The Syndicate

Yoda, I am yoda, and to vote I need because class. And voting wilgy, putting my money where my mouth is. This one right, hope I get. *votes Wilgy*

Draconus wrote:

Matt wrote:Mac and Drac (ha!) - Why are you voting Boomslang?

After looking through his ISO again, I firmly believe my theory is correct. On Days 4 and 5, Boom goes after Tranq, votes him first both days, and when Tranq dies, Boom says "I done messed up".

Why does Boom keep messing up?

1. Bad games, we all have.
2. Easy to criticize people, is it when you do not make waves yourself.

FZ. wrote:Am I sorry for not being here?

Did I just come back from a wedding and too tired to post? Is this question curse annoying the hell out of me?

Don't I know who to look at now?

Can DH please start talking more? Can DH name his suspects? How about Drac and Boomslang? Can they say who they are suspicious of? Boomlang, what did you learn tonight? Do you learn something every night? Why haven't you shared it with us? Did you know who doesn't have BTSC or what?

Do I need to go to sleep. I do, don't I?

For me this day period runs between three back-to-back 10–12 hour days, so of content forgive my quietness/lack. Learn anything actionable tonight I did not, and shared my previous insights I have not because I did not think anything was actionable before them. .

Dr, my best suspects now are. Wilgy, mac, and blooper. But also wrong about dom, I was, so probably crap, my insights are. Yeesssssss.

bea wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Dammit. I took an ambitious shot, using a technique I usually don't employ, based on reasons I thought were solid. Everything was there except the alignment of the guy who got lynched. I'm really sorry, LC.

what is this supposed to even mean?

"a technique I don't usually employ"? which one? "for reasons I thought were solid"? what reasons?

What was there?

You do know you are likely next up on the block right? Now is not the time to be vague.

"a technique I don't usually employ" - heavy infohinting/straight up "this dude is bad" statements
"reasons I thought were solid" - not publicly available information that I interpreted as evidence of baddieness/team interactions

I know I'm likely next up on the block, but you'd be lynching me based on the following thought process: even though I'm bad, I took a huge risk and stuck my neck out to target someone I knew wasn't on my team. That's a play that would have terrible odds against me if I were bad.

DH, if you think I remember the details of my play a year ago, you have a much higher opinion of me than I do. Maybe I get stressed in GoC situations and try to pull different moves? It's worth noting that Face of Boe was a civ role as well.

Honestly, I don't know why you aren't looking at MM hardcore now for that late vote switch. I might have started the idea, but he put the nail in the coffin, and in a very shifty/last-minute way. I don't like it.

Dammit. I took an ambitious shot, using a technique I usually don't employ, based on reasons I thought were solid. Everything was there except the alignment of the guy who got lynched. I'm really sorry, LC.

FZ. wrote:You're right, Juliets, he did say that.

I really wish Boomslang would come here and stay for a little while. I have some questions for him:

1. How is what you're doing not considered info dumping?
2. Is your knowledge night or thread related?
3. Could you be wrong?

1. Because the hosts said so.
2. Nights are part of the thread, yo.
3. Possibly. But I'm confident enough to lead a vote there.

Why would I make such an unprecedented move on LC? What could I have possibly learned between Day 5 and Day 6? You're all smart people, you can figure it out.

Also, I figure it's about time I do a GTH of everyone:
bea - civ
Boomslang - civ
DH - civ
Dom - mafia
Dr Wilgy - civ
Drac - civ
FZ. - civ
juliets - mafia
LC - mafia
Mac - mafia
Matt - civ
MM - civ
motel room - civ
ninjablooper - mafia
Sorsha - civ

Long Con is bad, and you have to trust me on this. I've made some bad calls this game, but this one is different.

Blizzard is silent.
White dunes shroud the innocent
and guilty alike.

RIP Tranq, I done messed up.

MM, any particular reason you omitted me from your GTH reads? Just want to clear that up in case SHTF.

Juliets keeps switching votes off Tranq, accepts a collection of Brangelina pics as content, and agrees with his positions in night polls. Ok with lynching either of them. Agreed with MacDougall in my frustration that we can't get any momentum going. *votes Tranq* for time being.

Have I mentioned that grad school is a writhing hellscape of time commitments from which there is no possible escape but the sweet release of death and/or graduation?

Matt wrote:Thanks Niju

Now I just need Sorsha, Wilgy, LLama, and Tranq.

So... any reason for this particular list, or is it all a part of your Super Secret Theory?

Can't stump the Trump! But you can stump a Tranq. Throwing an early vote his way to flush him out; previous calls have not been heeded.

Whew, what a lynch, with a great result. BIH, Lorab; I'll admit you weren't on my naughty list.
Voting for Simon and Garfunkle this poll because our hosts are creating such harmony among the players :P

EBWOP: Dammit, that was supposed to be http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GI ... on-gif.gif

Me right now:

Regardless of how this lynch goes, it's going to be a big discussion point for a long time to come. I don't feel comfortable putting the nail in JJJ, so I might add strength to the Tranq push. I don't like FZ's statements regarding him, which feel defensive even after Tranq voted for her (I read that vote as baddie distancing in a lynch with other, more popular candidates) . And I have maybe my strongest civ read on HBB. So...

Linki w/HBB: Well, that changes the strength of the push. I'll go with it. *votes FZ* Will Tranq change his vote now that it's close?
Linki w/Mac: To paraphrase DH, " because making it interesting (5 votes each) is a civ reason to vote on Day 3.5"
Linki: LET ME POST
Linki w/Wilgy: Nice save?
Linki w/Rico:

Sorsha wrote:Am I the only one who thinks its weird that there were 8 votes on LoRab yesterday and only 2 of those players have voted her way today?

LoRab
8
Epignosis (6), Sorsha (15), Golden (16), thellama73 (18), JaggedJimmyJay (19), Tranq (20), FZ. (21), motel room (26) 30%

Hmm... this is interesting. You and Epi, and now BR and Blooper, who weren't there before. If yesterday's bloc were to go together this time around, they'd surely have the numbers to prevent a JJJ lynch. Two options come to mind: either the Lorab voters aren't on JJJ's team, or they figure the spread of the vote will make it easier to sway the lynch when crunchtime comes.

Linki @ DH: What specifically makes you speechless about Blooper's post? Unless you literally have been rendered incapable of communication.

FZ. wrote: Lastly, tranque is just an easy lynch. I don't tend to give those kind of players the time of day. This is my game philosophy:
If a player is bad, but non existent in the game, and the baddies win the game because of that player, they can take that win and shove it. I tend to think that baddies try harder than civvies because they know other people depend on them. How hard is it, to come up with a stupid reason to vote for someone, and look better than just driving by and voting? And if you're really doing that as a baddie, you're just a coward.

So wait, you're ok with leaving a bad Tranq alive just because he's being inactive? If he lurks and sends in his kills, he's still hurting the civ cause. It might be cowardice, but if it works, it's still a loss for the civs.

Ricochet wrote:I did a search of Dom's entire post and have found only a dozen of posts in which the word suspish appears. He himself has used it only once before, in Star Wars.

I now believe Dom is in team with someone who is inadvertedly influencing his word use during their private chatter.

Players who so far who used this word in this game are llama and LoRab.

I... kind of like this theory. It's just crazy enough to make sense, and I know I often find myself using the language of the group I'm talking with. Does this necessarily make him bad, though? I'm not pinged super hard either way. On the civ end, I like his pressure on Tranq and the way he's been skeptical of Mac throughout the game. On the mafia end, I don't like the way he's expressed support for off-wagon candidates and then circled back to the main wagon for all of the lynches thus far; feels just a touch too blendy.

GTH, I guess I'd say bad. The connection of "suspish" with Lorab, combined with his consistent but low levels of aggro toward her, could make the case for mafia teammates.

Golden wrote:HB did post a number in his subsequent post, epi, without any further prompting from you.

Boomslang, you should check but I think your curse is over, based on SVS clarification earlier.

Although I disagree that 'leading people astray' is more culpable than 'being lead astray'. I would, because I tend to lead not follow. But, I think either can indicate a level of culpability. Each person is responsible for where they put their vote, whatever their reasons are. Baddies might intentionally lead a mislynch on someone. Baddie might intentionally blend in and intentionally 'be lead astray' by someone they know isn't going after someone on their team.

Ah, that is a relief. Thanks, SVS! And I agree that baddies might be found on either side of the leader/follower coin. But I'd argue that baddie leaders do more damage among undecided civs, swaying them with arguments they know to be incorrect. A leader can bring more than just his or her vote to bear on an undesirable lynch, is what I'm trying to say.

Isn't it wonderful to come home after a long day of class, having missed the lynch, and see a case raised and disappeared on your name?
Did JJJ raise this case to save his own hide after determining the Lorab case wouldn't succeed?
Can't you see that my criticism of Mac for the sig lynch stemmed from his driving role, not the vote itself?
Isn't leading people astray more culpable than being led astray?
Is JJJ's survival the result of baddie ability?
Wouldn't we think that a second lynch would prove this?
Is this style of posting annoying to anyone else?

Can we get anything out of nijuukyugou, Spacedaisy, or Tranq? Doesn't it feel like at this point in the game we should be able to have some sort of read on any of them? Hasn't Tranq not claimed business as an excuse, opposed to the other two of them?

Tranq wrote:

sig wrote:The people voting for me are either lurkers who voted for the largest lynch wagon or people I've suspected or Mac who thinks he can read my scum game but can't.

Did i vote for the wrong player?

Does this feel kind of sarcastic/mocking to anyone else? Do we have anything else to go off of regarding Tranq?

MacDougall wrote: What does me being a big advocate of the sig train have to do with anything?

Do you feel like you shouldn't have to explain your advocacy, especially as one of the earliest votes, for a train that turned out to be incorrect?

Long Con wrote:*votes Boomslang*

Boomslang was the first vote I cast in the game, as I recall, because he made me suspicious back then:

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.

It wasn't a slip. It was Tranq being a nub. Hence my opening post.

What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.

However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.

And recently his sig vote twanged me in the twingiest of ways. So, Day 3 starts with a vote on him, foremost of my suspicions.

Never thought too much about it before, but Boomslang is a pretty kick ass handle.

Do you think Tranq is civ? Do you think his behavior over the past few nights has changed the value of that (very early) post of mine?

Long Con wrote:RIP sig! RIP Gladius Mechaspark - great role to choose form my game, hosts, it's a fun one!

Boomslang wrote:I'm running low on time before class, and I don't think I'll be able to vote after that. Quite disappointed in Drac's lack of posting today. I think the JJJ case is overblown; his effort with the smiley curse alone, when as a baddie he could have safely played it cool, makes me lean civ on him. Lorab's defense seems genuine, while sig is much more flippant. I don't like the games he played with smileys in a recent post, in particular; it's self-conscious, not natural. I'll put my vote *on sig* unless I find time on a class break to read more and change my mind.

Linki w/Golden: Good illustration of the difference between civ read/buddying. Worth keeping in mind, imo.

Well, Boomslang gets back up my baddie list for this bandwagon-hop.

Just want to put this out there:
Boomslang (15), motel room (19), JaggedJimmyJay (20), nijuukyugou (21), juliets (22), Spacedaisy (25), Tranq (27)

If you want to look at late-joining cars on the lynch train, you might want to look a little farther down the line.

Also, not sure what to make of the poll, so went with my belief: a combo of Yellowstone supervolcano, grid-melting solar storm, and global warming will probably get us sooner rather than later!

Damn, a disappointing result. Sorry sig, RIP in peace. I was swayed by incorrect arguments, I suppose; had I been around for the late swell of support on the wagon, I might have changed. Rico might be on to something with the 2/2 mislynch club and Tranq's shifty behavior.

I'm running low on time before class, and I don't think I'll be able to vote after that. Quite disappointed in Drac's lack of posting today. I think the JJJ case is overblown; his effort with the smiley curse alone, when as a baddie he could have safely played it cool, makes me lean civ on him. Lorab's defense seems genuine, while sig is much more flippant. I don't like the games he played with smileys in a recent post, in particular; it's self-conscious, not natural. I'll put my vote *on sig* unless I find time on a class break to read more and change my mind.

Linki w/Golden: Good illustration of the difference between civ read/buddying. Worth keeping in mind, imo.

Matt wrote:Boomslang, I find it unlikely that there are two curse roles in a game where there were up to 60 roles (and I'm assuming, role powers) originally but was cut to 30. No doubt our hosts have all kinds of cool shit planned for this game, so why would they keep two roles, one that curses in smilies and the other that curses in questions? Overkill for a champions game, I think.

As for positions, I dunno. I didn't play Recruitment and my role has nothing to do with positions, but I suppose it's possible given Zebra's flip.

Why are so many against looking at Draconus?

juliets, were you faking your confusion earlier or was it legit?

Important distinction: I'm not against looking at Draconus, I'm against the idea that he was faking the curse. Of course, with Draco having not posted today, there's not much more to go on than there was end of Day 1. Still looking for an answer to my question, Drac.

Juliets and Golden, I agree. The question that follows, then, is why Matt doesn't seem to agree with this line of reasoning.

Matt wrote: I disagree with 3J and think we should look at Draconus next.

This bit suggests to me that Matt's looking to devalue JJJ's analysis of Zebra interactions. Perhaps he's worried that JJJ will dig something up that could damage him or his team?

I'm all caught up now as well. People are doing a good job following up on the Rico and Zebra aftermath (skimming through JJJ's posts in particular, dude put in a load of work. Must be working out the frustration over that Bengals game... I'm from Cincy, and my heart is utterly broken.) So I want to poke at the issue Matt raised about Draconus faking the curse.

Matt definitely raised that suspicion midway through Day 1, so it's not a random shot in the dark.

Matt wrote:
Anyone notice that Draconus has posted in nothing but questions since the Day started? Another curse?

So either there are two curse roles, or one of Drac and 3J are faking. Or it's just wildy coincidental that Drac has posted in all questions since Day started. I guess he can clear that up with his next post.

He then asks Drac who could have cursed him. Drac responds with what I read as an honest and reasonable post, based on evidence from before the curse could have happened:

Draconus wrote:Just scrolled the last page and saw this. Good question, Matt. I haven't the slightest clue. But it may have something to do with me saying "I already know what I'm going to say on Day 1" during Night 0. So maybe they wanted to make me look bad by preventing me from getting my thoughts across. Just speculating here.

However, the first post he makes after that response, Matt talks right past Draconus. He doesn't engage the point about Draconus's Day 0 post, instead taking what seems to me like an arbitrarily skeptical stance:

Matt wrote:I disagree with 3J and think we should look at Draconus next. In the signup thread, SVS said there were up to 60 roles, so when it came down to cutting thirty of them, she and Turnip decided to keep TWO curse roles?

Eff that, lynch that Drac!

So, two questions:
1) To Matt: what makes you so sure the hosts didn't use two curse roles? Why would Draconus intentionally draw attention to himself through odd posting behavior, especially given the timing of JJJ's first smiley post?
2) To Draconus: what would you have said Day 1 had you not (presumably) been cursed? Or is that still relevant?

Well, I had no idea this lynch result was even possible, but I'm pretty pleased by it. I think having a confirmed civ as a discussion resource is worth more than people realize: we all now know exactly where Rico's opinions are coming from, and the way people agree/disagree with his arguments take on a lot more meaning.

Regarding the night poll, I'm going to vote for Bos taurus because, like Boomslang, it starts with B. Disappointed there's no Dispholidus typus option :P

Alright, I have to go record some music and must vote. I don't think Rico is mafia, I think Llama is civ, and haven't really considered the Lorab arguments. Therefore, I'm going to leave a protest vote on Mac: as has been noted previously, his playing is not that different from Rico's, but he's being very defensive of it and was blatantly hypocritical when he compared his own baseless accusation to the one MM made about him. *votes Mac*

Linki w/Rico: Tranq should speak up, true facts.

Also, I know it's obvious but I want to say it because nobody else yet has: let it be noted that Bass_the_Clever has 2 posts and Spacedaisy has 1. Where dey at?

Long Con wrote:I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

See, now this is interesting. "More relevant opinion." If you believe I'm bad, why aren't you trying to convince more people? You seem like you could have the support of Mac and Zebra, at the very least. Some of these llama votes, particularly yours, feel rather opportunistic.

MacDougall wrote:

Boomslang wrote: Oh, you mean like you said "Boomslang is bad. Discuss." earlier on a gut ping?

I didn't do it to me. I don't like it when people do it to me.

As for Mac, follow the Golden Rule there, bub. You're playing with a sense of superiority and aggression that frankly I don't read as civ.

Linki: HamburgerBoy, a voice in the wilderness!

MacDougall wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Mac and Fuzz are teammates (in a bad kind of way).

Please don't make matter of fact statements like this without making a case or I will make your experience in this game very unpleasant.

Oh, you mean like you said "Boomslang is bad. Discuss." earlier on a gut ping?

MacDougall wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy

Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.

inb4 "not worth reading"

...yeah, you'll hate me

Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So a for that; you do you.

Linki w/Blooper: Well, there is a lot of... stuff, but most of it is useful. It's just broken up into lots of inconvenient chunks, and the threads of discussion aren't separated out well. I agree it's been a hard day to follow.

You really must not be trying to understand the context of his posts. He has misrepresented everything. His cases have been weak as piss and baseless and his conviction has been totally misplaced. And Ricochet is a great player so he's doing it intentionally. The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying. For you to actually compliment his content is a major mark against you being genuine.

The question is of his intention not on the validity of what he's saying.
Do you even read your own posts? This is just pure "he's bad because I feel like it, it doesn't matter what he says." You'll also notice I didn't compliment his content, I said it was at least on topic.

Ricochet wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:...19 pages to catch up on. Whyyyyyyyyyy

Here's my placeholder. I'll be back.

inb4 "not worth reading"

...yeah, you'll hate me

Ya know, I was about to make some snide comment about how you've been spamming the thread to intimidate potential readers, but your post history is really rather on-topic. Short posts, but all of them have content. So a for that; you do you.

Linki w/Blooper: Well, there is a lot of... stuff, but most of it is useful. It's just broken up into lots of inconvenient chunks, and the threads of discussion aren't separated out well. I agree it's been a hard day to follow.

Also, since Mac is around: do you still think I'm bad? Your basis for that was the presumed me-Tranq teamup, IIRC; Tranq has given us no comment on anything of consequence, while I'm calling him out for that.

Linki w/Rico: I don't think you answered the question (unless it was with that shrug, in which case why would you make an unsubstantiated claim?): I asked what made you think there were no indies in the game, not if you wanted them to win.

Second linki w/rico: Mac hasn't added anything to his Lorab suspicion in this phase as far as I can tell. There was a lot of stuff in Night 0, but nothing in Day 1. In fact, the only interaction besides his vote during the day seems to be vaguely jokey/defensive?

MacDougall wrote: Fiend, you are using Lorab's own smiley against her!

ARRGH SO MUCH LINKI

DharmaHelper wrote:Also, since when is "Indy" synonymous with "Better let this person win the game"

THANK YOU.

Also, been reading over the llama/sig exchange. Sig starts out strong, with some good points about the Vocaroo medium, then devolves into fluff/talking about fluff. I'm kind of surprised Sig hasn't taken other swings at people, instead keeping the conversation primarily about that single jokey post. I'd say that's worth one out of three.

Linki @Rico: What makes you say that? There have certainly been indie roles in the games from which this one is drawing.

Linki @Mac: This is a guessing game, but if a role gains power from votes, then it's least powerful at the start. Easier to actually lynch?

DharmaHelper wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Arrrgh there are already three pages. Which is great from an info perspective, bad from a I'm-drinking-Manhattans-and-wasn't-ready-for-this perspective.

But I like this poll. Lots of different interpretations: what roles people liked, which ones they actually think are in the game. Another theory: could this poll actually be determining the role of one player? It could be like a play-in game in the NCAA tournament, as it were. I don't know how closely the roles have been imported, but if they are faithful, that'd seem to hint against Watari, because there were so many role interactions going on in Death Note.

Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.

Question: Does anyone think this is too defensive? Follow up question: Does anyone remember any other contribution Tranq made to Night 0? Anything at all?

Too defensive?



Look, Tranq didn't make any other contribution to Night 1, and his only post today is commenting how many pages are up already. If we were actually bad together, I would've encouraged him to post a lot more and engage with my "defense." I, as a civ, was giving him the benefit of the doubt, nothing more.

Linki: Heh, nice comeback Rico.

Anyway, back on topic. I'm going to add my strength to the Watari vote. First reason is sentimental: I was that guy! Second reason is practical: he's a great role. Even on the off chance that this poll does let us determine a role that gets added, I think he's a good choice.

DharmaHelper wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Epi confimed for prescriptivist scum.

I'm a moderate when it comes to that debate. Perhaps the only thing on which I am a moderate

DID I HEAR SOMEONE TALKING ABOUT ENGLISH GRAMMAR??

Technically you did not hear anyone talking about anything.

Maybe if people let us make Vocaroos, she would :P

thellama73 wrote:

Golden wrote:@llama - you should look up the definition of win win.

Extract.

Spoiler: show

win-win (wĭn′wĭn′)
adj.
Of or being a situation in which the outcome benefits each of two often opposing groups: a win-win proposition for the buyer and the seller.
win′-win′ n.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
win-win
adj
1. guaranteeing a favourable outcome for everyone involved: a win-win situation for NATO.
[C20: modelled on no-win]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Translations-----------------------Select a language:
win-win (win win) adjective
that both sides will benefit from it: a win-win situation.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary © 2006-2013 K Dictionaries Ltd.


Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, or visit the webmaster's page for free fun content.

Well, that's blatantly wrong. Dictionary makers have gotten sloppy.

Sorry to spoil your fun, llama, but Merriam-Webster also agrees with Golden. So it goes.

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

Sure am glad you can determine that off of one post. Surprised you haven't retired off of lottery winnings, with psychic powers like that.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

But if the "case" against me, as far I understand it, is that I "buddied up" to Tranq as a Mafia defense, why aren't you including him in this list?

Arrrgh there are already three pages. Which is great from an info perspective, bad from a I'm-drinking-Manhattans-and-wasn't-ready-for-this perspective.

But I like this poll. Lots of different interpretations: what roles people liked, which ones they actually think are in the game. Another theory: could this poll actually be determining the role of one player? It could be like a play-in game in the NCAA tournament, as it were. I don't know how closely the roles have been imported, but if they are faithful, that'd seem to hint against Watari, because there were so many role interactions going on in Death Note.

Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.