The Syndicate

bea wrote:
Flyin' High wrote:
AceofSpaces wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:Ok, I must apologize. I was torn between voting for Hedge or voting for Nev. I wanted to think on it and vote right before I left. Dumb idea because I ended up running behind while getting ready for work and so I rushed out without voting. A thousand apologies.
Those apologies can't save you now. MP thirst for blood.
I am totally picturing a sock with vampire teeth and evil eyes.

This! I want this now!!!!!! The Sockpire needs a new avi!!!

This is the closest thing I can find. But I agree this needs to happen!

I forgot to mention earlier that the next time someone misses a vote, they should be forced to open a present.

Sometimes I amaze myself with these great ideas.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Appropriate punishments have now been given to those who have continued to (or just now started to) defy me by missing votes.
When does it get to instant death. I WANT PEOPLE DYING FROM MISSING VOTES THIS INSTANCE!!!!

I have a method to my madness.

Also, quiet, you're dead. [/quote]
No u

EBWOP: Punctuation fail

MovingPictures07 wrote:Appropriate punishments have now been given to those who have continued to (or just now started to) defy me by missing votes.

When does it get to instant death. I WANT PEOPLE DYING FROM MISSING VOTES THIS INSTANCE!!!!

Clearly I should be rezzed. I mean, I played better than anyone else who was dead. And I'm nicer than all of you. And smarter. And sexier.

WHAT????? My name isn't on the poll?!?!

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)

Zany Dex wrote:So which of you bitches tried to kill me?

It was me. I had an extra plasmid lying around sooooooo....

I'm sorry. I fail at everything. Alex, would you be so kind as to fix that for me when you get a chance?

The only thing I'm positive about is that.....rocks should fall and everyone should die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vompatti wrote:
Lizzy wrote:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

butt look on the bright side: now you can join me and hoers for tea and Scotch in the afterlife k
i kno rite :;#3

Ture

Devin the Omniscient wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:Yeah! I'll take a free plasmid! I'll burn these not-so-clever assholes with it!!!

Oh wait...
Did you forget to create a revival plasmid?

Dammit! I knew there was something I had forgotten!

Aaaaahahahaaaa!

....hahaha...haha...ha...

Yeah! I'll take a free plasmid! I'll burn these not-so-clever assholes with it!!!

Oh wait...

LYNCH EVERYONE! EVERYBODY DIES!!!!

Lizzy wrote:You've taken your eye off the ball... AVENGE ME!

Thanks for the fun game, guys! I must say I'm surprised my approach got me this far. I might be haunting around in red from time to time.
17.74 (two)

You're welcome to join me at the zombie bar if you'd like.

Don't worry. It's only laced with cyanide.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Anything else I missed that I should keep an eye out for?

I can think of something else to keep an eye out for, if you know what I mean.

thellama73 wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Vompatti wrote:Ooooh. I'm not BWT's teammate.
Me neither!

On a lighter note, I've decided to listen to my entire music library in alphabetical order by song. I've gone through 120 songs so far, and I'm up to Ag, so it's going to take a while.
That's awesome. I can't even imagine how long that would take me, lol. It sounds like a cool project though.
Based on what is currently on my laptop, it would take me exactly 1 month. If you did all my music period, it would easily be at least 2 months probably.
Well, obviously I don't listen to it 24 hours a day.

You don't?

What a weirdo.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Vompatti wrote:Ooooh. I'm not BWT's teammate.
Me neither!

On a lighter note, I've decided to listen to my entire music library in alphabetical order by song. I've gone through 120 songs so far, and I'm up to Ag, so it's going to take a while.
That's awesome. I can't even imagine how long that would take me, lol. It sounds like a cool project though.

Based on what is currently on my laptop, it would take me exactly 1 month. If you did all my music period, it would easily be at least 2 months probably.

Flyin' High wrote:Wow, you had me convinced you were innocent BWT! Shame on me for falling for it!

I'm just awesome like that. And devilishly handsome.

Really? Over a typo? You've gotta be kidding me.

That being said though, I shall consume all the zombie wine before anyone else dies. Take that you bastards!!! LONG LIVE FONTAINE!!!!!!!!

thellama73 wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:OH MY GOD! THE HOSE IS A PARASITE! SOMEBODY GET HIM!!!!!!!
The hose?

It's another one of those typos. I swear.

Oh well. I guess that means I'm bad then huh? :P

Wow. I'm gone for about 35-40 minutes and a whole slew of votes come tumbling in!

Interesting points that some are making on Lizzy. I feel that my mind is fairly made up for today, however. So Aces it is.

Votes Aces

Linki:

Linki 2: OH MY GOD! THE HOSE IS A PARASITE! SOMEBODY GET HIM!!!!!!!

So it makes more sense to vote for me.....because it doesn't make as much sense as voting for you?

I've tried to contribute to discussion. I've provided information for people who haven't played Bioshock to understand some additional aspects of the game. I may have made some confusing posts and given a valid excuse for one randomizer, but I think that's a fairly weak case against me.

I have to go over to my grandparents for a bit, but when I get back, I will most likely be voting you.

juliets wrote:Oh sorry for the double post but i also remember the issue with why he exempted Vomps from his comments that he is suspicious of early random votes. Is there anything else?

That's the only thing I've seen Epi go after. But that's the only other evidence I've seen against me.

nutella wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:In the interest of not making a huge quote pyramid out of that, I will just respond with a separate post. Yes, my wording was conflated and my response was odd. I think the heat and lack of AC was getting to my brain, and made it hard to explain the message I was trying to get across. A few people had sort of figured out what I was trying to say, so I pulled those quotes in an attempt to clear up my point.
See, this is the part that confuses me. You quoted two people who thought you were saying two different things, and said they were both right. It just didn't make sense.

Most of your defense seems genuine (kinda playing up the heat getting to your brain thing but I can buy that I guess), but you're not really responding to what I actually found odd. Probably my fault for not being clear. >_>

I thought I said they were both partially right. I don't think any one person figured out what I was trying to say until I clarified it myself. But this is the point I was trying to make about Dex back then:

I was worried about voting for him because he was digging holes for himself, and have him turn up good. Because I've seen him do this countless times. However, I was also worried about an easy bandwagon forming, and having his baddie teammates jump on it to throw him under the bus, have him get all or nearly all the votes and deprive us of info on potential teammates, if he was bad. I addressed llama because a certain word I had used didn't make my post very clear for him, and then I addressed what boo said because he only mentioned one of the two things I was hesitant about voting for Dex (the unanimous vote part).

And it's not your fault. You're being unclear about a subject matter that I had made very unclear, so it can be hard to get thoughts across with those situations.

Tl;dr: Two people were partially right, but I don't think either of them grasped the full extent of what I was trying to say. Does that answer your question any better?

In the interest of not making a huge quote pyramid out of that, I will just respond with a separate post. Yes, my wording was conflated and my response was odd. I think the heat and lack of AC was getting to my brain, and made it hard to explain the message I was trying to get across. A few people had sort of figured out what I was trying to say, so I pulled those quotes in an attempt to clear up my point.

I get why you would look at that as suspicious. Unfortunately, there were external circumstances that made my original post come across as weird. I'm extremely warm-blooded and do not do well in the heat. At all. I know it's really strange, but I'm asking you to give me a chance to prove myself otherwise. Now that I don't have to deal with the heat clouding my mind and thoughts. I think that's all I have for now, but I'll be happy to respond to any other questions/thoughts you might have about it.

nutella wrote:I, like others, am hesitant to vote for Dex -- I kind of support the theory that he's Sander Cohen trying to get his 5 votes to turn rogue.

I'm pretty sure I'll be voting for BWT. The tone of his posts has been pinging me, not to mention that possible slip-up and his weird explanation of it -- he seemed to contradict by saying "yes that's what I meant" to two opposing meanings IMO (I should probably pull the quote for that)

How was my explanation weird? I made a typo, it understandably confused a lot of people with it, and it took me awhile to realize what I had done that caused that confusion. I wouldn't mind seeing what quote you're referring to. Because I don't think I contradicted myself.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: I'm going to go back and re-read the back and forth between Aces and boo. That's the only other thing I remember finding suspicious. I might also take a look at why Dom voted for Snow Dog. Can anyone think of anything else that might be worth looking at too?
Also this and his subsequent post looks to me like a baddie who knows he's likely to get voted for today, trying to push other suspects into the limelight by making a show of building up cases on people who have already been suspected. Trying to subtly turn the thread away from him. I mean, I guess a civvie could do that too but this fits with my read of BWT as bad.

I'm avoiding looking at Dex, for the reason I stated previously. I don't think it's a good idea for us to let him turn rogue. And on re-reading, those are the only other two people so far who have pinged me enough to possibly get my vote.

I'm not really trying to turn the thread away from me. If people find me suspicious, I would prefer they say why and give me a chance to defend myself. The votes from Daisy and Elo sounded like "Well, there's not much other worthwhile discussion so far today, so BWT still seems like the best option." With all the discussion that's been going on so far today, that seems a bit disingenuine to me.

I'm glad I did that re-read. I would encourage everyone who hasn't voted yet today to take a look at the back-and-forth between Aces and boo, as well as read up on some of what Snow Dog has said. These are the two quotes that stick out the most to me.

AceofSpaces wrote:By the time I voted, it wouldn't have mattered who I voted for. I also didn't see a good reason to vote for AP, as the case against him was silly, in my opinion. Instead of hopping on that bandwagon, I threw my vote somewhere else. I didn't see much point in explaining that, so I didn't.

So you didn't like where the majority opinion was going, therefore you "tossed [your] vote somewhere else". That's fine, but you don't think you have to explain why you voted that way?

Snow Dog wrote:This doesn't seem right somehow. Like refusing to play. How about we all lynch him tomorrow whatever his alliance?

This was about Gleam's lack of wanting to be active and get involved. Seems like somebody is trying to start a bandwagon on an easy target to me.

There are more quotes I could pull, but I'd prefer that others check it out and decide for themselves. But I do know my vote will be going to one of these two today.

Linki: As of when I got home last night from work, the AC was working normally again. So heat-related confusion shouldn't be an issue unless it conks out again. And thanks for the concern, bea! I appreciate it!

Snow Dog wrote:BTW...are there six security bots?

Yes. Which means there are still 5 more alive.

thellama73 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
I don't think I'll be voting for Dex. Seems too easy. Can he really be bad acting in this way?
I'm starting to lean this way as well, although it leaves me with little idea of who to vote for.

I could see him being bad and doing this. But I think I agree with SD and llama for now. This almost seems too deliberate on Dex's part. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if he is Sander Cohen and is just doing this because he wants different win conditions. I know that's kind of a wacky theory, but I could see Dex trying to accomplish something like that for the heck of it. But regardless, I will not be voting for him today.

I'm going to go back and re-read the back and forth between Aces and boo. That's the only other thing I remember finding suspicious. I might also take a look at why Dom voted for Snow Dog. Can anyone think of anything else that might be worth looking at too?

indiglo wrote:I don't think Zany Dex's zany behavior is proof of anything personally. He could be bad or good, but he always acts Zany. That's how he rolls. I'll wait till I see something that seems to show his alignment before voting him.

I have to vote now because I'm gone all afternoon and won't be back until after the post closes. I am moving forward with my vote for BWT. He did explain that typo, but it still didn't answer the behavior I found suspish from the get go in the game. (Sorry man! )

*votes BWT*

I know it's a bit too late vote-wise, but what was the behavior that you found suspicious?

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Is there a certain role we don't know about that benefits from lynch votes at a certain time in the game?
Seems very unlikely and more likely that he is just being zany.
Still... Who knows in this game.

Sander Cohen's alignment/win conditions change if he gets five or more votes and doesn't die. But other than that, I don't see the type of role you describe.

I will post more later. I'm at work on my phone and typing long posts out is a real pain.

nutella wrote:Ah so you DID say "bad" instead of "good." That's why I thought it was a slip up lol.

WTF is Dex doing? Any reason he would try to get himself lynched/voted for?

Yeah. I went back and read it, and I saw that immediately. No wonder so many people got confused!

I have no idea honestly. This seems like typical Dex behavior, and I always read him as bad. I'd prefer to hear something more concrete from him, but so far it seems like he keeps trying to dig a hole for himself.

Linki: Most definitely.

Zany Dex wrote:I've never claimed to be civvie

Seriously though, could you clarify what you mean by this?

thellama73 wrote:The way BWT worded it was confusing. I think most of us read "concern" as meaning "worry," but he seems to have meant it in the sense of "priority."

Yes, I meant it as "worry" moreso than "concern". I'm having a hard time struggling to word things clearly. The AC broke at our house yesterday and someone is coming to fix it this afternoon, so it's very humid and muggy and hard for me to focus.

boo wrote:BWT can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I took what he said to mean.

If someone gets lynched unanimously (or nearly so) there's no real information to be learned from their lynching. Even if you get a baddie, if every single person voted for them and there was no even subtle push away from them, you can't do anything with that result as it gives you no where to go.

With Dex, a unanimous lynching with no teammate even bothering to try and steer it away from him is something I think BWT was saying he can see happening.

It's either that or a comment I thought made sense actually makes no sense (even as a typo unless he heavily edited it or something).

Sort of. I just realized I have a very glaring typo in my original post. See if this makes any more sense now.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being good. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

Dex confused me because I don't think I've seen anyone admit to jumping onto a bandwagon before. It definitely doesn't seem like the kind of thing a civvie says even if it was true.

[/quote]
That's part one of it. The second part you nailed down pretty well. Someone who gets lynched via bandwagon and gets all (or nearly all) of the votes leaves us with very little information in terms of potential teammates. I've seen this happen to Dex before, which is why I want to hear more from him before I decide to cast a vote his way or look elsewhere.

If any of you are still confused, please let me know. I'm not intentionally trying to muddle what I'm saying.

Dex linki: Wait, what?!?!

Now I'm feeling confused.

I wouldn't really say I'm trying to draw attention away from other targets. While I do have some reservations about Dex, he's still my top suspect for now. With Aces behind him. Although I'd like to hear more from both of them.

EBWOP: Nevermind. I think that was more about Aces initial vote for boo. Unless someone can correct me on that.

nutella wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

...wait what

am I seeing a possible slip up here or am I not reading this right

Not really a slip-up, since it was something I meant to say. I have a very hard time reading Dex, and read him as a baddie at some point in every game I play. I think it's because his playstyle is so unpredictable. So what I'm saying is that my main concern is that I am misreading him again and he just found a really weird way to vote on Day 1 and draw a lot of attention to himself (like he usually seems to do). That seems to be a common theme with him as well.

Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote: and so far I'm not seeing what Rob is in BWT.
He criticized people for early random voting.

Vompatti was the only one to do this.

He excused Vompatti.

I gave my reason why I did. I think if Vomps was actually bad, he wouldn't have given such a long-winded explanation to the reason for his vote. I'm curious as to why you don't think I've given a satisfactory answer yet about this.

Also, what exactly happened between Aces and boo? I'm going to go back and look for the quote that started that, because I feel like I missed something.

RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

Aces is shortly behind him for voting for a similar reason, and then saying he isn't going to bother explaining his reason for his vote. This is definitely shaping up to be one of the weirder games I've played so far.

Linki: That's why I'm looking at him as well, DH. It's not so much the reasons behind it, but rather the "if you're going to be quiet, I'm voting you". There's no logic behind it.

Linki2: We will sacrifice ourselves so that you might live. #Based #TYBG

Sorry I missed the vote everyone! I voted by bolding it in a post, but forgot to vote in the poll. Oh well.

I guess I was wrong in suspecting AP. And from reading back on everything else, I'm starting to think I was wrong about llama as well. I will be reading up more on Dex and other suspicions tomorrow. For now it is bedtime, since I work in 8 hours.

Have to vote now, because I get off work about 45 minutes after the poll ends, and I don't want to have to rush it. I think I could go either way with llama or A Person, but I'm going to go with llama this time.

Votes llama

Okay LT. I re-read your case against llama and the only part that sticks out to me is the "pointing fingers" comment. That definitely strikes me as attempting to squash discussion.

I have to vote in the next few minutes, but I will be going for either llama for that comment, or for A Person for this comment:

Elohcin wrote: <snip>
Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.
<snip>

juliets wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:Here's my summary of today's events:

I tend to agree with llama on randomizing. I've said my feelings on it ad nauseum however so I won't beat on a dead horse here. I will however say that people who justify randomizing today when there has been a decent amount of discussion (especially the ones who have done so with another 24+ hours to go) definitely ping me.

LT, I'm sorry but I just don't see a case on llama yet. That being said, I'm quite tired right now. So that might be why I feel you're grasping at straws. I will re-read what you said tomorrow and see if my mind absorbs it a bit better.

Linki: I do agree about Vomps. I highly doubt he would have taken such a risk by voting so early. Not to mention how long it took him to type out the entire logic of all his coin flips. If that was me, I'd have to randomize my vote just to not let that work go to waste.

Nev, I agree with you, but like I said, I've seen this discussion go this route many, many times before. So that's it. I'm done talking about randomizing on Day 1. Some of us won't do it. And some will. End of story.
Hi bwt - just straighten me out on one thing - you say that people who randomize today when there has been a decent bit of discussion, especially if there is another 24 hours to go, ping you. It seems like Vomps fits that definition but you also say you dont think he would have taken the risk by voting so early and he typed out his randomizing logic. So why is Vomps exempt from the definition that seems to fit him?

I know Vomps and talk to him a good deal online outside of here. For the most part he's very inane and a bit crazy, hence why I don't think he would take such a risk as a baddie. Unless he's completely pulling the wool over my eyes, in which case I would congratulate him.

Basically, I don't think the way he randomized warrants more attention from me at this time. Whereas I think some of the other people who have randomized or discussed randomizing (see: A Person) make me question their intent behind it.

Here's my summary of today's events:

I tend to agree with llama on randomizing. I've said my feelings on it ad nauseum however so I won't beat on a dead horse here. I will however say that people who justify randomizing today when there has been a decent amount of discussion (especially the ones who have done so with another 24+ hours to go) definitely ping me.

LT, I'm sorry but I just don't see a case on llama yet. That being said, I'm quite tired right now. So that might be why I feel you're grasping at straws. I will re-read what you said tomorrow and see if my mind absorbs it a bit better.

Linki: I do agree about Vomps. I highly doubt he would have taken such a risk by voting so early. Not to mention how long it took him to type out the entire logic of all his coin flips. If that was me, I'd have to randomize my vote just to not let that work go to waste.

Nev, I agree with you, but like I said, I've seen this discussion go this route many, many times before. So that's it. I'm done talking about randomizing on Day 1. Some of us won't do it. And some will. End of story.

Epignosis wrote:
Vompatti wrote:Unless something interesting comes up I am going to randomize using the following method:

0. There are 36 possibilities (1-36).

1. I will toss a coin between the first half (1-18) and the second half (19-36).

1.1. If, in stage (1), I get the first half (1-18), I will toss a coin between the first half of the first half (1-9) and the second half of the first half (10-18).

1.2. If, in stage (1), I get the second half (19-36), I will toss a coin between the first half of the second half (19-27) and the second half of the second half (28-36).

1.1.1. If, in stage (1.1), I get the first half of the first half (1-9), I will toss a coin three (3) times three (3) times. On each of the three (3) times (of which there are three (3)) there are nine (9) possible results which will be interpreted thus:

On the first of the three times:

heads heads heads (first third of the first half of the first half (1-3)
heads heads tails (first third of the first half of the first half (1-3)
heads tails heads (first third of the first half of the first half (1-3)
tails heads heads (second third of the first half of the first half (4-6)
heads tails tails (second third of the first half of the first half (4-6)
tails heads tails (second third of the first half of the first half (4-6)
tails tails heads (third third of the first half of the first half (7-9)
tails tails tails (third third of the first half of the first half (7-9)

On the second of the three times:

heads heads heads (second third of the first half of the first half (4-6)
heads heads tails (second third of the first half of the first half (4-6)
heads tails heads (second third of the first half of the first half (4-6)
tails heads heads (third third of the first half of the first half (7-9)
heads tails tails (third third of the first half of the first half (7-9)
tails heads tails (third third of the first half of the first half (7-9)
tails tails heads (first third of the first half of the first half (1-3)
tails tails tails (first third of the first half of the first half (1-3)

On the third of the three times:

heads heads heads (third third of the first half of the first half (7-9)
heads heads tails (third third of the first half of the first half (7-9)
heads tails heads (third third of the first half of the first half (7-9)
tails heads heads (first third of the first half of the first half (1-3)
heads tails tails (first third of the first half of the first half (1-3)
tails heads tails (first third of the first half of the first half (1-3)
tails tails heads (second third of the first half of the first half (4-6)
tails tails tails (second third of the first half of the first half (4-6)

As a result there are three possible results:

The first third (1-3) comes up most often (2 or 3 times) -> proceed to stage 1.1.1.1.
The second third (4-6) comes up most often (2 or 3 times) -> proceed to stage 1.1.1.2.
The third third (7-9) comes up most often (2 or 3 times) -> proceed to stage 1.1.1.3.
Each of the thirds comes up once -> repeat stage 1.1.1.

1.1.2 [like 1.1.1.]
1.2.1 [like 1.1.1.]
1.2.2 [like 1.1.1.]

1.1.1.1. If, in stage (1.1.1), I get the first third of the first half of the first half (1-3), I will toss a coin three (3) times three (3) times. On each of the three times (of which there are three) there are nine (9) possible results which will be interpreted thus:

On the first of the three times:

heads heads heads (first of the first third of the first half of the first half (1)
heads heads tails (first of the first third of the first half of the first half (1)
heads tails heads (first of the first third of the first half of the first half (1)
tails heads heads (second of the first third of the first half of the first half (2)
heads tails tails (second of the first third of the first half of the first half (2)
tails heads tails (second of the first third of the first half of the first half (2)
tails tails heads (third of the first third of the first half of the first half (3)
tails tails tails (third of the first third of the first half of the first half (3)

On the second of the three times:

heads heads heads (second of the first third of the first half of the first half (2)
heads heads tails (second of the first third of the first half of the first half (2)
heads tails heads (second of the first third of the first half of the first half (2)
tails heads heads (third of the first third of the first half of the first half (3)
heads tails tails (third of the first third of the first half of the first half (3)
tails heads tails (third of the first third of the first half of the first half (3)
tails tails heads (first of the first third of the first half of the first half (1)
tails tails tails (first of the first third of the first half of the first half (1)

On the third of the three times:

heads heads heads (third of the first third of the first half of the first half (3)
heads heads tails (third of the first third of the first half of the first half (3)
heads tails heads (third of the first third of the first half of the first half (3)
tails heads heads (first of the first third of the first half of the first half (1)
heads tails tails (first of the first third of the first half of the first half (1)
tails heads tails (first of the first third of the first half of the first half (1)
tails tails heads (second of the first third of the first half of the first half (2)
tails tails tails (second of the first third of the first half of the first half (2)

As a result there are three possible results:

- The first of the first third (1) comes up most often (2 or 3 times) -> vote for the first name on the list
- The second of the first third (2) comes up most often (2 or 3 times) -> vote for the second name on the list
- The third of the first third (3) comes up most often (2 or 3 times) -> vote for the third name on the list
- Each of the thirds comes up once -> repeat stage 1.1.1.1.

1.1.1.2. [like 1.1.1.1.]
1.1.1.3. [like 1.1.1.1.]
1.1.2.1 [like 1.1.1.1.]
1.1.2.2. [like 1.1.1.1.]
1.1.2.3 [like 1.1.1.1.]
1.2.1.1. [like 1.1.1.1.]
1.2.1.2. [like 1.1.1.1.]
1.2.1.3.[like 1.1.1.1.]
1.2.2.1.[like 1.1.1.1.]
1.2.2.2.[like 1.1.1.1.]
1.2.2.3.[like 1.1.1.1.]
I wish I had that many coins.

Alright, here's the actual quote:

Hedgeowl wrote:
thellama73 wrote:This is the most off-topic mafia game I've yet been in and I love it!
omg you're right! Me too! I blame Lizzy and Vompatti for starting this in sign-ups, k.

For sers, we got to lynch ourselves a baddie though. Maybe if enough of us say it, it'll come true. No, but seriously I've played one game and Lizzy schooled me so badly I don't know who to trust now.

Here goes: DisgruntledPorcupine is neither disgruntled nor a porcupine. Discuss!

Re-reading this, it does strike me as odd. She goes from OT, to "we really need to lynch someone. 4srs gaiz.", to being silly about DP.

In addition, this was something else I noticed:

DFaraday wrote:I just missed voting! Although, I probably wouldn't have gotten a Plasmid anyway.

Something about this strikes me as....off in some way. I'm not entirely sure what it is. But there you have it

Sorry about the triple post as well! I'm just trying to get all my thoughts out there, and hopefully it gets some discussion going. I'm curious as to what other people's thoughts are on both of these posts.

Linki: I guess it's not a triple post then. And while I appreciate the humor Hedgeowl, I thought you wanted to find some baddies. So I'm especially curious as to what your thoughts are on this post.

EBWOP: Hedgeowl* You'd think I would be able to type people's names correctly.

thellama73 wrote:It is still very early, but I have two thoughts so far.

Thought the First: Nevinera is being very, very quiet. No doubt, a desperate attempt to survive longer than a couple of days for once, but it strikes me as odd. Could be nothing, could be a baddie lying low.

Thought the Second: I agree that there is probably at least one baddie hiding in the OT posts (although now that people have started saying that, it makes me nervous because I was having a lot of fun posting OT and now people will think I'm bad! Oh noes!) Lizzy seems to have deliberately drawn DH's vote, which seems unlikely to be a baddie move. Of the OT posters, Hedgeowl feels the most like a baddie to me with her "for sers, we need to get a baddie" talk, that sounds rather forced. Mind you, this is very, very weak evidence, but it is Day 1 and I wanted to post my thoughts to foster discussion. All this is subject to heavy revision depending on how the rest of the day progresses.

Response the First: That's entirely understandable, given his rather unfortunate fate in some of the last several games, where he started gathering suspicion very early. It seems he isn't immune here either. I don't think him being quiet this time says a whole lot about his alignment though. He probably would just like to make it past the first 2-3 days this time is all.

Response the Second: I didn't get that impression with Hedgeowd. But then again, I probably need to go back and re-examine all the OT posts. I do know that I highly doubt Vomps and Lizzy are bad, and I know they were the first two who started it.

bea wrote: I thought LA's theory might be worth looking at going into day 1 but if the day 0 poll really is as straightforward as it appears, that kinda chunks that idea right out the water.

Same here. Which means I'm basically back to square one. :/

In all seriousness though, there's certainly been an awful lot of OT posts so far. While it is certainly entertaining, it does make me wonder if any baddies are using it to hide while increasing post count (and therefore making themselves stick out). Granted, I'm sure there are civvies doing the same thing. But I might look in that direction to help decide if it continues.

Snow Dog wrote:
Thank you. You are a useful Engine! Oops..wrong game.

Not really. I died quite early in that game.

Snow Dog wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
juliets wrote:Thank you INH - I don't know how I missed that! Maybe from scanning on my phone. So I'm thinking it's bad to collect plasmids at every opportunity because somewhere the insanity switch could flip. For anyone who has played or knows the game, let me know if I am thinking about this wrong or if there is something more I should know.
The more I think about it, I think it's more about using plasmids extensively over a prolonged period of time. Because when you play the game, you go through a LOT of plasmids with Jack, and I don't ever remember him suffering any mental degeneration.

Basically, the way plasmids work is they allow the ADAM to re-write your genetic code, which allows you to use things like telekenesis, incenerating objects, etc. It's possible some characters might be more likely to suffer the overuse and eventual decline in effectiveness from Plasmids (or in the worst scenario, mental degeneration), but for now, I think the first is more likely than the second.

I actually searched and found this. Hopefully it proves helpful to those of you who haven't played the game.

http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Plasmid
What is ADAM?

http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/ADAM

Bascially, it's the material that plasmids are made from. It's what actually replaces the cells in your body, and forces you to depend on it if you use it for very long periods of time.

Sorry indiglo!

Better luck next time!

So the game is now afoot. Time for some baddie-hunting!

juliets wrote:Thank you INH - I don't know how I missed that! Maybe from scanning on my phone. So I'm thinking it's bad to collect plasmids at every opportunity because somewhere the insanity switch could flip. For anyone who has played or knows the game, let me know if I am thinking about this wrong or if there is something more I should know.

The more I think about it, I think it's more about using plasmids extensively over a prolonged period of time. Because when you play the game, you go through a LOT of plasmids with Jack, and I don't ever remember him suffering any mental degeneration.

Basically, the way plasmids work is they allow the ADAM to re-write your genetic code, which allows you to use things like telekenesis, incenerating objects, etc. It's possible some characters might be more likely to suffer the overuse and eventual decline in effectiveness from Plasmids (or in the worst scenario, mental degeneration), but for now, I think the first is more likely than the second.

I actually searched and found this. Hopefully it proves helpful to those of you who haven't played the game.

http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Plasmid

Search found 58 matches