The Syndicate

Vompatti wrote:

Kate wrote:

Vompatti wrote:I'll stick with voting for rabbit8.

Personal reasons?

This time it's not personal.

Vompatti wrote:I'll stick with voting for rabbit8.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Mr. Droopy Cash wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:If you have something worth saying, withholding it isn't going to make you seem like a civ. Just FYI.

Lol...it's not worth saying. Just nice that I'm not the only name floating around. There's this glimmer of hope (false hope that is) out there.

Honestly, I'd prefer if you say what you're thinking of. If you really are a civvie, I wish you would. It could end up saving you and it might make me change my mind on you if it's good enough.

One of the biggest things I've learned from mafia is even when you are in the crosshairs, be it as a civvie or baddie, is that you never, ever give up until you are actually lynched. Do everything you can if you think it will contribute to your survival and possibly winning!

LoRab wrote:

bea wrote:

Illyria wrote:Awww DAMNIT.

But thanks MP for letting me go out the way I would want, with my Whedon.

tbh - your death was the most awesome and true to a player I've ever seen in a sock post (if we keep using the shortcuts enough they might be smiley's right? )

That said - please keep playing here Illy - this crew is fun. With all sorts of new people who are not all the problems that exist elsewhere - they are all sorts of awesome in their zany ways. I hope your early death does not mean you don't play with us anymore. This is quickly becoming my second most fav place to play mafia and I love having the goddess around. :srrsnd: You would have kicked my ass six ways from sunday in the PA games had you been there. ( see more use of smileys we need... hopefully sometime a busy mod who has access to this has a few minutes to make it happen)

@ daisy - well done my friend. really well done. You have earned the Awesome Person Of The Month award in my book.

@ wabbit. - awe....you know it's a love that can never be right? I had to lock diggz up when I read it out loud to him! You'll always have a *very* fond spot in my heart but - yea - you have Mrs. Wabbit and she is a SAINT in my book and I have my One True Love. Maybe in another life or another world.... OMG - I just have to say - soooooo funny. really. OMG - even diggz wanted to create an account to come give wabbit crap about it.

*feels entirely unloved*

Mr. Droopy Cash wrote:I'll tell you what Rabbit, you think 2/3 of the late bea votes are baddies-I would be willing to vote for either of the other two. Who seems more suspicious?

Mr. Droopy Cash wrote:SVS, this wasn't the first time I've brought up low-posters. The lynch on Day 1-I voted for Boats because they didn't post on Day 1 at all. Just sayin' is all. I don't like voting with the crowd because I find people who do that to be suspicious. If someone is a baddie and it's obvious their teammate is going to get lynched, it would be very beneficial for them to vote for their teammate as well to take heat off themselves. Therefore, it could also be argued that one or two of the late voters for Bea last lynch are baddies.

My mind has too much ADD going on to stay on track with one thing. I like switchin it up. Who knows, maybe I'll vote for Kate because because she didn't argue with my book...I mean post. (I won't...but who knows!)

linki (finally get to linki! yay!): yes it's my first game rabbit and no, there's no coaching. I was given some tips and explanation before roles were ever dished out. My opinions are made up by me with the advice of no one.

--I'll admit I had some suspicion of Bea but I couldn't come outright and say bea was bad. Rabbit-you're on the offense all the time from what I can see. That led me more towards to you being bad than Bea. Since Bea WAS bad, maybe that just means you're badder?

Mr. Droopy Cash wrote:I feel a noose slowly tightening around my neck...

As for being coached, I can assure you I am not. If I were being coached, I wouldn't have made what many of you are calling a mistake (or so it seems). I'm trying to catch on to how to play this game based off what I've seen from other people. Also, before the site was even created, MP kept talking on and on about this game trying to explain how to play and what some strategies that people use are. I guess it would've been better for me to stick with one strategy than to try to mix them up. I'm not sure I can say anything at all to save my ass at this point but it's been enjoyable thus far.

Anyways, I like reading through all of this discussion, even if it is negative towards me. I'd like to get rid of the people who don't post to encourage further discussion, as opposed to eliminating avid posters and lessening the frequency of discussions. Also, before starting I was made aware that one strategy some people like to use when they are baddies is to try and fly under the radar without posting for as long as they can, thus helping my case against them.

My choice to vote Rabbit as opposed to a low-poster last lynch was because of the odds of the vote being successful. If I had voted for a low-poster, my vote wouldn't have made a difference (other than the chance of ME getting lynched next time). I had more of a suspicion for rabbit than I did bea (even though bea ended up being a baddie) so I went rabbit.

This wasn't supposed to be a book-post but it looks like it is now. Hopefully it's read and taken into consideration. I'm not ready to die...I'm too young! As of now, my vote stays with rabbit for this lynch unless someone actually jumps on my low-poster bandwagon!

BoatsBoatsBoats wrote:Droopy's actions seem odd, but at the same time, maybe he just doesn't have that much of an idea of what he's doing, as it's been said before.

S~V~S wrote:Also Kate, thanks for the Epic post enumerating my tells

I will strat working on that right away, lol

xoxo

Captain Bunny Killer wrote:All I'm saying is that others who claim to know SVS thought it uncharacteristic. And since I thought her initial comments about DF's death odd when I first read them, this seems to back it up.

I'd be interested to know what Trice has to say in response to your confirmation that nothing was out of the ordinary.

Captain Bunny Killer wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I feel like if vomps had teammates/btsc, they would tell him not to do most of the things he has done this game. I also feel, however, that most of his actions/posts have no logical civ explanation

I also still feel like SVS's uncharacteristic "big deal" was weird. If we knew which team Lorab had been on, that would probably make me feel more strongly about the whole shebang. I just don't know right now.

You must not know me very well if you think that was uncharacteristic. Having had two unusual kills, getting people to talk about it can sometimes help find the killers~

You've been in every game of mafia I've played and never done that before

so

So, what about this? I don't know SVS, so I'm getting some strongly conflicting accounts.

S~V~S wrote:

reywaS wrote:

S~V~S wrote:No, I am not talking about grudge play. I am talking about Faradays basic mildness and blendiness. But no, I am not aware of anyone who does that who is playing this game.

I don't ever remember him ever being NKed Night one. It seems an odd choice, especially in light of his posts, which were mild and blendy. I tried and tried to see who may have felt threatened by him, and I am at a loss. Seeing him NKed kinda shocked me, tbh.

Maybe you are right and it really was random~

Your thoughts on the NK ping me a bit tbh....it's almost as if you are offended that someone killed your partner or something? I could be totally wrong, but I don't think I've ever seen you make such a post after someone is NK'd.

I remember a game where DH made a post about the night kill choice being an odd one and he was totally bad in that game....so your post comes off to me as being familiar with DFs death....meaning he was either your partner or you were involved in killing him.

I dunno....it just seems off to me.

yeah, just like everything I do seems off to you lol.

You know that when i am bad, I am the coldest bus-chucking bitch on the block, lol. If Faraday was my bad teammate, I would not be crying over him in the thread.

If Spongebob did not educate you, DH and i could not be more different. I know Faraday very well, I admire his game immensely, we are like Mafia yin/yang. He almost NEVER gets NKed early, only later when the game is at the role deduction phase. He gets lynched a lot as a civ, but not NKed like this. So I don't think he was NKed by anyone from "our" sphere of influence. But he did not say anything that would lead me to believe the PA people got him either.

So I am trying to figure out what happened to him. A direct read of the roles does not tell me~ it likely is a secret. I was hoping to see if anyone mentioned my interest, but blew it off. Surprised you didn't see that. One of those people could be the killer, IMO.

And i see a few did , on a quick skim, I have to reread, I have been crazy busy at work, and haven't had much time to read threads during the day.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Yeah, he did.

Boomslang wrote:Boomslang agrees that the third person, when done consistently, can be an interesting character trait. However, if Vomp's vote was forced, then Rabbit may be civ, so I'm getting on the bea bandwagon.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:Scroll up and read Epig's post

insertnamehere wrote:

chaindeath wrote:Chaindeath will vote for Rabbit8, he has an unsettling feeling, about him and it is getting late...

In response to the earlier comment about chaindeath's "weeping" he is sorry to send off any weird vibes, he merely meant that they should rest soundly and in a good place (if this makes seance). Illyria he doesn't quite understand what she is trying to say here "and saying he was weeping for the NK'd people who we have no way of knowing if they were good or evil". Please elaborate Illyria. Also chaindeath has chosen to speak this way for the fun of it, no other reason.

*votes rabbit8*

Is it just me or is the third person thing a little endearing?

LittleTiger wrote:

Kate wrote:I'm leaning toward voting Bea. As I said earlier, I think SVS was trying to fish for info and I think she got some. I think that Bea knows something about the NK targets.

bea wrote:RIP DF and Devin.

I guess I can see where SVS is coming from, but with all the secrets in the game it occurs to me that it's entirely possible that the people who died last night weren't the intended targets. I mean, the host himself said the NP and all the night actions were going to take a while to get out. That says to me that a lot was going on last night.

Then I asked her if she thought it was both DF and Devin or just DF and she said this:

bea wrote:not sure if it was both or not. But - what I was thinking was that if the day 0 poll made all the Earth votes not count in the lynch - maybe the night 1 poll had something to do with people's targets getting re-directed.

I think this second post had been thought out, possibly in a chat room, about why their kill ended up killing someone other than their intended target.

Plus, she says she is not sure if it was both or not, which says to me, that she does think/know at least one was...

Oh yes! I remember being a little pinged by that at the time I first read it. Thanks for reminding me!

bea wrote:RIP DF and Devin.

I guess I can see where SVS is coming from, but with all the secrets in the game it occurs to me that it's entirely possible that the people who died last night weren't the intended targets. I mean, the host himself said the NP and all the night actions were going to take a while to get out. That says to me that a lot was going on last night.

bea wrote:not sure if it was both or not. But - what I was thinking was that if the day 0 poll made all the Earth votes not count in the lynch - maybe the night 1 poll had something to do with people's targets getting re-directed.

bea wrote:RIP DF and Devin.

I guess I can see where SVS is coming from, but with all the secrets in the game it occurs to me that it's entirely possible that the people who died last night weren't the intended targets. I mean, the host himself said the NP and all the night actions were going to take a while to get out. That says to me that a lot was going on last night.

bea wrote:not sure if it was both or not. But - what I was thinking was that if the day 0 poll made all the Earth votes not count in the lynch - maybe the night 1 poll had something to do with people's targets getting re-directed.

DharmaHelper wrote:Gross.

rabbit8 wrote:

Kate wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:When players start to tell other players what civvies do, they're usually bad.

You think that is what SVS is doing?

To me, THIS, is vintage civvie SVS. I'd be really surprised if she is bad here.

Could be, I'm trying to guage her responses. I'm on the fence with her.

Illyria wrote:

Kate wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:When players start to tell other players what civvies do, they're usually bad.

You think that is what SVS is doing?

To me, THIS, is vintage civvie SVS. I'd be really surprised if she is bad here.

Agreed, I also dont see where she told anyone what to do??? Rabitt can you clarify?

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

Illyria wrote:Okay.. Trice I get you are running behind but why are there quote marks around that? It looks like you copied and pasted it from somewhere.. like a chat room.

According to Google it's a Pulp Fiction quote. You're quite hasty. :P

Thus me asking. Also, the quote slip up has happened more than once in a game so I don't think I was totally off my gob asking for clarification there.

reywaS wrote:Lots of early votes.... :o

rabbit8 wrote:When players start to tell other players what civvies do, they're usually bad.

bea wrote:RIP DF and Devin.

I guess I can see where SVS is coming from, but with all the secrets in the game it occurs to me that it's entirely possible that the people who died last night weren't the intended targets. I mean, the host himself said the NP and all the night actions were going to take a while to get out. That says to me that a lot was going on last night.

S~V~S wrote:

Sorry Leech~ don't self vote any more, K?

I picked 8 because it is my favorite of the numbers up there

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I'm sure I've made that mistake in at least a couple games

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I'm reluctant to vote for Kate this early because she literally always sounds like a baddie to me

triceratopzeuhl wrote:Also, I forgot to say it before but this

Vompatti wrote:I'm not voting for Leech as I think he might benefit from it. Why else would he have voted for himself? Therefore I will also vote for myself, assuming I might also benefit from it.

is the funniest post this entire game so far

Benthayer15 wrote:Someone could vote for themselves if they thought that it would throw the scent off of them. However, they first have to have a reason to do that. And what could that be? It must be worth the risk of them getting lynched, possibly..

chaindeath wrote:Chaindeath would like to throw out that he detests random decisions, that they should be based on facts (or at least some sort of evidence) With the present data and other things of that nature, he feels that it could be ether Kate or Leech. He could be wrong on this front, but he feels that Leech had a good point about Kate wanting to cause trouble as follows.

"I feel like you consciously believe that it's not a suspicious move (after all, a lot of people admitted to considering it (and doing it) themselves after my action became a hot topic), which sparks my suspicions for you. Add that to the fact that there was a good space between my post and yours and no one else found it suspicious enough to say so. You were the first to speak bad about it, and by doing so you created a freak chain of spotlight which sparked other people's suspicions because if I'm not mistaken your "suspicions" of me (that is, again, if you actually find my move suspicious) was the first stated suspicion of anyone there was. Baddie move? I won't make that conclusion this early but it seems very strange to me. " Post 36 Page 6 (He thought about direct quoting late in the writing process. Please let him know if this is completely unacceptable.)

He feels that Leech is just a suspicious character, with all the seeds of doubt planted.

Chaindeath has posted two of the three required.

S~V~S wrote:

Kate wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Illyria wrote:
Really? We need some suspicious and eye smileys please!

The eye is here.

Haha! I totally thought this was the beginning of some event. "The eye"

LOLOL me too

OK, a few pages behind in my reread. I was thinking "benefit of the doubt" re Leech until the "Damage Control Unit" as I believe Illy called it, came in. Now, not so sure. He was a quirky and whimsical player (as was Vomp, really) and I could totally see him self voting for the reasons he said. I was a bit more at his assertion that perhaps MP was LIMITING us to 3 posts, so he was gonna stop talking.

But too many people seem to have too much speculative knowledge based on secrets which are...secret. I have to reread the baddie roles to see if the secret in question is as obvious as some seem to imply it may be.

Perhaps the last few pages will clarify for me. But at this point, while I would not love voting for Leech (I really looked forward to playing a game with him again), I would consider it.

Kate wrote:

Leech wrote:

Kate wrote:Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day?

It was my third post. In fact first let me make it clear that the only reason I'm posting again is that I'm now convinced that not providing an argument could get me lynched, which is a worse punishment (probably) than anything Sock could conjure up. If I had known that post (and the vote) would've sparked up THIS many damn suspicions, I wouldn't have made it. It was my third post, and I didn't want to be the guy that votes without posting. Paranoid? I honestly still don't think so. Like someone said for a different context, it's a Sock game, thus anything could happen. A sneaky trick like the one I mentioned certainly wouldn't be outside the possibility of a game I would ever host, and I don't think Sock's any different.

Kate wrote:if it weren't for I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move?

How do you expect me to respond to this sensibly if you refuse to get into a discussion about random voting? First off, self-voting isn't even random voting in the first place, it's situational, and to me I find it far less suspicious from any standpoint than an actual randomizer. You could make a case that I would agree with that self-voting is lazy voting, but suspicious? Although I've seen a lot of posts saying that my action was suspicious, I didn't read a single one explaining to me how, and instead demanded I make an explanation. If the suspicion stems from me putting myself in a position where I supposedly am shielded from defending myself, for one, I didn't think I would have to defend myself in the first place, and for another, that's now void. I ask you now Kate, how exactly was my move baddielicious. If you still don't want a random voting discussion, then to me you're in the same boat you tried to put me in about attempting to dodge responsibility in defense. That is unless you convince me without a discussion on that, unlikely, because I honestly don't understand why anyone considers self-voting suspicious, especially on Day 1, early, when I have no one else to be suspicious to.

Kate wrote:You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

You're spinning this because "voting a known civvie" carries a bad connotation and "voting for yourself", what I did, doesn't. At all. The reason why is because when you self-vote, you don't make a case for why anyone else should make the same vote, and thus you're not trying to get the civvie lynched. The purpose of self-voting is to just VOTE, when you have no other suspicions. Not only do I find a randomizer not the better option, to me it's a more suspicious action. Two baddies on the same team can claim to use a randomizer and "coincidentally" end up with the same player who's not on their team or a civvie, getting him or her lynched.

I feel like you consciously believe that it's not a suspicious move (after all, a lot of people admitted to considering it (and doing it) themselves after my action became a hot topic), which sparks my suspicions for you. Add that to the fact that there was a good space between my post and yours and no one else found it suspicious enough to say so. You were the first to speak bad about it, and by doing so you created a freak chain of spotlight which sparked other people's suspicions because if I'm not mistaken your "suspicions" of me (that is, again, if you actually find my move suspicious) was the first stated suspicion of anyone there was. Baddie move? I won't make that conclusion this early but it seems very strange to me.

As for addressing vomps' unwarranted defense of me, I've got nothing. lol. Trying to explain why I think it's not weird would only increase your suspicions that we're on the same team, and in addition it would be dishonest, because I do think it was a strange defense, and it brought up a bunch of weird possibilities that to me don't even seem possible for a Day 1 situation, such as the whole forced to self-vote by a Mafia idea, which I don't subscribe to, although I guess it's not for me to say.

I'm not sure how explaining it was your third post helps. It was less than 24 hours into the day and there was still plenty of time for discussion. I understand early votes if you have a strong suspicion or you will be away, but you were in a hurry to vote yourself? That's odd IMO

I don't have right now to address all your points and I'm on the iPad but nice no u. Srsly? I'm suspish for pointing out a suspicion instead of making a lazy vote 12hours into the day? Yea, ok...

Leech wrote:

Kate wrote:Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day?

It was my third post. In fact first let me make it clear that the only reason I'm posting again is that I'm now convinced that not providing an argument could get me lynched, which is a worse punishment (probably) than anything Sock could conjure up. If I had known that post (and the vote) would've sparked up THIS many damn suspicions, I wouldn't have made it. It was my third post, and I didn't want to be the guy that votes without posting. Paranoid? I honestly still don't think so. Like someone said for a different context, it's a Sock game, thus anything could happen. A sneaky trick like the one I mentioned certainly wouldn't be outside the possibility of a game I would ever host, and I don't think Sock's any different.

Kate wrote:if it weren't for I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move?

How do you expect me to respond to this sensibly if you refuse to get into a discussion about random voting? First off, self-voting isn't even random voting in the first place, it's situational, and to me I find it far less suspicious from any standpoint than an actual randomizer. You could make a case that I would agree with that self-voting is lazy voting, but suspicious? Although I've seen a lot of posts saying that my action was suspicious, I didn't read a single one explaining to me how, and instead demanded I make an explanation. If the suspicion stems from me putting myself in a position where I supposedly am shielded from defending myself, for one, I didn't think I would have to defend myself in the first place, and for another, that's now void. I ask you now Kate, how exactly was my move baddielicious. If you still don't want a random voting discussion, then to me you're in the same boat you tried to put me in about attempting to dodge responsibility in defense. That is unless you convince me without a discussion on that, unlikely, because I honestly don't understand why anyone considers self-voting suspicious, especially on Day 1, early, when I have no one else to be suspicious to.

Kate wrote:You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

You're spinning this because "voting a known civvie" carries a bad connotation and "voting for yourself", what I did, doesn't. At all. The reason why is because when you self-vote, you don't make a case for why anyone else should make the same vote, and thus you're not trying to get the civvie lynched. The purpose of self-voting is to just VOTE, when you have no other suspicions. Not only do I find a randomizer not the better option, to me it's a more suspicious action. Two baddies on the same team can claim to use a randomizer and "coincidentally" end up with the same player who's not on their team or a civvie, getting him or her lynched.

I feel like you consciously believe that it's not a suspicious move (after all, a lot of people admitted to considering it (and doing it) themselves after my action became a hot topic), which sparks my suspicions for you. Add that to the fact that there was a good space between my post and yours and no one else found it suspicious enough to say so. You were the first to speak bad about it, and by doing so you created a freak chain of spotlight which sparked other people's suspicions because if I'm not mistaken your "suspicions" of me (that is, again, if you actually find my move suspicious) was the first stated suspicion of anyone there was. Baddie move? I won't make that conclusion this early but it seems very strange to me.

As for addressing vomps' unwarranted defense of me, I've got nothing. lol. Trying to explain why I think it's not weird would only increase your suspicions that we're on the same team, and in addition it would be dishonest, because I do think it was a strange defense, and it brought up a bunch of weird possibilities that to me don't even seem possible for a Day 1 situation, such as the whole forced to self-vote by a Mafia idea, which I don't subscribe to, although I guess it's not for me to say.