The Syndicate

LizKeen wrote:Can someone tell me what "WOT" means? Way Off Topic? post WithOut Teeth?

LizKeen wrote: Epi, do you hate me? I hope not, I'm really not a terrible person but this is a game and players gotta play. But I'm seeing a lot of "well Epi might be bad but I'm not sure yet". Feels like deflection from voting him.

S~V~S wrote:It doesn't mean that. I never said that. But her being bad does mnotb make him good.

And I am not bad, Dom. It is what it is.

S~V~S wrote:It means he could be bad or good. This isn't rocket science.

S~V~S wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:It means he could be bad or good. This isn't rocket science.

So then you can't decide which he is?

Wow that is quite the misinterpretation of what I said. What I said was that just because Zomba was bad does not make Vomps good. You and Dom are taking a simple remark and twisting it into something it is not.

And Rabbit, I am not bad, and furthermore, I think you know it.

LizKeen wrote:

Golden wrote:Who voted zombs first? Whoever it was, I'm interested to hear if they got an item. Since SVS apparently didn't either. LK's theory of baddies being able to transfer items between them could be put to the test.

Did I say this was a theory? I think I just pointed out that transfer and trade were two different things. And I said "seem" astute, not OMG you're so brilliant! And you say maybe we should go ahead and lynch you because it might give us info? Civvie comment? Not much. Even if you are going on vacation that's not helpful. You 're really trying to twist my words or words said about me.

And I want to hear LC's response to Epi.

Golden wrote:Also, Dom, you seem to have missed where I asked you a question.

Given SVS appears not to have gotten zombs items, did you get one given you voted for her first eg her stock certificate?

S~V~S wrote:

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Why?

The voting consistency reminds me more of BSD Vomps than otherwise.

You backpedaled on this hard.

And I truly believe Zombi is bad bad news.

Backpedaled on what?, Vomps or Zomba?,I did not backpedal on Vomps for sure. If you mean Zomba, after listening to her rant about how awful I was I decided I did not think she had BTS. Sorry if you think changing ones mind is bad, but I am not bad so

rabbit8 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Changing ones mind does not make one bad.

I don't like your reasoning for changing your mind.......

Bullzeye wrote:Well. Save attempt, anyone?

S~V~S wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Well. Save attempt, anyone?

No I don't think so. But she really fooled me hard. And her team bussed her hard.

S~V~S wrote:Also, how is Zomba being bad mean that Vomps might not also be bad?

S~V~S wrote:Why?

The voting consistency reminds me more of BSD Vomps than otherwise.

Sophie wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:I was never on board with the LizKeen case, so I'm not voting there.
I had strongly considered voting Z, but I think SVS' assessment of her not likely having BTSC this game is pretty sound, so I won't vote there.
I thought Epi's case on LK was....not convincing, but I'm not sure why a bad Epi would push so hard against a player so early....considering a vote there.
LC is LC and I have no particular reason to think he's bad right now, but I don't know if I've ever read LC correctly. I'm not voting there unless something really compelling comes up.
TH seems like civ TH to me.
I think that MP/Bass is an interesting spot to look. I will reread there and maybe consider a vote.
I would consider a vote for Vomps.

What about dom?

S~V~S wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Does vomps play the same even if he is bad?

Not always, no.

I think my vote is going there, too. I will be out when the poll ends, and don't want to miss the vote.

Sophie wrote:I kind of read zombad reaction as a frustrated civ, but i could be wrong since im often wrong about this. Is there a posdibilty she is teææing the truth, though? It reminds me of when im wrongfully accused by many (like in rr) and the frustration thatvbrings

LizKeen wrote:

I couldn't figure out what pgnss meant. The closest I could get was prognosis.*facepalm* I posted and comment the posts of yours that didn't make me feel like you were being particularly civvie in the order you posted them. If I had posted all of your posts people would still be reading it because it would be epically wrong. Do you requote all their posts when you're trying to make a case?

This should have read epically long, not epically wrong. And no it wasn't some Freudian slip.


Also, noone ever responded to my question about Epi's and LC's Day 1 back-and-forth about who was lying. I clearly don't trust Epi but oes someone who has played with them both have an opinion there.

Golden wrote:Funny. My recollection of dom is quiet dom, dom you forget is playing. If I had to say my perception of him in this game, it's that he is less blendy and more talkative than usual. I haven't forgotten he is playing.

A Person, though...

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:You know what, I buy it's Zombs completely at this point.

I think SVS is right... that she was the nightkill target and that the post in the newspaper was created by the baddies. Here is the thing... if SVS had died, we would all know the baddies had the will, and that post in the newspaper could look simply like the host reporting the news. But it's not the news. SVS still has the will.

So, why would the baddies write it? To effectively role claim Zombs as a civilian. AND make it look like it was llama saying it, so that we would buy it in its entirity. But since it isn't true that the beast has the will, I don't buy that any part of the message was genuine.

I'm sort of following this theory-- but can someone spell it out for me? I've had a rough day and am having a hard time tbh.

Sure! I'll give it a shot.

Basically, I think the baddies had planned to kill SVS. With her being dead, the talk about the will in the night post would have seemed like Zomba was claiming to be a civ. However, their kill did not work, and I'm guessing it has to do with the silver Buddha that SVS had. Since she said it apparently lost it's silvery sheen or something along those lines.

However, with her still being alive, I think the talk of the will in the night post pretty much incriminates Zomba. I'm half-tempted to vote for her now, but I want to wait and see what Zomba has to say about it before I make a final decision.

S~V~S wrote:Sorry Dom, I meant to but i forgot. Yes, usually i do have an opinion. I generally think you are a civvie. The more reasonable you sound the more likely to be bad you are (which is why I never get it when people think you are bad for saying "wot" etc.)

I have no opinion, you seem blendier, or maybe just quieter. I go long stretches when i forget you are playing. You are one of my favorite people, so forgetting you are playing makes me go hmmm. I also know you are busy, so

And re the theory, I think the baddies, the BBB, meant to kill me. My Buddha is dim Had I died, the BB would have had the will, as the post says he does. I am not him, honest injun. The post also says that the will is the will of Gilchrist (or Gilfrid?) who is the civvie chaos role. There is not a message to the thread role except the poet. So this message has to come from the baddies (the Dr) or Gilfrid/christ. The message had to come from the baddies though, since it says the baddie killer has the will. He would have gotten it had I died ( the baddies have no item stealer).

The only thing I am having problems figuring out is how they keep real Gilchrist from whistle blowing. Convoluted a bit, but I think it is a fairly straight progressing. It would not have occurred to me had my Buddha not dimmed.

Linki x many, wow they explained it much better than I.

Golden wrote:You know what, I buy it's Zombs completely at this point.

I think SVS is right... that she was the nightkill target and that the post in the newspaper was created by the baddies. Here is the thing... if SVS had died, we would all know the baddies had the will, and that post in the newspaper could look simply like the host reporting the news. But it's not the news. SVS still has the will.

So, why would the baddies write it? To effectively role claim Zombs as a civilian. AND make it look like it was llama saying it, so that we would buy it in its entirity. But since it isn't true that the beast has the will, I don't buy that any part of the message was genuine.

S~V~S wrote:I don't think TH is on a team with Epignosis at all. And I have no opinion of Dom at all and that scares the checkout of me tbh.

rabbit8 wrote:OK. I'm not sold on TH one way or the other right now.

Epignosis wrote:I'm afraid Golden scooped me on some things I wanted to say. Benefit of the waking hour, I suppose. If any of this is redundant, oh well.

LizKeen wrote:Is there usually this much requoting in Syndicate games? I'm really wondering if it's a mafia tactic just to be a massive distraction. If so then you're doing well.

The Legend of Zelda was an active game: With all the quoting and "requoting" present in it, I don't understand how LizKeen could consider this a Mafia tactic "in Syndicate games." This is a self-defeating thing to say: If there usually is this much requoting in Syndicate games (and a cursory glance at past games, including the one LizKeen was actually in, shows this to be the case), then how can anyone label it a mafia tactic? How many Mafia are there in this game? Surely there are more than five people making extensive use of the quote feature.

LizKeen wrote:I'm going back and re-reading (a task I dread) everyone bf was suspicious of so he won't have died in vain. The mafia would have most definitely wanted him so and I'd say there's at least one if not more of you in those 8 votes. Black Rock is off the hook obviously and I'm giving Zomb the benefit of the doubt now so that at least narrows it down to 6 for me.

Of the six left, LizKeen selected four, but so far has only been able to publish her opinion of S~V~S.

LizKeen wrote:No, before. I put it out there because as I no longer have it that is probably the most useful info I will have. I thought mafia had stolen it but I see that is not one of their abilities so I can assume it's in the hands of the celestials.

I have been rereading since my last post and had several posts I had quoted and commented on up to page 15 and then screwed up and lost it all. I'll have to start again tomorrow. Based on what I had reread I would say my current suspicions are SVS, rabbit, LongCon and Vompatti. But I'll have to go into that further tomorrow because it's really late and I'm tired.

I thought LizKeen's large case on S~V~S (something I have never seen her do) was weak, reaching, and misrepresented a number of things, not the least of which was S~V~S not voting blindfaeth right away and then deciding to vote for him much later.

LizKeen wrote:Also, fingersplints, you just seem to keep floating in and out making brief comments. I know you're busy, but you were far more vocal in the Zelda game when you were civvie. I'd like to get some others players thoughts on you since I don't have a plethora of past history to go on.

LizKeen has The Legend of Zelda game in mind as she is participating in this one. Look at fingersplints' posts in that game. You know what I see a lot of? Quoting and "requoting." fingersplints, whom LizKeen acknowledges was a civilian in LoZ, was doing something LizKeen was thinking just a few posts prior could be a Mafia tactic.

LizKeen wrote:MM could be bad, I'm just a little scared to put a vote there since I know (and said in an earlier post) that the mafia was going to go after an easy lynch today. On the other hand I previously said it looked like SVS was trying to avert lynching MM and if she would turn out to be bad then it would seem she's trying to help a teammate. Whichever way MM flips is going to be very telling.

If LizKeen is bad, then she already knows what the Mafia are planning to do. The underlined strikes me as trying to appear helpful without actually saying anything of substance. "The Mafia was going to go after an easy lynch today." Well, wow- do Mafia often make it their thing to go for the hard lynches? And what are easy lynches anyway?

What's even more bizarre is that LizKeen voted for Zomberella on Day 1, her reasoning being that Zomberella had outed herself somehow (outed herself as what, precisely?); yet on Day 2, LizKeen gives Zomberella this ominous warning to be careful where she votes, and that everyone should be on the lookout for easy lynches. MM got lynched almost unanimously, so what were we supposed to be looking out for?

To top it off? Both LizKeen and Zomberella missed the vote. I guess that's one way to avoid an easy lynch.

***Some of the quotes pulled in this post I trimmed for relevancy.***

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:Bass-- do you have any idea why MP made contradictory statements and didn't answer my questions? Any explanation would be nice.

Why would he have an explanation?

Actually, this reminds me of when TH replaced in for Roxy in Film Directors. Dom was suspicious of Roxy, so he essentially asked TH to reread Roxy and make a case on her (himself).

Btw, Dom was bad in that game.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:One thing that does make me possibly doubt Metalmarsh is a baddie is that he and BR have a recent history with regard to Night 1 kills of BR by MM's baddie team. BR got revenge on him in Donner Mafia, killing him as soon as she got a chance to, and I just don't know if I believe he'd be so eager to jump back into killing her on Night 1 again. I mean, he's an asshole, sure, but is he 100% a dick?

What's this?

You call MM out when he self votes, but when Black Rock gets killed, you think he'd be less than consistent?

Seems like you're trying to...*ahem*...weasel your way out of voting for MM again.

Did you kill BR to try and frame Metalmarsh? I happen to know that you and BR were in BTSC in Donner Mafia when the decision was made to kill Metalmarsh, so you are definitely "in the know" with the Night 1 Kill situation that exists between them. A perfect little seat of awareness that would give you the opportunity to frame him. And then there's the fact that you didn't even mention that situation at all after BR was nightkilled.

You knew that they have a history of Metalmarsh's baddie team killing BR on Night 1, and yet you didn't bother to bring that into the thread. I thought that you were just lightly topping up the suspicion on Metalmarsh because, like me, you thought he was Civvie and you didn't want him to be nightkilled. Your vote-train leadership negates that assumption.

I think you killed BR specifically to implicate Metalmarsh, and your lack of discussion on the connection beyond a subtle hint to those who know...

Epignosis wrote:Hahaha- and Black Rock is out Night 1. That's even funnier.

... points directly at you, trying to set up a frame-up job.

*votes Epignosis*

Metalmarsh89 wrote:MP, I think TH is bad and you should vote for him.

I also think that Epignosis is bad, Zomba is bad, and SVS and Dom could be bad.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Just a bit after this, TH asked Dom why he picked the item he did.

Turnip Head wrote:Dom, can you talk a little bit about why you chose the Promissory Note item on Day 0?

This question just seems out of the blue. Why does TH care about Dom's item, but not about anyone else's item? This smells of distancing, and a calculated form of distancing at that. blindfaeth had just accused TH about worrying about the safety of the millionaire, so TH immediately changes the subject. If he is a baddie, then what better way then to call upon a teammate. TH never followed up on the question

After this TH asked Dom a question for clarification on some of Dom's accusations and interactions.

Turnip Head wrote:Honestly Dom I got the same impression from your post that LC, rabbit, BF and Golden did, and now that you've clarified that that wasn't your intention, I actually have NO idea what you're getting at re: juliets. Asking her if she was addressing all civs by saying "us", what does that even mean, what is your point re: juliets? Your follow-up question to her makes no sense to me, but I guess I'll wait to hear juliets' response to it in any case. But it feels like you're backpedaling.

Speaking of waiting for responses, I'm still waiting on Mongoose to address my post directed towards her. Her three posts from this past day are as follows:

Mongoose wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dang it, I should have counted to 10, I feel bad for reacting emotionally now instead of rationally. :P But I'm in too deep now. VOTE ME. And stuff. BBL.

It's okay hoss, we've all been there.

Huge deadline at COB tomorrow so I am spending my afternoon break doing a Scan & Ran with you lot. Seems like typical "mountains of molehill" Day 1 shenanigans, but nothing is toooo concerning to me yet (and I sure as hell don't have anything more compelling to add other than I made a "It has proudly been 3 days since our last velociraptor accident" sign for my office door).

I'll be voting early (tomorrow)because I leave for St Pete Saturday morning for a business trip and will be gone through Tuesday.

So it sounded like she had scanned the thread, because she commented how the day's cases looked like mountains of molehills fare.

Then she replied to a post that wasn't addressed to her:

Mongoose wrote:

fingersplints wrote:Idk BR. If it was anyone other than MP I might think you were on to something, but he is so detail oriented I'm not really shocked he would have read the rules. Even I noticed that you can't have two people vote the same option and I am pretty notorious for not reading things like that carefully.
worth considering though

so bf - the TH/Bullz things are seperate from the will thing? I'm trying to get what you are saying here

I'm frankly surprised I read the instructions and am not one of the ones who voted second for one of the items. That's a welcome change.

And then she made an off-topic comment directed to the host:

Mongoose wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Hey everyone!
Since we have a little extra time today, let's have a fun game. The roles on the front page need pictures to go along with them. Please submit a picture of your role to me via PM by the end of Night 1. My favorite gets a prize. Please nothing too racist for the Celestials.

*spat out tea in laughter*

I like the qualifier of "too" racist, with the intimation being that "a little racist" is permissible.

Yet she didn't reply to my post addressed to her. For now I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she just hadn't read that far into the thread, even though her first post made it sound like she had scanned the whole thread to that point. So that's strange, but I'll withhold from further judgment until she replies to my first post and to this subsequent post.

Included in this question to Dom are some accusations against Mongoose. So at this point, it reads to me like Mongoose is TH's biggest suspect. However, Sophie later replaced Mongoose that day, so I guess it's fair that TH didn't actually vote there.

After Dom answered TH's question, TH seemed to accept his answer.

Turnip Head wrote:Fair enough Dom, I suppose that makes sense.

Then anther suspecting question for Dom.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:TH-- I'm juggling suspicions? Please-- look at how many different people BF has thrown shade at for no reason. Do you suspect BF for the same reason then? I just don't understand why suspecting 2 people (MP and BF) makes me someone who is throwing things out for no reason. I questioned juliets. Do you find it unusual for me to question people? I doubt that.
I'd rather not talk about the MP situation given the last time we did the result that ensued. I don't think we need to rehash that? Like... what else was I supposed to post? MP had a total meltdown over me asking 2 questions and didn't answer the second one. I felt responsible for MP's meltdown. I don't want to explore it again?

I don't think you questioning people is unusual (thanks for answering for me before I replied though :P ), but questioning juliets specifically, about that specific thing? I did think that was a little over the top. It felt like a normal juliets thing to say and I thought you would have agreed with me on that point.

Fair enough about MP.

If it makes you feel any better-- I was satisfied with juliets answer.

But all her answer did was confirm that she was talking about the civs... which is what I thought you were suspicious of her for?

Followed by another accepting answer by TH.

Turnip Head wrote:Gotchya Dom. Okay.

It looks like TH is trying to set himself up for a vote for Dom, but he continues to back off and accept Dom's responses.

S~V~S wrote:I don't think TH is on a team with Epignosis at all. And I have no opinion of Dom at all and that scares the checkout of me tbh.

MovingPictures07 wrote:By just saying "oh we already talked about that keep reading"

Canucklehead wrote:Is anyone feeling leery about Dom? He's got that BUTTY/snappy quality to his posts this game that reminds me of Film Directors. He was a bad baddie then, and It pinged me in that game, too, but he assured me (and I gullibly beleived him) that it was b/c of real life busyness and mafia exhaustion.....
But now that I'm seeing it again, I'm feeling cautious about it. I seem to remember Dom being one of the funnier/jokier players of the old crew....so maybe I just don't know how to rea new Dom? I dunno, but is like to hear others' thoughts before I dig too hard into Dom as a suspect.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Another note I should add, TH accused LC of voting for me on Day 1 instead of blindfaeth, even though blindfaeth was the "obvious" lynch choice at the time, and we should be wary of voting the millionaire. blindfaeth was leading the lynch 5-1 at the time. Yet TH voted for you, when you had zero votes, even though blindfaeth was the "obvious" lynch choice. blindfaeth was leading the lynch 7-3 at the time.

Being wary of voting the millionaire is all well and good, but if we're too wary of it we'll never lynch him.

Just so we're clear, it was TH's recommendation to avoid voting the millionaire unless we are actually lynching him (how we would know, I have no idea). I realize I worded ambiguously though.

And I want to mention it again, that even though TH is 'worried' about voting for the millionaire, he voted for Dom, even though Dom was clearly not going to be lynched. TH, if you REALLY think that Dom is bad, why did it not cross your mind that he could be the millionaire, and your vote did more harm then good?

I know that right now you think I am the millionaire, but at the time of your vote, that was definitely not the case.

Long Con wrote:Vompatti is the lowest- laying player I have seen, and I've been finding it hard to get a handle on him. He makes me suspicious, but he always does. It's like an extended day one self-vote, watching him play.

MP is kind of suspicious, especially now that we have seen that he pulled the emotional card as a baddie to get out of trouble.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Zomba's behavior has nothing to do with blindfaeth's behavior. I'm not sure why you're making that comparison.

By that logic, my behavior has nothing to do with Long Con's behavior, which you are trying to draw a connection to.

Zombarella wrote:Today it would be cool to hear more from:

Shep, Bea, A Person, MP, Liz Keen, Sophie, and Eloh.

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.

Turnip Head wrote:I think MM is the Millionaire, and I think Con is in on it.

MM's self vote feels opportunistic, coming on the heels of two other self-votes, a full 48 hours before lynch deadline. He didn't show up in the thread at all until I called him out, 48 hours after the game had started. After his self-vote, he continued posting, but not with much frequency. And then he suddenly became outspoken during the Night phase. Something's rotten in the state of Marsh.

Despite the fact that LC was suspicious of BF, he voted for MM well after it was clear the lynch was heading BF's direction, which makes it seem disingenuous to me. In that scenario, LC should have voted for a player he was suspicious of with the most votes, due to the presence of the Millionaire, meaning he should have voted BF if he was legitimately suspicious of him.

[LC QUOTE]

So you're speculating about Celestial business, while casually implying that you could be a Celestial by your item choice. Seems legit.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Honestly, if I were Reed, I'd be trying to gather just enough suspicion that I'm getting one or two people voting for me every day. But then again, I'm not Reed so idk if that's the strategy he/she is using.

Turnip Head wrote:

Long Con wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Black Rock is dead. That's why.

Aw, if my linkitis worked I would not have entered that quasi-humourous non-committal answer.

What would you have entered if it had worked?

Well, with the actual answer just flat-out posted already, I would have neither posted the coy jokey answer nor the real one... I would have deleted that post altogether.

In other words, LC was waiting patiently to deploy his "I would never kill BR on night 1" defense in just the right way.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Hahaha- and Black Rock is out Night 1. That's even funnier.

I see what you did there.

rabbit, what do you think of TH and Epig right now? They were oddly in sync last night, and they are at it again today.

Zombarella wrote:

Zombarella wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:How many degrees are in a triangle?

180

Unless it's not Euclidian geometry. In spherical geometry a triangle can have more than 180 degrees - like 90, 90, 45. In taxicab geometry a triangle looks like a step pyramid and have hundreds and hundreds of degrees.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Here is something that caught my eye today. First we have blindfaeth's original revelation that regarding the will.


Now this post doesn't match up with blindfaeth's statement. blindfaeth suggested he would inherit "a large sum of money". SVS stated that she would inherit "everything she has". SVS then confirmed that the "everything" meant items.

If SVS is on Zomba's team, this is a perfect result. SVS now has the will, and can manipulate its content to the rest of us if she wants.

If SVS is a civvie, I feel that events would have unfolded differently. Would she have voted for an "infodropper" early and before everyone else?

Golden wrote:I do not think I created 'suspicion' around the comment, no. You think I did. I disagree. I don't think rabbit and my intent was any different. I think you chose to read different intent in by the way we phrased it. This is you choosing to have an opinion about what I meant. Just like I'm choosing to have an opinion about what you meant.

I think YOU created suspicion around my comment. Honestly, I wasn't doing anything but simply saying the statement pinged me, and not that much. It's your reaction to it which has led to this big conversation.

I have never acted like you didn't clarify. All I've said is that I'm suspicious of the statement itself, because I believe you can clarify it whatever way you like, but the original statement itself is still meaningless - the kind of statement one makes to put suspicion on someone else without ever getting real data back. I believe your clarification could be true. I also believe it could be false. Either way, I agree that your statement has literally zero bearing on my suspicion of you, because I think its what a civ would say in the situation, and what a baddie would say in the situation. Do you get what I'm saying there? In that sense, yes, I see your clarification as worthless to my own suspicion. But I did not pay it no mind. I expressly said on at least two occasions that I did not think your clarification altered my ping either way. This is what I mean when I said 'nothing you can say would alter my original ping'... literally you would say the same thing if you were good or bad.

Of much more interest to me was the overall tone and approach of your reaction. Saying things like you did in your last post... 'you are leaving things out for your own benefit'... that kind of stuff. Calling me a liar, but still not pulling what my apparent lie is even when I challenge you on it. Saying I've said I don't care, when I've actually tried to get you to present answers to me but all you do is go at me, with a lot of words but not a lot of content.

Long Con wrote:I voted Archer Ave because maybe my Ivory Arrow will become cool.

Dom, I think that you have explained yourself sufficiently, and there is still a ping on you from it.

For all I know, I could have been absolutely right about your intentions with the "us" comment, and you're a baddie, and you came up with a very reasonable explanation for the whole exchange. It's not like that's not within your mental capabilities. The explanation was sound, but that doesn't make the original ping get deleted.

I find that the earliest thing people say on a subject is the most useful, because after it happens, explanations and excuses swirl and form that could be fake or real. You can talk your way out of anything, and that's something important to remember.

Golden wrote: Unless there are some facts I'm missing that you don't think I'm taking into account - like, not your opinion about what you meant when you made the JC post, but actual facts? In which case - tell them to me and I'll listen.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:
@dom - Do you read mine? Because, the starting point of my suspicion of you was when you didn't, and tried to stir up more heat on me (when I already had it from other sources) without reading my posts properly. I find you suspicious for the call you made on JC. I can keep saying it all day if you like. I didn't find it overly suspicious, but I never said I did. Nothing you can possibly ever say will make me take back that I found it suspicious. The only thing you can do is to continue to make me think your overdefensiveness is the sign of someone who didn't like to be called out for something they don't feel they did, but know that the ultimate truth is still the same - the Aces defence, if you want a recent example.

You didn't find my overly suspicious but wanted to vote me?
Nothing I could say could change your suspicion of me that is based on things that did not happen?
Sounds like you are #1) a liar and #2) someone who does not hold high regard for facts.

I don't think I could say anything to you. You'd twist it into a suspicion of me for no reason whatsoever other than I suspect Blindfaeth because you two have apparently decided whose opinions matter and whose do not in a game about opinions. You two have said that you trust each other, that you do not care what anyone else thinks. Please, do tell, how the hell anyone is supposed to have a discussion with that?

Yaeh, I do want to know how I'm supposed to have a discussion with someone who keeps calling me a liar and saying I don't care what you think. And accuses me of not being able to read their posts when clearly they don't read mine... or choose to twist them.

I do care what you think, Dom. I'm listening to every word you say. Unfortunately, right now, every word you say is telling me that you are pissed at me for suspecting you, and you don't think I have a right to. I do have a right to. You might be better off looking at your own actions and recognising that, actually, they did look a little hinky. You might be better off realising that, actually, someone might suspect you for it. But you would definitely be better off realising that you are calling me out for making an 'assumption'... that near everyone else made too... while you are busy assuming things about me.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:There is no way we're both right because both Blindfaeth and Golden have decided I am bad (I am not) on shaky (at best) presumptions they have made. These presumptions are essentially outright lies. I seem to be the only one calling them on this. Tell me, Bea, am I only analytical when I am on a team?

It's very frustrating to talk to a pair of people who have literally said they do not care what anyone else thinks. It's also very frustrating to try and point out why someone is wrong when they literally say, "Nothing you could say could change my mind" when their mind was made up on an incorrect supposition.

How can you not see why I think you are bad when you say stuff like this:

You call ME a liar just for making an presumption while ACTUALLY lying about what I've said. I've never said I don't care what you think.

I have said 'nothing you can say can change the fact your question to JC looks suspicious'. Yes, because it can't. You made that comment, it pinged me, thats that. All you can do is choose how you play the rest of the game. A ping is a ping. I never lose sight of what has pinged me. I have never said 'nothing you could do could make me change my mind about your alignment', and that would be frankly ridiculous.

This game is about making suppositions, to figure out who is bad, I don't know why you are having so much of a problem with that.

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:

bea wrote:Golden - I know you are getting the drfunk bea you've missed so much -but isn't what I'm saying logical? Maybe? Just maybe? it wasn't the best move for BF to make. Maybe- just maybe - he should have kept his info to himself - instead of painting a target on someone (zombra ) who has a 50/50 chance of being a civ. As well as anyone who would inherit his will post his demise. If BF is a civ - he's painted a target on two other potential civs. On Day 1. How is that logical "civ" game play?

Your perspective absolutely is logical, bea. Which is why I hoped bf would survive, and some unknown civvie would steal the will from him. But I don't think two opposing points of view can't both be logical. I think bfs move was risky, but I also think it was logical.

Anyway, now that he is a proven civ, I guess that's easy for me to say! So, I'll just move on from my defence of bfs move and say... Once again I think some unknown civ should steal the will from svs tonight, so that there is no longer a target associated with the will (other than on zombra...)

It's pretty clear bf played it wrong in hindsight, but at the time I would have done the same, I think.

Does the will really matter any more at this point? Unless BF lied about what it said, we already know everything about it, right?

Bullzeye wrote:A lot of people are way too quiet for my liking in this game... I think I'll random between the most silent and give them a vote to wake them up.

blindfaeth wrote:Don't be sorry, please pile on the votes, I would rather die than talk to walls

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote:What would be interesting is if she really was the Millionaire. Then by mentioning her name, BF would be getting her votes, but her lynch is far from a done deal. He did not mention her name until he had several votes. So if she is that role, BF would actually be helping her get some votes, which her role could use if she is not lynched. And if she was lynched, he would get tons of cred.

When life hands you lemons, make lemonade, right?

maybe... something to think about for sure.

Shouldn't BF have voted for her in that case? Zomberella's response also made me feel like he definitely didn't have her permission to do this :P

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:zomb hasn't played all that much right

She's a few games in and knows what she's doing.

Has she been "outed" yet?

Outed? almost. She tried to claim a role and I called her a liar.

S~V~S wrote:What would be interesting is if she really was the Millionaire. Then by mentioning her name, BF would be getting her votes, but her lynch is far from a done deal. He did not mention her name until he had several votes. So if she is that role, BF would actually be helping her get some votes, which her role could use if she is not lynched. And if she was lynched, he would get tons of cred.

When life hands you lemons, make lemonade, right?

Black Rock wrote:

Dom wrote:zomb hasn't played all that much right

She's a few games in and knows what she's doing.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:TH-- I'm juggling suspicions? Please-- look at how many different people BF has thrown shade at for no reason. Do you suspect BF for the same reason then? I just don't understand why suspecting 2 people (MP and BF) makes me someone who is throwing things out for no reason. I questioned juliets. Do you find it unusual for me to question people? I doubt that.
I'd rather not talk about the MP situation given the last time we did the result that ensued. I don't think we need to rehash that? Like... what else was I supposed to post? MP had a total meltdown over me asking 2 questions and didn't answer the second one. I felt responsible for MP's meltdown. I don't want to explore it again?

I don't think you questioning people is unusual (thanks for answering for me before I replied though :P ), but questioning juliets specifically, about that specific thing? I did think that was a little over the top. It felt like a normal juliets thing to say and I thought you would have agreed with me on that point.

Fair enough about MP.

If it makes you feel any better-- I was satisfied with juliets answer.

But all her answer did was confirm that she was talking about the civs... which is what I thought you were suspicious of her for?

juliets wrote:

Dom wrote: "us"?

us = others playing the game that feel the same way I do.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Epig said it before, it was convenient for BF that the "name" on the will was someone who hadn't been around to discuss or defend herself. BF pointed it out as baddie behavior, but I feel like we already know why Zomba wasn't around, and it speaks nothing of alignment. And on that note, I didn't post at all until about the same time Zomba did, and nobody's pointing fingers at me for it.

I would find it more believable that the player's role name would be listed on the will rather than the player name.

Linki: Hi Bullzeye.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

juliets wrote:Thats an interesting thought MM. But wouldn't that only be profitable if SVS were bad?

Nono, I was refering to Zomba and BF in this case. I was just responding to SVS's post.

juliets wrote:

Dom wrote:

juliets wrote:Thats an interesting thought MM. But wouldn't that only be profitable if SVS were bad?

I don't think, at this point,we have baddie SVS-- do you?

No I don't at all. Which makes that idea for me a non-starter.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:TH-- I'm juggling suspicions? Please-- look at how many different people BF has thrown shade at for no reason. Do you suspect BF for the same reason then? I just don't understand why suspecting 2 people (MP and BF) makes me someone who is throwing things out for no reason. I questioned juliets. Do you find it unusual for me to question people? I doubt that.
I'd rather not talk about the MP situation given the last time we did the result that ensued. I don't think we need to rehash that? Like... what else was I supposed to post? MP had a total meltdown over me asking 2 questions and didn't answer the second one. I felt responsible for MP's meltdown. I don't want to explore it again?

I don't think you questioning people is unusual (thanks for answering for me before I replied though :P ), but questioning juliets specifically, about that specific thing? I did think that was a little over the top. It felt like a normal juliets thing to say and I thought you would have agreed with me on that point.

Fair enough about MP.

juliets wrote:Thats an interesting thought MM. But wouldn't that only be profitable if SVS were bad?

bea wrote:Dom - do you think Golden might be bad? or are you just super defensive because he suspects you? Is there any way you could see him as misguided?
I feel you being super defensive - because you are feeling attacked. - I'd like your input as to where you think these attacks are coming from. Is there any way you think you both might be right but just not seeing the other side of the coin?

(this btw - was the post I should have prolly made to MP in the time we don't talk about - I'm sorry for handling that poorly - but I was really trying to get to the same thing as I am here)

Sophie wrote:Hi everyone !
This game looks fun

So, im doing a long distance trip to my hometown today, by bus, so you are gonna have to be pwtient yo me until at least tomorrow, where i start the cqtch up. Ill be less busy after wednesday, but i will try to catch up anyway this weekend. Just want a bitb of patience the first couple of days.

Im glad im playing again

Golden wrote:
@dom - Do you read mine? Because, the starting point of my suspicion of you was when you didn't, and tried to stir up more heat on me (when I already had it from other sources) without reading my posts properly. I find you suspicious for the call you made on JC. I can keep saying it all day if you like. I didn't find it overly suspicious, but I never said I did. Nothing you can possibly ever say will make me take back that I found it suspicious. The only thing you can do is to continue to make me think your overdefensiveness is the sign of someone who didn't like to be called out for something they don't feel they did, but know that the ultimate truth is still the same - the Aces defence, if you want a recent example.

blindfaeth wrote:

Golden wrote: @dom - Do you read mine? Because, the starting point of my suspicion of you was when you didn't, and tried to stir up more heat on me (when I already had it from other sources) without reading my posts properly. I find you suspicious for the call you made on JC. I can keep saying it all day if you like. I didn't find it overly suspicious, but I never said I did. Nothing you can possibly ever say will make me take back that I found it suspicious. The only thing you can do is to continue to make me think your overdefensiveness is the sign of someone who didn't like to be called out for something they don't feel they did, but know that the ultimate truth is still the same - the Aces defence, if you want a recent example.

This.

He's already made two posts calling me nonsensical and saying I don't know his game at all, even though I'm basically refusing to respond directly to "brick wall number 2" - or is it 3? Anyway, why is he so worried about my opinion? I think it could be because he knows I'll flip civ.

Golden wrote:I didn't 'run with it' and I didn't 'present my anything as fact'.

All I did was stated that you got my eye for it. Once. It's you who has run with it.

As for the first one - go read the thread. I said the reason I hadn't responded to you was because you were linki and I had to run for work. But anyway, why would I respond specifically to you when all you did was said, essentially, 'yeah golden, what the other person said'... why would I not just answer the first person?

And honestly - I don't need to make you 'look' bad for it. I think the reaction of the thread tells you all you need to know, frankly. You did look bad for it. But your reaction is the kind of thing I look for which I find, frankly, to be much MORE indicative of a baddie... blowing everything well out of proportion.

As I said - it's VERY easy of you to claim a particular interpretation now, after everyone has 'misinterpreted' it. Which I don't think I actually did misinterpret it. I think, in fact, your interpretation is the very one I was thinking when I gave you the eye. I know LC stated 'JC's us meaning the baddie team'... but you just got me eye for calling JC up on it at all. Because I don't think there is anything about it which is possibly indicative of someone playing a baddie game, and I don't buy it when you say it fits a pattern of what you have observed as typical baddie behaviour.

Everyone says 'we' and 'us'. It's normal.

blindfaeth wrote:Oh well, if people are interested in lynching me I suppose I'll share what I know. At least if I die, SVS won't be able to lie to you about whose will it is. It is Zomberellas will. The reason I did not come after her in the thread as many of you suggested is because she was literally absent for so long. Which I think is oddly convenient, but whatever. Final thoughts, I think dom is bad, he's only analytical like this when he has a team. I think epi and bills are bad. Think SVS is misguided. Good luck

Golden wrote:Dom - anyone who tries to trip someone up on minutiae looks bad to me.

You would say 'us' as civilian, or as mafia.

I said it pinged me, because it pinged me. Frankly - when basically every single person in the thread saw it the same way - I think you might realise that actually it looked a bit sus.

I have no control over what bf comes into the thread and says after me. You got my eye for it - you still do have my eye for it. I think baddies like to ask questions that look like they are trying to trip people up but in reality have absolutely no value.

You can, later on, decide to interpret that question whichever way suits you.

It's not a massive ping for me, I was simply stating that it caught my eye. It was the second thing that caught my eye - after you asked me why I hadn't responded to a post that I had (two) just before my third ping on you - that you called me and bf out (the people with heat in the thread) but not rabbit.

If I hadn't thrown my vote away, I'd be looking very strongly at a vote for you.

Golden wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:^^I think that's what Dom was getting at. But that's a streeeeeeeeeetch.

So, Dom, did you just choose to ignore the post right before mine? Rabbits one right there ^ ??

I do not know what you mean by 'I did not seem to care'. I just spoke my mind about what I saw. I do care if I am right or wrong.

Turnip Head wrote:Honestly Dom I got the same impression from your post that LC, rabbit, BF and Golden did, and now that you've clarified that that wasn't your intention, I actually have NO idea what you're getting at re: juliets. Asking her if she was addressing all civs by saying "us", what does that even mean, what is your point re: juliets? Your follow-up question to her makes no sense to me, but I guess I'll wait to hear juliets' response to it in any case. But it feels like you're backpedaling.

Golden wrote:Dom, sorry, what evidence am I supposed to have behind me?

It did sound as though you were asking JC if 'us' was her and her baddie team - to me. It sounded like you were calling her out for it.