The Syndicate

Devin the Omniscient wrote:
reywaS wrote:But I am paying attention now and am willing to work with anyone that is willing to keep me around.
Whatcha sellin'?

My devotion.

Sorsha wrote:If you guys are right about Rey (and I think you are) it seems like he's the bigger threat right now. So I'll put my vote there for now.

Am I though? I mean am I really? This seems like a big distraction.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:rewaS, why did you nightkill llama?

Would you be willing to do it again?

I am willing to work with anyone that wants to work with me.

though to my credit I did complete my epic challenge.

But I am paying attention now and am willing to work with anyone that is willing to keep me around.

Turnip Head wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:Turnip head, what are your feelings on a Nutella lynch?
I agree that her responses lately have been underwhelming. When Epi clarified the point he was making, nutella just rolled her eyes instead of adequately responding, which in turn makes Epi's point look stronger to me than it otherwise would.

I'm more concerned with Rey myself. His vote for BWT, latching onto MM's post about BWT and Epi being teammates, felt more troublesome to me. Because I thought we were all on the same page about who Epi is

Registering a vote for Rey for now.

I think you are giving me way too much credit in terms of how closely you think I've been paying attention to what has gone on in this game. For example, would you be shocked if I told you that I have not read any of the roles/descriptions? Would it furthermore shock you if I said that I've probably only read maybe 40% of the posts in this game?

Lynch me if you want, but I guarantee you that no alignment will benefit from it. Look, I probably don't deserve to make it to the end game, so if I am lynched I'll get what i probably deserve in that sense.

voted 4 for no good reason

#throwawayvote

what a curious statement.

that's an interesting thought...voting BWT

well, hong kong phooey

I'm not sure what to make of these developments. Epig turns the lynch in nutella's direction and people follow with little resistance. Did you guys trust DH to this extent, or did Epi all on his own convince you he's trustworthy? Not that I necessarily think Epi is bad...just seems weird.

Turnip Head, where you voting?

Hello, Mata

Epignosis wrote:At this stage, I find the unrecruited claims bullshit. It's Night 10. Stop pretending that shit.

By Night 10 of RM3, recruitments were finished and no one was left unrecruited.

So get out of here with that, number one.

Number two, if you are unrecruited, you still have an allegiance.

Surviving is winning, baby. That's my allegiance.

wow that was a lot of death.

I'm more than happy to win with any of you fine folks. Let's do this.

neutral ftw

Well well well.

vote llama

what the hell

Ricochet wrote:
Scotty wrote:
As far as Rico is concerned, I've been cautiously optimistic, but his rez is a definite cause for concern, because why else would he be rezz'd unless he was on someone's team? And someone like Rico, who has fooled me once *QUITE HANDILY MIGHT I ADD* in Watchmen, I would be naive to assume he would be in the civ camp. So he's got my big fat going into Day tomorrow (should I be alive)

Quite the change of heart there from

Scotty wrote:In RE: Rico rezzing, I think it is supes suspicious, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Elder Shaman was recruited. Whether or not that role is civ or bad is yet to be determined. I don't notice a shift in what Rico is saying now in relation to before he died. He actually reads genuine to me, which has me scratching my head if he really is unrecruited what the rezzer had in mind.
to big fat eyeballing.

Again, if anyone feels there's no way a rezz could have happened in lack of any affiliation between the rezzer and the rezz'd, you and aapje and anyone else reading it that will have a big surprise at the end of all this (whether I'm lynched or at endgame). On the bright side, you'll have this result as future reference that not all meta is one-dimensional.

I don't have what to defend when people rely on such empirical meta or rhetorical questions. I've said all I know about my rezz and status and I am truthful about it. Not trusting that is fine and natural for the gameplay. But from there on, players should use the proper tools to determine that I'm lying or that I'm bad. Determine if I've been recruited before the rezz. Determine the Shaman is bad-aligned. Determine if I've been recruited by the baddies.

As for the fooling, yes, I am aware that my meta will probably come to bite me back and compromise at least a few of my games purely because players will bring the "wait a minute. what if Rico is fooling us again" argument as soon as I'll keep progressing deep into a game and have little suspicion on me (which frankly isn't exactly the case here; I've had LoRab drumming on me for six Days now and aapje for roughly two; I wasn't sussed in Watchmen at all, except for "what ifs"). You want to test that and ruin my current game, because of retribution? Can't stop you there, but that'll be the outcome this time around.

I've been handed out more mafia/indy roles than civ so far and I've only won as mafia/indy thus far, so yeah, sucky legacy whenever I have to play civ for realz, what can I say. But that's just reality, there's nothing I can do about that. The thing is, the "civviest" I've been under a facade is also the "civviest" I can be, period. I can't play "civvier" than that. I can't push myself beyond this much baddie hunting and reading.

As for right now, I'll say it again, my status is that of an unrecruited, which means I have to survive the game, but I don't need to fool any side for any purpose. My mindset is that I desire to be recruited by the civs, to shed a survivor win con which I'm not optimistic one bit I'll achieve, and in that I'm baddie hunting. I believe I've proven the latter, even though I've had a huge failure recently. Team Azura killed me and I've been attacking Uzbekistan head on. How can that inspire any real belief that I'm involved with either?

So shedding a win condition in which you can literally win with anyone for one in which you are limited to whom you can win with is bettering your odds? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Roxy wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
LoRab wrote:JJJ is dead, so I haven't much thought of him. Rey hasn't done much and I kind of keep forgetting he's playing. Neither of them were major, huge suspicions in the first place. Both pinged me, but they never rose to the top of my list.
Who was on the top of your list on D2, if JJJ and Rey never rose there?

Anyway, I labeled your drop of their suspicions as potential moodswings, not suspicious behaviour. As far as I know, any partnership developed with them could have still inspired you to drop any word on them. Furthermore, as I've told nutella, I still believe you set a double standard with rey. You suss him on a statement and aren't satisfied with his rebuttal, but it's not major, huge and you drop it. You suss me for a statement and aren't satisfied with my rebuttal, and I rose to your top o' the list.
I wanted to respond, regardless.

And I don't think it's a double standard--your responses have felt more suspicious. His response was just unsatisfying. He didn't really explain himself, in my mind, but it didn't feel like a necessarily suspish response to me.

And I had forgotten that I was suspish of BWT earlier, so thanks for giving me reason to go back to my older posts. He was probably my top suspect day 2, although that was a while ago, so hard to remember where my brain was. Hmmm....may move my vote there, even though he seems to be likely to have the most votes regardless.
Really - you should re-read Rey - I think his posting has changed a lot since his about face when he went after Golden. I have him on the back burner but I shouldn't if he is bad - a quiet baddie is a scary baddie.

What do you mean by the underlined part?

The thing with Golden really took the wind out of my sails. I've thought about asking to be replaced, but I don't want to do that because of how excited I was to be playing in the beginning. I figured if I stuck it out, eventually the game would be small enough to where I'd finally find my old school type footing. I'm trying to get back into it. I'm embarassed that I lost track of this day phase...I was thinking it ended tomorrow night.

I'm voting BWT (admittedly a lame vote)

Burn out is real. I have not been recruited and I am not a recruiter. If you really think about it, doesn't that make the most sense?

I voted for Synonym because I tend to find the other people that voted that way to be agreeable.

is there an open recruit tonight?

nutella wrote:Yeah fuck it I'm growing increasingly wary of the Syn wagon. Switching my vote to Rey, who continues to refuse to participate and is lurking in the background in a way that is far from typical of him.

Yeah, I got caught up a few days ago and made some posts..felt like I was getting back into it. Then Labor Day I was away all day. I tried to catch up but couldn't. My apologies and I will be back in the game from now on.

Turnip Head wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Yeah that looks pretty bad for me, doesn't it?
Is...is that your defense?
My defense is that I wouldn't stick my neck out for a teammate who wasn't defending herself and was likely to be lynched anyway, but that's just gonna be called WIFOM. I was wrong about Bubbles.

I defended a known baddie and posited that the lynch switch was a frame job. Thinking I'm her teammate isn't an outlandish conclusion to make. If you know of a way for me to defend against that, I'm all ears.
When I read this, I thought, "This is exactly what I would say in TH's position if I was bad."

We are different people and yada yada yada. I just thought it was interesting.

linki with myself lmao
And would you have defended Bubbles in the first place if you're in my position and bad?

The people who are voting for me are doing so because I was wrong about a baddie. Doesn't that seem like a shallow way to look at things? What about the people who didnt push the case but ended up on the right side of it? Isn't that what baddies do?

No, I would not.

Turnip Head wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Yeah that looks pretty bad for me, doesn't it?
Is...is that your defense?
My defense is that I wouldn't stick my neck out for a teammate who wasn't defending herself and was likely to be lynched anyway, but that's just gonna be called WIFOM. I was wrong about Bubbles.

I defended a known baddie and posited that the lynch switch was a frame job. Thinking I'm her teammate isn't an outlandish conclusion to make. If you know of a way for me to defend against that, I'm all ears.

When I read this, I thought, "This is exactly what I would say in TH's position if I was bad."

We are different people and yada yada yada. I just thought it was interesting.

linki with myself lmao

aapje wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:This is very true. I don't think anyone would rez someone not on their team.
What if the rezzer is not on any team?
Then it would be a pretty dumb move since it would actively hurt their chances to win :P

Ricochet wrote:
aapje wrote:The main point though was calling bullshit on your unrecruited status and your insistence that you have no idea why you were rezzed.
Call bullsuit on my status, then, make a case; but, as I've pointed out, there's not much to tie it to my rezz.

LoRab asked me why I think I was rezzed, it's not like I came out of my tomb and started opinionating on my own.
Well the thing is, I can see a reason why the Shaman would bring back certain people, even if they have not been recruited. But since you said you have no idea why you were rezzed I think we can safely rule that out now. The fact that you have been rezzed and your reaction to it is basically all I need to think you are up to no good.

I can understand why you are thinking this way on Rico....but let me ask you this. If Rico was rezz recruited by a civvie team, would you expect him to come out saying he knows why/how he was recruited? Wouldn't that make him a pretty huge target for NKs?

Bullzeye wrote:
reywaS wrote:Ok, I feel like I've caught up enough.

I voted DrWilgy because I don't like the votes on S~V~S and llama. They both feel civ to me, and in fact I agree with S~V~S post on Bullzeye talking about how he's been around plenty but didn't have any solid opinions on anyone. Then bullz got kind of defensive and then maybe went a little overboard trying to make up for his previous lack of opinion. Bullz definitely came off as baddie to me in that exchange.
Okay so:

I'd not been around much since day 3. Look at my posts and see how many refer to me being completely out of the loop. I still hold that if I hadn't been at least trying to keep myself afloat, I'd be getting called out for being a low poster. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I got 'defensive' because as soon as I'm finally able to actually get myself back into the game I have SVS trying to make me the next big thing in easy bandwagons.

I wasn't trying to make up for anything and I wasn't doing those reads really for anyone but myself. I needed to do it to get myself get back into the game. I dunno if I've mentioned it like 50,000 times yet but I got very disengaged over time because of a casual spot of writing I had to do for no particular reason.

I can appreciate that. That's the impression I got yesterday as I was trying to catch up. I will go back and read your posts more carefully going into the next lynch.

DharmaHelper wrote:
reywaS wrote:Ok, I feel like I've caught up enough.

I voted DrWilgy because I don't like the votes on S~V~S and llama. They both feel civ to me, and in fact I agree with S~V~S post on Bullzeye talking about how he's been around plenty but didn't have any solid opinions on anyone. Then bullz got kind of defensive and then maybe went a little overboard trying to make up for his previous lack of opinion. Bullz definitely came off as baddie to me in that exchange.
You're a dingus for not listening to me. You played RM III for crying out loud.

Ok, I feel like I've caught up enough.

I voted DrWilgy because I don't like the votes on S~V~S and llama. They both feel civ to me, and in fact I agree with S~V~S post on Bullzeye talking about how he's been around plenty but didn't have any solid opinions on anyone. Then bullz got kind of defensive and then maybe went a little overboard trying to make up for his previous lack of opinion. Bullz definitely came off as baddie to me in that exchange.

Turnip Head wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:Ok, I don't know why no one is talking about this, but I will. Llama, the Bubbles lynch flip makes you look incredibly bad. You came out of the gate on Bubbles for something ridiculous. And yet when it came down to her lynch you didn't vote for her. Not only did you not vote for her but you made two separate posts talking about how Uzbarg would have no reason not to use his power, one time saying that we learn zero information from the switch. The last time you said anything negative about Bubbles was in Night 4 and all it said was everything bubbles said read insincere to you. That is it. So you go from being after her hard at the start and then you barely say anything about her lynch? Then after her flip you come out yelling about how you knew it and you were right, etc. taking credit for a lynch you played absolutely no part in at all. Your only explanation about why you didn't vote for her was to say you didn't think your vote would matter so you put your vote somewhere else. And if that was why you were doing it, why wouldn't you say that in your vote. Why wouldn't you express your approval of the lynch train that was forming? Instead you tried to convince people who were waffling to vote for DH instead. I think you are Uz and you recruited Bubbles. I think today's dog and pony show about looking for Bubbles teammates is your way to hopefully direct attention anywhere but you.
Damn. Now this is a post.

only problem I have with this is I think that if all this were so, llama wouldn't have had a problem throwing TB under the bus yesterday. Why not vote TB when he's previously been vocal against TinyBubbles? Even if he's the very last person to vote, no one is going to think strangely of him for it.

timmer wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
timmer wrote:Bea, no one in this game sucks. Well, maybe DP. But not you.

Regarding Bubbles, I would look more towards the people supporting Bubbles earlier in the game than later on to truly find her teamies.
Earlier? You think Tiny was an early recruit? A Founding member?
Hard to say how early to go back. I don't have the time, but others can track back to each moment it was announced that Ubby recruited and then search for people who seemed to start giving Bubbles a pass soon after. As for Bubbles being the first recruit? If Ubby was going for a team of quiet, out of the way players as a strategy? I could maybe see it? Let's say Ubby is a newer player to the site maybe, doesn't have the history... Bubbles may have been picked up early, but I'd bank more on the later, anonymous entry type recruitments.

Do we know that the early recruitment wasn't anonymous?

bea wrote:I'm not gonna lie. I'm happy no one is talking about Mr but it worries me too. I have played so badly. Why given my vote misses etc aren't I a point of conversation?

1 more time. I think some people in the back didn't hear you.

I voted DisgruntledPorcupine

I read through the last 4 or 5 pages, and there are a lot of interesting ideas about a lot of people that I look forward to reading more into over the next couple of days. I voted for DP because as I read the things he said and the things said to/about him, I got the feeling that maybe he was forcing himself participate because he had BTSC with someone. If he was really this uninterested in the game and had no one depending on him I feel like he would have just dropped off completely by now.

Ricochet wrote:
for Rey we have a legacy suspicion from Golden and a very mixed bag of interaction(z) with him, some of his hounding not looking great (turning the heat on for Golden's guilt sentiments? calling the WIFOM of Golden killing Epig plausible out of nowhere, after two straight Days of debates? stuff like that, probably more). not liking his "siesta mode" either, does anyone have any meta on it? it doesn't quite make me believe it's a baddie tactic to retreat in the shadows after such a failed hunt (baddies who mislynch with a passion would probably try to save appearances, look elsewhere, brings out better names, stay in touch and don't lose cred altogether etc.), but I still find it odd. I'll put this "siesta" as just a ping for now and likely re-read the interaction to decide on the rest.

It's pretty simple really. When Golden flipped unrecruited I felt like an idiot and retreated "into the shadows". I lost track of new posts and just got buried in it.

I'm sorry, guys. After Golden's lynch, I stepped away from the game for a second to try to look at the game from a fresh perspective, but then I got really far behind and I've been putting off catching up since I'm so far behind. I will try my best to catch up today.

thellama73 wrote:
reywaS wrote:did the lynch end today? I thought it ended tomorrow night. :O
Sure you did, buddy.

you're right. I'm totally lying.

did the lynch end today? I thought it ended tomorrow night. :O

I'll try to post by the AM.

After I read Golden flipped neutral, I decided to take a little siesta from the game. I have 6 pages to catch up on, but I"m not going to post stream of conciousness style this time. I'll read everything and then post.

I had 1.5 pages of linkitis as I started that post, left for a few hours to run errands and finsihed when I got home. I will catch up now.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think rey might deliberately be clashing against Golden's appeal to emotion with an appeal to emotion of his own. Sorry if I'm wrong about that.

That's fair. You are wrong about it, but I understand why you would think that. I wasn't trying to appeal to emotion at all. It was an honest response to seeing Golden make a ridiculous appeal to real life circumstances to be given a free pass because he's going to be unavailable for the last few hours of a lynch in which he has been extremely active so far. Then I saw Lorab almost immediately seem to agree to give him that free pass and that is why I said what I said. I have probably approached this game completely wrong, and that is why I think I should probably play in a small game before trying to tackle a huge game like this one is. It's only day 3 and I am super aggressively playing where I should probably be taking a much more relaxed approach. With the way I am playing, I imagine there is no chance of me lasting much longer regardless of this recent turn of events. I am fine being lynched, so go that route if you want. At least then you (and others) will see that I am being genuine.

Golden wrote:??? really?

Yes. Reading that post completely removed all desire to play this game that had built up since the start. Maybe I have been away from the game for too long. I think that is a seriously shady move to appeal to real life situations to get a pass for the day considering you have had absolutely no problem defending yourself up to this point. I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm the one that would probably be getting the shaft for your free pass.

Again, I apologize to everyone for making this move, but I really don't have any desire to see this game through anymore. I will try again in a smaller game.

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:
Sorsha wrote:Golden the point I was trying to get was if someone were setting you up who do you think it is?
I think rey is the most likely. Particularly because the starting points for his suspicion against me (especially on day 2) have been a big stretch to see them as legitimate pings, and also because he himself claimed you should be looking at motivations not words/actions to find baddies, but when I ask him to explain why a baddie would say the things he has claimed are suspicious, he has never been able to come up with any explanation (or has chosen not to). I didn't think DH was very likely before yesterday, but the conversation from yesterday has me seeing him as a possibility too. I find it hard to buy that he was legitimately scared of me, but also its just such a strange thing to make a big deal out of. Like, even if I'm so scary, why would I target him specifically? Before he said that, he wasn't even really on my radar.

I have a very specific reason in mind for why I do not think it is SVS, but it isn't out of the question I'm wrong about that.

I do agree with JJ that there it could be in anyone's interests to set me up, but I would be very surprised if at least one member of that team is not one of those pushing for my lynch.

Right, so I framed you. Went hard after you myself. To what end? To see you falsely lynched? Then what?

And here you go again claiming to have this false recollection of what I said. I'll say it again..and perhaps you need all caps so that it might stick more clearly in your brain. WHEN I SAID "MOTIVATION", I DID NOT MEAN "WHAT IS THE TRADITIONAL CIVVIE/BADDIE MOTIVATION FOR YOUR ACTION"...AS IN "WHY WOULD A BADDIE MAKE THIS MOVE?" WHEN I SAID I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT YOUR MOTIVATION, I MEANT EXACTLY THAT. WHAT WAS GOLDEN'S MOTIVATION FOR SAYING THE THINGS YOU SAID...NOT WHAT IS THE BADDIE MOTIVE?. WERE YOU BEING DISHONEST OR HONEST IN YOUR POSTS ABOUT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE THINGS THAT WERE HAPPENING IN THE GAME.

Obviously, I do not think the caps were necessary and I apologize to everyone else for having to suffer them. Golden is a very smart person, and I think he knows very well what I meant when I used the word motivation. He continues to misrepresent me, and he knows this.

Dom wrote:I feel uneasy about voting Golden after his meltdown post, but... I still suspect him.

Is that what it was?

nutella wrote:Guys don't freak out, LC answered somewhere that the thread lock would only be 4-6 hours.

Still good to register early votes though. I'd consider a vote for Rey since I could totally see him having killed Epi.

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok Nutella will be much simpler, no spoiler quotes. The thing with Nutella is that she always reads blends to me when she is civ. Always. And I have said before, I'll say it again, if I get good feels from Nutella, she is probably bad. If I get baddie vibes from Nutella, she is probably good. I don't like that reading back over her posts I see confident Nutella. Confident Nutella usually = Baddie Nutella. Read her posts, while she does change her mind,she doesn't read as uncertain as she does when she is a civ. They are more clear straight forward stances with less of the waffling that usually gets her lynched as a civ.

If I was putting her in a rainbow list, I would have her as orange.
I think I haven't come across as waffley this game because of its setup. We started out with a majority of players being unrecruited, so I basically assumed most people were unrecruited, rather than being pressured into having civ or baddie reads of people, which are always difficult early in the game. It's not that I'm not uncertain about a lot of players, it's that the things I've been talking about are the things I have stronger convictions about. In more typical games that start out with full civvie and baddie teams, there's a lot more pressure in the thread to decide on stuff like rainbow lists and a definitive perspective on players who are under scrutiny, and that's the stuff that I tend to waffle on and get in trouble for (and btw @ Lorab yes in fact I have still been getting lynched as a civ for these reasons in the last couple games I've played recently). In this game I'm just observing things on my own, and there are certainly players/topics of discussion in the thread that I don't have strong opinions of either way.

That said, I don't agree with your suspicion of Unfurl, I think she is genuine.

and I guess this means that you can also totally not see Golden killing Epig?

Search found 239 matches