thing though. I don't think we are going to get any choice as to who we use a rezz on (I could be wrong about that). I have a feeling that rezz contests will be played out amongst the dead, and we will get who we get.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Nevermind replacement. I'll soldier on after work.

Yay

you would have been a big loss to the game.

Roxy wrote:Also llama what happened to your Bubbles suspicion? Did it just magically disappear?

Same goes to all the Teeth voters - did your suspicion (strong enough to place a vote on him yesterday) just disappear over the night phase?

I would not say it fully evaporated, but his comment when he thought he was lynched made me think twice about him, and yeah it did make me think he was more likely to be civ than I previously thought.

Turnip Head wrote:I can confirm that lynching me is a waste of everyone's time, and if that's the barometer we're using for whether or not the Speaker of Serenity can be trusted, then the answer is that s/he can not.

I saw no reason to believe the Speaker of Serenity ought to be blindly followed yet.

The question for me is, are they not to be trusted as in actually bad, or are they just not to be trusted as in - it should be obvious to everyone that they probably don't have info yet.

Bullzeye wrote:
Golden wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I can confirm that lynching me is a waste of everyone's time, and if that's the barometer we're using for whether or not the Speaker of Serenity can be trusted, then the answer is that s/he can not.
I saw no reason to believe the Speaker of Serenity ought to be blindly followed yet.

The question for me is, are they not to be trusted as in actually bad, or are they just not to be trusted as in - it should be obvious to everyone that they probably don't have info yet.
Even if they're not actively bad (yet), I'd be wary of anyone willing to blindly follow such a role. Despite the fact I've always wanted to have a gossip role (and the one time I did I got bandwagoned Day 1) I always take their comments with a pinch of salt - it's just another player who isn't necessarily any wiser or dumber than the rest of us, they just get an anonymous platform to call people out from. They can be useful, but only when their posts have more content than just "lynch X plzkthxbai".

I agree entirely. I'm not really sure why TH has votes, to me it is pretty much on the same place on the curve as random. Although someone like G-Man is not basing it solely on the Speaker.

Aapje, for clarity. I can't see why people would vote TH because the speaker told them to. I can see why they might for other reasons.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
Roxy wrote:Also llama what happened to your Bubbles suspicion? Did it just magically disappear?

Same goes to all the Teeth voters - did your suspicion (strong enough to place a vote on him yesterday) just disappear over the night phase?
I would not say it fully evaporated, but his comment when he thought he was lynched made me think twice about him, and yeah it did make me think he was more likely to be civ than I previously thought.
Really? Why?

He said 'go civs' after he thought he was going to be lynched, and it read genuinely to me.

DharmaHelper wrote:VOTE REGISTERED FOR GOLDEN I'm not sure I want to wait for him to consider it impossible for myself and he to be on the same team :P

Why, are you scared that me deciding that would actually lead to your death?

S~V~S wrote:@BWT, ok, that makes sense. I was like

Bullzeye wrote:
S~V~S wrote: This pretty much sums up how I feel about the TH votes. I find that remark he made to be brow raising, but not enough to merit a vote, gossip or not. TH is a strong player, and I am not ready to experiment on him just yet. I have not seen anything from my day one vote, Bullz, to alarm me so i doubt I will vote for him again today, although i plan to keep an eye on him. He plays a pretty seamless recruited game in my experience.
I don't think I've played a seamless game my entire life! Lost Revolution was like the biggest fluke ever.
Ha ha ha, well, you were a seamless recruit there. So it was an awesome fluke. I was so impressed!

DharmaHelper wrote:VOTE REGISTERED FOR GOLDEN I'm not sure I want to wait for him to consider it impossible for myself and he to be on the same team :P
Yeah, this. I find the whole nonchalance about the whole thing to be almost chilling, tbh. Everything else I have seen seems like a little ping next to it.

VOTING FOR GOLDEN

What nonchalance?

I do not like that I am being painted as a villain just for admitting that I actively tried to bait a kill on epi

I particularly don't like when people keep ascribing to my thinking things that I have not said (like that I think the only possible explanation for the kill was that I was successful in baiting the kill, because I just have so much power in the world).

I really hate it when wanting to be honest is what gets me suspected.

DH - I don't buy that you are scared for a second. It's just more bullshit. If I successfully baited an epi kill, there is no way I succeed in doing that twice.
SVS - I would like you to tell me whether or not a factor in your vote is just that you don't approve of what I tried to do to epi (and may have succeeded in doing). If it is or is not it's ok, I just want to know.

S~V~S wrote:
Golden wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:VOTE REGISTERED FOR GOLDEN I'm not sure I want to wait for him to consider it impossible for myself and he to be on the same team :P
Why, are you scared that me deciding that would actually lead to your death?
YOU Seem to think that it led to Epis, so

DH's vote seems to be very intentionally tongue in cheek to me.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
Roxy wrote:Also llama what happened to your Bubbles suspicion? Did it just magically disappear?

Same goes to all the Teeth voters - did your suspicion (strong enough to place a vote on him yesterday) just disappear over the night phase?
I would not say it fully evaporated, but his comment when he thought he was lynched made me think twice about him, and yeah it did make me think he was more likely to be civ than I previously thought.
Really? Why?
He said 'go civs' after he thought he was going to be lynched, and it read genuinely to me.
You do realize that there is a baddie recruiter that is immune to lynches and night kills while in position 1, right? Did that factor into your read of the post?

It read genuine to me. Yes, I factored in many things. Including him being able to stop the lynch or being responsible for the night ending early. There are many things that could be true, but when I read that post I felt it read genuinely, in a way which outweighed what were moderately small pings I had on him before then.

S~V~S 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.
This nonchalance. This post chilled me. You cared not a whit what anyone else thought. You felt that he was incompatible with you, so he had to go. I feel that YOU are incompatible with the rest of us if this is how you feel.

I feel like this vote is really personal. If it's not, ok, but it's certainly the way our discussion has felt today. It feels like you have a personal distaste for the fact I set out to get epi dead, from the start when you are saying it's not golden-like.

I've always made big moves, and the biggest ones I make are against the people I think are most likely to be bad. I don't know what impact me trying to bait the kill actually had, but I really hate that being honest about the fact that this is what I was trying to do has led to some of the things that have been said about me. I didn't need to say it, I could have kept my mouth shut. You specifically asked if I was being set up, I gave my honest view on what may have happened.

I said a long time ago, that anyone who feels like the move against epi was in poor taste, I understand if you vote against me. But I would appreciate the honest truth about it. I don't want to be left wondering.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:golden do you really think MP was civ recruited already?

Bass, I really think you haven't.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Golden wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:golden do you really think MP was civ recruited already?
Bass, I really think you haven't.
I was just looking for a yes or no.

I have no particular view as to the likelihood of MP being civ. It's not why I was setting out to save him. I just didn't like the way he took three votes for what I see as poor reasons very early in the day.

@SVS - thank you

I just wanted to know either way. And I do know you <3 me and I you, but I honestly don't blame anyone if they were mad at me about epi, because I feel guilty about it myself.

I can understand why having acted roguish might make people feel uncomfortable (especially people who know me well). I feel like it's how all neutrals are probably playing, and I'm just overt about it.

I am confident it is in my best interests, and if I had my time over I would do it again. Why can't I also feel guilty about it?

I'm sick of people using honesty against me. Once again, WHY IS IT BAD FOR ME TO SAY THAT?

Hey guys, not going to be around much if at all to defend myself before the night post goes in, so its time for the legacy post in case I come back to find I'm lynched.

Given his vote today, I'm struggling to find rey genuine. That's the second day he has come in and voted late on me in a row based on some small point out of the blue. He claims that the way to find baddies is to look at their motivations not their actions, but he has completely ignored doing any thinking about MY motivations for either of his votes. He has tended to call my defences semantics.

I think bass is someone you should definitely be lynching. I've probably underplayed today how sensible I think a bass lynch would be.

I agree with others who think Dom is being shady about his thoughts, and I tihnk people should be asking him to explain them more.

I'm reading bwt, bea, roxy, SVS, JJ, nutella, unfurl, bullz as very genuine.

Everyone else you could call my read neutral.

linki @rey - whatever. I did not say your vote for me was personal or try to imply it. People have called me a lot of things this game. Call me a liar if you want. I'll just continue to say what I have to say. Anyone who knows me well knows that I do not lie about stuff like emotions, and that my firm belief is 1) there is no legitimate reason why any baddie would ever get benefit from doing so (and if they did get some short term benefit, it gets held against them forever) and 2) That lying about trivial things that you don't need to lie about is stupid no matter what your affiliation is. I feel like you know me well enough, but I recognise there has been a long break.

This game has taken a big emotional toll on me so far and I'm finding it exhausting. I have no idea who has posted the most but I must be up there, and 90% of it has been me on the defence. I go out to try and actually figure out who the baddies are, immediately get some bullshit suspicion from epi, and basically I've never been able to let up on defence since. I don't want to keep it up. So, if people are honestly going to go after me day after day after day for some conduct which I think makes literally no sense in terms of it making me bad, then there isn't much I can do about it.

linki @rey again - why does that not look good for me either? Honestly is my core value. There is nothing I think is further from the truth than that mafia is a game of lying. It isn't. It's a game of lying as little as possible.

linki @rey again - oh no, two also's, you must be bad.

thellama73 wrote:Just beer with me one more day.

You are most welcome.

Should I threaten to bait a nightkill on you as well?

Rey - I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong. Sorry if that is overreacting.

S~V~S wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
reywaS wrote:
reywaS wrote:Also, Golden, you getting so upset that someone might think you are not being honest in a game of mafia doesn't look good for you.
EBWOP
What would you say if I told you that in a very recent game I played with Golden, he was equally insistent on his claimed honesty being respected on the purest moral basis that honesty is virtuous -- and he was a townie?
What would you say if i told you that in the perhaps 20 games i have played with Golden in about 5 years, he has consistently put the civ group above himself, even when a neutral or independant?

But I'm not neutral or independent. Im' just in limbo.

I don't know what I might be, until I am.

And I still did put the needs ahead of the grpi[ in full focus, but whatever, I'll get to that later. Gotta go now.

Just wanted to quickly pop in while I have a moment and clarify my last post.

SVS says I did not act with interests of the group at heart.

I made my ploy against epi because it was in my self-interest but also, as I've reiterated several times, I do not think he was civilian, and would not have made my move if I thought otherwise. I was not exclusively focussed on my own self-interest which I think is now a misperception.

Sometimes two things are true at once. I made the move I did specifically because I think epi being dead was in my self-interest. But even so, I would not have made the move if not for also believing he was not civ.

Search found 324 matches