The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:I myself am suffering an existential crisis! Help!

MovingPictures07 wrote:You want absurdity, you say? You've got it. This thread deserves it, for pressing Golden on end to force all of us into this position.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I deny this speculation, good sir, though I can see why you think such a 180 could be explained by an alieI really just am so sick of this talk around Golden; Golden obviously wants to die, what's the big deal?

He literally doesn't want to die. You're pressing the easy button.

MP never presses the easy button. You're bad.

I think his pressing the easy button right now is due to lack of time. Although he does keep posting still...

Lol, I'm only here still because I'm an addict who wants to fail out of the program, apparently.

Turnip Head wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Jay is absolutely right. I just couldn't take lying anymore. How about that? I broke down pretty easily, didn't I?

I demand you stop acting like a crazy person.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I deny this speculation, good sir, though I can see why you think such a 180 could be explained by an alieI really just am so sick of this talk around Golden; Golden obviously wants to die, what's the big deal?

He literally doesn't want to die. You're pressing the easy button.

MP never presses the easy button. You're bad.

LoRab wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

LoRab wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

LoRab wrote: Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

Ideally, yes. But I thought the vote ended tonight, so I felt I had to vote when I did. And I don't have any solid suspicions of someone who is actually on a baddie team right now. I'm more than willing to change my vote if that should change.

@JJJ: I don't make the assumption that a neutral player is playing a pro-civ game. In my own game play (and this is part of where my thinking on neutral players come from), I once literally handed the game to the baddie team in end-game and I have also played a civ-aligned game as a neutral. So I do not assume that other players are going to necessarily be helping the civs when they are neutral.

You and I clearly think differently and interpret the thread differently. Which is what keeps these games interesting. My posts are honest. My explanations of my thinking are sincere. You are not the first person ever to suspect me because I'm a little out there in my thought process at times. Rarely, if ever, do I say that I believe things that I don't believe (IRL as well as in games, for that matter...which can be interesting professionally, but I digress). I don't concoct suspicion or reasons for voting (unless I have info and need to create a case in order to convince people); I often just say what's on my mind and don't always filter my thoughts; and I frequently find things suspicious that no one else sees as off.

In this case, I'll probably move my vote off of Golden, because his most recent plea sounded authentic. And I've been in that place of not being able to deal with defense in the moment (both as a civ and as a baddie...and probably as a neutral or indie--I'm just remembering particular moments). But I'm not moving my eye off of him.

I will consider this. But I still don't think it's in the civ's best interests (assuming those are your best interests) to want to go after neutrals who are anti-civ, when the main goal should be baddies.

I agree that should be the main goal. But part of what compelled me to vote Golden earlier (and have since moved my vote) is that he is keeping things all about him. Like Dr W said, Golden vs the world. I believe his emotion to be authentic, but because of it, and because he seems insistent/convinced that he's going to be lynched next, it remains the focus of the thread and makes it more challenging to find baddies. Also, I'm not sure baiting the baddies into killing Epig was a good choice for the civilian cause. It's like when a lynch switcher switches a lynch to a player that no one else finds suspicious, because it's in that individual's self interest.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with my thought process. I'm just explaining what I was thinking.

And, yes, I would prefer to lynch a baddie. And right now, I think TH is showing baddie tendencies, so that's where my vote remains at the moment.

Roxy wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I still think Golden needs to go so I'm still voting for him.

Roxy wrote:Teeth you are quick to call out Lorab but not your buddy MP. why? He is voting for Golden bc of his self vote. How is it any different than lorab?

unfurl wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

unfurl wrote:

S~V~S wrote:
Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

well this change things
I do not like missing votes, unless is an emergency that prevents me from do it
so I will place my vote in birdwithteeth11, this back in forth bewteen me and him has not changed my mind to not vote for him so far
if I changed my mind tomorrow, and the host let vote in the thread, then I guess that option may still be open

Yes, we've had a lot of back-and-forth. But my vote was merely a placeholder in case the thread got locked (before I realized the thread can only be locked for a certain period of time, and not an entire day period).

What is it that I've said that made you not change your mind on me? Or was it more based off the fact that I voted for you again?

It was more it the fact that you voted for me again, and the reasons behind it. that you keep saying things I did not say, I dont understand that even if you are neutral, why you would try to make it like I said other things, like I felt you are trying to twist things too

unfurl wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

unfurl wrote: @ Spacedaisy
Im usually full of contradicitions , it does mean nothing to my alliance ever, Im weird person that is true, still it means nothing wheter Im good/bad/Neutral
Is very easy for people to think of me as bad, I dont express myself good enough for most people taste

I was fine with a lot of your response to Daisy except for this. So we shouldn't judge anyone based on what they say???

Let me see if I can be clearer
of course in a game people are judge based in what they said and their actions
Im still trying to get the hang ouf ot it, and she was saying that I was saying weird things, fyi, I always say weird things, or at least there is usually someone unfamiliar with me that vote for me, for me saying weird things, I blame my weird sense of humour, to me it sounded more like she suspected me because she thought I was being snarky and that was not my intention, so my response is dont judge me just based in the weird things (which is relative to each player to)

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:So after days of saying I was sincere, now I am being intentionally false?

I probably would have bought the frame theory if you had not made that one post after Epi died. I believed then, and still believe now, with all my heart, that a baddie made that post.

Linki, I will cross that bridge when I come to it. But I don't think I will ever come to it. I doubt you will be lynched, you talked your way out of it. Then tomorrow I will be NKed probably, and it will be another attempt to frame poor Golden. And if you are lynched, I dont think you will come up good.

At some point, your choice to be stubborn and not engage has begun to feel to me like insincerity, yes.

And you still say, basically, you are hanging on to that one post - and that you would hang on to a single post while refusing to ever think about seeing it from another angle so stubbornly surprises me.

I tell you what, I'll do a bet with you. I tried to do this in RYM87 and sleepy wouldn't do it, he refused. Do what G-Man asked MP to do. Bet your mafia reputation on it. If, at the end of this game, the wash up makes it clear that I was neutral from the start up until Day 3, you will put in your signature "I staked my mafia reputation on golden being bad and I was wrong."

I, on the other hand, if I am bad, will post in my sig "S~V~S called me out, wouldn't back down, and was right."

The other part of this deal is, loser doesn't get to vote for the other one for the next five games we play together and loses their rights to claim they can read the other.

Deal?

Golden wrote:I also have a dichotomy. I do not want to vote rey given how things have unfolded, but him choosing not to vote for me also gives me a chance of surviving, so I no longer want to vote for me...

I'll register a vote for Boomslang who I think warrants a decent amount of scrutiny. I think it possible he could be on mafia team two that killed G-Man.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:I would ask those who are less inclined to feel absolutely certain of me, like lorab and timmer, to consider giving me a pass today given I won't be around a whole lot more for robust conversation and defence. I ask this because I get the strong sense that (because I won't be around) I'm going to be the easy location for drive by votes at end of day.

It's ultimately up to you guys, but if you really want to lynch me more on a hunch or being the 'best option' than anything else, I'd really like if it can be on a day where I can have proper conversation around it, more than I'll be able to today.

Are you shitting me, Golden? So...give you a pass and lynch me instead...is that it?

For fuck's sake, man.

Actually, everyone please take Golden's advice and give him a pass because he isn't going to be around to defend himself anymore than he already is.

Seriously, lynch me. I really don't think that I was ready to come back to mafia yet...especially not in such a large game. I think I probably should have started with a small game. I'm getting way too worked up and seeing this post has really grated on my nerves.

Vote: reywaS and I urge the rest of you to do the same.

Golden wrote:Going back to voting me.

Clearly I was stupid to think, briefly, that this day would turn out differently.

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

This does not seem like asking a question. This seems like making a statement.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Vote: TH

LoRab wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

LoRab wrote: Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

Ideally, yes. But I thought the vote ended tonight, so I felt I had to vote when I did. And I don't have any solid suspicions of someone who is actually on a baddie team right now. I'm more than willing to change my vote if that should change.

@JJJ: I don't make the assumption that a neutral player is playing a pro-civ game. In my own game play (and this is part of where my thinking on neutral players come from), I once literally handed the game to the baddie team in end-game and I have also played a civ-aligned game as a neutral. So I do not assume that other players are going to necessarily be helping the civs when they are neutral.

You and I clearly think differently and interpret the thread differently. Which is what keeps these games interesting. My posts are honest. My explanations of my thinking are sincere. You are not the first person ever to suspect me because I'm a little out there in my thought process at times. Rarely, if ever, do I say that I believe things that I don't believe (IRL as well as in games, for that matter...which can be interesting professionally, but I digress). I don't concoct suspicion or reasons for voting (unless I have info and need to create a case in order to convince people); I often just say what's on my mind and don't always filter my thoughts; and I frequently find things suspicious that no one else sees as off.

In this case, I'll probably move my vote off of Golden, because his most recent plea sounded authentic. And I've been in that place of not being able to deal with defense in the moment (both as a civ and as a baddie...and probably as a neutral or indie--I'm just remembering particular moments). But I'm not moving my eye off of him.

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:Going to vote now, so I don't forget and so I don't miss voting if the thread gets locked. I'm voting Golden.. As I said before, not so much because I think he's been recruited to a baddie team, but because I don't think he is playing in the best interest of the civies.

This is a bit of a cop out. I don't disagree that the Golden Problem has become a distraction, but that doesn't mean the solution should be to remove him from the game. If you don't think he has been recruited by a baddie and you don't think he is a baddie recruiter, then I would assert that your vote might not be in the best interest of the civilians.

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs. I've really started to change my feelings on this thought. I don't see how it's beneficial to go after someone who is potentially chaotic neutral when they're a potential civ recruit down the line, when I think there are people who are exhibiting baddie tendencies.....like wanting to vote for someone for being neutral and "playing an anti-civ game". Whatever that means.

Bullzeye wrote:

LoRab wrote: Asking someone openly to name whom they think is civ can only help the baddies. Especially in this game, where the baddies do not have a common target but are a common target, and that whole enemy of my enemy thing. I don't think this is a civ-friendly question, and I'm not sure Bass was playing a civ-friendly game, even if not recruited. Or at least wasn't seeming so with this post.

Does enemy of my enemy really apply as the baddies can't win together? Agree with the rest of your point though.

I think it does, as both civ teams want both baddie teams to be dead.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden, what is your immediate reaction to LoRab's vote for you and stated reason?

I concur entirely with your view, but feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

Before I voted for myself last night, you will see LoRab just said she found me suspicious (just a few posts beforehand). This is the post that pushed me over the edge into my self-vote. It made me feel as though it is hopeless me saying anything, because no matter what I say people will call me suspicious, and it was that post that made me feel like I would not be able to survive the lynch anyway.

So to have her come back the next day and say she does not think I'm bad, but then vote for me anyway because I am a distraction and having me alive is not in the towns interests... it's just disappointing for me and it's times like this that I feel like it does not matter how many words I use, I cannot get my points across.

LoRab wrote:You're making it increasingly more difficult to not suspect you. No, you're not unrecruitable. And I think the civies would be just as hesitatnt to recuit you as the baddies would be. Actually, I think the baddies would want you more at this stage. And, as the game goes on, nuetrals become more of a threat. We're far from there, but will get there.

And you think Epi wanted to recruit you? That is new info, so to speak, and seems extremely unlikely. And negates your entire idea of the 2 of you never being on the same team. You are starting to grasp at straws and I find it hard to find that as a civ thing to do. I did not suspect you until this post, but the ping has started, and is growing louder.

That was part of her post, but you should find it in her iso and read the whole thing including thread context.

I don't know if it makes lorab bad, but I do think it means she could be a neutral.

Prior to the post you quoted, I had been quite sympathetic to you. However, the more I read your posts, the more I found it difficult to be supportive. I do not say that I outright suspect you of being on a baddie team--I do not. But I do not think your game is pro-civ. And I do think that your posts last night started to sound like a cornered baddie, and that switched my thinking and made me start to look at your posts differently. And what I have read, more and more, does not seem pro-civ to me. And certainly not like a pro-civ Golden. So how would a pro-civ Golden be playing? How is his game so far not pro-civ? How is your game more civ-friendly than his?

And yes, I am neutral--like the vast majority of players. But I'm trying to play civ-friendly.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden, what is your immediate reaction to LoRab's vote for you and stated reason?

I concur entirely with your view, but feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

Before I voted for myself last night, you will see LoRab just said she found me suspicious (just a few posts beforehand). This is the post that pushed me over the edge into my self-vote. It made me feel as though it is hopeless me saying anything, because no matter what I say people will call me suspicious, and it was that post that made me feel like I would not be able to survive the lynch anyway.

So to have her come back the next day and say she does not think I'm bad, but then vote for me anyway because I am a distraction and having me alive is not in the towns interests... it's just disappointing for me and it's times like this that I feel like it does not matter how many words I use, I cannot get my points across.

LoRab wrote:You're making it increasingly more difficult to not suspect you. No, you're not unrecruitable. And I think the civies would be just as hesitatnt to recuit you as the baddies would be. Actually, I think the baddies would want you more at this stage. And, as the game goes on, nuetrals become more of a threat. We're far from there, but will get there.

And you think Epi wanted to recruit you? That is new info, so to speak, and seems extremely unlikely. And negates your entire idea of the 2 of you never being on the same team. You are starting to grasp at straws and I find it hard to find that as a civ thing to do. I did not suspect you until this post, but the ping has started, and is growing louder.

That was part of her post, but you should find it in her iso and read the whole thing including thread context.

I don't know if it makes lorab bad, but I do think it means she could be a neutral.

Honestly that post you reference, in this context, amplifies my concern and makes me outright suspicious of LoRab. She was verbally describing her own quest to find a reason to join the bandwagon against you, and continued in that direction with this most recent cop out vote. The highlighted pink text in there is a pretty literal example of this, and it is expressed in language that I find suspicious at face value. The highlighted orange text is a logical discrepancy and exemplifies a player interested in surface contexts and not deeper critical thinking. I don't think it's hard at all to associate your theorizing about the potential for Epignosis recruiting you with your prior insistence that it would be a bad idea to recruit me onto Epi's team, I'd kill him myself.

This seems like willful ignorance of the most important content in this discussion by LoRab, and a concerted effort to justify the easiest vote on the board.

I did not say last night that I thought he was recruited bad/bad recruiter. Actually, I make it pretty clear that I thought then as I think now that you are unrecruited. I think you are neutral, but not civ-friendly.

This is a game where we can change our votes--I don't think anyone stands out as likely on a baddie team. I am happy to change my vote if someone starts to seem actually bad or more detrimental to the civ cause. If I don't suspect anyone of being actually on a baddie team (which is what...4 to 6 players out of 32...not very good odds), then I believe that lynching a neutral who is not being civ-friendly to be the next best thing. I also have long had an innate distrust of neutral roles (which makes this stage of this game interesting in my brain).

Also, he literally asked to be lynched. With how much frustration he had building up, I honestly don't blame him. I've done it myself before when I got tired of defending myself and decided to just let the die be cast. Doesn't necessarily make him detrimental or anti-civ in my book.

Also, I'm not sure how that is hypocritical. And I had forgotten that at some point, in his many, many posts, he had thought that Epi wanted to recruit him. Perhaps, because I didn't suspect Epi in the first place, it didn't stick in my memory as his main point. And it is not a logical discrepancy--nor is it evidence of my being bad. One of Golden's main refrains has been that he didn't think he and Epi would ever be on the same team--it seems illogical to me that if that's why he had him killed/wanted him dead, then why would he go to thinking that Epi would cause the 2 of them to be on the same team. We think differently, that's fine. But it doesn't make me bad. Doesn't make you bad, either, for that matter.

And please don't tell me that I don't think deeply. I may notice really odd things in the thread, but that does not mean that I'm not thinking about them. Nor does it mean that I'm jumping on a bandwagon because I voted the same way as a few other people.

Golden wrote:Also, the fact that she was responding to a post in which I literally went out of my way to say "This is NOT new info" - because it was not, but it had been buried because people have (in my opinion) not been actually taking into account and considering a lot of the responses I've been making. That one is one of them.

I have taken a lot into account. It is exactly your responses, mainly in tone, that have made me suspicious of your intentions.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:lol MM voted for me. Maybe he's trying to tell me something.

Vote LoRab

Eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide. I am neutral, yes, but I am civ intentioned. My reasons for my vote may not mesh with the way you think through games, or the games you're used to, but it's how I think and how I play. I will even be nice since you're new and all and twirl for you.

linkitis: @Golden: That post sounded more honest than anything you've posted in a while. I will strongly consider (and probably take action on) changing my vote. I just need to figure out where to put it.

unfurl wrote:

S~V~S wrote:
Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

well this change things
I do not like missing votes, unless is an emergency that prevents me from do it
so I will place my vote in birdwithteeth11, this back in forth bewteen me and him has not changed my mind to not vote for him so far
if I changed my mind tomorrow, and the host let vote in the thread, then I guess that option may still be open

LoRab wrote:Going to vote now, so I don't forget and so I don't miss voting if the thread gets locked. I'm voting Golden.. As I said before, not so much because I think he's been recruited to a baddie team, but because I don't think he is playing in the best interest of the civies.

unfurl wrote: @ Spacedaisy
Im usually full of contradicitions , it does mean nothing to my alliance ever, Im weird person that is true, still it means nothing wheter Im good/bad/Neutral
Is very easy for people to think of me as bad, I dont express myself good enough for most people taste

G-Man wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:So if one happens to pop up sometime, I think it will generate some good discussions.

Scotty wrote:ALSO A REMINDER TO EVERYONE!!!

Uzbekistan can lock the thread today, which I'm assuming means for the entirety of the day phase, so if you have something you want to say, it may be a good idea to get it out sooner rather than later.

Spacedaisy wrote:I agree. I think that the only people who benefit from the civs not communicating are the baddies. Rainbow lists are no better or worse than back and forth conversation about suspicions or lists of people's reads on others, etc. I don't do them, but I don't mind them either.

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Do you think I am in control of a nightkill?

I'm not sure how this question is relevant.

You do not think whether or not you believe I have a nightkill is relevant to the question of whether or not you are legitimately scared of me killing you?

You either do, and will eventually try and kill me, or you don't, and you'll put another hit out on me, or you'll get recruited to someone with a kill, and probably want to kill me. There are several possiblities that would lead to you being "responsible" for my death.

So you are legitimately scared that if I am not on the team that killed epi, I could say 'kill DH for me', and they will?

Were you legitimately scared that if you didn't put the hit out on Epi he would have A) Not ended up on your team eventually and B) Killed you.

A - yes. B - no (why would you NK someone you think you can lynch), but he would have been a threat to me, because he would have been pursuing my lynch.

unfurl wrote:birdwithteeth11
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 73#p170173
read my post, I did not say RIP I said Bye, good thing you said you read my posts, makes point you did not
Too bad you dont think I have contributed much to the game, thats your opinion, great way to encourage players to keep playing in this site!!!
I was not around when you finally answered your questions to me
Perhaps my reasons for votting for you were not the strongest or the clearest but that was it at the moment, maybe I need to learn to make better cases
can someone teach me?

reywaS wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

reywaS wrote:BWT, do you realize that you used some form of the word "honest" 4 times in that post?

Are you being honest with us?

Not really. I don't pay that much attention to my word choice in posts when I type. I tend to do more of a stream-of-consciousness thing and just let it all come out.

As honest as I can be. How come?

I was just messing with you. :P

reywaS wrote:BWT, do you realize that you used some form of the word "honest" 4 times in that post?

Are you being honest with us?

unfurl wrote:Bye Epi and Typh, I also agree with the general feeling of loosing Typh after he has not played in a long time is a big lost, even if I have no idea wheter if he was still civvie/neutral or recruited to baddies, still a lost as a player

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Tranq wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Can any of the players that defended unfurl's behavior by saying it is like unfurl please explain to me what in her behavior makes you believe this? What adjectives would you use to describe her play in general that you see here, that make you unable to distinguish her alignment, and not persuaded by any of the points I was making?

MP, i just went through your posts that mention unfurl, and through her posts aswell.

Basically, this is the reason you voted for her, right?

MovingPictures07 wrote:At this moment, the players that I'm eyeballing the most are:

unfurl, for 13 posts that contribute practically nothing (no offense intended) to the hunt or game mechanics discussion, and for an attitude that seems very cheeky, sarcastic, and nonchalant. It's possible that she is a recruiter or recruited that isn't willing to open up the low poster discussion for the reasons I mentioned, although it seems clear that she has no intention to open up any avenue of discussion. Even if she isn't recruited or recruiter of a nefarious nature, that is a dangerous mindset, and considering 28 of us are neutral, she may receive my vote purely for that unwillingness.

I don't see anything wrong with her having the attitude you described Day 1 in a Recruitment game. Especially her post here is one i agree with. I don't read her as having 0 intention in discussing anything (i think she has posted quite a bit since your interactions), i read it as wanting to play the game in her own way. I'm sure as the game progresses she'll have more original posts and thoughts.
So as for your suspicions and her posts so far, i don't think it points to unfurl being a Recruiter or having been recruited.

What do you make of DrWilgy wanting to be friends with unfurl?

Tranq, thanks for elaborating on this. You're correct that's essentially what I was seeing in unfurl.

As to the last line, why is that exactly? Do you think a Recruiter or recruited would be more apt to share their own opinions?

Regarding DrWilgy, I have no idea what to make of it. Apparently, he's friends with MM now as well. What do you make of it?

Im going to answer to this as it sort of is about me, so I will stick my nose in there

I think something to keep on my mind MP, it was day 1, I think a lot people expressed that day 1 is a crapsot, bullshit, they dont know what to do etc
I was not the only one feeling like I had no idea what is going on, sometimes it takes me a while to get on the swing on things and to people that dont know well, it comes as Im not trying, but I do try more so as the game progress, also keep on mynd there are 36 players, Im not used to that much of reading, I usually like smaller games and I also dont play a lot, in this site alone is my 3rd game

I admire people who are so selfasure of what they find suspicious, and so stubborn about it, may have theory, look a little bit at trying to find clues, like I did in the night post, and aapje thought as well, (And Im gonna ask the host my previous questions that they do not answer )and sometimes I make cases which does not mean Im fully convinced or correct about it, and sometimes I just go with my gut also

unfurl wrote:HOST QUESTIONS

unfurl wrote:Host
LC- BR
Are the names of roles on the post, just for storytelling? being specific the Warrior of the Shadows or they have some involment in game mechanics for the lynch

---

HOST
What does it mean a lynch stop in your world?
the player with most votes dies? what are the variables that can apply?

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:unfurl, thanks, I appreciate it. I understand, don't get me wrong. But it also would be a convenient way for a recruiter or recently recruited to avoid committing to anything that occurs during Day 1. I've also seen Day 1's this year that completely were not crapshoots, so I think it may be silly to immediately dismiss any Day 1 discussion as meaningless.

Nonetheless, I take what you have to say into consideration. What thoughts about players do you have right now?

From top on my head

Golden vrs Epig thing, well Epig is dead, but Golden saying something along the line that he set up Epig is weird, dont know if he is WIFOM, but if Golden was bad why he will be so honest about it?

Scotty, day 1 vote for SVS, was a litte bit odd, as Dom pointed out, but Scotty explained later on, and it made sense his explanation

BWT, got a lot votes, maybe is worth lo look at him or his voters, some manipulation may be going on in that situation something I may look into later on

unfurl wrote:Also I do not agree with Scotty on his theory about SVS, but at leastthe reason behind his vote it was not that contradictory, which was the point

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: I don't really know unfurl's style, sorry. I hosted her once on The Syndicate in Fight Club and that was a super unconventional game. I thought she had more original thoughts that game but I can't even recall that very well. I have a hard time remembering games I've played on RM, except for Futurama and King Arthur, especially since I haven't played on RM in years. Sorry, unfurl, no offense intended. But I just have less experience with her than most of the players in this game.

I was very silly in Fight Club, 99% of the time, the only reason I won is cause I got recruited by BR team, and it was almost toward the end of the game, so they already had done the hard work

You are even admiting that you dont know me, and you did voted for me with out giving me a chance to get more into it, one vote is not much, but thats how some bandwagons start and I did revenge voted you, cause I did felt you were judging me for not trying, but at the end your vote was weak and easy to get out of the way
so who was not really trying?

unfurl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Spoiler: show

unfurl wrote:I was very silly in Fight Club, 99% of the time, the only reason I won is cause I got recruited by BR team, and it was almost toward the end of the game, so they already had done the hard work

You are even admiting that you dont know me, and you did voted for me with out giving me a chance to get more into it, one vote is not much, but thats how some bandwagons start and I did revenge voted you, cause I did felt you were judging me for not trying, but at the end your vote was weak and easy to get out of the way
so who was not really trying?

unfurl, noted re: Fight Club.

You really think I haven't been trying this game?

When it comes to votting No, I dont think so, day 1 you voted for me, which we talked a lot already about it, I think we are going in circles

unfurl wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

unfurl wrote: BWT, got a lot votes, maybe is worth lo look at him or his voters, some manipulation may be going on in that situation something I may look into later on

I agree re-reading the BWT voters might be a traditional way to spot some potential bandwagoning, but what manipulation do you plan to unearth, considering the Day officially ended before BWT received 7 out of his 8 total votes?

Mearly that Im curious as to he received 8 votes (looking at the image poll) from Devin-Lorab-TurnipHead-jaggedjimmy -DrWiggly-Golden-Typh-Tranq
More toward the end of the lynch poll
And even if the day ended early, and we have no clue to bwt alliance, I think is intersting to see if people still feel the same about him or if something changed?

unfurl wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm all caught up now, but I'm way too tired to really post coherent thoughts. Thankfully I only work a half-day tomorrow, so I will have plenty of time in the afternoon to be around then. The best I can do for tonight is to just keep up with the thread.

So what are you thoughts for this lynch? you voted for a low poster day 1, Dfaraday, which also brings the question? are you still looking at him? is not like he has changed anything?
What do you think of the people that voted for you? do you think they still looking at you?

unfurl wrote:About the messages posted from The Speaker of Serenity and the Keeper of Ravens
The issue that I see with roles that can post messages on the thread, is that we dont know the identity or the intentions behind it?
From probabilities is more likely early on that player is civvie-neutral, but later on it can become an old fashion witchunt
It can become very handy to help to figure out things if they are receiving extra-knowledge but also good to keep an open mind

unfurl wrote:@ aapje
Bass_the_Clever is Roxy´s son

unfurl wrote:

unfurl wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm all caught up now, but I'm way too tired to really post coherent thoughts. Thankfully I only work a half-day tomorrow, so I will have plenty of time in the afternoon to be around then. The best I can do for tonight is to just keep up with the thread.

So what are you thoughts for this lynch? you voted for a low poster day 1, Dfaraday, which also brings the question? are you still looking at him? is not like he has changed anything?
What do you think of the people that voted for you? do you think they still looking at you?

For now Im placing my vote on birdwithteeth11 I gonna try to pop up later to see if his afternoon promised is fullfilled

Im gonna keep an open mind about MP, but Im also not joining The save MP party by votting Bass, Im actually intersting to see if any more guesses will be joining eitheir one

unfurl wrote:

unfurl wrote:

unfurl wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm all caught up now, but I'm way too tired to really post coherent thoughts. Thankfully I only work a half-day tomorrow, so I will have plenty of time in the afternoon to be around then. The best I can do for tonight is to just keep up with the thread.

So what are you thoughts for this lynch? you voted for a low poster day 1, Dfaraday, which also brings the question? are you still looking at him? is not like he has changed anything?
What do you think of the people that voted for you? do you think they still looking at you?

For now Im placing my vote on birdwithteeth11 I gonna try to pop up later to see if his afternoon promised is fullfilled

Im gonna keep an open mind about MP, but Im also not joining The save MP party by votting Bass, Im actually intersting to see if any more guesses will be joining eitheir one

birdwithteeth11 wrote: - Unfurl, why did you throw a vote on me out of curiosity? Was it because I hadn't come back to post yet or were there other reasons? Do tell. And on that note, what else have you actually contributed to this game since receiving MP's vote on Day 1? Because I feel like you've still said a lot without saying a lot.

Aparently you have missed a lot of my previous questions
I wanted to get answers/reactions from you, to decide if to change my vote from you, instead you asking me why I voted for you and go, and are using the same words MP said about be Day 1
and now you are saying the underline part which was what MP was saying, and actually you never said that about me during day 1
aparently you are a copy cat of MP cause day 1 you also agreed with him about votting for a low poster
my vote is staying in you, cause you are quick to agree about low posters but you are pretty much just copying MP

TinyBubbles wrote:I did not expect to see Epi go so soon, RIP, and Typhoony too

Turnip Head wrote:Lynching Bubbles for her ninja vote seems weak to me. Is ninja-voting a strategy that a baddie has ever successfully employed? Has lynching a ninja-voter ever caught a baddie?

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:G-Man's vote for TH seems a bit weak sauce for me, especially given that it's relatively fixed for the day, since he might have return. I get the "he's on my no-read list from which I intended to vote someone" more than the "let's test out if Speaker is genuine or ignorable". I've mentioned that it's highly unlikely the Speaker got to check and inform on his check in the same first Night of the game. When do we really test out what a messenger suspects? If he's spot on about TH being, let's say, a recruited baddie (aka the purest form of baddie at this point), he passes the test and receive eternal cred, and if he's wrong about TH being anything, we discret him, after just one night, for the rest of the game? This is even more interesting coming from G-Man who was Messenger in his last game.

All of the votes so far for him have pretty weak reasonings. Bubbles said nothing whatosever on the matter. MM also acts like the Speaker was sent from Heavens. Also @linki: aapje just came in fact with way better reads for suspecting TH, nevertheless all those were not reasons any of TH's voters brought up so far for voting him.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about the TH votes. I find that remark he made to be brow raising, but not enough to merit a vote, gossip or not. TH is a strong player, and I am not ready to experiment on him just yet. I have not seen anything from my day one vote, Bullz, to alarm me so i doubt I will vote for him again today, although i plan to keep an eye on him. He plays a pretty seamless recruited game in my experience.

I think I will reread some of these peoples posts, but I am still really highly disturbed by Golden, tbh. It is like he's a pod person Golden, lol.

Linki @BWT, I did not vote for you, or particularly think you were bad Day One; why do you think I did?

unfurl wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm all caught up now, but I'm way too tired to really post coherent thoughts. Thankfully I only work a half-day tomorrow, so I will have plenty of time in the afternoon to be around then. The best I can do for tonight is to just keep up with the thread.

So what are you thoughts for this lynch? Well for right now, I have a couple of ideas of where to vote. I could see myself going for Bass, both because I think the cases against MP are bogus right now, and I think the way he was questioned by Golden, then turned it around on him feels like a baddie move to me. DFaraday is a slight maybe, but at this point, I feel like my original vote was to bring him around to chat some more. So doing that for 2 days in a row feels like I'd just be throwing away/wasting my vote. you voted for a low poster day 1, Dfaraday, which also brings the question? are you still looking at him? is not like he has changed anything? See previous answer.
What do you think of the people that voted for you? To be honest, I'm not really sure. The bandwagon seemed to come from out of nowhere, and to me, it felt like it was because: 1) It's Day 1 and there are very few strong reasons to be found in Day 1 votes, as well as 2) It was an easy case on me being "blendy/waffle-y" (my paraphrasing of it) when I get voted/lynched a lot for those same reasons. do you think they still looking at you? Well apparently Lorab, SVS, and you are so far. :P And Lorab's vote is the only one that makes any sense to me.

Ricochet wrote:EBWOP: since he might not return*, my proofreading is at 0% right now at 1:30am

Also, I'm intrigued that basically all the votes for BWT so far are coming from new players, except for LoRab, who kept it consistent. Checking what his D1 voters think since might actually be a good place to scan, since my feeling is that most have scattered, after that lynch failed.

unfurl wrote:

unfurl wrote:

unfurl wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. I'm all caught up now, but I'm way too tired to really post coherent thoughts. Thankfully I only work a half-day tomorrow, so I will have plenty of time in the afternoon to be around then. The best I can do for tonight is to just keep up with the thread.

So what are you thoughts for this lynch? you voted for a low poster day 1, Dfaraday, which also brings the question? are you still looking at him? is not like he has changed anything?
What do you think of the people that voted for you? do you think they still looking at you?

For now Im placing my vote on birdwithteeth11 I gonna try to pop up later to see if his afternoon promised is fullfilled

Im gonna keep an open mind about MP, but Im also not joining The save MP party by votting Bass, Im actually intersting to see if any more guesses will be joining eitheir one

birdwithteeth11 wrote: - Unfurl, why did you throw a vote on me out of curiosity? Was it because I hadn't come back to post yet or were there other reasons? Do tell. And on that note, what else have you actually contributed to this game since receiving MP's vote on Day 1? Because I feel like you've still said a lot without saying a lot.

Aparently you have missed a lot of my previous questions
I wanted to get answers/reactions from you, to decide if to change my vote from you, instead you asking me why I voted for you and go, and are using the same words MP said about be Day 1
and now you are saying the underline part which was what MP was saying, and actually you never said that about me during day 1
aparently you are a copy cat of MP cause day 1 you also agreed with him about votting for a low poster
my vote is staying in you, cause you are quick to agree about low posters but you are pretty much just copying MP

Roxy wrote:

nutella wrote:Dom, thanks for clarifying -- I was indeed the second player to vote for Bass today, after MP, but I still don't get why that is suspicious. Can you elaborate on why my vote warranted an ? And no I wasn't upset about you eyeing me specifically, it's more that your general pattern of opportunistically badgering people about little things is bothersome and imo unproductive. Maybe you have some success rate of catching baddies with stuff like that, I don't know, but to me it really seems like fluffing up your posts with trivial "pings" rather than discussing more substantial thoughts.

I'm still not understanding the BWT votes. On Day 1 I think several people voted for him for several different reasons, rather than a single case that gained any kind of momentum. Now Roxy votes for him without any kind of explanation that I see, and Lorab repeats her vote for him despite the fact that it seemed to me that her previous reasons for suspecting him were mostly resolved (primarily the list of low posters taken from G-man being inaccurate). Lorab, am I wrong -- did you have other qualms with BWT that he has not responded to?

Before you repeat things like I voted "with no explanation" maybe you should read my posts to find the explanation.
Also I will add that Teeth COMPLETELY ignored my suspicion of him for the entire day period.

Roxy wrote:Why is no one besides Rey and unfurl and I the only ones to comment on Teeth?

DharmaHelper wrote:Position 69 if you know what I mean

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Position 3

DrWilgy wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: