The Syndicate

LoRab wrote:I think what SD was trying to get at (or what I took from it and agree with) is the people who seem to be insisting that this is not a Good vs Bad game at all. Commentary on and enjoying the setup is something different. But there could be some nafarious goal in those pushing that there are no baddies and civies (TH comes to mind). Or that there are just factions not teams (Roxy comes to mind).

I'm not sure I want to vote for either of them, because I think that in a complex game, with the added idea of clans, it's not impossible to be confused. I do, however, think that it's possible that a baddie might want to perpetuate the confusion and get people to believe that there aren't baddies.

There could be, aye. Though generally i don't remember baddies in previous RM games laying the focus on there not being enough baddies/civvies yet. Players who were vocal about playing the unrecruited/neutral way usually always ended up being unrecruited. Maybe i should go look through the RM3 thread again.

nutella wrote:linki: ha, mixing up tranq and typh, classic! they love it when people do that!

Took a look through my last three options.

Devin has 11 posts so far, with some interaction in play. I will not vote for Devin the Omniscient today.
Sorsha and DF only have 3 posts each, so they are almost equal. However, Sorsha has posted on Day 1 while DF has not posted since Day 0. I will not vote for Sorsha today.

Voting DFaraday.

Obligatory votes are changeable in this poll.

Nice spread out vote.

I think I'll vote Tranq for now.

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:
I think Bea has a point. I just didn't have anything to add. BWT does kinda come across like he's planted himself firmly on the fence but is willing to jump to one side or the other at a moment's notice.

Surprising amount of linki. Will post before I read it!

Bullzeye, does that make you think BWT is bad? You might have expounded upon this further, but I don't remember.

It doesn't make me think he's not bad. There's really nothing I can say about it that I haven't already, I think BWT looks like he's trying to be blendy. That alone at this stage of the game doesn't immediately scream evil at me, though if it was a traditional set up with pre-defined mafia teams it might. I won't be voting BWT today based on that post alone.

Did you notice that you just did the exact thing you find BWT ping-y for?
Or nah?

Because as I see it, you just put yourself on the fence on whether you'll vote BWT or not on a moment's notice. . . the exact thing you criticized BWT for.

I think I'm gonna go with "Or nah?". Basically, I find that post of BWT's suspicious. However, it's one post. I don't think that alone is worth turning into a huge case and pushing against him like I'm Epi or something. BWT seemed like he was trying to avoid locking himself into one particular stance on a topic whereas I'm taking a stand here and saying that I currently have some suspicion toward BWT and will keep an eye on him for the foreseeable future but won't be voting for him unless I have more to go on. If today or on day 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc you see me vote BWT purely because of that one post he made, then you know I'm clutching at straws and you should probably vote for me at that point tbh.

OK, but you ignored the point of my post. So, like... ?????

DharmaHelper wrote:

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

I'm confused. Is this a random vote or are you voting for SVS because you think she has an ability?

I second this question. TBH, this seems like a whole load of BS from scotty.

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:
I think Bea has a point. I just didn't have anything to add. BWT does kinda come across like he's planted himself firmly on the fence but is willing to jump to one side or the other at a moment's notice.

Surprising amount of linki. Will post before I read it!

Bullzeye, does that make you think BWT is bad? You might have expounded upon this further, but I don't remember.

It doesn't make me think he's not bad. There's really nothing I can say about it that I haven't already, I think BWT looks like he's trying to be blendy. That alone at this stage of the game doesn't immediately scream evil at me, though if it was a traditional set up with pre-defined mafia teams it might. I won't be voting BWT today based on that post alone.

Did you notice that you just did the exact thing you find BWT ping-y for?
Or nah?

Because as I see it, you just put yourself on the fence on whether you'll vote BWT or not on a moment's notice. . . the exact thing you criticized BWT for.

I think I'm gonna go with "Or nah?". Basically, I find that post of BWT's suspicious. However, it's one post. I don't think that alone is worth turning into a huge case and pushing against him like I'm Epi or something. BWT seemed like he was trying to avoid locking himself into one particular stance on a topic whereas I'm taking a stand here and saying that I currently have some suspicion toward BWT and will keep an eye on him for the foreseeable future but won't be voting for him unless I have more to go on. If today or on day 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc you see me vote BWT purely because of that one post he made, then you know I'm clutching at straws and you should probably vote for me at that point tbh.

OK, but you ignored the point of my post. So, like... ?????

I didn't? You said I was doing what I was criticising BWT for, I explained why I wasn't. Unless there's another point I've missed?

Typhoony wrote:Linki: Golden, am I reading through the lines of your post correctly when I say that you'd like to lynch Epi because it would make the game more fun for you? Seriously dude, think about that for a second and then realize that it's not a good strategy to follow.

In a game where 30 of us are still neutral, why is taking out another person who I do not believe is civ and do not believe I will ever be on the same team as a bad strategy?

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Boomslang is online now. I will not vote for Boomslang today.
I also recall Bullzeye being a strong contributor today. I will not vote for Bullzeye today.

Linki: speak of the devil.

Linki 2: you're off my list you.

I wouldn't have minded being on it, I just felt like you were lumping me in with a bunch of people who had less than 10 posts and it made me think you were saying I wasn't taking part.

Linki JJJ - That's basically what I mean. People who know her well agree with her defense to that one point so I want to see if there's anything else. I'd sort of forgotten her altogether until I saw her vote for MP just now. Having played quite a few games with Unfurl I've never really felt like I know her or her style all that well so I still might defer to the judgement of those wiser than me. Or I might not. We shall see.

You made this post yesterday AM (NY time):

Bullzeye wrote:

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: So what do you want to talk about?

I already talk what I wanted to talk about, I said my 2 cents and I feel good about it
Freedom of choice, everyone is free to talk about whatever makes then feel they are playing

Of course. That's why I asked what you wanted to talk about. If you didn't want to discuss low posters, then what did you want to discuss?

How do you propose we uncover a recruiter today?

Like I said I have no ide how to uncover a recruiter is finding a needle in a haystack, but maybe the people who talk a lot are able to find a solution :P

Are you going to try? I don't know how to find a recruiter either but I'm not going to just let other people do it for me. This post makes me feel like that's your attitude though.

It looks to me like you are trying to justify a vote for Unfurl. You just got mine

S~V~S, do you prefer unjustified votes?

S~V~S wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Boomslang is online now. I will not vote for Boomslang today.
I also recall Bullzeye being a strong contributor today. I will not vote for Bullzeye today.

Linki: speak of the devil.

Linki 2: you're off my list you.

I wouldn't have minded being on it, I just felt like you were lumping me in with a bunch of people who had less than 10 posts and it made me think you were saying I wasn't taking part.

Linki JJJ - That's basically what I mean. People who know her well agree with her defense to that one point so I want to see if there's anything else. I'd sort of forgotten her altogether until I saw her vote for MP just now. Having played quite a few games with Unfurl I've never really felt like I know her or her style all that well so I still might defer to the judgement of those wiser than me. Or I might not. We shall see.

You made this post yesterday AM (NY time):

Bullzeye wrote:

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: So what do you want to talk about?

I already talk what I wanted to talk about, I said my 2 cents and I feel good about it
Freedom of choice, everyone is free to talk about whatever makes then feel they are playing

Of course. That's why I asked what you wanted to talk about. If you didn't want to discuss low posters, then what did you want to discuss?

How do you propose we uncover a recruiter today?

Like I said I have no ide how to uncover a recruiter is finding a needle in a haystack, but maybe the people who talk a lot are able to find a solution :P

Are you going to try? I don't know how to find a recruiter either but I'm not going to just let other people do it for me. This post makes me feel like that's your attitude though.

It looks to me like you are trying to justify a vote for Unfurl. You just got mine

?

I literally have nothing else to say to that. Are my opinions not allowed to change over time?

Actually yeah fuck it Scotty gets my vote.

I only got 1 response on my question about SVS. Its rather important, even more so than my other questions.

MM89, you me and Unfurl are all on a team now. Ok?

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

DrWilgy wrote:I only got 1 response on my question about SVS. Its rather important, even more so than my other questions.

MM89, you me and Unfurl are all on a team now. Ok?

?

What question? And what team is that, lol?

With less than three hours to go (it will probably be less than two when I submit this), I feel like giving a mini-read on some things and call it a day. I'll be the first to admit my D1 has been kinda shitty, but I'll try to shift into a better gear from now onwards (I had hoped that I could keep my summer prolific, hyperactive, carefree mafia playing mojo until at least the first half of September, but RL stuff I should work on are starting to pressure me with every passing day, plus the whole playing two full games on two difference sites at once is throwing me off balance, it seems)

on good vs evil VS LMS factions debate this feels oddly like Death Note all over again, where the premise for a more complex game was offered, but anyone wanting to embrace it was shot down and eyeballed by everyone wanting to keep things simple; as I've said a while ago, any debate of this kind in this game feels like D0 material that leaks into the regular gaming. I think both camps made good arguments, in particular timmer's post and Spacedaisy's reminder of the group's win cons being fair, that don't exclude each other, but only highlight what a mixed format this game actually is. I'm not inclined to treat this as basis for hunting atm: for all the talk that the players pushing the LMS angle might be baddies trying to divert attention, the same could be said that the ones saying this is clearly good vs bad at its core might be blending as "purists".

on BWT, I don't think I have meta on him being mafia from the games I've played with him, but the heat he's getting still is something I'm familiar with; in those previous games he'd normally spook the rest or catch fire with a vote option or reasoning that would seem contradictory or phony or farfetched (and get mislynched), compared to which the onset here is even earlier than that. The problem I'm currently having with BWT stems from this claim about trying to shake off his previous meta, after the hiatus, and improve his style by being more upfront and cutting down on the waffling. The problem is he hasn't so far and his claim is now heavily influencing me in how I'm reading his others posts: ante-claim he was easily drawn in by MP's idea to target low-posters and then post-claim, he's drawn in by JJJ pointing out Golden's wording, he's drawin in by llama's theory that Spacedaisy might be a good recruit candidate and he engages in rebuttals in Golden only to then call it a cautious thing. Maybe I misunderstand what he meant by being more deliberate and less tangled in waffleness, but I'm not seeing it take place so far. His claim is hence often inconsistent with the way he jumps into multiple discussions (with variable stances) and his change of views on Golden; everything can sound like fair assessing, but it feels like the old-style BWT that he claims to want to get past. Not sure I can do a recruiter/recruited profile on any of this, but it's enough to make me suspicious of him.

something probably minor in today's context for me, but bea, for all her busy B, pretty active and solid activity, pinged me a bit with this post to JJJ, in which she apparently doesn't like the "suspicious" approach in finding one of the original or recruited baddies (thinking they're too few right now to have a good shot at it or something?), for which she will go with the randomizing option. I think she also misunderstood me in this reply: I specifically said 4 out of 36 are currently baddie-aligned, I didn't talk about the 4 leaders split into 2 civs and 2 baddies, which is what she's referencing. In my post, I said that hunting for 4 baddies right now isn't different from starting any mafia game with a three or four-baddie team, except that in this case the field is larger and the mechanics trickier. Yet why is she pessimistic about this precise angle, making her take the "random" road so easily? Overall, these two posts strangely feel like some sort of detachment coming from her in desiring to hunt any baddies today.

on Llama and/or MP in dialogue with me - I left it at that back then, but overall, I have to say I'm a bit discontent with how it went and it definitely boils down to MP's bias call on me. It's such an odd angle to interpret my case and I have no idea why MP, out of all people, would go out of the blue for sudden meta rather than analysis. I clearly pointed to him there is no real meta on me ever jumping on llama like that, so why would he have in mind that it would be in my habit to hunt llama out of bias, enough to immediately bring it up? Anyway, as I've said, the whole bias discussion took a lot of space afterwards (with further twists in the discussion) and llama himself, as far as my read on it goes, surfed on it as well instead of addressing anything. With him RL-busy until Tuesday (or?), all this will probably be inconsequential by then. So in other, less elegant words, my case has gone to shit thanks to that exchange. I doubt either of them will gain today significant traction (I mean idk the votes are really spread so far, but there are more expected), but I might still vote for llama based on my read; plus, the more I think of it, I'm wary of the way MP approached that.

I don't think I have the strength for an in-depth read about Golden vs Epi, for which I apologise; oddly enough, at some point during the spat, my gut read was feeling that Golden is a bit too defensive and elaborate in rebutting about the whole thing, sort of giving me the vibe that, if he's actually a recruiter and a baddie-aligned one, all of this would make him alarmed, in a sort of "this can't be happening" way. Nonetheless, it's also consistent to affirm that Golden can heavily defend as a civ, too, especially in situations when he's not getting through with his explanations or being stonewalled by his accusers (Watchmen comes to mind). I may come back to analyse this, but for now I don't have a strong opinion.

voting Llama and it'll probably stay that way, unless for some real EoD dramatic twist

I think people would have been wise to vote epi, but oh well. Never mind.

cue dramatic twist

DrWilgy wrote:I only got 1 response on my question about SVS. Its rather important, even more so than my other questions.

MM89, you me and Unfurl are all on a team now. Ok?

say what

I asked if you were an artist or not.

No, I am not. I like art and I am crafty & have a good eye, but I am not good at actually creating things.

Why?

Golden wrote:I think people would have been wise to vote epi, but oh well. Never mind.

Is there a compelling reason beyond the potential that he won't ever be on Golden's team?

Golden wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Linki: Golden, am I reading through the lines of your post correctly when I say that you'd like to lynch Epi because it would make the game more fun for you? Seriously dude, think about that for a second and then realize that it's not a good strategy to follow.

In a game where 30 of us are still neutral, why is taking out another person who I do not believe is civ and do not believe I will ever be on the same team as a bad strategy?

How could you possibly be so sure of this?

Ricochet wrote:cue dramatic twist

DrWilgy wrote:I only got 1 response on my question about SVS. Its rather important, even more so than my other questions.

MM89, you me and Unfurl are all on a team now. Ok?

say what

yeah, he repeated the question for me, but did not reply to that part, lol.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.

Does anyone out there think Bass shouldn't be lynched as soon as humanly possible for this post? When it is considered in the context of his tiny post history with no follow-up, it bears the appearance of TMI at worst or manipulative filler at best -- and it's partially built upon stated agreement with MP for a point MP never actually made.

I definitely see what you're saying re: TMI, but Bass could just as easily be a civvie recruiter who tried to recruit MP and/or Llama and failed, so he thinks they're already baddie-aligned.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Votes DFaraday

You realise you haven't actually voted right?

DharmaHelper wrote:Actually yeah fuck it Scotty gets my vote.

Oh no you didn't

Votes DH

Ricochet wrote:cue dramatic twist

DrWilgy wrote:I only got 1 response on my question about SVS. Its rather important, even more so than my other questions.

MM89, you me and Unfurl are all on a team now. Ok?

say what

first he voted for me, then he voted for you and I asked why
and then he asked me if I was his new friend?, which I did not answer cause I have no idea what is he doing, or why

Turnip Head wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.

Does anyone out there think Bass shouldn't be lynched as soon as humanly possible for this post? When it is considered in the context of his tiny post history with no follow-up, it bears the appearance of TMI at worst or manipulative filler at best -- and it's partially built upon stated agreement with MP for a point MP never actually made.

I definitely see what you're saying re: TMI, but Bass could just as easily be a civvie recruiter who tried to recruit MP and/or Llama and failed, so he thinks they're already baddie-aligned.

I'm not sure I agree. What you propose adds another element to the equation for Bass (being a recuiter and having tried to recruit those specific players) which would make it inherently less probable.

aapje wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Votes DFaraday

You realise you haven't actually voted right?

DharmaHelper wrote:Actually yeah fuck it Scotty gets my vote.

Oh no you didn't

Votes DH

Rude Dude

Golden wrote:

reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

aapje wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Votes DFaraday

You realise you haven't actually voted right?

DharmaHelper wrote:Actually yeah fuck it Scotty gets my vote.

Oh no you didn't

Votes DH

Vote changes should be a positive for your spreadsheeting exploits. You have more trends to observe and can incorporate timing for changes.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.

Does anyone out there think Bass shouldn't be lynched as soon as humanly possible for this post? When it is considered in the context of his tiny post history with no follow-up, it bears the appearance of TMI at worst or manipulative filler at best -- and it's partially built upon stated agreement with MP for a point MP never actually made.

I definitely see what you're saying re: TMI, but Bass could just as easily be a civvie recruiter who tried to recruit MP and/or Llama and failed, so he thinks they're already baddie-aligned.

I'm not sure I agree. What you propose adds another element to the equation for Bass (being a recuiter and having tried to recruit those specific players) which would make it inherently less probable.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you think happened then.

Boomslang wrote:Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.

Golden wrote: But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point.

The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.

The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.

Put it this way, boomslang. Epi being on my team will not stop me killing him if I have the chance. Anyone who chose to recruit us both to the same team is making an error.

Just wondering.

Is there anything wrong with me wanting friends? Nothing more nothing less. Unfurl, I want to be friends with you due to me voting for you so quickly. I'm sorry about that. Players have vouched for you and I may have made a mistake. MM86 and I have played together already, and I can see us becoming good friends as well. That's why I chose them!

Golden wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.

Golden wrote: But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point.

The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.

The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.

Put it this way, boomslang. Epi being on my team will not stop me killing him if I have the chance. Anyone who chose to recruit us both to the same team is making an error.

Now you're just being funny.

Golden wrote: Put it this way, boomslang. Epi being on my team will not stop me killing him if I have the chance. Anyone who chose to recruit us both to the same team is making an error.

What if that happens accidentally?

I will say that I think the chance of Golden deliberately killing his own team mate, even if it's Epignosis, is exactly 0%.

Golden is being willfully ignorant of that possibility it seems, Typhoony.

Canucklehead wrote:My best case scenario for today (and luckily, the statistically most likely one) is that we lynch a neutral.

Exactly. That's why I am saying that voting epi is a perfectly good strategy for me. Because I think he is probably neutral, and even if not he will be bad, not civ.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I will say that I think the chance of Golden deliberately killing his own team mate, even if it's Epignosis, is exactly 0%.

Then you still don't know me that well.

DrWilgy wrote:Just wondering.

Is there anything wrong with me wanting friends? Nothing more nothing less. Unfurl, I want to be friends with you due to me voting for you so quickly. I'm sorry about that. Players have vouched for you and I may have made a mistake. MM86 and I have played together already, and I can see us becoming good friends as well. That's why I chose them!

When did you realize that you could change your vote?

Golden wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:My best case scenario for today (and luckily, the statistically most likely one) is that we lynch a neutral.

Exactly. That's why I am saying that voting epi is a perfectly good strategy for me. Because I think he is probably neutral, and even if not he will be bad, not civ.

If I was a civilian recruiter I would be very willing to recruit Epignosis.

Is DrWilgy always like this?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:@JJJ (can I call you JJJ?) I'm not sure I get what you find suspicious about Bass's post. Could you elaborate?

He proposed a "crazy theory" that would implicate two of the most vocal players in the game (MP and llama) for reasons that are either outright incorrect (such as Bass's reference to MP's point about low posters) or make no sense in a Mafia game (suggesting the mods manipulated the roles to ensure the recruiters were/were not specific people) -- and he hasn't followed up on it or said anything at all since that point. I think MP is a very easy target right now and he was then too; Bass might have been opportunistic with that in mind.

I think it was not a great theory, but I don't see it as necessarily nefarious, personally. People are wrong/misremember all the time. And I actually have seen hosts tweak randomized results for roles. Many times, actually. That he hasn't followed up is a whole other story. I don't see it as being obviously baddie, though. Just crazy and misguided. Eyeworthy, but not voteworthy, to me.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Bold assertion:

The original recruiters have not pushed distinct agendas in this thread, at least not yet. They've done everything in their power to keep their names out of everyone else's posts.

I'd say that's likely true for some of them, but probably not all of them. Depends who has the roles.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I've reached a verdict.

First though, I want to go back to the 8 lowest posters:

Boomslang
DFaraday
DrWilgy
LoRab
nutella
TinyBubbles
Tranq
Typhoony

I had narrowed this list down to 3 people last time: DFaraday, DrWilgy, and either Tranq or Typh (I forget now). Tranq and Typh have both contributed during Day 1, so cross them off. DrWilgy made me suspicious with his vote at first, but he offered up a reasonable explanation so he's off the list. Which leaves us with the one person I honestly do not remember posting at all during Day 1 (and didn't last time I checked)...

Votes DFaraday

Even accounting for timing, that list is not at all accurate. The current (or when I pressed the count button) list of lowest posters (ding next to the ones BWT named):

Sorsha (3) -
DF (3)
Bass (4) -
DP (5) -
Wiggly (7)
Russ (8) -
LoRab (9)
Boomslang (9) -
Tiny Bubbles (10)
Typh (11)
Tranq (11)
Devin (11) -
Knuk (12)
SD (13)
LA (13) -
Scotty (14)

So...uh...why not all the names. Even if someone has made a few posts since you checked, the lowest portion of the list certainly wouldn't have changed. I think you just earned my vote.

nutella wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'm just going to throw out there that The Seemer is a position 1 power. Which really might make for interesting lynch analysis or lack thereof the possibility for.

shit. I hate seemers.

They are certainly annoying.

--hey look! It's a Purple Woman!

*votes BWT*

At this point, Lord of Thunder would only need to take two votes off Bass and Supreme Judge to end it early in order to make this lynch result pretty batshit.

Also, The Gambler's abilities sound like boo wrote them, but he's not actually playing...

Turnip Head wrote:When did you realize that you could change your vote?

Always thought I could.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I will say that I think the chance of Golden deliberately killing his own team mate, even if it's Epignosis, is exactly 0%.

Then you still don't know me that well.

You're asking me to believe this:

You'd intentionally create a huge rift of a pretty personal nature between yourself and another Syndicate regular as a spiteful statement in response to him playing to his own style as he always seems to play?

DrWilgy wrote:Just wondering.

Is there anything wrong with me wanting friends? Nothing more nothing less. Unfurl, I want to be friends with you due to me voting for you so quickly. I'm sorry about that. Players have vouched for you and I may have made a mistake. MM86 and I have played together already, and I can see us becoming good friends as well. That's why I chose them!

OK. I am curious about their opinion on this.

You did not answer me; what is the importance of whether or not I am an artist?

Linki @ Tuph, he is new to us, some of us have played part of a game with him at another forum.
Linki x many

Skimming at work. Before I vote, aapje, could you explain your vote for DH? Scotty's post does seem to smell like bullshit?

Linki @Typh, not Tuph.

timmer wrote:Skimming at work. Before I vote, aapje, could you explain your vote for DH? Scotty's post does seem to smell like bullshit?

The monkey said he would vote for the next person to change their vote.