The Syndicate

Also, with regards to the music thing, it's sometimes hard to make a distinction as to what is on topic and off topic, but a lot of that convo was on topic.

Epi, I gave you first dibs! It's not my fault you live in a place that would have required you to be up unsustainably late to beat me.

Hooray for no PM telling me I'm silenced.

Epignosis wrote:Rl fckng rgnl crs.

Watch out epi. Every vowel could be a vote. That would be original.

(real f**ing original curse)

Epignosis wrote:
Lgh t p.

Laugh it up, fuzzball.

You know what, I buy it's Zombs completely at this point.

I think SVS is right... that she was the nightkill target and that the post in the newspaper was created by the baddies. Here is the thing... if SVS had died, we would all know the baddies had the will, and that post in the newspaper could look simply like the host reporting the news. But it's not the news. SVS still has the will.

So, why would the baddies write it? To effectively role claim Zombs as a civilian. AND make it look like it was llama saying it, so that we would buy it in its entirity. But since it isn't true that the beast has the will, I don't buy that any part of the message was genuine.

I think epi's posts have been self-explanatory so far. I'll try to help out if they get long and hard to understand.

Dom

1) In llama's night post, there was a story about how the mafia (specifically, the Blonde Beast of Bremen) got his hands onto the will. The will that we know SVS has.
2) However, SVS still has the will, and what's more believes she might have survived a NK attempt.
3) If SVS is right that she survived a NK attempt, that means that if she had NOT survived, the Blonde Beast of Bremen WOULD have had the will.
4) The host wouldn't choose to post a false story in his newspaper for kicks. Its far more likely that a player must have put it there.
5) Simon Grundt could have been a candidate as he would have gotten info straight from the host, except he is bf and dead.
6) It seems unlikely any player would choose to post false information in the thread when it would just be immediately revealed to be false. It makes much more sense that a player would choose to post information in the newspaper that they believe to be true. If the baddies were targetting SVS, they could have posted that story believing that at the time it would be published, it would be true. Therefore, we would read it, and believe that the will was that of gildrick.
7) But because the baddies didn't get the will, it's evident the post is a lie.
8) It follows, then, that the most likely explanation is the baddies did it to try and get heat off zombs.

That good enough? (also linki, if bwt's was enough, then sorry for expanding it so much).

Also, I'll add - just my gut - I'm not sure that this quite as much of a guess as SVS is trying to make out it is. I think SVS knew exactly what the buddha would do. It's not something I would blame her for not wanting to publicise.

And how they knew the person wouldn't twig is interesting... something to think about. Unless they found out that BR 1.0 was gilrick somehow.

Funny. My recollection of dom is quiet dom, dom you forget is playing. If I had to say my perception of him in this game, it's that he is less blendy and more talkative than usual. I haven't forgotten he is playing.

A Person, though...

Fair enough, I never played with them. They seem actually quieter than DP, which I didn't know was possible.

I want BR 1.0 to get a rezz, so that I can find out what happens to BR when she is two people at once.

Sophie, it took me a couple of tries too.

I think what LC meant was, he considered taking the buddha way back on day zero, but he is glad he didn't because it meant SVS was able to and it helped her to survive.

blindfaeth wrote:

You said you didn't want a rezz!!!

But if you've changed your mind...

Sophie, did you sub in for Mongoose? It's the telegram you are talking about, right?

I would be careful. We can discuss what we got. BF did, and was lynched. What if it is powerful and so the baddies would kill you for it? It's a risk. It also seems that we can't exactly quote the PM so you have to think do you understand it well enough to rephrase it? I'm happy to help you understand it if you go for it, but if I were you I'd just check whether you think it's something you might get killed for, and only do it if you are ok taking a risk.

I dont think Mongoose said anything about it - we got to choose our items at the start without knowing what they did. She chose telegram.

TH has been around in other threads. I'm feeling pretty confident he is the silenced one.

Liz, you are seeing basically what I saw about epi on day one. I haven't cleared epi completely from my suspect list, although he is by no means my biggest suspect right now. I think what ends up happening with today's lynch and reveal could potentially have a significant bearing on how I perceive Epi afterwards.

Also, I'll just note Liz's quote fail. It wasn't me who flipped on bf, that was epi. I know Liz didn't mean to suggest it was, it just looks a bit weird.

LizKeen wrote:While some people were making it a point their item did nothing I kept quiet until Day 2 because I didn't want to call a lot of attention to what I took hoping they wouldn't be stolen. Those of you who think I'm guilty..do you think I made up everything I said about what I heard?

I think not revealing your item does something until after it is stolen seems like perfectly normal behaviour for any affiliation.

If you are civ, you'd want to put the info you have out there now that you know you can't have the item stolen again or be killed for it. If you are bad, I'm sure you wanted to give an accurate representation of what the ear horns do before you could be called out for withholding information - whether or not the info you gave was true would be kinda moot, it might be or it might not be.

So for me, I took that post at face value, but something I would do in your position regardless of alignment, so it didn't make me swing one way or the other in terms of what I think of your alignment.

S~V~S wrote:I was thinking that BR 1.0 could have been Gildrick too, like I think Golden said

Wasn't me.

Elohcin wrote:

Golden wrote:
If you are civ, you'd want to put the info you have out there now that you know you can't have the item stolen again or be killed for it.

Golden, what do you mean by this? Is there something that can be done that will make it so our item cannot be stolen and we cannot be killed for it?

Elo, I just meant that if you had a good item, you wouldn't be saying what it did, lest the baddies kill you to get their hands on it. Like, LK is saying the ear horns let you hear some baddie convo. No way she lets on about that while she still has the horns.

But the moment they are stolen, they can't be stolen from you again (since you no longer have it) and the baddies won't kill you to get it (since they wouldn't get it).

Epignosis wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:

Long Con wrote:I meant to add, that's a total paraphrase of the exact content of Ender's Shadow, but the meaning is accurate.

I always hated Bean.

Nvr rd Crd.

I'm not sure if this is an admission or a warning.

Zoms, LK, Epi... frankly I can see pros and cons to all of these votes.

I also really prefer to vote zombs because I think there is evidence pointing that way rather than just a gut feeling - in fact, I kind of feel as though the evidence is mounting up.

I can't see the post in the newspaper as the baddies framing zombs. Since if SVS had actually died I think we would be looking at that post in the paper as probably coming from llama. I guess it is a perspective we want to consider, but it's just not something I'm buying.

Yes juliets. But if SVS had died - would you have been able to see it as coming from llama?

That's my point. It didn't come from llama, but the reason I don't think it was a frame job is because I think we might have assumed it was from llama if SVS had died. Since, obviously, the baddies wouldn't have had a chance to see what the will said anyway yet...

As with MM yesterday, though, I think if Zombs is bad she is probably the millionaire, so I'm not intending to put a vote on her unless I can see the vote is going that way.

I do completely agree llama would have remembered the buddha's glow and/or removed the article when he did remember.

Epignosis wrote:Pgnss thnks Glrck trgtd smn t gv hs wll t. Th prsn h trgtd ws th Blnd Bst, Crl vn Trsslr.

*rl chck*

f Pgnss s rght, ppl shld lk fr sddn cs md gnst smn.

Interesting...

Epignosis thinks Gilrick targeted someone to give his will to. The person he targeted was the Blind Beast, Carl von Tresseler

*role check*

If Epignosis is right, people should look for a sudden case made against someone.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:the Blind Beast

Lol, oops

In all seriousness, though, SVS, is your theory terrified now that Canuck is here?

OK, Epi, questions. Sorry for asking you questions while you can't use vowels. Mind you, you are the one bringing up a new theory, so I'm not that sorry.

Yesterday, you seemed (to me) to agree with the zombs theory that SVS and I were talking about. Today, you have espoused what appears to be a different theory.

So what I want to know is this:

Was I correct in thinking that you can see the merit in yesterday's zombs theory?

Have you now moved away from thinking that is correct? Or can you just see two different possibilities? Or do you think the two theories are somehow linked and part of one unified theory (a la Einstein)?

Have you, as of now, identified any candidate for the 'sudden case' you are looking for?

My own personal thoughts, though, on Epi's theory.

It would have to be one hell of a coincidence if:

1) The blond beast targetted SVS, thus was about to be the beneficiary of the will we all already know about if she died; AND
2) Gilrick had a role check masquerading as 'you are the beneficiary of my will', and he happened to target the blond beast.

rabbit8 wrote:Chances the host allows baddies to insert into his host posts?

I have never played a Lama game before.

A Lama game? If he is a buddhist monk, it would explain why SVS's buddha was so protective

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:OK, Epi, questions. Sorry for asking you questions while you can't use vowels. Mind you, you are the one bringing up a new theory, so I'm not that sorry.

Yesterday, you seemed (to me) to agree with the zombs theory that SVS and I were talking about. Today, you have espoused what appears to be a different theory.

So what I want to know is this:

Was I correct in thinking that you can see the merit in yesterday's zombs theory?

Have you now moved away from thinking that is correct? Or can you just see two different possibilities? Or do you think the two theories are somehow linked and part of one unified theory (a la Einstein)?

Have you, as of now, identified any candidate for the 'sudden case' you are looking for?

Th ndrlnd. Jst nw thght pgnss hd.

& N. Glrck slncd?

The underlined. Just a new thought Epignosis had.

And no. Gilrick silenced?

Long Con wrote:

Golden wrote:My own personal thoughts, though, on Epi's theory.

It would have to be one hell of a coincidence if:

1) The blond beast targetted SVS, thus was about to be the beneficiary of the will we all already know about if she died; AND
2) Gilrick had a role check masquerading as 'you are the beneficiary of my will', and he happened to target the blond beast.

Indeed... Epig's "theory" would imply that he thinks S~V~S is lying... or that this grand coincidence happened.

SVS ddn't thnk ppgnss thght sh ws tllng ls.

SVS didn't think Epignosis thought she was telling lies.

Ironically, epi, the closest thing I've seen to fitting your theory would be LC coming hard after you today. Lucky I'm more convinced by SVS's theory than yours

I've played a lot with SVS, and I've pretty sure I've never seen her 'want someone to die'. I think it's a stretch to suggest SVS is a celestial and say that you can pick out half her team (rabbit? BWT? I'm not seeing these links at all!). If the celestials were after your stock certificate, it seems likely to me they would just steal it. If SVS is wrong, I think she is just a well-intentioned civ.

However - putting aside the reactive side of what you just said... I can understand the point you are making. It meshes with how I've been thinking about you for the entire game... until last nights night post.

So, what I want to understand and what I would like you to focus on is not the people accusing you, and it's not bf's will. It's the newspaper thing - do you understand why that looks bad?

Epignosis wrote:Wll wll wll.

will will will?

I think epi wants your stuff :P

Seriously though, Zombs, you've given me pause for thought. I actually read what you said as civ.

I don't mean all the stuff about SVS... with that I think zombs is doing all the things she is accusing SVS of doing, honestly... making big assumptions that aren't really based in much and have plenty of civilian explanations.

And actually, I just read it again. And really? Civilian roles that post to the thread? Which ones? Jeff Darrell has posted, his name was mentioned. The poet was mia. Which others could it be? And why, why, why would they report on an event that they only could have known about if they were bad?

Whoah, sophie, hold up on all those vowel mutations. aeaeaeae to you too!

I have decoded all the posts of Epi that I think you actually need to know. I'm only not translating those which either seem obvious or aren't fundamental.

LizKeen wrote:

I couldn't figure out what pgnss meant. The closest I could get was prognosis.*facepalm* I posted and comment the posts of yours that didn't make me feel like you were being particularly civvie in the order you posted them. If I had posted all of your posts people would still be reading it because it would be epically wrong. Do you requote all their posts when you're trying to make a case?

This should have read epically long, not epically wrong. And no it wasn't some Freudian slip.

Also, noone ever responded to my question about Epi's and LC's Day 1 back-and-forth about who was lying. I clearly don't trust Epi but oes someone who has played with them both have an opinion there.

As far as things go, it was a pretty funny slip, though

As for LC and epi, I don't know what to make of it.

I was/am hoping zombs had more to say today. I'm gonna be quite busy tomorrow and want to vote tonight, ideally.

Hey, I responded

LizKeen wrote:The people on Michigan Avenue last night were Epi, Long Con, A Person, TH and bwt so it seems likely one of them was the source? I've been trying to figure out the wording in that Night Post and I can't really decide what to make of it. I don't however think it was something Llama came up with. It feels like there's a word missing or two missing at the beginning of the sentence that starts with "A Team", probably doesn't matter but I'm just curious. I'm not sure why the mafia would say it and assume they were going to be successful on targeting SVS since there's no way to be sure a kill will go through. It doesn't sound like Jeff Darrell as it's his paper and it says a "source".

Hey, Liz, now I don't quite understand where Michigan St becomes relevant here... but the newspaper did make Archer relevant, so I'm wondering if we have overlooked how the role of street selection could play into this.

Oh, Michigan st is even named in the story... this makes me think differently about it.

Yeah, Liz, I completely overlooked the reference to Michigan Street until just now... I'm assuming, then, that the post is only present because we voted for Michigan St. Which changes my perspective a little. I mean, Michigan St still might have empowered the baddies to write a story in the paper, though. It's not ruling it out.

But, zombs isn't wrong... I've been heavily invested in this case, and even I can see it's built on a house of cards. They are good cards, though.

But, frankly, your continued focus on SVS bothers me. So let me tell you a story (in the next post)

My first ever game of mafia, I was a civ and I played with SVS. It was a tough game, like this one, where we went a few lynches without finding a baddie and paranoia was at a high. So I built a case. It was such a solid case. It expounded on the links between the three people I thought were mafia. It focussed on their attitudes and many other things. It really looked so good.

Not one of them was bad.

The reason I had felt that way was, in part, because SVS went aggressively after people who I thought were civ all along, and got them lynched. She also tended to come after me, even though I was civ. I thought this must be bad SVS. I made this mistake three consecutive times... the first three times I played with SVS.

Then, I came to realise, SVS just believes in what she believes in. She goes hard for it - something I could completely relate to. And sometimes she is wrong. I honestly don't think we are seeing baddie SVS... its the exact SVS I've seen so many times before, suspected so many times before, and been wrong about.

(by the way though, I found the case I made on SVS in my first ever game the other day, and it was what made me think I needed to come back and play more mafia, so it was good for something).

I genuinely believe that SVS's motivations on day one were 1) she thought BF was bad 2) she wanted to get the will into civ hands so that she could say what the will really did if he had been lying about it. And don't forget, when she voted for bf, he hadn't named you yet.

I actually suspect noone can get anything from the will until the lawyer has had it and its been executed by the lawyer. Just a suspicion.

I think there is real merit to the possibility that the baddies might be laughing at us as all the louder people cut each other down. I would certainly be willing to consider a vote against:

A person, or
Vompatti, or
possibly canuck, or
maybe even Elo, who seems a lot quieter in content here than in RR.

If the criteria is who could be hiding.

I'm actually feeling fairly good about both you and lizkeen now.

I wouldn't presume I wouldn't do that if I was bad! But I am civ.

I actually think (although it's the kind of thing I know I shouldn't think too deeply about) that the baddies may have wanted me to come out swinging against someone the next day - possibly sophie who had said 'shut up golden' in jest the night before so that she could catch up, maybe dom who I'd had a good spat with. So I thought the best thing to do is ignore the why and just assume it's because I'm loud and because sometimes I am a threat.

You had that right, too, zombs... I already had every one of you in my sights lol, even though I may not have called out some of you yet.

Unfortunately, this game... genuinely no idea. I haven't been able to find an in yet, like I did with Aces. Which is why I actually think your theory that they could be sitting back makes a bit of sense.

@LK - I think we can get traction for someone other than you or zombs. I think it can be done.