The Syndicate

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.

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?

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.

Golden wrote:

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.

Golden wrote: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?

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.

Bullzeye wrote:Am I stupid or is there no difference between Rey's initial post and the EBWOP?

Golden wrote: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.

Golden wrote: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.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

reywaS wrote:BWT, do you realize that you used some form of the word "honest" 4 times in that post?

Are you being honest with us?

Not really. I don't pay that much attention to my word choice in posts when I type. I tend to do more of a stream-of-consciousness thing and just let it all come out.

As honest as I can be. How come?

Golden wrote:You are most welcome.

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

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?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

reywaS 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?

I would take it with a modestly sized grain of salt.

What would be the source of your doubt in this example?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

reywaS wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

reywaS wrote:BWT, do you realize that you used some form of the word "honest" 4 times in that post?

Are you being honest with us?

Not really. I don't pay that much attention to my word choice in posts when I type. I tend to do more of a stream-of-consciousness thing and just let it all come out.

As honest as I can be. How come?

I was just messing with you. :P

Oh okay.

I'm a bit cereal right now. Pass me a blunt then, bro. :P

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I perceived the Day 1 duel between Epignosis and Golden to be neutral-neutral, which is an uninspired read because nearly every interaction on Day 1 was neutral-neutral. This game is unique though, and I think a perspective of neutral-neutral -- one that is distinctly espoused as a read -- is akin to reading an interaction as civilian-civilian in a more typical game. In this regard I understand S~V~S's perspective about Epi in the context of the Day 1 discussion.

I don't think this reflects poorly on Golden, but I understand why S~V~S is pursuing this angle.

That's fair enough; I understand why she feels the way she does as well. I just am trying to help her see it from another perspective, since Golden's posts have just been oozing sincerity to me, and I feel he is being over scrutinized over other players.

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

I do see the irony in SVS seeing me as a threat and wants to vote me, essentially because I did what I could to get rid of the person I thought was a threat.

Um I am voting for you, but if you do not get lynched, I will not try to get the baddies to kill you.

Well I think I've made it very clear epi was a one off too, but it doesn't stop everyone pretending like I'm going to do it to them next.

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

I do see the irony in SVS seeing me as a threat and wants to vote me, essentially because I did what I could to get rid of the person I thought was a threat.

Um I am voting for you, but if you do not get lynched, I will not try to get the baddies to kill you.

Well I think I've made it very clear epi was a one off too, but it doesn't stop everyone pretending like I'm going to do it to them next.

This type of attitude is a big reason why I don't trust you, Golden. You admittedly make this big, bold move to Epignosis killed on Day 1, and then you act like everyone is being unfair to you by not trusting your intentions. Do you really see the scrutiny on you as unfair?

Scrutiny? No.

But, rey, I will repeat to you - you find me suspicious for things like saying 'I feel guilty about it'. What is the baddie motive in that statement?

I do not think all of my votes are the outcome of scrutiny. I actually think some of the votes (especially yours) come from a place of a lack of scrutiny.

I will say to you again, you are the one who claimed that motivations are where you should be looking. Why, then, do you continue to ignore me every time I ask you why my statements are indicative of a baddie mindset, and just fall back on telling me off for claiming honesty etc

nutella wrote:Well I'm not particularly disappointed to lose the Magnetarch, was a dangerous role anyway. And I'm rather indifferent that he was unrecruited. Honestly I'd call this a relatively successful day 2 given the circumstances. It will be hard to find the actual baddies.

Think I'll go for Position 3.

unfurl wrote:Also Bye Bass
I think this is become an elitist game tbqh, where the people who arenot hard core player will going to be lynched, my prediction, less see in an a fortune teller

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Make fun of me as his cheerleader all you want (actually, please do, since it's hilarious), but I have been only defending Golden with the fervor that I've had because I feel accusations against him have been driven by mere fear mongering ("he did that to Epi? What if he does it to me?!?!?!!?"), which is a silly sentiment in my opinion given that the vast majority of players in this game still don't know what side they're going to end up on.

Scotty wrote:

reywaS wrote:"Out of reywaS' 124 posts, I'd reckon 60% of them are about Golden (I'm guesstimating). I would expect it very easy and safe to tunnel into one person for a time"

A response to this particular snippet from Scotty's earlier post. You are right. I have been focusing on Golden a lot. I tend to get tunnel vision in mafia games when someone's posts get stuck in my head. In the past it can be a flaw of my game play style. But, I'm not always wrong when I get fixated on someone. A particular RM game comes to mind...Reality TV Mafia. I remember having a particularly over the top case of tunnel vision in that game, but I did sniff out DharmaHelper and Golden as 2 of the 4 mafiosos in the game...but for every time that I am correct in that case, there are a few instances where I was just flat out wrong. I realize this. This is why I tempered my suspicion of Golden in between Days 1 and 2, but he reignited my suspicion with the things he said in the 2nd half of Day 2. Right or wrong that is the only way I know how to play when I am not on a baddie team. I tend to have a lot more trouble when I am because in my head everything I think to write just sounds forced. A handful of people in this game know this about me. Golden is one of those people, which is why the 2 "no u's" he's flung at me in this game don't ring true to me. In Zany Dex's Superman game on RM, this dynamic was on display where I was Clark Kent and Golden was independent and eventually merged with the mafia team (and won). I got tunnel vision in that game too. I think I was wrong in that case, but regardless I got a lot of flack in that game for it.

Thanks for the response, yo!

Asa follow up: What is your opinion of Golden now? Is he still your main lynch candidate?

MovingPictures07 wrote:So, I haven't gotten to a Rainbow List post yet... I didn't realize how difficult it would be at this stage given the nature of the game. I'll keep mulling over it, and if I come up with something actually worthwhile, then I'll post it. For now, it's tough to differentiate most players' mindsets from neutral mindsets.

Spoiler: show

reywaS wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Make fun of me as his cheerleader all you want (actually, please do, since it's hilarious), but I have been only defending Golden with the fervor that I've had because I feel accusations against him have been driven by mere fear mongering ("he did that to Epi? What if he does it to me?!?!?!!?"), which is a silly sentiment in my opinion given that the vast majority of players in this game still don't know what side they're going to end up on.

You start this paragraph off by addressing me and end it by addressing SVS without a transition.

reywaS, I note your observation. My post wasn't really addressed to anyone in particular (you'll note I didn't ask anyone for input and that my statements don't really require any input), and I realize I was talking about you and S~V~S. I'm afraid I don't understand your point though. What is it?

MovingPictures07 wrote:
I would have been disappointed if Golden had been lynched yesterday because he is hands down the player in this game who is being forthright and completely honest about his intentions and I believe him. I think he is neutral. I think his actions make sense given that he baited Epi. However, I think despite the fact that Golden is doing whatever he can to lay his heart out there, players are taking advantage of him as an easy target. In contrast, Bass seemed very shifty, and only seemed to give opinions on anything once he was prompted to do so, with the exception of his wacky theory on me which I already told him didn't make sense because he was alleging I said the opposite of what I really said.

Golden wrote:Golden voters.

Rey: I've made my feelings here pretty clear. Rey voted for me on day one because I said that 'certainly epi wouldn't end up on my team' and didn't say to his satisfaction that I recognised this was not true (even though I did say it multiple times).

Golden wrote:

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.

Golden wrote:Registering a vote for golden

Because I just can't be bothered any more.

All of those of you who insist I'm bad, I ask only that you remember this game for next time, primarily because I have literally been honest about every single thing, because you have used semantics against me, and because there are a lot of you who think you know me a lot better than you do (and I'd call epi chief among them, but I have to admit I'm surprised at how much SVS has misjudged my motives this game). And most of all because there are a lot of people tunnelling me who are wilfully deaf to all the responses I have given.

I also wish people would think about this, because it's important. I take heat from the start of every single game. So does MP. So does epi, to be fair. At some point, people ought to realise that we are taking heat solely for speaking a lot. If you speak a lot, it's guaranteed you will say something suspicious. The only way you can judge whether or not that suspicion is accurate, though, is to actually listen to people's defenses. There is a lot of evidence from those suspecting me this game that they are ignoring most of what I have to say, most of what MP has to say etc. Sometimes people aren't even secret about it. They skim the high posters. I only take this much heat because I speak a lot. The best reaction I could possibly make to this game to adjust so as to survive is to not be honest. You know what? I could have just lied about the fact I was trying to get the baddies to lynch epi. I didn't need to bring it up. It would have been in MY best interests never to say it. But that's just not what I think is in the towns interests. Being honest is better.

I'm travelling for most of this day anyway, and then I'm on holiday for 11 days, and I have no intention of spending my holiday stressed out defending myself. Good luck. I think the civs will need it.

PS - Rey's suspicion of me is literally bullsuit. When you've seen me flip, take my advice and lynch him next.

(Yes, this is permission for everyone to lynch me. Let me be very clear though, I WILL be playing for rezzes, in fact I'll be working hard for them. Right now, I think being lynched so that you can all see you are wrong is my best outcome, so that I can try and get back into the game with everyone having got this out of their system. Trust me though, when I'm back, if rey is alive he is going down).

PPS - hey, baddie team that killed epi. Fancy a DH kill tonight?

Golden wrote:Registering a vote for golden

Because I just can't be bothered any more.

All of those of you who insist I'm bad, I ask only that you remember this game for next time, primarily because I have literally been honest about every single thing, because you have used semantics against me, and because there are a lot of you who think you know me a lot better than you do (and I'd call epi chief among them, but I have to admit I'm surprised at how much SVS has misjudged my motives this game). And most of all because there are a lot of people tunnelling me who are wilfully deaf to all the responses I have given.

I also wish people would think about this, because it's important. I take heat from the start of every single game. So does MP. So does epi, to be fair. At some point, people ought to realise that we are taking heat solely for speaking a lot. If you speak a lot, it's guaranteed you will say something suspicious. The only way you can judge whether or not that suspicion is accurate, though, is to actually listen to people's defenses. There is a lot of evidence from those suspecting me this game that they are ignoring most of what I have to say, most of what MP has to say etc. Sometimes people aren't even secret about it. They skim the high posters. I only take this much heat because I speak a lot. The best reaction I could possibly make to this game to adjust so as to survive is to not be honest. You know what? I could have just lied about the fact I was trying to get the baddies to lynch epi. I didn't need to bring it up. It would have been in MY best interests never to say it. But that's just not what I think is in the towns interests. Being honest is better.

I'm travelling for most of this day anyway, and then I'm on holiday for 11 days, and I have no intention of spending my holiday stressed out defending myself. Good luck. I think the civs will need it.

PS - Rey's suspicion of me is literally bullsuit. When you've seen me flip, take my advice and lynch him next.

(Yes, this is permission for everyone to lynch me. Let me be very clear though, I WILL be playing for rezzes, in fact I'll be working hard for them. Right now, I think being lynched so that you can all see you are wrong is my best outcome, so that I can try and get back into the game with everyone having got this out of their system. Trust me though, when I'm back, if rey is alive he is going down).

PPS - hey, baddie team that killed epi. Fancy a DH kill tonight?

TinyBubbles wrote:damn it, i just can't vote golden again. i don't care if he's a baddie or not, it feels like rejecting a friend. he's totally right about him and other talkative players like MP and epi getting heat just for talking, rather than for the content of their posts. it isn't right,and the game would be dead in the water without their input, i don't think anyone should be punished for posting a lot, even though it obviously makes them a bigger target.

hope you have a good trip golden! i wont vote you out though!!!
and i know my own arguments are flipping back and forth but thats what happens when you get emotionally invested in a game like this ><

voting rey on golden's testimony

Golden wrote:Rey, I'm not going to engage in pedantry with you. I'm not going to talk about how weak all of my ideas are, how illegitimate you find my thought processes.

I already know there is nothing I could possibly say that will change your vote.

The only person who can change your mind on your vote is you. But you will not do it so long as you are intent on tunnelling into every sentence I say as some kind of grand idea with a million implications.

I will be voting for you today, unless I end up voting for me today. It's one or the other. So I imagine it will be in your interests to vote me. For that reason, it seems even less worth my time actually engaging with you on semantic points. It does me no good, and it would only serve to break my aura of calm that I feel today.

YOU ARE WRONG

But I think you are deliberately wrong because you are Azura.

There is no point in me trying to convince Azura not to vote for me.

nutella wrote:Guys don't freak out, LC answered somewhere that the thread lock would only be 4-6 hours.

Still good to register early votes though. I'd consider a vote for Rey since I could totally see him having killed Epi.

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok Nutella will be much simpler, no spoiler quotes. The thing with Nutella is that she always reads blends to me when she is civ. Always. And I have said before, I'll say it again, if I get good feels from Nutella, she is probably bad. If I get baddie vibes from Nutella, she is probably good. I don't like that reading back over her posts I see confident Nutella. Confident Nutella usually = Baddie Nutella. Read her posts, while she does change her mind,she doesn't read as uncertain as she does when she is a civ. They are more clear straight forward stances with less of the waffling that usually gets her lynched as a civ.

If I was putting her in a rainbow list, I would have her as orange.

I think I haven't come across as waffley this game because of its setup. We started out with a majority of players being unrecruited, so I basically assumed most people were unrecruited, rather than being pressured into having civ or baddie reads of people, which are always difficult early in the game. It's not that I'm not uncertain about a lot of players, it's that the things I've been talking about are the things I have stronger convictions about. In more typical games that start out with full civvie and baddie teams, there's a lot more pressure in the thread to decide on stuff like rainbow lists and a definitive perspective on players who are under scrutiny, and that's the stuff that I tend to waffle on and get in trouble for (and btw @ Lorab yes in fact I have still been getting lynched as a civ for these reasons in the last couple games I've played recently). In this game I'm just observing things on my own, and there are certainly players/topics of discussion in the thread that I don't have strong opinions of either way.

That said, I don't agree with your suspicion of Unfurl, I think she is genuine.

Dom wrote:I feel uneasy about voting Golden after his meltdown post, but... I still suspect him.

Golden wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Golden the point I was trying to get was if someone were setting you up who do you think it is?

I think rey is the most likely. Particularly because the starting points for his suspicion against me (especially on day 2) have been a big stretch to see them as legitimate pings, and also because he himself claimed you should be looking at motivations not words/actions to find baddies, but when I ask him to explain why a baddie would say the things he has claimed are suspicious, he has never been able to come up with any explanation (or has chosen not to). I didn't think DH was very likely before yesterday, but the conversation from yesterday has me seeing him as a possibility too. I find it hard to buy that he was legitimately scared of me, but also its just such a strange thing to make a big deal out of. Like, even if I'm so scary, why would I target him specifically? Before he said that, he wasn't even really on my radar.

I have a very specific reason in mind for why I do not think it is SVS, but it isn't out of the question I'm wrong about that.

I do agree with JJ that there it could be in anyone's interests to set me up, but I would be very surprised if at least one member of that team is not one of those pushing for my lynch.

Golden wrote:I would ask those who are less inclined to feel absolutely certain of me, like lorab and timmer, to consider giving me a pass today given I won't be around a whole lot more for robust conversation and defence. I ask this because I get the strong sense that (because I won't be around) I'm going to be the easy location for drive by votes at end of day.

It's ultimately up to you guys, but if you really want to lynch me more on a hunch or being the 'best option' than anything else, I'd really like if it can be on a day where I can have proper conversation around it, more than I'll be able to today.

Golden wrote:??? really?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think rey might deliberately be clashing against Golden's appeal to emotion with an appeal to emotion of his own. Sorry if I'm wrong about that.

thellama73 wrote:

reywaS wrote:did the lynch end today? I thought it ended tomorrow night. :O

Sure you did, buddy.