The Syndicate

I keep saying I'm unrecruited, you must mean. What rezz recruitement possibility?

I don't know what I'm supposed to say about my rezz, really. I was unrecruited when killed, so I was out and done (i.e. loser). I don't know why the Shaman brought me back, of all people, but it didn't come with any recruitement. I'm still unrecruited and I'll still go down and lose the game if I stay that way and get killed again. I'd like to get recruited by the civs, because I'm fairly convinced I won't survive the game unrecruited. Team Azura clearly didn't like me and I doubt they like that I'm back either. I helped lynch Bubbles, in fact growing suspicious of her ever since her Golden D3 flip-flop, so I doubt team Ubzilly are fond of me, either.

Hmm, I made an error in assessing MoSh, it seems. I thought position 5 was up the night Dom was killed, so that MoSh couldn't have been targeted. But with position 4, you're right, MoSh is eligible.

profilic, lol

sorry for the quad

I'm back from work, because there's not much activity until classes start next week, but I have to attend a BBQ in a few hours, so in no way am I going to be profilic toDay. I'll revisit some of the current suspects later.

Scotty wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Speaker of Serenity wrote:Please lynch Turnip Head. That is all.

Remember when we got this message, then NEVER got another one after from the Speaker? What's up widdat?

We got a message from him at the start of D2, after position 1 concluded. We never got back to position 1 so far. His positions 2-5 might not be messaging. In fact, I'm pretty sure this lack of messaging since D2 tells us his positions 2-5 aren't messaging. I'm not sure if he's still alive or got killed, but there's no way to tell anyway.

Turnip Head wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Nobody else will care, but a clear indication to me of Doc's innocence is that nobody seems to be sticking up for him. Everyone is content to lynch him, which to me says that his lynch is a frame job.

Everybody wanted to lynch Bubbles too. But I'm not inclined to vote for Wilgy toDay, not til we've heard more from him. Though his reaction to the lynch switch was underwhelming.

But he might be silenced.

Also, where the hell has MM vanished?

I'll probably stretch myself thin late tonight (although it's already late and I should go to sleep instead) and throughout tomorrow trying to do re-reads and pick a lead, which won't gel well with achieving results until the lockdown might happen, so for now I'm going to place a vote on Synonym. I don't approve of him leaving the "posting" part out of his participation equation ("reading and voting" isn't enough, that's for sure, and he knows better, too); it's been going for too long and I've seen better activity from him back on JTM. It's understandable if the catch-up is too much or the role madness too vast, but it's still no reason to simply say "I don't understand what's going on" and not adopt any participation tactic.

If he's been recruited, his team would probably profit a lot from him sidelining hard. Plus, if you'll recall, I had a nagging vibe that Russ's status, despite him wanting out since D2, was left afloat for Days until replacements were found, making me believe he's already been recruited and his role is not so easily discardable anymore (via modkill or such). Both these recruiting theories on Russ and on Syn could mean either civ or bad camp, but his sidelining and defeatist remarks make me lean on bad.

Nah bitch Azura will probably put me down to sleep again tonight.

Wouldn't mind being recruited by Caelia or Ahriman camps, until that happens.

Also, I'm not on the poll!

Not sure if it matters in the big scheme, but if Wilgy is truly silenced today by the Assassin, then I have the late Dom in my sheets down to two possible roles: the War Monger or the Immortal.

Scotty wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Scotty wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I think I might vote SVS.

Why?

Cuz you're supposed to lynch baddies.

Wait, you think SVS is a baddie?

Since, like, two Days ago, bro.

DharmaHelper wrote:I think I might vote SVS.

Wow, the nights are turning bloody; three kill attempts and it'll only be this way (plus extra vigi ones), unless we start capturing some of them. Farewell JJJ, sorry to see you were double targeted. No breaks on the Rogue SK train.

Good to see the other kills failed, otherwise. Uzboing's blunder does make me wonder if he (and his team) is (are) the type to look into events closely or is (are) making rather unstrategic moves, prone to clumsiness.

Nope.

I feel deciding which position to vote tonights borders into overthinking, because all of them have consequences. I'm going to write off position 2 completely, though, because I definitely don't want another lynch switch for a second consecutive day. I think we'll be heading into D7 with a lot of manipulated votes by default (Ahriman will have a triple vote, Azura will force three players' votes, Master of Ancient Arts's three protected players will start the day with 3 votes), so position 3 would just add to the bonfire with Uzblo's lockdown, Azura being lynch free or Windscout doubling certain votes. Position 1 has more diverse target manipulations, Ubuntz is lynch free and the Judge can end Day early, an application I wasn't a fan of the first time. But overall I'll go with position 1 (milder vote manipulation, milder damage done by the bad leaders) and hope the Judge with time it wisely this time.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I'm here did the phase end early?

What are you talking about?

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I'm going to vote for position 2, because I don't like either lynch/nk protect for the two bad teams.

A bit confused about why people are suggesting the lynch (or lack thereof) wasn't the result of a switch.
1. There was an active lynch switch power last night. Why wouldn't it be used?
2. What do we gain by saying it wasn't a lynch switch? What's the point of that?

You prefer having another lynch switch for the second Day in a row?

Yeah, that sucks too, but if the baddies are immune to kills, how are going to get them?

There's always compromise needed in choosing a position, but I'd rather go on the other side for tomorrow, for the reason I already stated. Another lynch switch in a row, this time from the Uzbaddie no less, sounds a bit extreme.

Only one of the two bad leaders are immune with position 1 or 3, alternatively; not "baddies" plural.

Besides, if we don't "get" a baddie immune to the lynch, we could potentially out him when the lynch fails, no?

thellama73 wrote:I'm going to vote for position 2, because I don't like either lynch/nk protect for the two bad teams.

A bit confused about why people are suggesting the lynch (or lack thereof) wasn't the result of a switch.
1. There was an active lynch switch power last night. Why wouldn't it be used?
2. What do we gain by saying it wasn't a lynch switch? What's the point of that?

You prefer having another lynch switch for the second Day in a row?

Stats-wise, I have Bubbles at 5 votes (Canuck, LA, Timmer, Devin, Spacedaisy...all of them in a row, actually when Wilgy posted and voted Timmer (he later switched to SVS).

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:@JJJ: It read to me like you meant it's an argument against Wilgy's innocence, so to speak. Can you clarify?

DrWilgy surviving the lynch attempt brings us back to essentially the same scenario we had before with Bubbles. Assuming it was a baddie-motivated lynch switch, we're left asking this question:

Was DrWilgy rescued by his baddie team, or was the switch generated to remove a bigger threat (DH) while maintaining the suspicion on DrWilgy -- two off-team lynches for the price of one?

In the case of Bubbles, the answer was the former. With that in mind, it's understandable to me if this is perceived as a point against DrWilgy. In this instance, I'm still not inclined to ignore the latter as a genuine possibility. It's especially noteworthy that the switch attempt targeted DH specifically given his position in this game right now. It's a number of variables we'll all have to consider moving forward in the next day phase.

I think it's a slightly different scenario, given that it's not Ubzula's doing (which, with Bubbles, translated well into either chaos-making or teamie defending) and we don't know the Druid's alignment. He could be recruited civ or unrecruited (neutral) and had, at best, as you've said, the interest to target DH whom he regarded as a threat (& at worse, chaos shenanigannery), or he could be recruited bad and basically do the same thing Uzbina did (lynch fuckery and/or teamie defending). This makes it more difficult to project.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your analysis.

---

Bullzeye, thank you for the clarifications, I understand them way better this time.

@JJJ: It read to me like you meant it's an argument against Wilgy's innocence, so to speak. Can you clarify?

Bullzeye wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I had my vote on Bullzeye for a short time too. It was mostly because this:

Bullzeye wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Caelia wrote:Bullzeye, SVS, Lorab and Scotty are enemies of peace.

What a waste of a perfectly useful night action. Caelia, please don't be that person who posts their own opinions into gossip posts presented as facts. It's just lame.

struck me as perhaps the least genuine post of Day 6. Pure gut. I did appreciate his efforts later though in providing reads on numerous players. He's one I need to reassess in full context.

Nah that's genuine. It irritates me when gossip roles just act like their word is law and make posts like that with nothing to back it up. Gives people weak excuses to make throwaway votes and contributes nothing to the game. I made similar comments when one of those posts said to lynch TH.

How are gossip roles supposed to act, in your view? I've never seen gossip roles message an actual full case, but I've seen them claim we should look into certain players. Plus, we're talking about the civ leader, not just any gossiper (such as the Speaker of Serenity, for instance). Read back to my D6 catch-up post, if you will, when I addressed Caelia's message and reactions to it. I still don't get this utter discredit tone towards a civ leader.

Bullzeye wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:JJJ awakens, one cheek pressed against the carpet, a pool of drool seeping into the fabric. He struggles to sit up and attempts to survey his surroundings. Everything is still blurry, and he has a pounding headache. He notes a small shard of glass nearby and another next to it -- he follows the trail to a broken bottle with what must be his own blood encrusted on the jagged edge.

WTF?

S~V~S wrote:I am SO expecting shenanigans after the drama/nobility of that last Wilgy post. And i swear on a stack of esoteric texts that I bring no shenanigans myself

What about DrWilgy's post made you suspect shenanigans would be afoot?

As I was reading it, I could hear someone whistling the Lassie theme music or perhaps a faint string quartet and distant thunder. This was the swan song of a Wilgy who did not actually expect to be dead IMO. I am shocked beyond shit though that whoever switched it switched it to DH.

I would NOT expect that of Wilgy. I was like 99.9% sure that if Wilgy brought the shenanigans, he would have brought them to me. So the fact that it was DH leads me to think while Wilgy may have had manipulations, I doubt he switched the lynch.

Does it have to have been a switch? Could there have been manipulation of the votes somehow instead? My view of Wilgy hasn't changed.

I doubt it was anything but a switch. What chances are there for it to have been a vote manipulation? Didn't Wilgy have a healthy lead? Furthermore, how can DH have gotten lynched through vote manipulation, since he had no votes?

Scotty wrote:Also I voted position 3.
I've had enough of this lynch switch shenanigans. I don't like Uz's thread lock, but unlike in position 1, at least Uz can die and if the Judge is still loitering around, we can just shorten dat night again if need be. Position 2 can burn in hell.

In position 3, Azura can't die.

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote: 10) LoRab, you've gone back to TH, but do you have any other opinions, suspicions apart from him and me? It's D6, the bad teams are at a standard size; the field is also down to a standard full-game size. Your nod to SVS's case on Bullzeye is pretty mellow, almost as if to tell the thread that you're receptive to others, but not much more than that.

Also, as a general side-note, although this should probably be saved for post-game, I cannot express how much I dislike the "placeholding" vote tactic. Changeable votes are supposed to influence the course of a Day phase, in a way - they can be placed to influence, fish out reactions, shape discussion, make a temporary but clear stand and so on. Parking votes just because of how big the field of players is and unwillingness (or laziness?) to check (or open a separate tab with) "View results" doesn't fit into any of those categories.

I never moved my suspicion away from TH. I just started to suspect you more. And I tend to tunnel a bit in mafia, and hang on to the suspicions I have. I also like to play my cards close. So, yes, I have other thoughts. But my main suspicions have been shared.

And it was not a place holder entirely--I also suspected him. The ability to vote early without having to worry about wanting to vote a different way later is kind of a whole new world for me (and many players here). It has nothing to do with how big the field is or laziness. It's more playing with a new toy and figuring out how it works. And, in my case, I have not voted for someone I didn't want to vote for early. But, the majority of players here are figuring out how to use the early vote strategically, I think--I also wouldn't sell short the ability of said players to use this ability to their advantage. Even if seemingly "place voting."

And I didn't put that in green because it is not off topic. I don't think your green is off topic either, tbh.

*pours some whisky first*

I never said your suspicion of TH departed in any way, in fact what I pointed out was a return to it. You voted TH D3-D4, you picked on me D5, you went back to your TH D6 for previous suspicions still holding ground. "Playing my cards close" is not the type of answer to "what other suspicions do you have" I can say I appreciate, because it sounds much like keeping stuff to yourself whilst everyone is doing reads and stating suspicions out in the open, but at least you also seem to acknowledge that, on D6, you only have two main suspects (three with Wilgy, after current events).

Plus, you actually addressed more suspects in the same post you told me you're playing cards close, so I guess it's just me you don't feel like giving straight "I suspect him and her" answers. Oh well.

I acknowledge that you voted TH out of suspicion, but you also stated "And because I want to have a vote on the board so I can see the results.". The "and" makes your vote-placing for visual cue a secondary reasoning to your vote. If you would have said something like "Plus, it can help me see the results better by having a vote on the board" I wouldn't have had any problem with it, because it's a side advantage to you having voted, not a reasoning for having voted. Not to mention that I made it clear my side-note was "general", so it's not just about you, it's about others doing it as well. If players vote early strategically and such strategy is clear and just, I have no issues with it. But if they vote to "see the results", that strategy is lost on me or weak.

As for the green, I don't use OT just for totally-out-of-the-game-context comments (like how's the weather, how busy RL is or how good the whisky I'm having is). In this case, it was a general comment on a play habit I noticed, that I felt the need to address, after seeing you, at least in part, do it as well. It's not in-topic to anything else I've addressed about you (your suspicions) and it's not only about you place-voting, it's about everyone with that habit. I'd recommend not reading much into this OT use, but that's just me.

Scotty wrote:

Long Con wrote:All flavour. I just hadn't given Terras much time yet. Not that that post was a big scene either.

I know you keep coming in to explain yourself, but I just keep falling for it.


Ok.

Well, the other option I can see is that DH is the jilted lover with someone, assuming that the votes were somehow tampered with, and one of the vote getters tonight was the target DH picked.

I dunno. There's no real way of knowing right now. Could be either. It doesn't reflect his alignment, so

Jilted Lover's Pos 5 is saving his lover's life. I don't see how this variant would check out: DH being the Jilted Lover and saving himself is not possible. If his Lover was lynched, he still couldn't have traded places and die instead of him, that's his position 2.

There are some positions, such as Uzbigal's protection or Master of Shadows' deflecting all votes, that could maybe serve as a variant to Terras stopping the lynch - ...of...a Guardian. huh; dunno why I said he would be able to stop the entire lynch earlier - but I think the lynch switch is pretty clear, on the other hand.

Ugh, I'm sorry I missed the vote. Eternal dangers of writing from bed. I wasn't ready to decide where to vote, I pushed re-reading into the night and most of it didn't came into fruition when I feel into sleep mode.

So Druid switched the lynch to DH, but Terras cancelled the whole lynch?

Why would the Druid pick DH, though? Is the Druid on the bad side and wants to stir things up? Is he on the good side and believes DH is on the bad side?

Canucklehead wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:@Rico, I feel like I've been pretty up front about the way I'm playing this game Now that we've lost a baddie from Ub's team, I don't want to be recruited to that team, as they are clearly weakened, so it makes sense to actually go after people who might be on that team. In this format, once you're down, you're just not sexy anymore. So yeah, I'll absolutely jump onto a case that shows a possible Ub teammate, there's no hesitation. But when I've got the time to, I'll still pull together my own shit and present it, it's not like this format means people shouldn't try.

Did you want to be recruited by Ubz40 before, but don't now that they got hit? You say we've lost a baddie. Who's we? Is it a loss for anyone except the Uzzis?

I've been trying to get recruited to whoever will take me, but now Ubby and his team seem weak so why go there? As for my "we" it was obviously "the game" . Keep pressing, lol.

Why go there at all?

Give me your philosophy for this game (sorry if I missed it), since you seem to imply you wouldn't mind being recruited by baddies.

Timmer has been espousing his "totally neutral until recruited" philosophy the ENTIRE game. Talking about this philosophy takes up a large proportion of his posts. How could you possibly have *actually* read Timmer and missed this?

This looks like you jumping opportunistically on someone you think might be an easy lynch, or who might cause a fuss in the thread. Who are you trying to distract from, Rico?

I never said I read, as in ISO, timmer. I started suspecting through the Golden lynch lense first, adding some vibes I got from his activity rhythm. Vibes =/= analysis. To this, I could have indeed missed some of his posts offering his stances.

Furthermore, I can respect neutrality, but it's not the same thing as implying willingness to be recruited by baddies imo. How does that make him trustworthy to anyone baddie hunting? How will that help anyone's hunt in assessing timmer in the future?

I don't recall timmer being a wagon at this point, for me to act like he'd be an "easy lynch". I simply suspect him or get signals I don't trust. Where's the fuss I'm trying to create, I just asked if anyone else sees what I'm seeing? What am I distracting from, I mentioned timmer in a 14-point post with mostly pinges and suspicions.

Just seemed suspicious to me that, despite the fact that Timmer has been playing like this openly all game, that you're suddenly on his case about it the minute you come back from the dead.
As for the "easy lynch" and "causing a fuss" bit, I guess I was trying to say that the way you were wording your posts like a "Gotcha!", with the leading questions and the smiley, it seemed like perhaps you were attempting to stoke the coals and get other people to pour the gasoline on your fire. People often respond favorably to "slips" or "catches" (baddies are especially likely to hop on those bandwagons), and the way you were wording you questions to /timmer struck me as being in the "Hey look I've found a slip!" vein.
I agree I didn't word it well or explain what I meant clearly..... but now I have!

Got it. The smoky smiley is a suspicion/ping smiley in my book. I don't intend, nor expect, to control anyone's attention and responses with any methods, though I can perhaps acknowledge that, compared to my wall-o-texts, smiley reactions can seem weirder coming from me. On the other hand, I didn't write anything from my exchange with timmer as a "Gotcha!".

Canucklehead wrote:
Rico: rez's are always suspicious to me. Also, his attack on Timmer seems to be really trying to "catch" Timmer at something Timmer's been doing openly the entire game, which reeks to me of pot-stirring and opportunism, rather than genuine baddie hunting.

I died unrecruited and I' have the same status after being rezzed. Are you implying my rezz had a different connotation. How is that possible? My rezz came after this phase's recruitments. Even if the Shaman is recruited at this point, my rezz still doesn't incorporate alignment change.

If Timmer implied "the entire game" that he embraces recruiting from all sides, I truly missed it and I'm sorry, but it still doesn't make me feel better or trust him more.

Also nice double standard, I'm not baddie hunting to you, but timmer gets a pass for declaring himself open to all recruitment and alternating wagon jumping (I'm sorry but it is what it is, until further proof of elaboration) with more insightful reads. Check back my activity toDay, check back my activity any Day and then tell me if I'm not doing any hunting.

Canucklehead wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:@Rico, I feel like I've been pretty up front about the way I'm playing this game Now that we've lost a baddie from Ub's team, I don't want to be recruited to that team, as they are clearly weakened, so it makes sense to actually go after people who might be on that team. In this format, once you're down, you're just not sexy anymore. So yeah, I'll absolutely jump onto a case that shows a possible Ub teammate, there's no hesitation. But when I've got the time to, I'll still pull together my own shit and present it, it's not like this format means people shouldn't try.

Did you want to be recruited by Ubz40 before, but don't now that they got hit? You say we've lost a baddie. Who's we? Is it a loss for anyone except the Uzzis?

I've been trying to get recruited to whoever will take me, but now Ubby and his team seem weak so why go there? As for my "we" it was obviously "the game" . Keep pressing, lol.

Why go there at all?

Give me your philosophy for this game (sorry if I missed it), since you seem to imply you wouldn't mind being recruited by baddies.

Timmer has been espousing his "totally neutral until recruited" philosophy the ENTIRE game. Talking about this philosophy takes up a large proportion of his posts. How could you possibly have *actually* read Timmer and missed this?

This looks like you jumping opportunistically on someone you think might be an easy lynch, or who might cause a fuss in the thread. Who are you trying to distract from, Rico?

I never said I read, as in ISO, timmer. I started suspecting through the Golden lynch lense first, adding some vibes I got from his activity rhythm. Vibes =/= analysis. To this, I could have indeed missed some of his posts offering his stances.

Furthermore, I can respect neutrality, but it's not the same thing as implying willingness to be recruited by baddies imo. How does that make him trustworthy to anyone baddie hunting? How will that help anyone's hunt in assessing timmer in the future?

I don't recall timmer being a wagon at this point, for me to act like he'd be an "easy lynch". I simply suspect him or get signals I don't trust. Where's the fuss I'm trying to create, I just asked if anyone else sees what I'm seeing? What am I distracting from, I mentioned timmer in a 14-point post with mostly pinges and suspicions.

Rox, Russ was replaced by Synonym, the Hosts just keep frogetting to change them in the polls.

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:@Rico, I feel like I've been pretty up front about the way I'm playing this game Now that we've lost a baddie from Ub's team, I don't want to be recruited to that team, as they are clearly weakened, so it makes sense to actually go after people who might be on that team. In this format, once you're down, you're just not sexy anymore. So yeah, I'll absolutely jump onto a case that shows a possible Ub teammate, there's no hesitation. But when I've got the time to, I'll still pull together my own shit and present it, it's not like this format means people shouldn't try.

Did you want to be recruited by Ubz40 before, but don't now that they got hit? You say we've lost a baddie. Who's we? Is it a loss for anyone except the Uzzis?

I've been trying to get recruited to whoever will take me, but now Ubby and his team seem weak so why go there? As for my "we" it was obviously "the game" . Keep pressing, lol.

Why go there at all?

Give me your philosophy for this game (sorry if I missed it), since you seem to imply you wouldn't mind being recruited by baddies.

timmer wrote:@Rico, I feel like I've been pretty up front about the way I'm playing this game Now that we've lost a baddie from Ub's team, I don't want to be recruited to that team, as they are clearly weakened, so it makes sense to actually go after people who might be on that team. In this format, once you're down, you're just not sexy anymore. So yeah, I'll absolutely jump onto a case that shows a possible Ub teammate, there's no hesitation. But when I've got the time to, I'll still pull together my own shit and present it, it's not like this format means people shouldn't try.

Did you want to be recruited by Ubz40 before, but don't now that they got hit? You say we've lost a baddie. Who's we? Is it a loss for anyone except the Uzzis?

Ok, work today meant to wait for two hours for a student to come give me some diplomas copies, so I can file them for some school funds competition, so here's my catch-up of D6.

Throwing it out there.

RAW

1) The "leader back story" winner would have received one role from each team. What Caelia did is either simple gossip post (her own position) or gossip transposed into the format of the contest (her own position, manipulated to sound like the result of the event). Unfortunately, she pretty much botched her own attempt because: a) she suggested four bad players (she should have received two civ, two bad, if genuine) and b) she gave players instead of roles. So it's clear her post is still gossipy, no matter the format.

Side-note, how would the prize winner be allowed to share his info, if he'd choose to share it? Open message to the thread or hinting through posts, as usual? If the former, since Caelia gossiped, I don't think we got any real info so far. There's also a 50-50 chance the winner kept it to himself; or is bad and the info suits only him and his team now. Heck, I submitted myself a story and it was pretty bitchin' if you ask me, so for all I know, I could have won, but got killed at the same time and the result was thus null.

HOWEVER, whilst I still believe gossip posts don't need to be treated as truths or info (remember Speaker?), we are still talking about one of the civ leaders. Her attempts, even by tricks such as the card she tried to play here, are still supposed to be genuine. She doesn't have a check position, but she could have teammates with check positions, so real info is not truly out of the question.

This being said, I think I'd give the following grades to those who reacted to this:

Bullzeye: minus, because of his outright dismissal and calling her effort a waste. Dude, she's a civ leader, she can coat her efforts however she wants, it doesn't make her perspective be any less genuine. If she has no real info, then those are her suspicions. If she has real info (from teammates who can check), some of it could be true. Honestly, I can only imagine someone being this dismissive if he feels stung by her claims.

LoRab: plus, because she questioned the veracity and the format of Caelia's message, as a way of defending herself, in a focused and (*gasp*) logical way.

SVS: null, because she briefly questioned the format and denied her name on the list being correct - which is pretty much what I'd expect of SVS

TH: comci-comca about Caelia's message containing both true and false info, so I'm comci-comca about his approach, too

timmer: taking it for granted at first, plus saying something confusing about Jay, then questioning the format after other players pointed it out. Not sure what to make of this.

Side-grade: did Scotty address his name being in the message or is he staying away from it?

----

2) Llama's picks from his own review of interactions (or lack thereof) with Bubbles [actually it's more the way Bubbles interacted with others, not how others addressed or interacted with her, which is just one side of the spectrum. hmmmmm...] were TH (interaction) and Bullzeye (no interaction). My questions are:

for interactions: why only TH or why TH "most likely"? what about Roxy, Canuck (whom Bubbles also defended)? what about rey (Bubbles is confirmed to have buddied up with Golden and thus voted rey to respect Golden's wishes and legacy)? what about Boomslang (Bubbles ignoring his case constantly)?

for no interactions: why only Bullzeye? What about Wilgy, for instance?

why only the "Bubbles interacting with" angle and not the "Bubbles addressed by" angle as well?

Also, I get the gloating (you're llama after all), but I'd suggest easing up on it with the supatowning and the "in your face" comments such as the one to Bullzeye. It's been pointed already that we don't know exactly when Bubbles was recruited and if Uzboing handpicked her early on or got her as teammate via other ways later on. So you could still have been wrong about her being bad early on, up to the point when she got recruited and your suspicions were suddenly valid. The only way you'd know for sure that you've been right about her all along is if you have info that she got handpicked early on or you handpicked her yourself. Which frankly would put you in the Uzbeg camp or in Ubzit's shoes themselves.

Also, you described Bullzeye's activity as "preventing good people from being lynched [rather] than in lynching bad people". Is "preventing good people from being lynched" inherently a bad thing or am I misunderstanding something here?

----

3) Bullzeye's pause about Uzbo not switching the lynch to Sorsha (second wagon) instead of unfurl of all people (no wagon at all) and his idea that Sorsha might be also bad is valid, but he forgets that Ubza is a vicious chaos-maker. Why get rid of second wagons instead of creating an unexpected death? What's the point of questioning his actions, apart from the Sorsha link? Is there a slight chance? Sure, if Ubzargan had to derail a lynch in which his teammates were first and second wagon, his team was in pretty dire shit that day. Otherwise, I'm not sure I fully understand this line of questioning.

----

4) Aap's D6 contribution gives me pause and I think it adds up to his overall contribution as well, although I'd need to re-read. His posts are just focused on mechanics, speculations (the Speakers being dead because he hasn't sent messages? how are you sure about that? it's an old story, but what if his positions 2-5 aren't messaging?), skeptical about Wilgy WIFOM and something about Ahriman not killing DH? wut? Anyway, I don't see so far how his input aligns with the current topics and leads, so I'm starting to be wary of him.

----

5) JJJ seems silenced

----

6) nutella's "I'd like to find Bubbles' teammates but I haven't the first clue how." pinged me. it's D6, some of us are doing efforts, so why the resignation?

----

7) Wilgy said he'd look into my death. Any finds, bro?
Wilgy also said something about finding out who's poisoned. How can we even begin to know or be able to tell that, right now? What's the significance of this?

----

8) The talk about Host Posts containing hints (nutella, aapje) doesn't seem positive to me. LC was clear that we shouldn't look too deep into the story. What's the point to say that LC could still be lying about it or something (aapje, I think)? According to the N5 story, I'd be an Ahriman recruit, but I'm not (I'm unrecruited), so yeah, story is story.

----

9) SVS's post about the Executioner not killing her last Night and how that would have proven a point? Huh? What point would him attempting to kill you have proven? What did you mean by this?

----

10) LoRab, you've gone back to TH, but do you have any other opinions, suspicions apart from him and me? It's D6, the bad teams are at a standard size; the field is also down to a standard full-game size. Your nod to SVS's case on Bullzeye is pretty mellow, almost as if to tell the thread that you're receptive to others, but not much more than that.

Also, as a general side-note, although this should probably be saved for post-game, I cannot express how much I dislike the "placeholding" vote tactic. Changeable votes are supposed to influence the course of a Day phase, in a way - they can be placed to influence, fish out reactions, shape discussion, make a temporary but clear stand and so on. Parking votes just because of how big the field of players is and unwillingness (or laziness?) to check (or open a separate tab with) "View results" doesn't fit into any of those categories.

----

11) SYN WHEN DO YOU START PLAYING. OH CAPS

----

12) Sorsha's "someone please do leads for me" pinged me. Sounds like a catch-up comment without any catch-up, thrown in just to please the thread.

----

13) Spacedaisy's case seems genuine, but there's a tiny part of me that finds it also sudden. She points out Llama's evolution in addressing Bubbles throughout the game, but during the phases when it worsened, I don't remember her actively questioning him at that time. The last time was D4, when she called Llama reasonable with his activity. Also she suspects Llama for a change of tone in the last Days, but gives the verdict that Llama recruited Bubbles, which is the sort of manual recruitement Bugzybargan could have only done in the early stage. So it's the same "recruiting" dillema: if you suspect Llama's moodchange is due to Bubbles becoming his teammate recently, you can't also say Llama recruited her manually prior in time.

This being said, your post might also influence me to re-read Llama.

----

14) Timmer went full jump in on Spacedaisy's Llama. I still don't trust him much, so this post doesn't stick out well to me. Does no one else have an issue with how he alternates between "le analysis man" to "le following others man"?

----

15) WIll probably focus on / re-read Bullzeye, Llama, Wilgy, maybe TH, for now.

Oh I'm back!



Paraphrasing this from TH back when he was unlynchable in Death Note, because I still remember LMAO at this reaction of his.

I'll answer both LoRab (did you kill me? ) and Scotty's questions, for now. From the positions, I can only assume the Shaman used his rezz today. It's written as a "possible rezz", does that mean the odds of his rezz working are not 100%? I'd need to check if there was any power steal in Position 4, but I find it a more sinuous theory than the Shaman one. I don't know why the Shaman (or whoever did this) found me worthy of being rezzed. Anyway, if so, I'm grateful to him and I'm glad the rezz worked.

To be honest, getting rezzed at a later stage would have probably been better for my chances in this game. I didn't feel I stood a chance to stay unrecruited and survive up until I got hit and I don't think my chances are better upon returning. Remember when I pondered about how big players are getting axed so far? What if it's not that farfetched and it's part of the baddies mentality? Both teams are surprisingly synchronous in this direction so far: Epig (Azura), G-Man (Ubzy), MP (Ubzy), me (Azura).

I think a better question is who killed me and what for? For WIFOM due to my clash with LoRab? For my talk, activity and skills? For looking civ? For my suspects? (I can't say it's for retribution, because Azura killed me and Bubbles was an Uzbek).

As for thoughts, I'm afraid I took the "throw my hands in the air" stance after being killed yesterday and, except for browsing the thread on occassions, I have to pick it up right from the start of D6. If I wouldn't have died, I would have attempted to scan the entire field for Bubbles relations (sort of like llama did, but probably more in the shape of a wall of China-like text); with less than 24hrs to go now, I doubt I'll achieve that. Have to go to work in half an hour, but will re-read the major input so far and pitch in.

Oh, farewell to Dom and DP.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My favorite thing about this game so far is the number of different nick names people have created for Uzbarney the dinosaur.

I started it with Uzbekistan.

I'm not a fan of position 5 after the first rotation, position 3 nope, going with position 1.

BIH Bubbles. Great to see that we finally caught a baddie.

Lotsa theories thrown in already, but as much as I'd love to jump into them myself, I've had a bad afternoon, so I'll come back later.

I intended to try to finish my reads from the Golden files, but it'll have to be rather "breve", incomplete, occassionally inconclusive or undecided comments, because I have to wake early-ish again (and would rather test my new reflexes of going to bed earlier to go to work, even if tomorrow's just a stupid board meeting.../digress). I fully admit being absorbed into a certain talk the other day and not doing a great job focusing on what I said I will on this day, but I'll redress that.

This will be a sort of colorless list, with a not so clear hierarchy. None of them come perfectly clean out of it, but I still get worse vibes from some compared to the rest.

SVS, I think, feels least ungenuine and orchestrating, despite being so wrong and tunneling with her disconcertment. I get DH's ping to a degree, because her change of perspective about Golden did stood out to me as well, but SVS's idea that her switch was in sync of Golden's comments also checks out.

LoRab gives me pause with her timing (or rather her outburst, so to say) rather than the content of the suspicions. She started her case here, with rather more tangential criticism towards Golden (that he's holding on to his neutral unrecruitable mentality or something, plus some contradiction from him about Epig and himself ever working together) compared to the major backlash (the bait comment), developed then in her, so far, favourite MO, "neutral that don't inspire civ behavior are a danger". I'm more than aware she can make her arguments stick and be consistent, so it's her moodchange on D3 that I'm drawn back to. It's very sudden and decisive and I think there's nothing between it and her D1 verdict on the matter (that Golden sounds simply frustrated from being hounded). Nothing from her on D2, when Golden was getting heat no less. Sure she moved her vote to TH afterwards, but her eyeballing of Golden still stands out to me.

Dom's posts I'll definitely have to ISO, but I would like to say this, his meta doesn't give me the right vibes. I think I only played Film and Biblical with him and his directness, his suspicion-finger-waving, his occassional exclamations, etc., rather remind me more of Film, where, it so happens, he was in one of the bad teams (it was also a two-mafia-team format). In Biblical he was inquisitive and hunting, but with more restraint (to the point I couldn't even read him as Dom; for a while, I thought it was SVS, lol). Again, I couldn't spot anything blatantly bugging or inconsistent in his questioning, but it probably requires a re-read to figure it out.

for Rey we have a legacy suspicion from Golden and a very mixed bag of interaction(z) with him, some of his hounding not looking great (turning the heat on for Golden's guilt sentiments? calling the WIFOM of Golden killing Epig plausible out of nowhere, after two straight Days of debates? stuff like that, probably more). not liking his "siesta mode" either, does anyone have any meta on it? it doesn't quite make me believe it's a baddie tactic to retreat in the shadows after such a failed hunt (baddies who mislynch with a passion would probably try to save appearances, look elsewhere, brings out better names, stay in touch and don't lose cred altogether etc.), but I still find it odd. I'll put this "siesta" as just a ping for now and likely re-read the interaction to decide on the rest.

DH - mixed bag of interactions with Golden as well, but he'll probably require an ISO overall

Boomslang - didn't manage to focus on the case(s) on him whilst he was second wagon and a hot suspect Day 3 & 4, guilty as charged. I'd put his Golden vote into the "weak sauce" category, wagony even, but would really need to revisit his posts and others' stances on him atm.

Devin - I've said my share about his vote and activity, others say he does that all the time and that he'd be awful recruiting material the way he acts. Fair enough, I guess, but I still don't like it.

Timmer - addressed him in the same abovementioned post; still don't getting good vibes from him

with Bubbles' lynch not going through, I think the odds that she might be Uzbain's teammate exist, but they're admittedly slight compared to the idea that Uzborg is simply making a victim out of her as he did with unfurl. I don't feel this detracts my suspicions about Bubbles, though. I still think she may have pedalled away from Golden's wagon, had contradicting stances, might have tried to save appearances. Stuff for which I voted her D4 - her recent reactions to the lynch switch don't make me feel any better about her, but aren't the backbone of my case either - stuff for which I think I'll keep the vote, right now.

TinyBubbles

Synonym switched his vote to Bubbles. Has he said something about it?

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

S~V~S wrote:And why would anyone think Golden would be an easy lynch? For killing Epignosis?

You didn't suspect Golden for killing Epignosis (aka his bait to get Epignosis being WIFOM) until late into Golden's lynch. Initially you suspected Golden for his nonchalance and for distrusting that he's playing his civ game.

i know. I meant that why would anyone want to lynch Golden for killing Epignosis. Epi was hounding him, and until he made that post, I felt sorry for him, too.

Golden made his doomed comment fairly immediately, so there was no window for players to feel "sorry about Golden being hounded by Epig". His comment split the players right away into those finding him nonchalant and bad and those finding him genuine and possibly framed.

So when was Golden a lynch target for killing Epignosis (or the WIFOM around it)? As I've said, only you converted your suspicion into that late on D3 and I think rey did it as well at one point (without having brought it up before at all). I'd have to double-check about others, don't recall.

Am I misunderstanding something? Did you mean DH implied people (easily) suspected and lynched Golden for killing Epig? Because I don't see where he implied that.

S~V~S wrote:And why would anyone think Golden would be an easy lynch? For killing Epignosis?

You didn't suspect Golden for killing Epignosis (aka his bait to get Epignosis being WIFOM) until late into Golden's lynch. Initially you suspected Golden for his nonchalance and for distrusting that he's playing his civ game.

Long Con wrote:

Long Con wrote:

aapje wrote:Aww Typh and Epi.

Interesting that there was no Immortal kill.

@Hosts:
Will failed kills be written into the post?
How many missing PM's?

Failed kills should be written in. I think I missed writing in the Immortal kill that failed last night. I'll write it up today after I talk to BR to be sure of what she wants to do. I think the right solution is to just write up an extra section about this person surviving and post it.

There was definitely one PM missing.

Totally forgot about this. The Immortal's Position 1 kill was headed for G-Man, but G-Man survived. Sorry about the oversight.

Interesting. That leaves only a few options for who G-Man might have been.

Also, it seems most of the kills and kill attempts have targeted big players so far. I don't stand a chance to win this if I remain unrecruited.

Who here doesn't like big players?

DrWilgy wrote:We can't. I'm starting to think that position 2 is actually the strongest baddie position while Ubzargan is alive. All aboard the never pick position 2 train! Choo choo!!

I would also like to point out that there was a "arbitrarily" chosen position 2, during poll 1.

I would agree with this. Let's especially never consider choosing that for an even day/night cycle, because thanks to position 2, Ubzargan gets to manipulate an entire lynch and kill the following Night.

Do you mean how position 2 was chosen randomly after N3, because N3 ended early? Or someone randomizing a position 2 choice during a previous Night?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Bold stance: next time we're in Position 2, the lynch will be switched again.

Will it be to save a teammate?

How will we be able to test that or get info out of that, if there'll be a lynch switch no matter what.

Kill the lynch switcher. It really is that simple.

That's not what I asked.

Turnip Head wrote:Bold stance: next time we're in Position 2, the lynch will be switched again.

Will it be to save a teammate?

How will we be able to test that or get info out of that, if there'll be a lynch switch no matter what.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
- I don't really get how unfurl ended up dying. A lynch switch of some kind? Although I was thinking the same thing with TinyBubbles, but somehow I doubt that both of the last 2 lynches were influenced by lynch switches.

Apologies for the snip, but what do you mean by this?

I'm saying that the D4 lynch could have been influenced by a lynch switch.

That is true, but what "last 2 lynches" and what "same thing with Bubbles"? The two were part of the same story.