The Syndicate

DFaraday, from your perspective what is the case on Epi?

MP, did you present a case on Epi 2 showing him to be a cyberman? Or some kind of evidence? No offense meant here but for me to go back and read through all of your posts is impossible so if you could link me or at least give me some sense of where in the game you talked about this I'd be much obliged.

SVS's post prompts me to respond to several issues re: MM, MP, and Epi.

I haven't seen what everyone else is seeing on MM. His posts just haven't been memorable to me, but MP looks like he's presented a thorough case. I haven't read it yet nor the response because my eyes just glazed over when i saw how many links were there, but I promise I will read it today. I'll also take a look at your posts SVS because I think you've said something about MM in the past.

MP I have been "flopping all over the place" too about your civviness or baddieness. I want to ask keys and chris - I understand chris probably won't be able to answer this until tomorrow - what specifically has you so convinced MP is bad. There must be something in the beginning and then there must be things along the way that are showing you he is bad. I initially thought he was probably bad because of the zeek shenanigans but I didn't think his "lynch me" was a ploy, I thought it was a genuine reaction to the situation he found himself in. So I'm wondering, is there more than these two things and if so, what? If there is anyone else who can answer this question please step right in but since keys and chris have voted him all along I would think they have the most conclusive evidence (maybe that's a bad assumption).

Epi I am looking forward to whatever you have for us this afternoon and I'm inclined right now to think you are civ. What I don't understand is why in hell you just don't make the robot statement so all of us can put that behind us. As a civ, do you really want us to spend so much time on that one issue? SVS said maybe you are possibly saying "I am what I am"; I just think you are being plain ole' stubborn. Or, you're not civ and there's a reason why you don't want to make that statement, a reason that I cannot see when I read your original statement about role-checking. I guess there is the possibility that you are civ and don't want to make that statement but I don't see any robots in the civ characters. I have to say the whole thing causes me some uneasiness because it could so easily be dispensed with.

So, I'm going to read MP's case and MM's response today and see if i can get through all MM's quotes as well. If anyone knows of anyone else who presented points about MM please tell me and I will look through their posts, unless it's additional points presented by MP. I don't think I have the mental energy nor the time to read through all of MP.

Long Con, I went through the posts and Epi made that statement about not being the role checker etc. on Night 4 so that would have been after fingersplints was killed.

sabie12 wrote:

bea wrote:Quick update guys - Because this is a lynch poll, I'm going to wait till tonight and I'll be around to help Teefies with the night stuff. I don't want to screw up the times and have that wonky thread voting stuff again. I know it's super confusing for everyone. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

It's no problem Bea and BWT! I will be patiently awaiting your guys' post. I know how crazy life can get.

And with regard to the lie detector thing I'm confused. I thought only that one character who is the lie detector could check and then they would know. Of course I guess then they would be able to make a case against someone but how does anyone else benefit? When I looked they don't have btsc with anyone and admitting they know something would be admitting their role. Or am I wrong? Does their knowledge get shared with the group as a whole like in a post? or is it only shared with that one person?

sabie you are correct that only one character, the LD, checks the statement and gets back the result - either true or false. So as the LD you have to be really careful what statement you check. They cannot share this info with anyone, not even to say "I know DH is a baddie but I can't tell you how I know" because that's info-dumping. They are expected to make a case in the thread against that person using thread evidence. Or they can support someone else in the thread who has made a case against the person. There may be other things they can do but I'm not able to come up with anything right now. The most important thing is they can't info-dump.

Now the role checkers are different. They are on the baddie teams and check someone's role. They are allowed to tell the other baddies on their team whether the person was bad (from the other team or maybe a SK) or civ, or indy.

Hope this helps.

i like the romantic Darillium so will place my vote there.

I'm so glad to hear you're interested in mafia again Enrique RIP to you, but BIH to your character in the game. I'm happy that we got one in a lynch!

Thank you Gotrees for the description of the planets, it is so helpful when choosing. Don't worry about River Song though, she is dead. Juliets 1.0 was River Song.

Chris as for the hangmen for the bad characters they are decoded except for a word or two. I suggest looking at the most up to date iterations and working on what the missing words are (at least I don't think those words have been solved yet). There are just a few. Mostly the hangmen are done. I have tried but can't get what's missing because I'm just no good at it.

Enrique wrote:juliets, SVS, DF, Dom, MM, Roxy. I haven't caught up and at this point it seems totally moot, but are you sure you actually changed your minds? Because I wouldn't have expected any of you to vote for me if there hadn't been this massive push

Enrique what put me over the edge was made's vote for himself in order, it looks like, to help save you. Am I wrong? Maybe, but it's hard to make that vote fit any other explanation. If you've got another explanation what is it?

SVS, what makes you change your mind from Enrique to MP? Also, does this mean you think Enrique is civ?

I'm voting Enrique. If i need to move my vote tomorrow I will do so.

*vote Enrique

Thanks a lot MM and Dana and zeek and Long Con and anyone else that helped with decoding. I am a complete fail at it and usually don't play games that have it because as a civ who can't do it you never know what the civ roles say. But that sneaky bea and bwt slipped them in after the game started! So many thanks for those who picked up the slack and did the decoding. If I forgot your name speak up so I know who I'm thanking.

MovingPictures07 wrote:One last thing though, I'm seriously curious as to why I appear to have more outspoken defenders now than I have previously. If anyone could elaborate on that, that'd be great.

Also, even though I think Enri should go today, it'd be nice to discuss other suspects, as S~V~S stated, especially since the +1 is gone. I do not believe Dana and Daisy warrant any attention, however, but Metalmarsh surely should.

What do you see in regards to Metalmarsh MP?

RIP zeek, I really enjoyed having you in the game. I hope you'll come back and play again because you were a great addition. Goodbye Made - I can't know for sure that you were bad because I don't have confirmation but I strongly believe you were bad. I also hope you play with us again, you're a lot of fun normally. Maybe just not when you're a baddie.

MP I don't get it. How could your lynch possibly be good for the civs if you are a civ? You've thrown a lot of names out there so it's not like we could track back and say "aha! here's the one he thought was baddie". I think you are probably good and you just can't stand it that some people think you are bad, and you want to prove right away that you are good, kinda like sticking your tongue out at them. Killing a civ takes away a civ vote and whatever power the civ has assuming he has a power. That is not a good thing and I think you are trying to rationalize that somehow it is good. I can understand if it is rl because you have got a lot to do but you say it's not. I don't mean to make you angry, I just want you to put a little more objective thought into it and remove as much emotion as you can.

My vote is likely to go to Enrique today but there is some research I have to do first.

Snow Dog wrote: The way Enrique and Made voted seemed to me they were team mates with Made being unlynchable. Made voted himself to make as sure as possible Enrique didn't get lynched.

That sounds like a good possibility for why Made voted himself Snowy.

Also, I am voting Rexel.

Chris wrote:

Turnip Head wrote: I do understand Epi's point that they could be teammates and Made has the unlynchable role.

This is what I'm afraid of... The push to lynch Made under such weak reasoning has me thinking there was an ulterior motive.

That's one main reason I switched to Rico. But MP voted for Rico, and I was feeling that they were teammates.

But TH is making some DAMN good points.

But there has also been a push to lynch enrique - unless I'm not understanding your point.

Ok, one of the things (besides wanting to understand the Enrique case) that bothered me about a Made vote is I just couldn't see the Snow Dog votes as a save of Made. It would have been easier to pile votes on someone else who already had a few votes. Plus, my opinion is at best two baddies would have voted for Snowy and he had six votes (thereabouts) so the others had to be civs. I couldn't make my belief synch with a vote for Made but MP provided a good explanation for how that could be the case even without Snow Dog's votes being a save of Made. I'm convinced Made is acting totally differently than he has in other games where he is generating ideas, bouncing them off others, and in general being a helpful civ (I used some of ninju's words there). And then there are Doms points regarding Made's behavior. In addition, this is a small thing but I noticed Made listed fingersplints as one of his suspicions and then fingersplints got killed not immediately, but shortly thereafter (and I understand that could have been an attempt at a frame up but I don't believe it was). Anyway, there are enough things here and it's really the accumulation of issues that convinces me he is bad.

Enrique could also be bad but today Made is the one I choose to vote for.

*vote Made*

Enrique wrote:

juliets wrote:Enrique, what did you mean when you said:

You... do realize I haven't had a choice, right? I can't even handle this argument.

What do you mean by "you realize I've had no choice"?

I can't keep voting for the same person because everyone I've voted for has been lynched.

Oh right, duh, don't know why I didn't get that right away.

Enrique, what did you mean when you said:

You... do realize I haven't had a choice, right? I can't even handle this argument.

What do you mean by "you realize I've had no choice"?

So Enrique, lying? Not a good idea when people are assessing you for a possible vote. What's your side of the story?

And yeah Chris, I'm trying to work through the whole saving made vote myself. Was it or wasn't it?

Snow Dog wrote:

juliets wrote:Snowy, was there anything besides Epi's case that has you convinced about Enrique?

To be honest no, not really othewrise i would have names him as a suspect earlier. If you remember I was previously voting between hedge, daisy and Made. Hedge because of your suspicions, Daisy due to MP and SVS and Made from my own suspicion.

You think I should stick with my own suspicion?

My opinion is you should vote for whoever you think is bad no matter whether it was your own suspicion or originally someone else's. I was just asking about Enrique because I'm trying to make sure I understand everything about the case against him. I thought you might have another piece.

Snowy, was there anything besides Epi's case that has you convinced about Enrique?

Chris wrote:*side note*

When making a post to a very recent, VERY LARGE post, on the same page, could we try to edit out the novel of text next time? Especially when responding with 19 words?


That being said, I am still VERY okay with voting MP. I may even be okay with a Made vote, but less so. However, I can be very easily convinced to switch my vote to Enrique.

I'm announcing now, that by the end of this day, I may switch my vote to Enrique, if I think that MP will not be lynched. (I don't want to be accused of a late switch, and then get lynched for it... Rico...)

I would also like to suggest that many times you only need to quote what the last person said of a multiple quote and respond. Or you can clip and take out all the extraneous posts. Trying to read these posts that are so full of quotes is not just tiring, it's hard to wade through and figure out. The simpler it is the easier it is to understand.

I re-read Made yesterday and prior to that re-read Dom's posts about him. Made says he is playing more like he played in Felt which he said was more analysis based. I'd like to aks those who played Felt if that was true of his play in Felt. I think I've got a good feel for how he played in Python and Misfits but was he really more like he is in this game in Felt? I may very well vote Made today.

I have not re-read Enrique yet but I agree Epi had some good points about him. Of course, Epi had some "good" points about juliets 1.0 too and he was wrong so I really want to look at Enrique's posts before I buy in. Some people have cited his survival as evidence of him being a baddie but we have characters who can survive who are civ. I'm not seeing anything bad about LC yet, though I may have a blind spot where he is concerned. I don't see that he is protecting Enrique. I may vote Enrique today depending on what I find.

I'm not seeing an MP vote today though I wonder if his not posting is just making suspicions about him recede into the background for me. Or, maybe the fact that I don't feel as suspicious of him means that the more he posts and says things the more I find to be suspicious of - maybe my suspicions are born of his frequency. Will be interesting to see how I feel when he starts posting again.

I've re-read Hedgie and didn't see anything else about her that causes me any gut bad feelings. I'll be interested to see what TH comes up with today, if he's able to find anything that speaks to his gut feel.

That's just a small status report on where I am with some people right now. Today will be a big day trying to read Enrique and potentially others while watching football.

Ok thanks TH.

TH, did you see something about Hedge that didn't have to do with her "riding the fence" or not answering Roxy's question? Or is it that you feel her answers were disingenuous?

Made I'm going through your posts and have a question (I may have more later): you said at one point you were playing this game as a variation of your Felt play. Now I didn't play Felt but those that are here are saying your behavior here is different from your Felt behavior, so what did you mean by that statement?

bea, that is exactly how I have told to play it in every other game where i've replaced (a good number at this point).

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

juliets wrote:

S~V~S wrote:But that one is an especially fun one, and it is kinda traditional for us

Yes, it is fun to see those older names pop up (when am I going to be in the insanifier ? ) and knowing that LC programmed all those impossible words.

On the subject of replacements, I have been told every time I've replaced that i cannot talk from the viewpoint of the character who died because that character is dead. So anything I learned as that character cannot be discussed because they are no more. I have to approach the game as the new player and only discuss things found out as the new character. If that's not true for this game I would like to know it.

HOSTS: What are your rules about replacement players who have been in the game as another role?

I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you.

Seriously though, I'll discuss it with bea. But that might be the only answer you get.

I think maybe there is a misunderstanding. I was asking for what rules you and bea are enforcing for people who come in as replacements re: their previous roles. I don't see any reason why there would be no answer as I believe you have answered most of the question already.I think its probably a good idea to discuss with bea and if it's different from what you said earlier just let us know.

S~V~S wrote:But that one is an especially fun one, and it is kinda traditional for us

Yes, it is fun to see those older names pop up (when am I going to be in the insanifier ? ) and knowing that LC programmed all those impossible words.

On the subject of replacements, I have been told every time I've replaced that i cannot talk from the viewpoint of the character who died because that character is dead. So anything I learned as that character cannot be discussed because they are no more. I have to approach the game as the new player and only discuss things found out as the new character. If that's not true for this game I would like to know it.

HOSTS: What are your rules about replacement players who have been in the game as another role?

MP, it doesn't have to be all or none. You could try just reducing the length of your posts by editing them. Or only allow yourself 3 posts a day. Something short of no posts at all.

Thanks for responding Enrique. I'm interested in what you see about MM that causes you to look there for a vote. I read through his posts and didn't pick up anything highly unusual so I'm a little lost on what people are thinking about him. I can't get a clear picture.

Roxy wrote:Thanks MP and zeek for the responses.

Zeek one more question why did you feel uneasy when hedge had the lead in votes? if we had lynched her I would not have to start Day 4 with a vote on me - which I blame everyone for.

Juliets - what exactly about Hedges response did you find civvie enough to take your vote away and vote yourself? tbh that really twitched my nose.

Two things about Hedge's reply convinced me to take my vote off of her. One was that she had internet problems and when able to get online had been focusing on clue since she was a baddie going down on there. I felt those were good enough reasons for her not having responded to the question in this thread. The second thing was her explanation of "riding the fence", i.e., the fact that she had already decided juliet 1.0 was sincere and genuine and was in the middle of trying to determine whether she would vote for Enrique when the time ran out. I felt like that was a satisfactory explanation for both the original question and the issue of her non-response.

Yes Dom i am - thank you for the links -

Dom is your focus on Made the result of your perception that he is playing differently in this game? This is the reason I've heard several times so I just want to know if this is your reason or you have another reason for thinking he's bad. I'm sure you've said why in the thread but a lot of things have been said in the thread so it's hard to keep up with the specifics.

I see Epi - thats what I mean about things slipping through that seem small that add up to something bigger. I'll be interested to see what Enrique has to say about your observation.

Epi thanks for the explanation of what you see in Enrique but how do you know how he is going to vote on Day 4 since this is only night 3? Also, I'm trying to work through how his voting with you then against you means he's bad? Unless he voted against you because of your vote (i'll have to check that).

MovingPictures07 wrote:

zeek wrote:If we aim for a tie between a civ and a baddie, the civ will be lynched. No tie. I think its necessary to have a clear choice of 2 votes so its free from manipulation in that sense at least.

Agreed. We all need to discuss candidates well in advance and have a game plan. We can't be lynching like this anymore.

It's possible we still leave ourselves open to manipulation and a more overwhelming civvie lynch, but we cannot let the vote spread be prevalent in the slightest.

It seems, at least I would predict right now but I really have no idea, that the major candidates for D4 would be Made, Metalmarsh, Hedge, and Elo.

Not sure if it SHOULD be those, or if it will be, but really what we need to do is come up with say, four or five people to focus on after we assess the best arguments, and then vote accordingly, making sure that the person in the lead gets at least 2 more votes than the person in second, even if that person isn't necessarily OUR number one suspect. Thoughts?

I know people have chimed in and said MP has the people wrong in this post (should include him and Daisy) but I don't want to lose his thought that we assess the best arguments and decide who the top 4-5 people are. My problem at this point in time - and I suspect some others may feel this way - is I have lost track of what the arguments are for people like Made and MM becasue there are so many people posting about so many other people. Names are mentioned a lot but for seemingly small things that I suspect roll up into something bigger. But I don't have a good way to collect all that information other than go back through the thread and capture all the allegations (god forbid that I have to do that). What I would love to see is an old fashioned case on different candidates for the lynch.

If cases that contain all the evidence have been presented and I don't even realize it if someone would just say 'hey jules, Dom presented an overall case on Made so just look at his posts' that would be fine. From this point forward I will take notes on allegations so I don't have this happen again.

Again, if I thought I was the only one in this boat I wouldn't bring the point back up but I'm afraid we've got more than a few that are as confused as I am or so behind they feel they will not catch up, so I think having cases to assess would be very helpful.

Welcome back Epi, goodbye Canuck, hope everything works out for you. RIP Snowy -

Oh and I'm going with Chris - maybe 1st Chris.

Ok thanks hedge. I said I would take my vote off of you if you came in and explained and I feel like I have a good feel for your answer and also why you didn't answer more immediately. I'm just going to park my vote on myself until I can make a decision where to vote.

If Hedgie comes up with an explanation that is reasonable for her straddling the fence and why she didn't respond to Rox (i think she has already partly responded to that one) I will take my vote off of her.

linki but posting this first

Hedgeowl - it is good to see you are here. It is very very important that you address this post. I know there are a lot of posts out there for you to catch up with but this is the gist of why you have so many votes - your lack of answer to Roxy. (There may be more but this is a big thing in the thought to lynch you). Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Roxy wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Could you elaborate on your thoughts re: Hedgie, Roxy? She's been off my radar so far.

She is off your radar bc thats where she wants to be. Here is a link to her posts I made a post about her Day and commented more - she has promised twice to respoind to me but has yet to offer any response. What initially pinged me was the way she said Epi had made a valid case about Juliets yet Juliets could be good (I am paraphrasing here)
So when/if Juliets came back good (which she did) she could say - yeah I thought she could be civ. See I said so before the lynch was over.

You read her tell me what you think.

I have gone through the posts of a lot of people today and the only one i feel comfortable enough voting for is Hedge. I just can't understand why she has not answered Roxy. Normally, I would leave a vote like this until later to allow maximum time to respond but I have some things to do this afternoon and tonight and I don't want to forget to vote. I will try to get back in here in case something else comes up but for now I'm putting my vote on Hedge.

I'm also still waiting (I know he is studying, in class, and busy so I wasn't expecting an answer just yet) for MP's response to my question about LC.

oh linki Snow, I know she's not currently playing the Python game but thats the only one I know.

MP, I looked back at LC and this was his post for his Epig vote:

Long Con wrote:Voting for Epig for now, I think his long-term game is to hide in plain sight.... in a baddie kind of way.

Prior to that he had made a comment about Epig so his vote wasn't out of the blue.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying about LC potentially being baddie. What was it about his vote for Epi makes you suspicious?

I honeslty don't remember the Lost meltdown DF but will take your word for it.

MP, yes his response of "Are you serious" struck me as very un-DF like. I had just forgotten about it. I agree that I have never seen him post with that degree of intensity no matter what was going on. I'm not sure what it means though.

splints, regarding Chris SVS expressed exactly what I see from him so far. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is if his game is as different as he claims maybe that maniacally rubbing his hands together part of his baddie game is gone.

I will admit I'm struggling with this game so far - so many accusations that I don't feel like I can accurately sort the data fast enough. I can't believe I've played with Dom so long and still don't know his game very well. So far though the accusations against him are not attractive to me. MP I'm completely up in the air on. One thing I have noticed about him when he's bad is his thoughts/theories seem to just go into overdrive and some of the most outlandish theories surface. I remember him talking a lot (perfectly normal) but not having outlandish theories yet. I'm going back over his posts though (oh god help me) to make sure. Hedge I'm worried about especially since she promised Roxy that explanation twice and hasn't delivered.

Elo doesn't strike me as bad even though she voted for juliets 1.0 for no reason other than 'well, I guess it's Juliets today' and then said she really wasn't playing this game because of the other game. This sounds just like Elo and something she would say as a civ. No sugar coating, just 'yes, i've voting this person just because she looks like the one to vote and oh by the way I'm not really playing this game'. I believe if she were bad her baddie teammates would have helped her craft something more acceptable.

So what about made and zeek and splints (didn't someone have her on their list? why was that?) and Daisy and Bass (I'm a little worried there) and people whose names i don't remember right now? I don't know. I have a lot of re-reading to do.

linki, will read after i post

I have to amend my response to Dom - Dom, I notice looking at the board that MP did vote for SD so I assume he has decided for now that he thinks she is bad (I must have just missed that in his posts). I still think all the back and forth about her was him talking out loud about the why's and wherefore's of her being bad or good, potentially more indicative of his communication style than his alignment.

Dom wrote:

juliets wrote:Oh my god, I go to bed and the place lights up like it was daytime. I guess it's because we are from so many time zones.

I haven't examined the MP case thoroughly but one thing that occurred to me as I was reading through is that MP tends to post in a stream of consciousness pattern where he tells us every little thing on his mind, and lets us know when he is agonizing about suspecting someone (Daisy for example). It may come across to us as him suspecting people and abandoning them quickly when really it may be much the same thing as we do silently "Hmm that looks suspicious" "Nah, I forgot they had done x, they are not so suspicious" and other things like that. Or maybe it's just me that does all that silent changing-of-mind stuff.

You think that this was the case for SpaceDaisy?

Well, he seemed to be back and forth changing his mind on daisy or gnashing his teeth about whether she was bad, so my observation that he was doing out loud what many of us do silently would apply to the Daisy case as well. At this moment I do not know what he has decided about Daisy or whether he has decided anything yet (unless I missed it in his posts). I want to emphasize it was just a thought I had and wanted to throw out there with the rest of the thoughts from others. I don't have a stance on MP yet, there is a lot floating around and I haven't sorted it all.

Elohcin wrote:

Dom wrote:

Elohcin, I would love to hear from you. What are you thinking at this point in the game? Who are you suspicious of? Surely you must have suspicions by now. Do you know how you survived your attempted murder?

I am still overwhelmed with all the players at this point, however my biggest suspicion is Dana. Her actions say that she couldn't care less if the lynched player is civ.

Elo, can you be more specific? What action(s) has Dana taken that says she couldn't care less if the lynched player is a civ?

Oh my god, I go to bed and the place lights up like it was daytime. I guess it's because we are from so many time zones.

I haven't examined the MP case thoroughly but one thing that occurred to me as I was reading through is that MP tends to post in a stream of consciousness pattern where he tells us every little thing on his mind, and lets us know when he is agonizing about suspecting someone (Daisy for example). It may come across to us as him suspecting people and abandoning them quickly when really it may be much the same thing as we do silently "Hmm that looks suspicious" "Nah, I forgot they had done x, they are not so suspicious" and other things like that. Or maybe it's just me that does all that silent changing-of-mind stuff.

This is not an attempt to full out defend MP, it's just something that occurred to me as I was catching up this morning.

I'd also like to here from Daisy again, and what her thoughts are regarding all the new things that have happened with MP as well as her response to the continued suspicion of her.

linki, posting without reading yet

zeek wrote:

juliets wrote:Were there experiments performed on people in the show? If so, why?

Dalek Sec is part of a group called the Cult of Skaro. They were creative Daleks who experimented on humans. Dalek Sec himself merged with a human in an experiment.

thanks zeek, I can see how the experiment stuff might fit then.

Were there experiments performed on people in the show? If so, why?