The Syndicate

Scotty wrote:So much for those reads she was gonna do tonight.

This was her last real declaration, and she kept hammering it home:
S~V~S wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote: There's enough information out there that honing in on low posters will do absolutely nothing for us. Just more gamble lynches that will likely end badly and make us lose. Name your top three suspects who are not low posters.
Well that's hardly fair. There's only a handful of us. I'm back and forth between you/SVS. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an SVS lynch.
Then Epi and Matt.

But how do you define a low-poster? Everyone living is a lower poster than you. timmer has 30 posts, though I'd still consider him a low poster to an extent.
If Drumbeats says there is any information that says I am bad, as opposed to opinion, he is dead wrong. Since I am not bad.

Bad: Epignosis

Not Bad: Me
She def didn't like Epi. Maybe she had some beef with him? And not the Taco Bell kind. Everyone knows that aint real

I'm a low flier.

DrumBeats wrote:Wtf. That kill makes no sense regardless of SVS's alignment

Whom should they have killed?

I apparently have another vote I can use. I can vote OTHER and tie it up. How tempting.

If I die, it's Mattscottyserge. Sounds like a mythical beast.

DrumBeats wrote:@ linki Epi, if you've got something to say on the topic, just please say it instead of talking around it vaguely.

That ain't how I do.

S~V~S wrote:How did the civvie inactives act, Epi?

Infuriatingly.

Turnip Head wrote:Matt, Epi, Lorab, Scotty. Them's the suspects. Likely in that order.

In case I die tonight, I'm not Pam and I know nothing.

You're not dying tonight silly. It's DrumBeats.

Hey Epignosis, you say you've been hosting since October nonstop? Wowee! I wish I could do that. Say, you mentioned that there were inactives or low-posters in all of the bad teams you hosted. Would you say how your players behaved when they were bad, like how active they were compared to when they were good? Gosh sir, that might really help us out. God bless you kind s-

No. Kick rocks.

I'd like to hear your method for finding mafia in low-posters, DrumBeats.

DrumBeats wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote: There's enough information out there that honing in on low posters will do absolutely nothing for us. Just more gamble lynches that will likely end badly and make us lose. Name your top three suspects who are not low posters.
Well that's hardly fair. There's only a handful of us. I'm back and forth between you/SVS. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an SVS lynch.
Then Epi and Matt.

But how do you define a low-poster? Everyone living is a lower poster than you. timmer has 30 posts, though I'd still consider him a low poster to an extent.
I think it's plenty fair, there are a ton of players in this game and a decent amount of middle-to-high posters. Three isn't a hard number to name. I agree that Epi is suspicious as well. A lot of posts with very little actual discussion imo.

I'd define it right now as the group of people who are straight up barely here. Sorsha, Spacedaisy, Enrique at least. LoRab, timmer, and bea are borderline imo. Maybe juliets too, but thats a recent sub. How do you define it, and which among them are your top suspects?
I'm always suspicious. It's my thing.
I don't really know on that one cause the only other game I've played with you, you were a confirmed civ after a day one mislynch

And yet, not at all a confirmed "civ" after Day 1, given how many people still wanted to lynch me.

DrumBeats wrote:
indiglo wrote:I am ready to start reading page 29, so am not caught up. With that said, here are my thoughts so far, apologies if these things have already been said.

3J - strange little gambit there (the whole indy thing), I suppose that may be the last time you attempt it. RIP

Regarding the double Eloh/Leetic night death, this role may be plausible (not sure who between them would have been Todd though):

Todd Packer – Todd is volatile and if he is killed at night, he take his killer down with him. If he is lynched, he will take one of his voters down with him.

Also, I voted Ryan and Dwight in the poll. Ryan, because I felt bad that there were no votes for him, and Dwight because I like the name Dwight.

I'll try to do a bit of catching up, but don't have a ton of time tonight.
My first guess as to the Packer situation is that I don't think it was Eloh, mostly because I think if the vigilante still had a shot, SVS would be dead by now. Additionally, with how inactive leetic was, I'm not sure he would've submitted a kill action, which would trigger the bomb. Then again, he did submit a vote, so maybe, I just doubt it.

Maybe leetic was Packer, but at the same time I don't see the mafia killing leetic when he was an incredibly easy lynch to push.

You are amazingly short-sighted.

DrumBeats wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote: There's enough information out there that honing in on low posters will do absolutely nothing for us. Just more gamble lynches that will likely end badly and make us lose. Name your top three suspects who are not low posters.
Well that's hardly fair. There's only a handful of us. I'm back and forth between you/SVS. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an SVS lynch.
Then Epi and Matt.

But how do you define a low-poster? Everyone living is a lower poster than you. timmer has 30 posts, though I'd still consider him a low poster to an extent.
I think it's plenty fair, there are a ton of players in this game and a decent amount of middle-to-high posters. Three isn't a hard number to name. I agree that Epi is suspicious as well. A lot of posts with very little actual discussion imo.

I'd define it right now as the group of people who are straight up barely here. Sorsha, Spacedaisy, Enrique at least. LoRab, timmer, and bea are borderline imo. Maybe juliets too, but thats a recent sub. How do you define it, and which among them are your top suspects?

I'm always suspicious. It's my thing.

Scotty wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote: There's enough information out there that honing in on low posters will do absolutely nothing for us. Just more gamble lynches that will likely end badly and make us lose. Name your top three suspects who are not low posters.
Well that's hardly fair. There's only a handful of us. I'm back and forth between you/SVS. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an SVS lynch.
Then Epi and Matt.

But how do you define a low-poster? Everyone living is a lower poster than you. timmer has 30 posts, though I'd still consider him a low poster to an extent.
Why is Matt third on your list?
Sorry, I lumped both of you together. There's no real order.

I want to see more spunk from you.

Or...not spunk, that's the wrong word. More follow-through. Your game feels too safe. I can't put my finger on it.

Pervert.

Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote: There's enough information out there that honing in on low posters will do absolutely nothing for us. Just more gamble lynches that will likely end badly and make us lose. Name your top three suspects who are not low posters.
Well that's hardly fair. There's only a handful of us. I'm back and forth between you/SVS. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an SVS lynch.
Then Epi and Matt.

But how do you define a low-poster? Everyone living is a lower poster than you. timmer has 30 posts, though I'd still consider him a low poster to an extent.

Why is Matt third on your list?

I've been hosting nonstop since October, and every single game had low posters on the bad team(s).

Scotty wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I once was bad and voted and ended the Day early. I got away with it until the recruiting faction outnumbered my faction and lynched me.

I'm still of the opinion that S~V~S didn't pull that stunt despite some evidence to the contrary. If she did, I would be surprised.
OK, but my own point of contention is what could have made her do that. We just don't know and until the rest of the roles are revealed, the entire field is wet and matted.

Do you wait to act until you know one way or the other?

I once was bad and voted and ended the Day early. I got away with it until the recruiting faction outnumbered my faction and lynched me.

I'm still of the opinion that S~V~S didn't pull that stunt despite some evidence to the contrary. If she did, I would be surprised.

a2thezebra wrote:Who is that in your profile pic Turnip?

Spoiler: show

Turnip Head wrote:I'm looking at Matt mainly. Still waiting to see more from Epignosis.

Pervert.

Serge wrote:We need to learn Michael's role. He's pretty important, Andy will replace him so it's either a powerful role and will be alignment-indicative.

Hey Epignosis, you still have another vote you can cast. Why only choose Dwight who is almost sure to be civ?

I've seen this show one and a half times. I voted Dwight because I know Dwight as the funny fellow with the glasses and because I'm used to voting once.

S~V~S wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:HOLY SHIT FRONT POST GOLD MINE! SVS's VOTE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORCED!

"Jo – Jo is very convincing. She can control someone’s vote each odd night. "

SVS voted on Day 3. Night 2 Jo could not control it.
I don't know any way around that.
Maybe there us a power stealer or something; I am not lying, what happened, happened. Nice to make black/white suppositions like that about roles when we don't know all the roles.

"I don't see" isn't a black or white supposition. It's a perspective based on what can be seen.

Scotty wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I am of the opinion that 3J was bad.

Who among you was going to mount the charge against him?

Required reading.

I'm going hunting for his teammates.
As a player in that game I don't necessarily see the similarities. How do you suppose he died last night then if you think he is mafia?

I thought he was bad though.
You're implying that mafia killed their own last night? Or...what? This makes no sense to me.

I'm implying no such thing. But never you mind.

Here's some nonsense to waste some space:

Serge is bad.

Serge wrote:I do think JJJ and Quin are both at the same team.

Quin feels like he's on the forefront of scumhunting but what I feel he's doing is intentional chaotic brewing of the mechanics and roles stew. That post, #savemepandanderin (as if hashtags weren't bad enough) serves just to confuse people. Since it's been given the go ahead by Dom, it means his role is not at all connected with Pam and Erin, but in the off chance that it'll plant the seeds of doubt on anyone's mind that he is indeed related to them, he took that chance. Also, it is pure nonsense in the context of the game to post and I can only see someone as scum would make the effort to do.

JJJ on the other hand, GTH is quite uncharacteristic of you. You also forgave Quin. Also, bad vibes. I don't feel Superman JJJ right now, but Lex Luthor JJJ. Jesse Eisenberg Lex Luthor.

"GTH is quite uncharacteristic of you."

That's bad distancing, folks.

DrumBeats wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I am of the opinion that 3J was bad.

Who among you was going to mount the charge against him?

Required reading.

I'm going hunting for his teammates.
As a player in that game I don't necessarily see the similarities. How do you suppose he died last night then if you think he is mafia?

I thought he was bad though.

I am of the opinion that 3J was bad.

Who among you was going to mount the charge against him?

Required reading.

I'm going hunting for his teammates.

Turnip Head wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:HOLY SHIT FRONT POST GOLD MINE! SVS's VOTE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORCED!

"Jo – Jo is very convincing. She can control someone’s vote each odd night. "

SVS voted on Day 3. Night 2 Jo could not control it.
I don't know any way around that.
Was this sarcastic?

No.

DrumBeats wrote:HOLY SHIT FRONT POST GOLD MINE! SVS's VOTE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORCED!

"Jo – Jo is very convincing. She can control someone’s vote each odd night. "

SVS voted on Day 3. Night 2 Jo could not control it.

I don't know any way around that.

I thought your independent claim was bullshit anyway, 3J, for what it's worth.

Too bad I'm watching OitNB now. Neener neener.

Turnip Head wrote:Should we lynch Epignosis next?

That's an option.

Oh I post and ain't nobody got shit to say.

If S~V~S is bad, and is shown as such, where do you go?

If S~V~S is good, and is shown as such, where do you go?

I agree with everything everybody has said. -Vompatti

DrumBeats wrote:Scumbuddies coming to SVS's defense, huh? ;D

But for real. What situation can you see SVS voting immediately for Quin and then the phase ending if SVS is town? If you argue vote control, then explain why SVS voted so instantaneously and then bailed? Makes no sense other than the fact that it was a scum gambit to get two night phases and then try to get off clean with this bullshit.

Yo Pam, I've got a job for you should you choose to accept it. SVS's vote on Quin was forced by another player.

But for real.

Quin wrote:Voting SVS. I do not recommend that she be lynched, unless of course further information comes to light that would support it. Either way, don't take my vote to mean I even suspect SVS, as I do not.

S~V~S wrote:Quin you know where I am coming from. I am voting for you, and I don't expect to be changing it.

Forced votes. S~V~S isn't guilty unless she faked being forced.

I have a defense for S~V~S.

That shit was deliberate. The mafia knew who Quin was.

Holly – Holly is just as weird as Michael, but more balanced. If she is killed, two days will follow. If she is lynched, two nights will follow.

I tried to vote for everything but it wouldn't let me. I voted the two things I did in real life when I worked for a CPA.

Scotty wrote:
Matt wrote:
Scotty wrote:Hey Matt, question for you: you still suspect FS and I for our "defending" of SVS on Day 0. Does that mean you suspect SVS? You never answered this when I asked you like Night 1.
And do you have any other suspicions besides us?
I'm not really sure who I suspect. I've been pretty busy this week.

I'm starting to like you a bit more, but I wonder if that's only because I know you're genuinely frustrated with being linked to me as a baddie partner. Tho that part is genuine, you could still be bad.

So here's the thing Matt. I've been flitting about my suspicion of you for not developing any other noticeable reads besides our little doe-see-doe Day 0. I don't know if that's your normal meta Matt, tunneling on one or two people until they get lynched. Hell, that's been my general quid pro quo in a lot of games, but I got away from "tunneling scotty" because it drove me into insanity (lol sorry @Quin from the Sock Mafia).

I still think you could be bad for your tunneling, because the only Bad Matt I remember was from LOST Again where you went after our scumbuddy Bullz, but here I know I'm civ, so this is a stretch to link that behavior to this game.
But I'm keeping both eyes open in case we're literally 2 civs driving each other into a Romeo and Juliet ending. And that's hardly my favorite ending to a Shakespeare play.

Tomorrow, should I still be alive, I would suggest we both look at other people. I'm a little weirded out by leetic's self vote and I figure I'm not doing enough to look at the low posters hiding in the shade.

I'm looking forward to seeing where this romance goes.

Tied.

I'm too starstruck to give a shit about any of you.

I always feel bad about birdwithteeth because he gets lynched so early all the time.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One of Epi's earliest posts was to suggest that he cannot know Matt's alignment without lynching him, an acknowledgement of Matt's skill for consistent cross-alignment behavior. That being the starting point of Epi's mindset on Matt probably made it more significant to me that Epi ended up pursuing him as a "top" suspect, based upon a point that doesn't strike me as powerful enough to overcome that original admission -- that who the hell really knows what's up with Matt.

You know what annoys me more?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:That...was my point.

Where was I going with it? Getting an answer, which I did.
What did that answer reveal to you about Matt if anything? This is my confusion: I don't see how this question leads you toward Matt's alignment. The only people who know about civilian BTSC are the civilians in that BTSC.

My suspicion of Matt came from how he treated fingersplints and Scotty later. The question itself didn't lead to anything except Matt talking more.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I ended up pressing DrWilgy and voting him instead of Matt. How on earth do you get the impression that I wasn't interesting in finding anything better?
I don't think your beefs with Wilgy were better. I think they were aligned conveniently with a thread moving toward a Wilgy lynch.

You think that? On the basis of what? I went after DrWilgy well before he had any votes, and I believe nobody was talking about him that Day phase.

Jesus, I'm defending myself by talking about how responsible I was for lynching a civilian.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:It means I don't think your suspicion of me is genuine if you had to say I was bulking up my post count. I'm perfectly capable of looking useful when I'm bad. So are you, Mr. Bracket.
I believe that you're capable of making yourself look useful. That doesn't mean you'd never inflate your post count. When you bring up Royce Bracket (my baddie Transistor role for those who don't know), you actually find some of the inspiration for me bringing this up at all. I don't know how closely you followed the baddie BTSC in that game, but I made it clear in there that when I'm bad, I do care about post count. I deliberately inflated my post count in that game in ways that weren't necessary to promote the appearance that I was being helpful.

I'll grant that they were more creative than the off-topic content in your post history in this game, but that difference isn't going to stop me from hurling the accusation at you and seeing what happens.

I never inflate my post count unless there's a posting contest (a thing that used to be popular around here but thankfully fell into obscurity). I've seen too many "helpful" mafia with enormous post counts. I post when I have something to say.

S~V~S wrote:@Epi, since this is not the first time I~ or others~ mentioned you in terms of quietness (I think Drum called you a low flier, yes?) why did it surprise you?

It didn't.

Also, flying low =/= being quiet.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Nope. Civilian BTSC is immensely popular on this site.
I agree. What's the implication with Matt though? If he's bad he still doesn't know whether those players have civilian BTSC. Where were you going with your question?

That...was my point.

Where was I going with it? Getting an answer, which I did.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:It's Day 1. I don't need anything more than a very small reason to have a number one suspect.
I don't get the impression you were interested in finding anything better. Whether there was anything better to be found on Day 1 is less important to me than the investment you made in your own suspicion -- minimal.

Oh hell no. Let me drop this back in context.

Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Spoiler: show
Epignosis wrote:Matt is my number one suspect. He named two suspects but clung to fingersplints. I say he and Scotty are teammates.
This strikes me as a very small reason to regard Matt as the number one suspect, and there's an air of opportunism too given the crap Matt got throughout Day 1.
It's Day 1. I don't need anything more than a very small reason to have a number one suspect.

I ended up pressing DrWilgy and voting him instead of Matt. How on earth do you get the impression that I wasn't interesting in finding anything better?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I don't give a shit about post count, and I don't think you do either.
What is this supposed to mean? Do you suspect me? What purpose does this little highligted bit serve?

It means I don't think your suspicion of me is genuine if you had to say I was bulking up my post count. I'm perfectly capable of looking useful when I'm bad. So are you, Mr. Bracket.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I would agree that post count alone is not a substantive reason to suspect you. I'll leave her to respond to your rebuttals before I jump to any conclusions.

If post count is not a substantive reason, why did you feel the need to include it?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'll GTH read everyone alive and see where that leaves me.
Epignosis -- bad
SVS -- bad

Epignosis
2
JaggedJimmyJay (14), S~V~S (15)

My GTH reads came before her vote, so I have no idea what your point is.

I know. I was waiting to see if you'd come in and address S~V~S's vote for me (over my post count, of all things) in light of you having given her the bad tag. I thought you would have some reaction to that. You didn't. Now I want to know why.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'll GTH read everyone alive and see where that leaves me.
Epignosis -- bad
SVS -- bad

Epignosis
2
JaggedJimmyJay (14), S~V~S (15)

Epignosis wrote:I was a top poster in those because nobody killed me. I ended up being a top poster in Turf Wars too because nobody lynched me.

Until we had already won, that is.

Search found 186 matches