GAME OVER: BLUE vs. RED

[Marmot]

Goddamit.

[Marmot]

Well I'll just sacrifice my vote to let my voice be heard.

I am Marmot, hear me shriek!!!

[G-Man]

EVERY LITTLE THING SHE DOES IS MAGIC

(TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2017)

MIKA: After a tumultuous start to her administration, President Hillary Clinton seems to have finally earned a much-needed night of respite. As of this hour, there are no new reports of any new turmoil inside the Clinton Administration, though that's not for a lack of trying by some Republicans.

JOE: That's right, Mika. Conservative outlets and media personalities are continuing an all-out assault against President Clinton, trying to connect her to the mysterious Operation Cobalt and deem her unfit for office due to perceived or imagined health issues and alleged conflicts of interest. There's one thing they're missing on all of these fronts though.

MIKA: Evidence, of course.

JOE: Precisely. Look, I appreciate the humor in Ted Cruz's phantom group's choice of name. Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy goes back to Bill Clinton's administration and is a cheeky cheap shot at our current President. But so many people have been coming at the Clintons for years, so the only reason this stuff isn't relegated to background noise is because Hillary is President now.

MIKA: They keep trying though. Listen to what Steve Bannon, head of the fringe-Right website Breitbart, said in a recent editorial- "For the good of the country, people need to wake up and realize that the alternative facts that we are presenting have merit. The liberal media machine is oppressing millions by controlling what they believe to be true."

JOE: My God. Alternative facts? What the hell are alternative facts?

MIKA: I think we used to call them rumors, conspiracy theories, half-truths, and outright lies. Now I guess they're alternative facts.

----------------------------------

No one has died.

It is now Day 4.
You have 48 hours to lynch someone.

[Long Con]

Nice no-death! And may I say I'm happy to be playing in a post-Jack era.

[Long Con]

THE WHITE HOUSE

Section 3. Implementation and Coverage Formula Composition. Beginning on Tuesday, January 24, 2017, all speech conducted within The Syndicate from the time the current administration took office will be certified and tallied. All current members of The Syndicate will have their vote values reassessed in a manner that provides for the same total number of votes to be cast but the votes of individuals will be weighted in the inverse order of their current speech volumes.

So, here's the post totals as of now:

Epignosis 191
Marmot 105
Long Con 103
DrWilgy 99
thellama73 97
Quin 93
MacDougall 74
notsawyer540 49
DFaraday 17
TheFloyd73 6

So, Floyd's vote is worth lots, and Epi's is worth very little.

[Marmot]

I miss jack tbh.

[MacDougall]

Let's lynch Floyd.

[Epignosis]

Typical Democrat. Caring the most about those who contribute the least.

[Epignosis]

I like this though.

There can only be three power roles in the game. Two of them are gone.

A smart fellow might reason that I wouldn't place myself in this unfortunate circumstance, especially with people thirsting for my blood.

This places the mafia in a dilemma: Either kill me and leave the remaining power role alive, or hunt for the remaining power role and have to put up with me another phase.

[Marmot]

Thanks for the protection whoever protected me.

[Quin]

It's good to be average.

[Long Con]

Thanks for the protection whoever protected me.

I didn't protect you, I protected Epignosis!

[Epignosis]

Thanks for the protection whoever protected me.

I didn't protect you, I protected Epignosis!

Yeah, lie detectable statements really do a lot of good for protectors.

[Long Con]

Thanks for the protection whoever protected me.

I didn't protect you, I protected Epignosis!

Yeah, lie detectable statements really do a lot of good for protectors.

[Epignosis]

Floyd.

Mr. Man.

Say a thing.

Who is getting your vote and dying?

[Epignosis]

Don't feel like talking?

Didn't think so.

[Epignosis]

I want to know the following from everybody:

1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.

2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.

3. Where you stand on Floyd and why.

4. Where you stand on DFaraday and why.

5. Where you stand on Quin and why.

6. Where you stand on thellama73 and why.

7. Where you stand on Long Con and why.

You get the idea. If I left you out, it wasn't personal.

Start talking. Tell me why you're good. Tell me why others are bad. Go.

[Epignosis]

MM's vote is on notsawyer right now. Why?

Wasn't he your big buddy to help take me down?

[Epignosis]

I don't understand MM this game. Mr. "I Would Never Kill Epignosis" A) Hasn't killed me and B) Tried to lynch me knowing I wouldn't kill Eloh.

He goes in the naughty pile.

[Epignosis]

Long Con goes in the naughty pile for being Long Con and asking me to trust him. Fuck that.

[Epignosis]

thellama73?

This is someone I would lynch. Look at his posts in relation to me. Does he want to accuse me or buddy up to me? Even he doesn't know.

Shit heap. That's where he goes.

[Epignosis]

DF is back in the naughty pile. Speak. Help civilians win.

[Epignosis]

I will not suffer a Day phase of Anti-Epi. I want mafia destroyed. Talk ye Democrats.

[DFaraday]

DF is back in the naughty pile. Speak. Help civilians win.

I'm working on responding to your lengthy request right now.

[Epignosis]

DF is back in the naughty pile. Speak. Help civilians win.

I'm working on responding to your lengthy request right now.

Good. I'm going to bed.

[DFaraday]

I want to know the following from everybody:

1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I'm leaning bad on Notsawyer because he is tunneling Epi, forcing the facts to fit his suspicion (ie., blaming Epi alone for SVS's lynch), and cites Epi's lack of caught baddies despite the fact that Notsawyer is hardly looking at anyone but Epi, and so has also caught no baddies.

2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Rereading his posts, I'm finding him to be pretty inconsistent. First he cites some mild suspicion, decides to vote her over Jack, then the next day says that he's glad everyone is "seeing sense" and voting Jack, despite making a case on Epi and continually pushing it throughout that phase. I'm leaning bad towards MM, but not as much as I am Notsawyer.

3. Where you stand on Floyd and why.
The lack of a kill could indicate that the remaining baddies are uninvolved, which would implicate Floyd more than anyone (and me next, I'm aware). I'm slightly leaning bad on Floyd.

4. Where you stand on DFaraday and why.
Vanilla Civvie all the way.

5. Where you stand on Quin and why.
I don't really recall Quin's activity this game. I'll need to look into him.

6. Where you stand on thellama73 and why.
If I'm right about Notsawyer being bad, it's unlikely Llama also is given the timing of his vote for Notsawyer on Day 1, when the lynch could still have gone that way. His Jack suspicion was also consistent and felt genuine. Leaning civ.

7. Where you stand on Long Con and why.
LC hasn't felt entirely involved in this game, like he's trying to keep out of the limelight. I don't have suspicions of him per se, but I don't really feel civ about him.

You get the idea. If I left you out, it wasn't personal.

Start talking. Tell me why you're good. Tell me why others are bad. Go.

[Marmot]

Thanks for the protection whoever protected me.

I didn't protect you, I protected Epignosis!

Yeah, lie detectable statements really do a lot of good for protectors.

If there's a protector, there's no lie detector, remember?

[Marmot]

MM's vote is on notsawyer right now. Why?

Wasn't he your big buddy to help take me down?

My goal is to lynch the mafia, not take you down.

Yesterday I thought you were mafia. Today I'm doubting that notion. There's not a chance in hell that you and notsawyer are teammates, and I think he looks worse than you at the moment.

I don't understand MM this game. Mr. "I Would Never Kill Epignosis" A) Hasn't killed me and B) Tried to lynch me knowing I wouldn't kill Eloh.

He goes in the naughty pile.

I already told you I'm ignoring that assertion. How do you know you weren't attempted to be killed last night.

Lay off you fiend.

[Marmot]

I just won $15 playing Texas Hold'em this evening. Take that!

[Marmot]

thellama73?

This is someone I would lynch. Look at his posts in relation to me. Does he want to accuse me or buddy up to me? Even he doesn't know.

Shit heap. That's where he goes.

Why does everyone go in the shit heap? There's only two mafia left.

[thellama73]

Hey guys, I wanted to quickly note that I've been on a two day intensive video shoot for work, today being the second day, so that's why I haven't been around. I should be finished this after noon and will be back to participate. Sorry for my inactivity, and yay no death!

[Quin]

Is anyone else having an issue where you hit submit on a post and it just doesn't appear? Rip my post

Condensed:

- I haven't been paying attention
- I'll catch up in the morning, but I'll be gone for 2 days from tomorrow
- I still stand by my case on sawyer.

[thellama73]

I want to know the following from everybody:

1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I think Sawyer has looked bad from Day 1. His equivocating, his dismissiveness, and his case on you seems forced. He is getting my vote today.

2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
I currently have no suspicions of Metalmarsh89.

3. Where you stand on Floyd and why.
Floyd is absentee, which could explain the lack of a kill last night, but we've had other kills. He's probably a typical absentee civvie.

4. Where you stand on DFaraday and why.
I do not really understand the case on DF. No reason to distrust him yet.

5. Where you stand on Quin and why.
I'm leaning civ on Quin now after my meta analysis of his past games.

6. Where you stand on thellama73 and why.
Supatown.

7. Where you stand on Long Con and why.
I can't read LC. It wouldn't surprise me if he were bad.

You get the idea. If I left you out, it wasn't personal.

Start talking. Tell me why you're good. Tell me why others are bad. Go.

Wilgy is the other baddie, though.

[Long Con]

1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I'm kind of okay with notsawyer. Epignosis' suspicion of him has some influence on me, but overall I think this interaction is civ/civ. I think his accusations seem genuine enough, even if I don't agree with them.

2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Leaning scum on Marmot. His latest claim, that he was nightkilled but protected, feels like a) an attempt to look civ, and b) an attempt to draw out information from the baddies. That's why I countered him a little with my own jokey misinformation.

3. Where you stand on Floyd and why.
I stand on Floyd in the gutter, because that's where I assume he is lying, dead drunk or just plain dead. Does he get some sort of points for just signing up for Mafia games? I don't get this guy.

4. Where you stand on DFaraday and why.
I feel pretty good about DFaraday, but I don't know why right now. ISO 2

5. Where you stand on Quin and why.
Now both you and DF have said you forgot Quin was playing. I'm getting some alarm bells from Quin's direction. ISO 1.

6. Where you stand on thellama73 and why.
I'm cool with Llama now for reasons I won't really get into.

7. Where you stand on Long Con and why.
I don't think Long Con is trying to be out of the limelight. I think I've done some stand-out stuff. My Llama suspicions, my lie detector stuff... that's not blendy.

[notsawyer540]

I'm going to be out of the house until this evening. I'll catch back up and post my overall thoughts on everyone as soon as I get a chance.

One question I would like answered is: Have I really been forcing evidence to fit my conclusions, or has Epi's Fox-News-style misrepresentation of facts and events fooled too many of you?

[Long Con]

I'm going to be out of the house until this evening. I'll catch back up and post my overall thoughts on everyone as soon as I get a chance.

One question I would like answered is: Have I really been forcing evidence to fit my conclusions, or has Epi's Fox-News-style misrepresentation of facts and events fooled too many of you?

Ugh, I went back to refresh myself on the background of the "Fox News" accusation. What I found in the latest exchange was Epi citing evidence that he's a Civ, and you asking for the evidence, and Epi putting together a pretty credible-looking post with his evidence... and you never really responded until your latest post just now.

Explain the Fox News metaphor for me, and let me know which Epi post or posts that I can see it in action.

Right now, this sounds like some sort of slick, sinister salesmanship. I already don't agree that Epi is bad, and the way you phrased that question just rubbed my ass-hair the wrong way.

[Marmot]

2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Leaning scum on Marmot. His latest claim, that he was nightkilled but protected, feels like a) an attempt to look civ, and b) an attempt to draw out information from the baddies. That's why I countered him a little with my own jokey misinformation.

I don't get it Long Con. What's wrong with trying to draw information out from the baddies?

[Long Con]

2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Leaning scum on Marmot. His latest claim, that he was nightkilled but protected, feels like a) an attempt to look civ, and b) an attempt to draw out information from the baddies. That's why I countered him a little with my own jokey misinformation.

I don't get it Long Con. What's wrong with trying to draw information out from the baddies?

EBWOP: *FOR the baddies

[Marmot]

2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Leaning scum on Marmot. His latest claim, that he was nightkilled but protected, feels like a) an attempt to look civ, and b) an attempt to draw out information from the baddies. That's why I countered him a little with my own jokey misinformation.

I don't get it Long Con. What's wrong with trying to draw information out from the baddies?

EBWOP: *FOR the baddies ... because I'm bad.

Fixed

[Epignosis]

I want to know the following from everybody:

1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I'm leaning bad on Notsawyer because he is tunneling Epi, forcing the facts to fit his suspicion (ie., blaming Epi alone for SVS's lynch), and cites Epi's lack of caught baddies despite the fact that Notsawyer is hardly looking at anyone but Epi, and so has also caught no baddies.

I want to know the following from everybody:

1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I think Sawyer has looked bad from Day 1. His equivocating, his dismissiveness, and his case on you seems forced. He is getting my vote today.

1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I'm kind of okay with notsawyer. Epignosis' suspicion of him has some influence on me, but overall I think this interaction is civ/civ. I think his accusations seem genuine enough, even if I don't agree with them.

I am of two minds on notsawyer. If he were a Syndicate regular, someone with whom I had experience interacting with, I might have a clearer opinion of him, because a stubborn insistence is a trait I am more likely to believe comes from a civilian. Consider: If he's mafia, then he knows I'm not bad, so what's his exit strategy should he prove successful? I call that short-term gain, long-term loss.

Moreover, notsawyer is taking three votes right from the get-go and his reaction to all this is to double down on his smear campaign:

I'm going to be out of the house until this evening. I'll catch back up and post my overall thoughts on everyone as soon as I get a chance.

One question I would like answered is: Have I really been forcing evidence to fit my conclusions, or has Epi's Fox-News-style misrepresentation of facts and events fooled too many of you?

In his first post since the Day began, he asks a loaded question and uses the phrase "misrepresentation of facts" without mentioning a single fact I misrepresented. And he asked me for evidence, and when I gave him plenty, he had nothing to say about it. That's not encouraging.

Still, if notsawyer is mafia, then he has accomplished nothing more than setting himself for the lynch today without even the consolation prize of getting me lynched first- and he doesn't seem fazed by that.

[Epignosis]

Llama, you used a curious word in describing notsawyer: "Equivocating." How does this adjective apply to notsawyer? "Resolute" or "stubborn" is the word I would have used.

[Marmot]

Moreover, notsawyer is taking three votes right from the get-go and his reaction to all this is to double down on his smear campaign:

I don't know if he realizes that he has votes.

[Epignosis]

Moreover, notsawyer is taking three votes right from the get-go and his reaction to all this is to double down on his smear campaign:

I don't know if he realizes that he has votes.

Which means no teammate has informed him of this fact.

[Marmot]

Moreover, notsawyer is taking three votes right from the get-go and his reaction to all this is to double down on his smear campaign:

I don't know if he realizes that he has votes.

Which means no teammate has informed him of this fact.

I don't know if you're defending him or suggesting he has a teammate who hasn't been around today. Both are plausible.

[Marmot]

But I do give you three players who have not been around today.

DrWilgy: Hasn't posted since the start of Night 3.
MacDougall: Hasn't posted since the beginning of Day 4.
TheFloyd73: Hasn't posted since Day 3.

[Epignosis]

Moreover, notsawyer is taking three votes right from the get-go and his reaction to all this is to double down on his smear campaign:

I don't know if he realizes that he has votes.

Which means no teammate has informed him of this fact.

I don't know if you're defending him or suggesting he has a teammate who hasn't been around today. Both are plausible.

I'm only defending him in the sense that I am considering his motivations for posting what he has been posting (something he refuses to do for me, but oh well). Do you agree or disagree with what I've said about him above?

[Marmot]

Some people do have a tendency to fit evidence to a narrative. That's just how they play. I agree that notknowing notsawyer notreally knots my naughty read of him.


But you are not solely responsible for SVS being lynched. I deserve some of the blame for pointing players in that direction, even if I wasn't as vocal or convincing as you were. What I don't understand is why notsawyer has basically ignored my role in that lynch, and followed my suspicion of you. Not only that, but he interacted little with me when I was hounding you. I find that lack of engagement suspicious, especially since you are his top suspect.

[Epignosis]

Some people do have a tendency to fit evidence to a narrative. That's just how they play. I agree that notknowing notsawyer notreally knots my naughty read of him.


But you are not solely responsible for SVS being lynched. I deserve some of the blame for pointing players in that direction, even if I wasn't as vocal or convincing as you were. What I don't understand is why notsawyer has basically ignored my role in that lynch, and followed my suspicion of you. Not only that, but he interacted little with me when I was hounding you. I find that lack of engagement suspicious, especially since you are his top suspect.

So if he's mafia, what's his strategy there?

[DrWilgy]

But I do give you three players who have not been around today.

DrWilgy: Hasn't posted since the start of Night 3.
MacDougall: Hasn't posted since the beginning of Day 4.
TheFloyd73: Hasn't posted since Day 3.

Video games homie

[Marmot]

Some people do have a tendency to fit evidence to a narrative. That's just how they play. I agree that notknowing notsawyer notreally knots my naughty read of him.


But you are not solely responsible for SVS being lynched. I deserve some of the blame for pointing players in that direction, even if I wasn't as vocal or convincing as you were. What I don't understand is why notsawyer has basically ignored my role in that lynch, and followed my suspicion of you. Not only that, but he interacted little with me when I was hounding you. I find that lack of engagement suspicious, especially since you are his top suspect.

So if he's mafia, what's his strategy there?

I believe it's easier to be sincere about one's own thoughts and ideas than it is to discuss those put forth by another person. One can inherently believe everything they say, but they (ideally) have to pick a side when looking at what someone else has to say.

I find my own theories more believable than those of others.

But I suppose this does not make notsawyer bad.