The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:You forgot an important step: Make sure the role checker says something sketchy about you, so that a baddie will harp on it all game thinking you'll eventually be an easy lynch.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Also, I officially can't read Long Con or Dom, let it be known.

We knew that.

DrWilgy wrote:
Dom wrote:I had targeted Mac that night.
What was your action order Dom?

I didn't accept until late.

I checked JJJ and the he died.
I checked LC, but got Juliets
I checked Mac, but died.

I had targeted Mac that night.

DH, your team killed me, right?

Good game, all! I had lots of fun-- even if I did a rather bad job at being a role checker.

go civs

LoRab, I appreciate teh piano humor

Matt wrote:Rico - I can't disagree IF Boom turned up mafia that it would look funny on me. However, I really don't think he's bad. I'm genuinely defending the guy here, and I can't believe so many of you refuse to entertain this option ('cept MM).

Dom - So how did you take his posts to mean, then? What do you think he was getting at with what he was saying?

I don't know Matt... maybe that he's a lying baddie. Maybe he aws just mistaken. I didn't know I needed to make a solid decision on your watch.

Matt wrote:Rico, you went from "not entirely dismissable" to "bullcrap" pretty quick there. I'm starting to wonder if LC is right about you.

Dom - Did you read Boomslang's posts after LC's flip? What did you take them to mean, if not btsc checker?

I did.

I'm not as convinced as you seem to be.

Like we're assuming quite a bit with that theory to just leave boomslang alone.

Matt wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Matt wrote:Hmm. To everyone who says "Well Boom didn't know if it was civ btsc, so I don't understand why he went so hard after Long Con"...are you all purposely forgetting that Tranq had just died, and we had found out he was Golden's civ btsc buddy? With knowledge that a civ btsc team was dead, don't you think, from Boom's perspective, that it would be highly unlikely there were two civ btsc teams?

FZ - You didn't answer my question. What was up with you trying to link me and Long Con at the last second of his lynch? Had you suspected me prior to that? Just felt super sketchy IMO.
Except Long Con was never part of a "team". He was a civ with the ability to reach out to anyone.
Long Con's role is irrelevant. What I'm saying is, with knowledge that a civ btsc team is dead, if Boom checked Long Con and got a positive on btsc, wouldn't you, if in that position, believe that LC was more then likely bad?

You're running far with this one.

Sorsha wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think LC is bad too, but he pointed out that HBoy called him a civ, so I think there is some room for doubt.

Why don't we just lynch someone else today and see if Boomslang changes his tune tomorrow?
So you don't consider that maybe HB was wrong, hid behind LC the night he died and LC's bad and was the reason for HB dying?

HB's last rainbow list has LoRab in light green I'd like to add..... And Tranq, jjj and BlackRock (and me) in orange so I'm not sure how leaning on HB's reads of people should be evidence of anything for anyone.

This is interesting. The highest reads would likely indicate civs. The lowest don't indicate any knowledge that HB might have had. Your dismissal of HB in general because of this is telling, perhaps.

FZ. of the LC voters, who do you think looks the worst? Who looks worse to you: Boom, MM, or Draco? Does MM's last minute vote for LC read as neutral to you?

Ricochet wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Ricochet wrote:lol DH voted position 1
Pretty sure thats a 5.
Again, pretty sure position 5 is the name of position 1. The Hosts are doing it for funsies.

Notice the poll title doesn't say Choose a position. It says nothing except This is your poll for tonight. The options are called...

The positions behind the options can still be 1 to 5.

How do y'all u know

You think MM sounds remotely upset?

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.

BS.

Matt wrote:RIP Long Con

I'm so sorry I missed the vote everyone. I went out with friends earlier thinking I'd be back home by poll time, but we ended up hangin' out for longer then expected. Probably would've voted Boom over Long Con, too, so again, super sorry.

FZ - Do you think I'm bad? I noticed in one of your last posts, you said something to the effect of "Maybe Long Con and Matt cooked up this plan that Boomslang was cursed to save Long Con", and that was pretty out of nowhere.

Boomslang - Ummm if Boom were to be lynched and ended up bad, this might look bad for me haha, but I do want to bring up a possibility...

I believe I've heard of a "btsc checker" role in some games, and for all we know, Boom is that role, checked LC, and got a positive. Boom even said beforehand he wasn't 100%, but he felt good about it. That screams btsc check to me. Does anyone else think this is possible?

Anyway, sorry for missing the vote. Derp.

-_-

Reeks.

But hey-- MM said HB killed himself to show I'm bad.

I don't know about you guys, but I never bought the narrative that Marsh is *neutral*. I suggest you all find your receipts and head to the nearest customer service desk.

I'm sorry for missing the vote. Class ran late. Rehearsal starts at 8:30. It's tech week. I screwed up.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:@dom, you answered your own question. You asked what evidence I've brought forth, and you followed it up with the evidence I've brought forth.

You also stated a suspect list with my name on it. Ok, what is your case against me?

I know you're not happy that I've claimed neutral, yet am suddenly casing you. Whether such actions would benefit me or not are is my own problem. You can't decide that for me. You can decide whether to believe my claim, but based what you have said since that point, I have no reason to see that you don't believe me.
....I literally have argued that you aren't behaving like I'd expect you to if you were truly neutral. I posted about it a lot. Selective memory or bad?
Can't tell.
Yes I understand that. Can you explain that mindset from a baddie perspective?
...Yes.... and I have been....

I think you are a baddie who thought they found an easy lynch.
No you haven't.

You haven't offered a counter-argument to my HamburgerBoy suggestion either. Leaving aside whether HBoy wanted to suicide or not, HBoy (probably) hid behind a baddie the night he died. That's a reasonable assumption. I also believe he would have hinted about it the night before he died too, so in case he died, we would know who to look at.

I think you are the most likely person to fit this scenario. Do you disagree? If you do disagree with this statement, I want to see a name of another person Hamburgerboy may have hidden behind, and why.

YEs I did.
And I think your HBBoy shit is stupid and wrong. HB did not hide behind someone he vehemently thought was bad only to die. He didn't hide behind me, and I'm not bad.

So....

I'll check in after class.

You trust FZ, but not the person who "dumped info" so you voted there? :brow:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:@dom, you answered your own question. You asked what evidence I've brought forth, and you followed it up with the evidence I've brought forth.

You also stated a suspect list with my name on it. Ok, what is your case against me?

I know you're not happy that I've claimed neutral, yet am suddenly casing you. Whether such actions would benefit me or not are is my own problem. You can't decide that for me. You can decide whether to believe my claim, but based what you have said since that point, I have no reason to see that you don't believe me.
....I literally have argued that you aren't behaving like I'd expect you to if you were truly neutral. I posted about it a lot. Selective memory or bad?
Can't tell.
Yes I understand that. Can you explain that mindset from a baddie perspective?

...Yes.... and I have been....

I think you are a baddie who thought they found an easy lynch.

Juliets, you can add her to my list of people of unsubstantiated claims against me.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:@dom, you answered your own question. You asked what evidence I've brought forth, and you followed it up with the evidence I've brought forth.

You also stated a suspect list with my name on it. Ok, what is your case against me?

I know you're not happy that I've claimed neutral, yet am suddenly casing you. Whether such actions would benefit me or not are is my own problem. You can't decide that for me. You can decide whether to believe my claim, but based what you have said since that point, I have no reason to see that you don't believe me.

....I literally have argued that you aren't behaving like I'd expect you to if you were truly neutral. I posted about it a lot. Selective memory or bad?
Can't tell.

FZ. wrote:I'm wondering if this is just me being paranoid, but way before Tranq was lynched, when we were all debating whether Tranq's behaviour is a baddie indication, Mac said he is going to play like that in future games and skate through the game. Is it possible he's trying that as a baddie now?

Linki: Okay, it makes some sense. That said, I thought that if he was forced, the one post was enough to make it clear it wasn't his own choice, but when he came back with more, it made me doubt that. Can someone make him keep posting to convince us? Usually, when you're forced to vote for someone else, it's not like that.

I agree with your point on Mac.

FZ. wrote:Okay, first of all, the hosts cleared it. Let's say I have reason to believe at day 3.0, JJJ's vote was worth 0 and Sorsha's was worth 0 last day. My lapse in judgement after the aftermath of last day was because he voted for Tranq who when I left had believed like me, that he was good. I thought that JJJ might have voted Lorab on day 3.0 but not on day 3.5 because his vote wasn't worth anything, and that Sorsha voted jjj for the same reason. I wanted to share this, but it turns out I was wrong. I now think that Sorsha, unless there really are two teams, had no reason to vote for him and make herself look worse if he were lynched.

Dom, per your question, I don't know whether Zebra's team killed or not. That's why I asked if LC thought it was her group or the other who killed.

I interpreted your original statement differently. But that makes sense as well.

Long Con wrote:I haven't taken a look at him, but I agree that it's hard to vote for a more inactive player when there are very likely active baddies posting all around us. He could be bad, it's impossible to tell.

Dom, it's really easy to see you as a baddie, in this light: You have played a careful game, but people are getting a gut feel that you are bad. You believe that there is nothing solid to incriminate you on, BECAUSE you have played a very tight game. Maybe too tight, maybe too careful, maybe that's what people are picking up on. What I'm getting at is that my main memory of your posts is about you insisting that there's no case to be made against you. It's realistic to me, in a general way and having played with you for years, that a baddie Dom would focus on "If you can't find solid evidence I'm bad, then your negative opinion of me has no merit", which is an angle that you have been pushing hard.

I believe you would react this way as a baddie who believes he has played a very tight game, just as planned. I feel it moreso as Dom-baddie than Dom-Civvie. Correct me if I'm wrong, but have you even been first, second, or even third lynch candidate on any day?

LC, I don't think it's hard to make the case that I could be bad-- it's wrong, but there is a case to be made. I effed up with LoRab. That was the wrong call and it made me look bad. No one expressing suspicion of me is making that case. I would be okay with that case and admit it is less than glorifying. However, no one is actually making that case.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote:#1) Wilgy
#2) Metalmarsh
#3) Mac
#4) Boomslang

None have given substantiated reasons to vote or suspect me.
Don't misrepresent me. My reasoning was not unsubstantiated. If anything, it's (imo) the most evidence-based case brought forth today.

Who are you looking to vote today Dom? You've done far more work undermining those who have suspected you then you have done baddie-hunting.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5
Example 6

Dom wrote:
Dom wrote:This is why I hate the concept of GTH reads. People now use them as reasons to vote.
To clarify-- I like them for a quick read, but people who are otherwise not contributing are now using htem to say they are.
You immediately dismissed mine yesterday. I offered them at Jay's request, mainly because I thought I was going to be lynched. This statement doesn't fit with that mindset.

MM, what evidence have you brought forth?
The only "evidence" you have cited is based on previous game play (vague references, nothing specific) and HB being suicidal (unlikely imo).

Anyway, I have listed suspects: Mac, MM, Matt.
Wilgy just earned a spot on that list because of his last post as well.

Ricochet wrote: It was probably uninspired of Boom to call GTH what merely count as, at best, his gut reads on everyone. A sort of rainbowless list, if you will. GTH usually works in collective, as to try to track if maybe someone's obviously holding back from nominating teamies as scum or doesn't have a clear balanced vision of who is good and who is not... again I'm not the best person to explain these mechanics.

I understand what the intention of a GTH is, but it is seldom used to that affect.

DrWilgy wrote:Can Tranq's and JJJ's roles be put on the front page?

... you have time to worry about this, but not give a single reason why you suspect me?

Are you BTSC mates wondering something about Tranq and JJJ?

FZ. wrote:
Long Con wrote:
FZ. wrote:I already explained that based on something i knew regarding their vote (value), I thought maybe I was wrong all along, which is what I wanted to share.
Can you elaborate more on this? JJJ's vote value? What do you know?
I'm waiting for an approval from the hosts to discuss this.

As for your two team theory, so you think the other team killed jjj? So am I on zebra's team, or is that the other team? This is reaching

Why did you vote Mac last day? Sorry, I didn't catxh up on that part

FZ, how do you know Zebra's team didn't kill JJJ?

Wow... that's.... a good point.

It gives an illusion of substance to posts.

Dom wrote:This is why I hate the concept of GTH reads. People now use them as reasons to vote.

To clarify-- I like them for a quick read, but people who are otherwise not contributing are now using htem to say they are.

This is why I hate the concept of GTH reads. People now use them as reasons to vote.

#1) Wilgy
#2) Metalmarsh
#3) Mac
#4) Boomslang

None have given substantiated reasons to vote or suspect me.

Boomslang wrote: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

W H Y

FZ. wrote: Dom, I'm not sold on you, I just feel the worst about you.

In what way did my defense of jjj not sit well with you? I strongly defended him, and at the time, you all said it was because we were baddies working together. Now that he's a confirmed civ, I must have buddied up to him because I'm bad. I did my damnedest to make sure you all don't lynch him because that's what I do when I believe people are civvies. I think you've played enough games with me to know that by now. Hell yes, confirmation bias. When one theory (both of us being bad) doesn't work, you keep your conviction of me being bad at check by getting another one (me buddying up to him).

I guess I consider both you and LC to be intelligent players and I can't figure out why you didn't see in JJJ what I saw, and now are viewing me as bad as well. I figure at least LC had a decent reason with his Kubrick theory, but I felt you were just latching. Then again, I think a good baddie would come up with really reasonable reasons to lynch civvies, and I know LC is a good player. I'm really stuck with you two.

As for Mac, I get what you're saying, and I think we all see it. Would he be that obvious about it if he were bad? Possibly, but I hesitate

I just didn't think your tone read as genuine. I admitted confirmation bias might be tinting my vision, but something seems off.

LC wasn't alone in his Kubrick theory. LC fleshed out a theory earlier than that as well.

FZ, why is it suspicious that I wanted to know why people are suspecting me? How is that bad? Why does that indicate bad-ness?

Would Mac be that obvious? Maybe. No one's voting him.

MacDougall wrote:You associate those things with me as bad but if you played TH you'd associate them with me as scum too.

I don't want to have to point to my meta to defend myself. It's poor form. That misplaced smiley you put in that post up there is actually this imo.

Yet again you don't say why you suspect me.

Anyway, that first sentence doesn't make sense.

MAc, here are some recent posts that prove you are either manipulating people into thinking I'm trying to get by without content or you aren't reading the thread.

MacDougall wrote:I think LC is civ. He's a pretty strong civ read actually.

What took you so long to start no uing me Matt?

I mean in honour of JJJ because he scum read you and big upped my vote on you yesterday.

Dom do you make posts that aren't just asking people questions about other people? What's your stance on my "subdued game".

Maybe you should read my posts and you'd see the answer to that. I made quite a few on the last few pages.

Where's the content you're so proud of usually? Where's the boasting about your post count? Where's the taunting others? These are all things I've associated with you as a civvie and I'm seeing none of it.

I don't know if the NO U is directed at me or not, but it's not a NO U. I've explained why I don't trust either one of you separately from your own accusations of me.

MacDougall wrote:
Matt wrote:Rico/Sorsha - LC (I think?) and I discussed this, and I think we came to the conclusion that Radical Fuzz was definitely one of his checks, due to Fuzz being top green on his list directly after one of the night phases.

Is anyone searching for Pikmin? I searched for about 5 minutes the other day, and felt like it was trying to find a needle in a haystack. Derp. Maybe if the town got clues like Black Rock did?

Question for anyone who plays a lot with Blooper - Is she typically a rule breaker? Weird question, I know, please bare with me, and answer whether she is known to break/bend rules.

Linki - 3J didn't scum read me. I'm pretty sure he had me as neutral or civ. I also think LC is civ, which is why I don't understand why he seemed to defend you the other night by flipping the Lorab question back at me.

Mac, who do you think is bad this game? Besides me, of course.
Juliets, Dom, Boomslang

This is a new one-- when did I become bad??
Add Mac to the list of people suspecting me without saying why!

Mac has skated by for days after opening strong. Zero chance that wasn't planned.

FZ. wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
FZ. wrote:I've been back and forth with DH the entire game. In the last few days, I don't recall him being helpful. Saying I don't feel like I did in Death Note is his entire contribution. And when I think of why would someone kill JJJ, he has the best reason because JJJ called him bad in the day before the last. It also drives the game into chaos because as you see, the attention shifts between those who trusted jjj and those who strongly suspected him. Takes the discussion away from people like DH.
I haven't really been pinged by much that DH did but you're right in that he's quietened down. But I have too so that'd be being hypocritical of me...

I must say though, you look pretty civ.
I think i'm an obvious civ...but what does it say about LC when he's suspicious of me. I just don't get it.

I'm not LC, but your defense of JJJ (despite being right) did not sit well with me-- now I interpret it as buddying-- thought, that coul dbe confirmation bias working against me.

What makes you think I'm buddying with LC? How do you know that that is a possible scenario? Why do you exclude LC buddying me? I get your language analysis, but you don't even attempt to see it the other way. Aren't you one of the people that say civs are usually not so close minded? Or am I wrong about that (and I could be)?

LC, what do you make of Mac and his subdued game?

Juliets, my gut says trust LC, my head says be wary of LC. Where do you stand?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote: Day 3?
Okay.
This is so desperate.
Why is this desperate?
Hey everyone, is Day 3 early in a game of 30 people?
Dom, you aren't very good at answering questions directly (if at all). Why do you act so incredulous when people don't answer yours?

Can you offer an alternative to a player that Hamburgerboy might have hidden behind?

Also Rico, I will do some research on your question when I get the chance. I've written that in my notebook.

Because you're the one answering my questions with questions, my friend.

Day 3 is very early in the game and does not meet your qualifications of not doing so early. I don't have to offer you an alternative. That's ridiculous.

How can you be serious?

Holy posts Rico.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote: Day 3?
Okay.
This is so desperate.
Why is this desperate?

Hey everyone, is Day 3 early in a game of 30 people?

DrWilgy wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:So... MM is an independent... Last time I was "indy" I rode to end game and won as mafia... But marmot is my friend. I will not vote for him.
You seem to be riding along the phases now as well. What does that make you, this time?
Someone who has too much homework due tonight :P luckily I'll have tomorrow to take a coporeal form.

You have all this time to tell us that you're not up to speed but none to tell me why you voted me.

Actually last game, Star Wars, you were BAD and did things liek that too. Pretending how busy you were and just couldn't keep up. And you won because I never NK'd you and nobody wanted to waste a lynch on you.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote:Marsh, if you're really neutral, why do you care about lynching me so much?

So you think HBoy hid behind someone he thought was bad so he could die from it?

Okay.....?????? That's nonsensical. If anything, it excludes me from being someone HB would hide behind.
I don't want to be lynched either. But I also don't want to be nightkilled. Life is harsh.

That's actually part of the use of the Hider role. He can protect himself if he hides behind a civ, but he can also discover a baddie if he hides behind them. It's like a one time baddie-alignment checker. And it's clear he hid behind a baddie since he otherwise would not have died. Knowing HBoy, he would have let people know who he was hiding behind each night (since he comes from a site where info-dumping is common). So yes, I believe his last post being about a suspicion of you does incriminate you.
I seriously doubt he would intentionally behind someone he thinks is bad knowing he will die if he's right.

This is new from you. Why didn't you bring it up earlier?
I wasn't paying attention.

Long Con wrote:
Ricochet wrote:What should a neutral role do, if he shouldn't care about voting/lynching anyone?
Surviving.

And yeah, MM, it really depends how kamikaze HBoy was. Would you hide behind your biggest suspicion as the Hider?
That's a good question.

I think I would depending on the circumstances. Day 1: absolutely not. A later day in the game, yes. Especially if I felt like I would have a tough time lynching said player otherwise.

Linki: I've told you my favorite fruit multiple times already Rico, and no it's not an apple.

Day 3?
Okay.
This is so desperate.

Rehearsal's at 11. I'll try and check in.

Ricochet wrote:
Dom wrote:
Ricochet wrote:What should a neutral role do, if he shouldn't care about voting/lynching anyone?
Why is Marshy so attached to the idea of lynching me? Why has he voted me early in the last two phases and only moved his vote to save himself? Why am I a "suspect"? Marsh claims to not be playing for anyone really, but that can't be the case if he is attached to "suspicions" like this. It makes no sense. He also cannot cite evidence of my baddiness. People are literally saying it's suspicious because I want to know why I'm suspicious and you don't find that strange?
Did he vote you early in the last two phases? I don't have that in my spreadsheets. Anyway, why MM early votes someone must be up there with what's beyond the event horizon of a black hole, in terms of understandable phenomena.

Also, I don't know if MM claimed he's not playing for anyone, he claimed he's not aligned to anyone. Him not playing actually anything, ergo not helping out any side or especially the civ side, is a different matter, of course.

What's the percentage on you actually fearing to be lynched? You were sort of a wagon the other Day, but otherwise barely received votes, despite being sussed out. Are you just reacting to what you find to be lack of case-making or acting tense in advance of your lynch potentially escalating?

I'm nervous for a variety of factors. Mostly I am nervous because I am heading into tech week and am student teaching and won't be able to defend myself against voters who don't even say WHY they think I'm bad.

Does that not strike you as odd? No one is really explaining why I'm bad? I've been badgering MM about it for DAYS and he is only now starting to pull reasons out of his ass. FZ said that is suspicious of me. WHY?! HOW IS THAT SUSPICIOUS???

The lynch train on me is so desperate and transparent. I don't think everyone who suspects me is bad, but there's gotta be a baddie in there. It's comprised of FZ (someone I've suspected for a while), MM (someone who took two or three days to come up with a reason to suspect me), Tranq (who barely played and was wrong), and Wilgy (who has yet to really acknowledge my questions to him).

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote:Marsh, if you're really neutral, why do you care about lynching me so much?

So you think HBoy hid behind someone he thought was bad so he could die from it?

Okay.....?????? That's nonsensical. If anything, it excludes me from being someone HB would hide behind.
I don't want to be lynched either. But I also don't want to be nightkilled. Life is harsh.

That's actually part of the use of the Hider role. He can protect himself if he hides behind a civ, but he can also discover a baddie if he hides behind them. It's like a one time baddie-alignment checker. And it's clear he hid behind a baddie since he otherwise would not have died. Knowing HBoy, he would have let people know who he was hiding behind each night (since he comes from a site where info-dumping is common). So yes, I believe his last post being about a suspicion of you does incriminate you.

I seriously doubt he would intentionally behind someone he thinks is bad knowing he will die if he's right.

This is new from you. Why didn't you bring it up earlier?

Ricochet wrote:What should a neutral role do, if he shouldn't care about voting/lynching anyone?

Why is Marshy so attached to the idea of lynching me? Why has he voted me early in the last two phases and only moved his vote to save himself? Why am I a "suspect"? Marsh claims to not be playing for anyone really, but that can't be the case if he is attached to "suspicions" like this. It makes no sense. He also cannot cite evidence of my baddiness. People are literally saying it's suspicious because I want to know why I'm suspicious and you don't find that strange?

Also, I love math so don't lynch me.

Marsh, if you're really neutral, why do you care about lynching me so much?

So you think HBoy hid behind someone he thought was bad so he could die from it?

Okay.....?????? That's nonsensical. If anything, it excludes me from being someone HB would hide behind.

Oh and I've clearly never trusted you.

Search found 156 matches