The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Has juliets ever been lynched in her life?

I got her lynched Day 2 in Doctor Who (we were both good, and then I got lynched, and subbed in as bad). That's the only time I can think of.

Turnip Head wrote:

juliets wrote:What happened?? It gave others the chance to vote twice but would only let me vote once. Poo. I don't understand.

Awww, well it's the thought that counts! But maybe Dom will be a nice guy and let it count count, too!

espers wrote:Voting serge to make things interesting. Will fully catch up and answer DrumBeats' questions later, should be able to check in again before day end.

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epignosis and Bea - what are your reasons for voting Sorsha? Did either of you do a case and I missed it or were there just enough reasons you saw in the thread?

I see why people are voting for timmer but I'm worried his lacking is due to RL so I don't especially want to vote him.

There are others to consider but these two are the leading vote getters at this time.

RIP indiglo. You may have been bad but I wasn't seeing yet. Hopefully see you next game.

It's tough to make a "case" against fifteen posts, but I'll pull the exchange I had with her:

Spoiler: show

Epignosis wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Also TurnipHead. His constant defense of SVS reminds me of AWR when we had quite a few circumstantial pieces of evidence that SVS was bad and he still refused to believe it. (She was bad, so were TH and I, on the opposite team, ftr). I'll be keeping an eye on him for now, if SVS were lynched and came back civ he would jump up to #1 for me.

Sorsha wrote:How is saying I'm keeping an eye on TH throwing him under the bus? When reading his defense of SVS my mind immediately went to AWR where he staunchly refused to believe she was bad even though evidence pointed to it. Here it didn't even seem like he was considering her to be bad... which he would have no way of knowing that was the case, unless he was bad.

If I'm reading this correctly, Sorsha suspects Turnip Head, but the reasons she's providing- in my mind- would be points in his favor, not against him. Unless Sorsha is supposing two mafia teams (which I see no evidence of, because of what I highlighted in yellow), how does Turnip Head's opinion of S~V~S in a game when they were on opposing factions have any negative bearing on him here? In a two-mafia world, you're all hunters and it helps to figure out the other competition.

Sorsha wrote:And how do we both know that she wasn't bad? I don't want to be hung up on was she/ wasn't she since I don't see a way to find out for sure at this point, but it is possible she was bad. I don't think it's as far fetched as some people seem to be thinking. I don't know if SVS was bad or not. Do you bea?

In the red text, Sorsha asserts that if S~V~S were a civilian, then Turnip Head is her #1 suspect (which I don't understand, since Turnip Head would have been right about it). Yet Sorsha is unconvinced that the killed S~V~S was a civilian. What does this do to her position on Turnip Head? She doesn't say.

Epignosis wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I was at the beach all day. I took a good shower, but I'm still finding sand and bits of shell in my crevices.

Sorsha wrote:I'm not going to reply to every single person who has a problem believing that svs might have been bad & killed by her own team. Maybe it makes more sense to me because I was on a baddie team who did that exact thing in the past It wouldn't be a dumb idea.

My suspicion of TH relied solely on how svs would flip at lynch so at this point I have no suspicion of TH. I never know what to think when it comes to Matt. I didn't see anything wrong when looking through indiglo' posts, since bea asked me about her, except that her suspicions seemed pretty safe to me- finding the usual suspects that everyone else is talking about suspicious but nothing beyond that. Looking at splints it seemed like most of her posts are giving info about the tv show and how it might reflect into role/team mechanics and also a few safe suspicions. Didn't get to lorab or anyone else yet.

I think I'm going to vote for inh I noticed he finds me suspicious but he hadn't said why, unless I missed it. I have the feeling it's because I named him earlier + the adversity to my thoughts about svs? I dunno. He could let me know I guess.

I'll vote inh for now, not sure if I'll be back later tonight or not. I've got a lot going on this weekend & tomorrow. Tomorrow is my birthday so who knows when I'll be around.

You dropped that line right on top of a big paragraph about other things. I'm not satisfied. Your suspicion of Turnip Head was, according to you, based on S~V~S getting lynched. That didn't happen, because she got killed. Ninety times out of a hundred, killed people are good people. You now say you have "no suspicion" of Turnip Head. I do not see how that follows.

I even said back then if svs flips civ then I would suspect th, not that I actually suspected th at that time.

I don't get what is hard to understand about that.

Mmm. Let's see.

Sorsha wrote:Also TurnipHead. His constant defense of SVS reminds me of AWR when we had quite a few circumstantial pieces of evidence that SVS was bad and he still refused to believe it. (She was bad, so were TH and I, on the opposite team, ftr). I'll be keeping an eye on him for now, if SVS were lynched and came back civ he would jump up to #1 for me.

Sorsha wrote:How is saying I'm keeping an eye on TH throwing him under the bus? When reading his defense of SVS my mind immediately went to AWR where he staunchly refused to believe she was bad even though evidence pointed to it. Here it didn't even seem like he was considering her to be bad... which he would have no way of knowing that was the case, unless he was bad.

And how do we both know that she wasn't bad? I don't want to be hung up on was she/ wasn't she since I don't see a way to find out for sure at this point, but it is possible she was bad. I don't think it's as far fetched as some people seem to be thinking. I don't know if SVS was bad or not. Do you bea?

If you didn't suspect Turnip Head, then there was no reason to bring him up in this context.

What's your take on this, juliets?

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epignosis and Bea - what are your reasons for voting Sorsha? Did either of you do a case and I missed it or were there just enough reasons you saw in the thread?

I see why people are voting for timmer but I'm worried his lacking is due to RL so I don't especially want to vote him.

There are others to consider but these two are the leading vote getters at this time.

RIP indiglo. You may have been bad but I wasn't seeing yet. Hopefully see you next game.

It's tough to make a "case" against fifteen posts, but I'll pull the exchange I had with her:

Spoiler: show

Epignosis wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Also TurnipHead. His constant defense of SVS reminds me of AWR when we had quite a few circumstantial pieces of evidence that SVS was bad and he still refused to believe it. (She was bad, so were TH and I, on the opposite team, ftr). I'll be keeping an eye on him for now, if SVS were lynched and came back civ he would jump up to #1 for me.

Sorsha wrote:How is saying I'm keeping an eye on TH throwing him under the bus? When reading his defense of SVS my mind immediately went to AWR where he staunchly refused to believe she was bad even though evidence pointed to it. Here it didn't even seem like he was considering her to be bad... which he would have no way of knowing that was the case, unless he was bad.

If I'm reading this correctly, Sorsha suspects Turnip Head, but the reasons she's providing- in my mind- would be points in his favor, not against him. Unless Sorsha is supposing two mafia teams (which I see no evidence of, because of what I highlighted in yellow), how does Turnip Head's opinion of S~V~S in a game when they were on opposing factions have any negative bearing on him here? In a two-mafia world, you're all hunters and it helps to figure out the other competition.

Sorsha wrote:And how do we both know that she wasn't bad? I don't want to be hung up on was she/ wasn't she since I don't see a way to find out for sure at this point, but it is possible she was bad. I don't think it's as far fetched as some people seem to be thinking. I don't know if SVS was bad or not. Do you bea?

In the red text, Sorsha asserts that if S~V~S were a civilian, then Turnip Head is her #1 suspect (which I don't understand, since Turnip Head would have been right about it). Yet Sorsha is unconvinced that the killed S~V~S was a civilian. What does this do to her position on Turnip Head? She doesn't say.

Epignosis wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I was at the beach all day. I took a good shower, but I'm still finding sand and bits of shell in my crevices.

Sorsha wrote:I'm not going to reply to every single person who has a problem believing that svs might have been bad & killed by her own team. Maybe it makes more sense to me because I was on a baddie team who did that exact thing in the past It wouldn't be a dumb idea.

My suspicion of TH relied solely on how svs would flip at lynch so at this point I have no suspicion of TH. I never know what to think when it comes to Matt. I didn't see anything wrong when looking through indiglo' posts, since bea asked me about her, except that her suspicions seemed pretty safe to me- finding the usual suspects that everyone else is talking about suspicious but nothing beyond that. Looking at splints it seemed like most of her posts are giving info about the tv show and how it might reflect into role/team mechanics and also a few safe suspicions. Didn't get to lorab or anyone else yet.

I think I'm going to vote for inh I noticed he finds me suspicious but he hadn't said why, unless I missed it. I have the feeling it's because I named him earlier + the adversity to my thoughts about svs? I dunno. He could let me know I guess.

I'll vote inh for now, not sure if I'll be back later tonight or not. I've got a lot going on this weekend & tomorrow. Tomorrow is my birthday so who knows when I'll be around.

You dropped that line right on top of a big paragraph about other things. I'm not satisfied. Your suspicion of Turnip Head was, according to you, based on S~V~S getting lynched. That didn't happen, because she got killed. Ninety times out of a hundred, killed people are good people. You now say you have "no suspicion" of Turnip Head. I do not see how that follows.

I even said back then if svs flips civ then I would suspect th, not that I actually suspected th at that time.

I don't get what is hard to understand about that.

Mmm. Let's see.

Sorsha wrote:Also TurnipHead. His constant defense of SVS reminds me of AWR when we had quite a few circumstantial pieces of evidence that SVS was bad and he still refused to believe it. (She was bad, so were TH and I, on the opposite team, ftr). I'll be keeping an eye on him for now, if SVS were lynched and came back civ he would jump up to #1 for me.

Sorsha wrote:How is saying I'm keeping an eye on TH throwing him under the bus? When reading his defense of SVS my mind immediately went to AWR where he staunchly refused to believe she was bad even though evidence pointed to it. Here it didn't even seem like he was considering her to be bad... which he would have no way of knowing that was the case, unless he was bad.

And how do we both know that she wasn't bad? I don't want to be hung up on was she/ wasn't she since I don't see a way to find out for sure at this point, but it is possible she was bad. I don't think it's as far fetched as some people seem to be thinking. I don't know if SVS was bad or not. Do you bea?

If you didn't suspect Turnip Head, then there was no reason to bring him up in this context.

What's your take on this, juliets?

Serge wrote:The question is probably "should we open more folders?"

So I'm not sure why people are voting no. Vote yes.