The Syndicate

Long Con wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Wow, this is the most uncertain and vulnerable I have ever heard Long Con. It's kind of endearing, but I don't know what to make of it.
Sometimes everyone just seems so Civ. I'm also following the Game of Champions. bea? What a land mine. I think maybe I've been burned too many times recently, lynched too many Civs. I'll get my groove back at some point, but I really feel useless right now in this game.

Mac maxes out my suspiciometer every time he posts. You, llama, made me really suspicious earlier, and I do feel like lynching you is something I will take part in, if it happens.

Marmot has given me a couple of good pings, including voting for me.

DFaraday? Maybe Macdougall really is just plain that good, and I should be listening to him. It has crossed my mind.

You're bad and this post is one where you cover your tracks.

Rather than give your real opinions on things, you're just trying to smear your views so when you do get lynched and revealed, nobody can make sense of your posts.

Not having it.

Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:It's Day 5. I don't see the value of that kind of weak sauce reaction baiting.

MM said he was going to vote you and named reasons he would cite later.

You said you were going to analyze MM and vote him.

I'm not impressed.
Yeah, sorry I'm not impressive. I just get ideas in my head and try them.

How do you figure out who's bad? I don't even know. Sometimes, there's some stuff that looks bad, but everyone's so good at giving reasons for their behaviour, convincing reasons! So, what do you do, automatically ignore those reasons? That's tunnelling. If that's the case I should be voting Llama.

I don't know how to figure out who's lying. So I try things. Gambits, though that's a grandiose name for some of the attempts. I don't think you believe that makes me bad. I'd like to hear Marmot's case anyway though.

You've tried multiple ideas.

What have you done with them?

You defended llama acting like you were a power role.

You said you were going to put up a huge case on MM.

You voted me to get reactions.

I don't see you doing anything with any of that.

It's Day 5. I don't see the value of that kind of weak sauce reaction baiting.

MM said he was going to vote you and named reasons he would cite later.

You said you were going to analyze MM and vote him.

I'm not impressed.

Long Con wrote:MM, of course. I was just kidding, Epi, I'm not voting for you. I just wanted to see what reactions there were to me voting you. I see it makes me get lynched. MM cozied right up to that idea though, so I'll vote for him.

How in the hell would MM cozy right up to the idea of lynching me, when his vote was already on me and yours wasn't?

Long Con wrote:Opportunistic baddies?

How do you find opportunistic mafia among people who voted for me before you did?

Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Long Con has phrased his reason for voting me in a way that places the blame at my feet when I am lynched and shown to be a civilian. Now consider:

Epignosis wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Long Con wrote:
How many times have you killed Black Rock Night 1?
I believe that the correct answer is zero.
I think so too.

Q.E.D.
If Long Con has not and presumably would not kill Black Rock Night 1, why does he think I would kill Eloh Night 1 to win a damn Heist?

MM had two votes, tied with me, and LC gives a demonstrably insincere reason for voting me to put me in the lead over MM. I wonder why.

Hey LC, who would be more likely to kill Eloh Night 1: MM or me?
MM, of course. I was just kidding, Epi, I'm not voting for you. I just wanted to see what reactions there were to me voting you. I see it makes me get lynched. MM cozied right up to that idea though, so I'll vote for him.

I would say that the Presidential Order means we won't be able to post on Night 5. Probably.

I don't believe that. What other reaction do you think would happen?

MacDougall wrote:You guys are talking yourselves into convincing yourselves that each other is bad when the real villain is Faraday.

Can you be assed with explaining why you believe that to be the case?

Consider this too, dear civilians:

There are 8 people left. If you lynch me, there will be 7. Then mafia kills, bringing the total to 6.

That's 4 vs. 2. That's going to be the last time you get to lynch anybody if you don't get it right.

And I'm going to keep my foot on the gas: Would I kill Eloh- someone notorious for following my votes at least early on- Night 1?

If your answer to that is "Yes," then either you are bad or

Spoiler: show

Long Con has phrased his reason for voting me in a way that places the blame at my feet when I am lynched and shown to be a civilian. Now consider:

Epignosis wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Long Con wrote:
How many times have you killed Black Rock Night 1?
I believe that the correct answer is zero.
I think so too.

Q.E.D.

If Long Con has not and presumably would not kill Black Rock Night 1, why does he think I would kill Eloh Night 1 to win a damn Heist?

MM had two votes, tied with me, and LC gives a demonstrably insincere reason for voting me to put me in the lead over MM. I wonder why.

Hey LC, who would be more likely to kill Eloh Night 1: MM or me?

Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Long Con wrote:What's your ideal endgame scenario?
I don't know. All I'm saying is that if I lose because Wilgy or MM honestly think I killed Eloh Night 1, that will be a new level of boneheadedness on their part.
You're pushing that point so hard, it's starting to have the opposite effect on me. I'm going to place a vote on you for now.

Vote Epignosis

I don't believe you.

Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:If the mafia's plan was to get me lynched by killing Eloh Night 1, then they done fucked up.

Because now I'm a confirmed civilian.

If you lynch me, you are either bad or a fool.
That is a good point.

If it was a good point Day 3, then it's a good point Day 5, and how hard I push that point does not diminish the goodness of the point.

Voting Long Con.

Long Con wrote:What's your ideal endgame scenario?

I don't know. All I'm saying is that if I lose because Wilgy or MM honestly think I killed Eloh Night 1, that will be a new level of boneheadedness on their part.

DFaraday wrote:I would be fine with either Notsawyer or MM, but it seems like it's going to be between Epi and MM, and I see the case on MM, whereas I'm reading Epi as civ.

It's far too early to say who it's going to be between.

I hope I am not stuck in an endgame scenario with MM and Wilgy. Civilians will lose.

thellama73 wrote:
Marmot wrote:
thellama73 wrote:<snip>

I have a hard time believing that Epi, even at his ballsiest, would stick his neck out so far to defend an outed teammate. Then again, if anyone would, he would. Either way, it's bizarre behavior.

<snip>
My qualm with this behavior: Epignosis wanted to keep jack alive for the purpose of observing his behavior and hunting for baddies based on that. But the problem is, Epignosis did none of that, and even promoted the opposite when Quin promoted the idea of lynching him.
I don't think Epi's reasoning for keeping Jack alive was to observe him. As I recall, he always advocated ignoring him. He just thought lynching him was a waste of a day, since we already knew his role. At least that was my understanding.

Llama is correct. I wasn't interested in a thing Jack said or did after that point.

Marmot wrote:
Epignosis wrote:If notsawyer is bad, I bet MM is bad too.

I imagine them in BTSC, MM's teammates frustrated that he has pledged to not Night kill me (thanks MM!), but having to do something about me. So they go balls to the wall to get me lynched, unaware that they cleared me Night 1.

And even if notsawyer isn't bad, I bet MM is bad anyway.
You've made it past Day 1, so you've concluded that I'm mafia?

Is your code never to kill me Night 1 or never to kill me?

MM refuses to kill me.

I'm still alive.

MM tried to get me lynched.

What think you of MM?

MacDougall wrote:I am gonna just go by the assumption Epi is civ tbh. If he is bad good on him.

I appreciate that, but I could do with some more analysis from you. There's been a lot of dick-waving, and if you will notice, nobody left wants to get hit in the face with a dick.

If notsawyer is bad, I bet MM is bad too.

I imagine them in BTSC, MM's teammates frustrated that he has pledged to not Night kill me (thanks MM!), but having to do something about me. So they go balls to the wall to get me lynched, unaware that they cleared me Night 1.

And even if notsawyer isn't bad, I bet MM is bad anyway.

thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:"Consider: If he's mafia, then he knows I'm not bad, so what's his exit strategy should he prove successful?"
Assuming you are civ, his exit strategy would be the same as that of anyone who leads a lynch on a civ. "Oops, I was wrong. I feel stupid." As someone who routinely leads mislynches in games, I find that I don't often get lynched in return for it.

I said I wasn't going to defend him Day 5, so I'm holding to that.

DFaraday wrote:
Epignosis wrote: I have wanted to string llama up for the way he's been characterizing people and acting like Day 0 stuff is more important than Day 3 stuff.
Why does that make him bad though?

It doesn't. Only the role G-Man gave him makes him bad.

Spoiler: show

"Consider: If he's mafia, then he knows I'm not bad, so what's his exit strategy should he prove successful?"

thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote: So forgive me if I don't put any stock in your so-called "cases."
You're forgiven. I hope you'll extend me the same courtesy and forgive me for not putting much stock in your reads, given that they have cost us SVS and Quin.
And got the serial killer Day 1.

Quin wasn't a "read." Quin was a preferred option over notsawyer, whom I have reasons to view as a civilian. The reasons I had for Quin were less convincing.
That's fair. I'm still going to vote for Sawyer tomorrow. And I still consider you a friend.

Did you ever factor the below into your suspicion?

Spoiler: show

Epignosis wrote:
DFaraday wrote:
Epignosis wrote: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.

thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote: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.

Long Con wrote: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:

notsawyer540 wrote: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.

thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote: So forgive me if I don't put any stock in your so-called "cases."
You're forgiven. I hope you'll extend me the same courtesy and forgive me for not putting much stock in your reads, given that they have cost us SVS and Quin.

And got the serial killer Day 1.

Quin wasn't a "read." Quin was a preferred option over notsawyer, whom I have reasons to view as a civilian. The reasons I had for Quin were less convincing.

Long Con wrote:
Epignosis wrote:What is your actual opinion on llama? I think he stinks.
I voted for him the first two days, and I haven't really changed my opinion. What were his opinions on Quin during his lynch?

I'd have to look.

You do understand that I now suspect you as well. Yes, I'm sure you do.

What is your actual opinion on llama? I think he stinks.

Yeah, I'm good lynching MM.

Long Con wrote:Also: please don't be mad.

I'm not. Temporarily annoyed would be a better description.

Long Con wrote:At the very least, Metalmarsh and Epi's Llama-based reactions should be analyzable, from the perspective that they thought Llama was Civ-cleared? I don't know, that's one perspective.

My appraisal of you was tied to llama. My view was that if one of you was bad, so too was the other.

I'm okay putting you both back in the suspect pool, however.

I just don't know what you think you accomplished if you are a civilian.

I have wanted to string llama up for the way he's been characterizing people and acting like Day 0 stuff is more important than Day 3 stuff. You single-highhandedly prevented me from pursuing that avenue, so if you are a civilian, thanks for nothing.

Marmot wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Marmot wrote:
Epignosis wrote:And MM evidently suspects both LC and thellama73.
What's your point?
You suspect two people I now have a reason to believe are good, and you tried to get me to vote for thellama73 but you only offered "Fair enough" when I said I suspected him but wouldn't vote for him- you didn't make any kind of effort to make that lynch happen (or the lynch of LC for that matter). That makes me suspect you more.
1) I wasn't around after that point, so I was incapable of doing anything.

2) I'm not going to launch a campaign against every person I suspect, that's too much work, and likely wouldn't be fruitful anyway.

3) You suspect him but aren't pushing for his lynch either. Why do you suspect me for doing the same thing?

I did suspect him. The LC comment was always in the back of my mind. What do you make of his appraisal?

notsawyer540 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
notsawyer540 wrote:RIP Quin.

I'm more inclined to think that Mac is innocent after the way that things went down, because he could've done nothing and sat back and let me get lynched if he were bad. He was the last person to vote and he cast the deciding vote between two civs who were up for lynch. If he were bad, it wouldn't matter to him which one of us got lynched and he only exposed himself to more risk by stepping in. He was my top scum read before, but now I'm not so sure.

One vote that sticks out like a sore thumb is Marmot. Two civs were up for lynch and he avoided voting for either one of them.
I am the only person in 2017 to win as mafia on The Syndicate this year.

What you are describing is precisely what I did to win.
What game was that?

Good luck reading it.

notsawyer540 wrote:RIP Quin.

I'm more inclined to think that Mac is innocent after the way that things went down, because he could've done nothing and sat back and let me get lynched if he were bad. He was the last person to vote and he cast the deciding vote between two civs who were up for lynch. If he were bad, it wouldn't matter to him which one of us got lynched and he only exposed himself to more risk by stepping in. He was my top scum read before, but now I'm not so sure.

One vote that sticks out like a sore thumb is Marmot. Two civs were up for lynch and he avoided voting for either one of them.

I am the only person in 2017 to win as mafia on The Syndicate this year.

What you are describing is precisely what I did to win.

notsawyer, you're on your own tomorrow. If the field wants you out, I am not going to sit here and defend you further.

Kind of funny how the guy you stubbornly tried to get lynched became your greatest defender.

I plan to spend my time left alive here figuring out who is bad. MM, MacDougall, and Wilgy are my top three suspects off the bat.

thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Sawyer, are you still maintaining your innocence in the wake of that fiasco?
How does the fiasco make him guilty? Break it down for me.
The fiasco doesn't make him guilty, the role given to him by G-Man makes him guilty. His behavior reveals his guilt. And the fiasco teaches me to trust my own instincts and not go along with the cool kids.
"The wake of that fiasco" doesn't have anything to do with the role G-Man gave him either.

You are now citing his behavior that reveals his guilt. Walk me through what he said and did that is so revealing.
Epi, I get that you think Sawyer is a civ. I think you are wrong. I'm tired right now, but if you really don't remember/don't want to look for it, I will dig up my explanation of why I think Sawyer is bad first thing in the morning for you, okay?

No need. I've already found it and dismantled it.

thellama73 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Sawyer, are you still maintaining your innocence in the wake of that fiasco?
How does the fiasco make him guilty? Break it down for me.
The fiasco doesn't make him guilty, the role given to him by G-Man makes him guilty. His behavior reveals his guilt. And the fiasco teaches me to trust my own instincts and not go along with the cool kids.
Maybe it would be better if you were less pedantic about it, and read Epi's question the way you know he intended it - "How does the fiasco behaviour reveal his guilt?" or something like that.
I've made my case on him a bunch of times. The only thing that has changed is that a whole host of people rushed in to rescue him at the last minute. That looks suspicious because people with teammates are more likely to be saved at the last minute than people without teammates, but mainly I just stand by my original case. I am annoyed that I allowed myself to be dissuaded from voting for my first choice by groupthink. As a wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us."

Your "case" was this: "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."

I asked you to elaborate to on his equivocation and you referenced stuff from Day 0 / Day 1:

thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote: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.
I'll have to dig up my original post where I accused him of that when I'm feeling less sick/tired than I am now, but briefly he spent part of Day0/1 saying things like "On the one hand... on the other hand... but I'm not sure... or it COULD be..." which I regard as a baddie tell. Baddies tend to be noncommittal (moreso than civvies) because committing to a viewpoint leaves you vulnerable when you are proven wrong (as baddies must eventually be). Granted he's being a lot less noncommittal in his case on you, biut only after I called him out.

Then:

thellama73 wrote:
Quin wrote: And, both. This is civilian Quin though. I'd be unanimously town-read if I was bad.
Oh wait a minute! Just when I was about ready to plant Quin firmly in my Civ column, he lets loose with this howler.

"I'm playing exactly like a civvie. Nothing I'm doing indicates in the slightest that I am bad." The universal emotions of a frustrated baddie who feels he's played a great game but is losing anyway (I've been there many times.)

I really, really distrust this post.

That isn't equivocation at all. That's a firm claim that you mark as being the sign of not just mafia, but frustrated mafia.

thellama73 wrote:
Marmot wrote:
Jackofhearts2005 wrote:
Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Quin missed my original point and misinterpreted my question. Hence we are talking in circles.

Placeholder vote on Quin. I don't think my original point was that obscure.
You had the chance to reiterate your point. Why didn't you take it, and instead choose to believe that I'm (assumedly purposefully) misinterpreting your question?
Quin, aren't you known for having several page long arguments over nuances of language aka talking in circles?

I don't fault S-V-S for this at all. That said, I don't think it's necessarily a scumtell for you so.

And that's all I have to say about that.
While we're on the subject of Quin, who wants to talk about this doozy of a post from jack?

He acknowledges the case on Quin, but equivocates nicely.

Linki: I voted LC because he was rude to Floyd, so just a placeholder really.
That is well observed. That first sentence is definitely something I could see a teammate writing.

Now you're lynching Quin because someone else- a mafia member- made an equivocating statement about him.

++++

So forgive me if I don't put any stock in your so-called "cases."

thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Sawyer, are you still maintaining your innocence in the wake of that fiasco?
How does the fiasco make him guilty? Break it down for me.
The fiasco doesn't make him guilty, the role given to him by G-Man makes him guilty. His behavior reveals his guilt. And the fiasco teaches me to trust my own instincts and not go along with the cool kids.

"The wake of that fiasco" doesn't have anything to do with the role G-Man gave him either.

You are now citing his behavior that reveals his guilt. Walk me through what he said and did that is so revealing.

thellama73 wrote:Sawyer, are you still maintaining your innocence in the wake of that fiasco?

How does the fiasco make him guilty? Break it down for me.

Marmot wrote:
Epignosis wrote:And MM evidently suspects both LC and thellama73.
What's your point?

You suspect two people I now have a reason to believe are good, and you tried to get me to vote for thellama73 but you only offered "Fair enough" when I said I suspected him but wouldn't vote for him- you didn't make any kind of effort to make that lynch happen (or the lynch of LC for that matter). That makes me suspect you more.

MacDougall wrote:
Long Con wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Whose idea was this?
Instant blame. New top suspect.
It'd be sweet if you used your head instead of your pooping ass to play Mafia. What in the world kind of shit would my end of game play be as a Mafia player?

If I am a Mafia player, the only possible justification for what I did was to save Notsawyer. Otherwise I as a Mafia player just stay away from the thread for the last 20 minutes.

Seriously mate you havin a fucken lend or whaT?

notsawyer540 wrote:Holding out hope for Faraday, Floyd, or Mac. Whichever one saves me will gain major civ points in my book.

Marmot's vote won't be enough to save me even if he changes to Quin

Nope. No possible justification to get involved at all.

If notsawyer is a civilian, as I believe, then that lynch was bad no matter what.

I have to drive home and stop on the way, so this is likely it for me.

Quin! Have 0.0720 more votes.

Quin + DF + Floyd = 4.7172

Epi + MM + LC + notsawyer + Wilgy + thellama73 = 4.0936

Shit.

Reposting.

G-Man wrote:Since speculation over vote weight has occurred, I'd like to clear things up for you. At the end of Night 3, all living player's post counts were recorded. Here are the percentages for the 10 of you:

Epignosis = 22.93%
Marmot = 12.61%
Long Con = 12.24%
DrWilgy = 11.88%
Llama = 11.64%
Quin = 11.16%
MacDougall = 8.88%
notsawyer540 = 5.88%
Dfaraday = 2.04%
Floyd = 0.72%
There are 10 votes between you all, so those 10 votes were broken up proportionally according to the percentages above and reallocated in reverse order. (i.e. Floyd's vote is worth Epi's post-count percentages multiplied by 10, and so on)

Epignosis = 0.0720 votes
Marmot = 0.2041 votes
Long Con = 0.5882 votes
DrWilgy = 0.8884 votes
Llama = 1.1164 votes
Quin = 1.1645 votes
MacDougall = 1.1885 votes
notsawyer540 = 1.2245 votes
Dfaraday = 1.2605 votes
Floyd = 2.2929 votes

Less than an hour to go. I am disappointed that people chose to drop weighty votes on someone without coming back and discussing / reconsidering those votes.

If you remove notsawyer, LC, llama, and me from consideration, you've removed 40% of the suspect pool and can proceed accordingly.

And MM evidently suspects both LC and thellama73.

notsawyer540 wrote:I didn't see that. What I gather is either LC and llama are both civ and LC found out about llama's alignment because of some game mechanic we're not aware of, or they both have btsc and LC was trying to take some of the heat off llama. Do you see any other explanations?

Having found that, I take from it this:

thellama73 and Long Con are both civilians. There is one power role left, and nobody went HAM against LC or thellama73 after he made this declaration. To me, that is evidence in their favor.

If Long Con is bad, then someone is asleep at the wheel.

Present company: Comment on this please.

Long Con wrote:Long Con
thellama73
MacDougall
Epignosis
notsawyer540
Dfaraday
TheFloyd73
Marmot
DrWilgy
Quin

This is a basic rainbow that I hastily constructed. I don't even know if it's exactly how I feel.

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

Marmot wrote:Fair enough.

thellama73 wrote:
notsawyer540 wrote:We would need llama, dfaraday, or floyd to change their vote.
If Epi and I both change our votes, you would still need at least one more.
I'm inferring from this post that llama's considering changing his vote in an attempt to save notsawyer.

That could only mean that thellama73's plan was to throw notsawyer under the bus until it became possible to save him.

I don't suspect notsawyer though, so I don't believe that's what is transpiring.

Marmot wrote:Would you vote for him today?

Today? No. Aside from the voting system being how it is, I need to use my meager voice to keep notsawyer from being lynched, and I don't think there will be a bunch of support in the next few hours to accomplish lynching llama.

Marmot wrote:Epignosis, what do you make of llama?

Moderate suspect.

Even if I were to move my vote to Quin, notsawyer would still have almost twice the votes as Quin.

notsawyer540 wrote:Epi, why should people vote for Wigly?

I don't know. I'm still trying to figure him out. And I like frustrating myself.

Search found 329 matches