The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Quin is the only one in this game talking any sense, so I am following his vote on Sorsha.

You put a second vote on someone becasue the first persons reason ("none whatsoever") was talking sense to you?

S~V~S wrote:I wonder if Sorsha noticed she had three votes when she was in here.

One vote on a person for a silly reason, ha ha lulz. Dropping a second vote on someone for a silly reason, not cool. Dropping a third vote, what baddie would do that?

I hope to see votes moving there or better reasons put forth.

So dropping a temp vote on Llama for lulz. If he takes his vote more seriously, I will too.

S~V~S wrote:

speedchuck wrote:Those who have their vote placed on me:

Is it because you don't like what my actions have been? Or because you think they come from a scummy place. Do explain.

Personally, I think Llama looks scummier than you. He was the first to put a second vote on someone for a silly reason. I can't imagine someone being bad and piling a third silly vote on someone. That is why I voted for him, not you. But I have seen very bold baddies do very bold things to fall back on the wifom.

Are you a bold baddie?

Do you honestly think Sorsha is bad? If not do you plan to move your vote?

S~V~S wrote:Llama~

"What is LOST?"

Google results: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is ... 8&oe=utf-8

Took me 4 seconds

And I will take you seriously if you give real answers and stop goofing around. If you suspect Faraday, then vote for him! You don't feel even remotely sincere to me, and you put someone you don't actually seem to suspect in danger. That concerns me. Even goofing around, when you are sincere this comes through. I am not seeing it.

S~V~S wrote:Wow quiet in here. I have the cold from hell and pretty much sacked after work again.

Bye INH.

I think Dom has had some RL going on this weekend, he hasn't been around our Politics discussion group on FB much either iirc.

I still feel like crap but will have time to reread that weird Lynch. G Man why was maintaining the tie so important to you that you sabotaged Llama effort to save himself?

And Speed, before G man said that Llama switched the vote to you I thought that maybe the two of you had BTSC since you paralleled him pretty closely. Why did you do that?

S~V~S wrote:No I think you were pretty obvious.

Knee Jerk no u over defensive reaction from sawyer.

notsawyer540 wrote:About what? I didn't have any suspicions, so I said I was considering voting for INH just because we have differing opinions on aspects of the show. I was mostly dicking around. As far as Quin, that bit's covered in the part you quoted. I misread what Quin wrote and thought that he had said that his role PM didn't specify an alignment because I have a terrible habit of skim reading sometimes.

I do find you suspicious now, however, because of the way your post is addressed toward everyone except me. Seems to me you're trying to convince people to vote for me. If you really had any interest in my response, you would've directed your inquiry about me to me.

Vote DFaraday

I do this all the time. When something about someones post catches my eye, I often talk about it because I am in fact soliciting other peoples opinions. If I am asking for clarification, I will ask directly. If I want to discuss it,I will talk about it.

So I am missing what is so incendiary about this post that Sawyer reacted like this to it.

S~V~S wrote:

speedchuck wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

nutella wrote:I suppose I can see some merit in that analysis, but I'm not so sure what it tells us. I voted for llama because I thought he was suspicious.

Yeah, me too. I really disliked his piling a second frivolous vote on Sorsha for a very silly reason. It actually looked more suspect to me than Speen putting a THIRD vote on her for the same frivolous reason. Everyone was voting for frivolous reasons that day, put putting a second vote on someone is serious.

To the highlighted bit: Why?

I think i explained this when I made the vote; it would be incredible to me that a baddie would do something like putting a third vote on someone for a silly reason. Baddies worry too much about how they look, and that looked awful. I don't see a baddie doing it. I was a bit conflicted about it when Llama flipped civ; that's why I asked you why you were paralleling him.

S~V~S wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

DFaraday wrote:If someone could outline the case on me, that'd be great.

I voted for you becasue you asked me a question, I answered it, and then you said, basically, that I didn't answer it. Like as if someone had put me into a possible list of suspects, and you decided to suspect me. It felt opportunistic to me.

No I didn't. I said your answer was unsatisfactory to me. I thought Llama's thought process was pretty straightforward: he voted Sorsha, started taking suspicion, then said he would switch to me if other people were willing, but for the time being he would stay on the most viable choice. In real life I don't agree with that strategy, but I understand it, especially in Mafia.

I think we are talking different languages. You put a totally wrong spin on one of my posts. When I explained this, you said nope, unsatisfactory without actually addressing what I said. This tranalates to me as suspecting me in order to have a suspicion.

speedchuck wrote:If there's anyone I can trust, it's Quin. And Llama. Yes.

SORSHA

speedchuck wrote:Those who have their vote placed on me:

Is it because you don't like what my actions have been? Or because you think they come from a scummy place. Do explain.

speedchuck wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

speedchuck wrote:Those who have their vote placed on me:

Is it because you don't like what my actions have been? Or because you think they come from a scummy place. Do explain.

Personally, I think Llama looks scummier than you. He was the first to put a second vote on someone for a silly reason. I can't imagine someone being bad and piling a third silly vote on someone. That is why I voted for him, not you. But I have seen very bold baddies do very bold things to fall back on the wifom.

Are you a bold baddie?

Do you honestly think Sorsha is bad? If not do you plan to move your vote?

Am I a bold baddie? I could give you my metaread here, but it'd sound bad coming from me.

I suspect Sorsha more than Llama, and thus am unable to move my vote ATM.

Hm.

Vote Dfaraday

speedchuck wrote:

Quin wrote:hey what's up

Eyy!

Bunch of random wagons. Recommending Dfaraday.

speedchuck wrote:Yeah, I feel much better about df compared to notsawyer.

If you wanna lynch me based on my lazy, gman, that is fine. Just don't expect scum. And please don't force another tie.

speedchuck wrote:I almost feel like unvoting and causing a tie would be better than these two options, because they seem easy to mislynch. Why am I wrong?

speedchuck wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Oh lord I need to just give up today, clearly I'm about ten steps behind. speedchuck ended up voting notsawyer...

still don't understand why not DF?

Honestly, I hardly remember yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I was only trying to save llama d1.

Not that I have great reasons for my vote today.

speedchuck wrote:Speedchuck
G-Man

nutella
Quin

Spacedaisy
Dom
DFaraday

Epignosis
S~V~S
Sorsha

I don't feel confident enough to add colors to this. 99% of this is gut. First lynch provided no info. The second hardly did. Ugh.

Oh, a posted question I never saw:

Dom wrote:

speedchuck wrote:Eh. Voting Dom.

Who's on your team with you?

You, I hope.

speedchuck wrote:

DFaraday wrote:SVS' response still hasn't adequately explained her treatment of Llama, imp. I will likely vote SVS or Daisy, whose votes have felt safe and, if Nutella is bad, potentially a last minute save.

In my opinion, either DF is scum or one of these targets is scum.

It's an opinion that I've had for most of the day, but this further sets up that paradigm.

speedchuck wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

speedchuck wrote:Epi being scum wouldn't surprise me.

Why should it ever surprise you?

True enough.

speedchuck wrote:Speedchuck
Quin
Epignosis
Dom
Sorsha
S~V~S
DFaraday

Quin argument makes sense to me. Here's a read list, from most town to least.

Also, this is Mylo, not lylo.

speedchuck wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

speedchuck wrote:Speedchuck
Quin
Epignosis
Dom
Sorsha
S~V~S
DFaraday

Quin argument makes sense to me. Here's a read list, from most town to least.

Also, this is Mylo, not lylo.

I am your most civilian after you and Quin. Why?

Gut. It's served me well so far.

speedchuck wrote:Dom scares me a bit.

His vote on me, a few minutes before deadline, would have caused a tie. A tie would have given town a 4/7 chance of losing the game, right there. If there had been one more on me, that's 100% mislynch. Dom either:
Voted me, then reconsidered and decided not to play the odds this late and go ahead for his teammate
or
Legitimately carelessly flung a vote on me before considering where the game, vote totals, and scum were, then switched to DF immediately after.

Thoughts? From anyone?

speedchuck wrote:A coordinated scum team could have jumped on me together at EOD and lynched me, ending the game with a scum win. That they didn't suggests a lack of coordination and presence. While further implicating Dom, this doesn't give me good feels about Sorsha.

Sorsha:
I'm torn between whether her place on DF's wagon looks good or terrible. Her vote almost made DF's lynch unavoidable, though she probably wasn't around at EOD to nab me with a coordinated scum CFD. HOWEVER: Sorsha isn't in the best spot, and referenced reasons from yesterday while voting for DF. Had Sorsha not voted DF, that could have set up more flags on her than not.

I could see a Dom/Sorsha team. Still looking at others.

speedchuck wrote:Epi:
I'm willing to forgive Epi's place on my wagon. I've been crap this game. Don't really like the way he avoided responsibility for the vote by promising the bandwagon on G-Man, but at the same time, if I die, it's game over. If Epi were mafia, he'd know who the townies are, and at the point in the game, responsibility for mislynches doesn't matter.

The way DF agreed to follow onto the three-man wagon makes Epi look... better? I'd expect distancing from Epi if he were scum, buddying if her were town. Wine on that one.

The constant dislike of DF's lynch was iffy, but only because of the result. If she was a different, more unfair bullcrap type role, then Epi would've been right.
Of course, where I come from, Lynchproofs are considered bad game design, so I can't judge that one for sure. I could talk about why, but it isn't relevant to the game at hand.

The back and forth with SVS is weird. It's so focused on meta that I can't make heads or tails of it. If anyone else can, please do.

speedchuck wrote:Looked back again. I feel a bit like SVS/Epi is town/town. It's not scum/scum, as far as I can tell. I also feel a bit better about SVS after Day 4.

Speedchuck
Quin
S~V~S
Epignosis
Sorsha
Dom

Sorsha wrote:Put my vote on llama for now. I'll change it later if saving myself is a possibility.

Sorsha wrote:At the time when I had four votes on day one I was saying to myself there is no way they can all be civs. Two have been civs so far and that leaves speedchuck and Epi.

Df and svs come to mind as players who defended me pretty early while that vote was going on and now after, are going after those who voted me. As much as I appreciate them sticking up for me it makes me wonder if one, or both are bad trying to buddy me or going after some easy targets. I have to look over the last lynch to see what part they played in it.

I've still only skimmed, I just wanted to get a few thoughts out there.

Sorsha wrote:

speedchuck wrote:

Sorsha wrote:At the time when I had four votes on day one I was saying to myself there is no way they can all be civs. Two have been civs so far and that leaves speedchuck and Epi.

Df and svs come to mind as players who defended me pretty early while that vote was going on and now after, are going after those who voted me. As much as I appreciate them sticking up for me it makes me wonder if one, or both are bad trying to buddy me or going after some easy targets. I have to look over the last lynch to see what part they played in it.

I've still only skimmed, I just wanted to get a few thoughts out there.

The fourth vote on a wagon, especially in early game, is a happenstance place for scum to be. It's an opportunistic place on the wagon, but still a meaningful place that leads further toward a lynch.

Epi being scum wouldn't surprise me.

Assuming you've narrowed it down to the four, which one would you be most suspicious of?

linki: Honestly, I had a wedding and a birthday, and was sick through both. I'm usually around much more, like in Phenon, but I was down and out this past week. That's the distracting bit you're seeing.
I'm here now, though.

If I had to throw a vote right now it would be DF.

Sorsha wrote:Sorry for not being around. Packing and moving this weekend... voting DF though as I said yesterday

Epignosis wrote:

nutella wrote:I think I'm getting a worse feeling from DF than from trev in this exchange. He seems opportunistic and heavy handed in a way that doesn't feel normal for him. Idk, maybe he's onto something and I'm picking the wrong side, but I'm putting a vote on DF for now because he just doesn't feel right.

What would feel normal for him, and what experience are you basing this on?

Epignosis wrote:

nutella wrote:As I said earlier, he's usually a much lower poster, though I suppose he does occasionally get invested in discussion (I don't specifically remember any alignment-based meta differences tbh). Something about his engagement in this feels insincere and/or overblown.

Yes he is. So...

He's participating more here. Let's lynch him! That'll teach him to participate more!

"Something about" is not a tangible reason to suspect someone, and it's nothing he or she can defend against. You might as well lynch him because the man in the hatch told you to.

Epignosis wrote:I'm voting nutella. I think she's reproducing her clueless behavior and I disapprove of her DF vote because of "something."

Epignosis wrote:

nutella wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I'm voting nutella. I think she's reproducing her clueless behavior and I disapprove of her DF vote because of "something."

I have described to the best of my ability why I suspect DF. He is not playing the way he usually does, and he comes across as more aggressive in a way that does not feel genuine to me. I don't know what you mean about "reproducing clueless behavior."

I welcome that he is not playing the way he usually does. That's boring.
I welcome that he comes across as more aggressive. He should do that more often.
You were clueless the last time we were together. You reminded me of how clueless you could be. Why go to the trouble? It doesn't make you good this time.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

DFaraday wrote:If someone could outline the case on me, that'd be great.

I voted for you becasue you asked me a question, I answered it, and then you said, basically, that I didn't answer it. Like as if someone had put me into a possible list of suspects, and you decided to suspect me. It felt opportunistic to me.

I'm voting for you because you keep voting for people for doing things you don't like as opposed to things that are indicative of being mafia.

Epignosis wrote:Regardless of DFaraday's alignment, I'm a little disappointed that when DF talks more, he gets lynched. I like talkative DF.

Epignosis wrote:I went and looked back. Both previous installments have a "Mafia Godfather." I couldn't tell what the first one meant, but the second one couldn't be tracked or checked- it wasn't a traditional "Godfather."

So no, that doesn't look good for DF, but he may in fact be a traditional manner of "Godfather." If that's true, then it means you're wasting lynches on him while his cronies keep on keeping on.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Quin is the only one in this game talking any sense, so I am following his vote on Sorsha.

You put a second vote on someone becasue the first persons reason ("none whatsoever") was talking sense to you?

S~V~S has played with llama enough to know he posts like this and says controversial things that have no bearing on his alignment. She will admit as much later.

S~V~S wrote:I wonder if Sorsha noticed she had three votes when she was in here.

One vote on a person for a silly reason, ha ha lulz. Dropping a second vote on someone for a silly reason, not cool. Dropping a third vote, what baddie would do that?

I hope to see votes moving there or better reasons put forth.

So dropping a temp vote on Llama for lulz. If he takes his vote more seriously, I will too.

This is a case of S~V~S voting llama not because she thought he was bad, but because she wanted to punish him. "Not cool." Why wasn't it cool? He was a civilian, so even if his thoughts were weird, they were genuine. That's how llama is.

S~V~S knows that, as we're about to see.

Lastly, her final line in this post gave the illusion of open-mindedness, but it was conditional. Again, this was not a vote to find mafia- it was a vote to punish: "Take your (Day 1) vote more seriously or else." It was a threat, and it got a civilian lynched.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Who would you prefer I vote for, SVS?

At this point, I don't particularly know, the votes for Sorsha are the only thing to stand out to me so far. Who do you think I should vote for?

I just really dislike it when people put others in a lynchable position for lulz. Probably an artifact of when we did not have changeable votes.

Again, note the wording: "I just really dislike it when..."

Just because you dislike something doesn't mean you should lynch the person for it. It doesn't make him bad. It means (if you are civilian) that you need to reread the object of the game (find mafia), but I find that a lot of times, mafia resort to lynching civilians for things they dislike. And you, S~V~S, have known llama's wackiness for years. His vote against Sorsha was not worth lynching him over, and you know that, but went for it anyway.

S~V~S wrote:

speedchuck wrote:Those who have their vote placed on me:

Is it because you don't like what my actions have been? Or because you think they come from a scummy place. Do explain.

Personally, I think Llama looks scummier than you. He was the first to put a second vote on someone for a silly reason. I can't imagine someone being bad and piling a third silly vote on someone. That is why I voted for him, not you. But I have seen very bold baddies do very bold things to fall back on the wifom.

Are you a bold baddie?

Do you honestly think Sorsha is bad? If not do you plan to move your vote?

If S~V~S is bad, I would likely rule out speedchuck based on this exchange.

S~V~S said she can't imagine someone being bad and piling a third "silly" vote on someone. I think that's the most ridiculous thing said here. S~V~S has twice the Mafia experience I do, if not more, and I've seen some squirrely-ass things in my time. I've seen mafia kill their own teammates. I find it hard to believe you, S~V~S, can't imagine mafia not plopping down a third silly vote on someone. I've seen mafia do way crazier things than that.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Llama~

"What is LOST?"

Google results: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is ... 8&oe=utf-8

Took me 4 seconds

And I will take you seriously if you give real answers and stop goofing around. If you suspect Faraday, then vote for him! You don't feel even remotely sincere to me, and you put someone you don't actually seem to suspect in danger. That concerns me. Even goofing around, when you are sincere this comes through. I am not seeing it.

I don't google things I can ask my friends about. And if I vote for Faraday now, I put my own life in peril, which I am not in the mood to do.

I don't like to bother my friends with trivia, so I Google things. It takes all types to make the world go around.

So you would rather leave your vote on the person who you don't actually suspect, instead of the person you DO suspect, and who you already named as your suspect? Becasue voting for the person you actually do suspect will get you killed, whereas just naming him won't?

I know you like to be quirky and quixotic and cultivate this image, but you make no sense right now. I am Okey Dokey with my vote.

Iam taking another hit of Nyquil and going to bed.

In light of the fact that there has been a Mafia Godfather in both previous entries, this stands out to me. If my hypothesis is correct that DF is a traditional "Godfather," then S~V~S pushing llama to vote DF would be encouraging him to waste a lynch.

I note that S~V~S herself voted DF today (again, over something she didn't like).

Furthermore, in a Mafia context, I doubt S~V~S ever finds llama remotely sincere. That's his way. He's a snake oil salesman. He's a character from a friggin Flannery O' Connor story. Here he is now.

S~V~S even acknowledged his penchant for being "quirky and quixotic," but he's making "no sense right now." Outside of a blatant slip in which the slipper tries to save face, since when does making no sense on Day 1 indicate that someone is bad? Surely S~V~S has enough experience to know that it is civilians who tend to make the lesser amount of sense early on because there is no pressure on mafia to have to get their stories straight. On top of it all, it's llama.

S~V~S was okay with her vote because it was a convenient way to lynch a civilian. I'm calling her out on it.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Because I don't think you're bad? One thing we have in common, you never low ball when you're bad. You do at times when you are civ. I know that after I have a gave where my instincts were abysmal, as yours were in Red\Blue I tend to low ball.

But if you want to keep clutching at reasons to suspect me, knock yourself out.

"Low ball?" You mean not participate much?

My level of participation has everything to do with the fact that I'm trying to do too much at one time- that's it. I don't like to talk about real life in games, because it has nothing to do with my alignment, so I tend to stay quiet about that and post about it elsewhere. This past week has been grades, grades, grades. Add on to this our yard catching fire a week ago and my sister-in-law moving in the week before, with us trying to get her a job (she has one) and an apartment (she doesn't), and that's why I'm "low balling" it (if that's what you meant).

My participation level will never ever ever depend on what alignment I got. I consider not playing simply because you are bad discourteous.

Epignosis wrote:I would like everyone to pretend DF is gone. It's Day 4. Who gets your vote and why?

Epignosis wrote:I would like to lynch someone other than DF. That's where everyone is voting, and mafia want it so in order to get through the Day phase without scrutiny. I'm not having any of that.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:No it really isn't my problem. I talk like I talk and you are the one who has problems with it, like how I say I don't like things somehow means something it foesnt, or how i am able to use different words to say the same thing ISN'T the same thing.

It is the same thing. Like I said.

You're not talking. You're posting on an Internet forum. I have to read what you post and make a judgment for or against you. If you want to be understood better, post better.

Not my problem.

Epignosis wrote:I'm going to say this:

S~V~S has claimed to be able to parse llama better than most, but she has played with me over four years (longer). She should know I don't read minds, won't try to, and she should know I'm always going to gun for a grammar nitpick if I can find one, especially if the topic in question is about "posting better." To me, that was the perfect punchline. It was a joke. Quin got it.

She therefore has no reason to be upset. If she is feigning being upset, very well, but I am going to remember this forever, and I will not hold back in the future regardless of what her emotional state looks like.

I hope this little game was worth it.

My vote will go elsewhere today.

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

G-Man wrote:Further more, why wouldn't Nikki/Paulo be just as likely to be a cover as anyone else? If Golden randomized the cover roles again this game, then there's no need to dismiss the notion that Nikki/Paulo could be baddie covers. It would just be a cruel twist of fate that one or two of the most despised characters on Lost got used as cover roles. In fact, it adds a level of meta-WIFOM to it all, now doesn't it?

Hey, being bossy is fun. Maybe we should let Jack and Locke hog all the fun from now on.

Exactly.

You seem to be the one who thinks people are suspect based on their roleplay claims. It seems that you are trying to suspectpeople BASED on their covers, when you say yourself:

If Golden randomized the cover roles again this game

You seem to be the one pushing the thought that this matters. And if Golden randomized it, it doesn't.

Why are you going after G?

DFaraday wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:About what? I didn't have any suspicions, so I said I was considering voting for INH just because we have differing opinions on aspects of the show. I was mostly dicking around. As far as Quin, that bit's covered in the part you quoted. I misread what Quin wrote and thought that he had said that his role PM didn't specify an alignment because I have a terrible habit of skim reading sometimes.

I do find you suspicious now, however, because of the way your post is addressed toward everyone except me. Seems to me you're trying to convince people to vote for me. If you really had any interest in my response, you would've directed your inquiry about me to me.

Vote DFaraday

Overreaction much? I expressed my thoughts on the subject, then explicitly said I wanted to hear from you. I haven't even voted for you. It was your phrasing more than anything, that whole, "Then I'm definitely considering INH" bit. It made it sound as if you put in more thought than what was essentially a joke vote.

As a side note, lately I've been seeing a lot of "if you were civvie you wouldn't do x" or "a civvie never does y". I'm not a fan.

How do we feel about this?

Not great on my end!

Dom wrote:Trev, is quin bad?
If so-- why is quin less bad than DFaraday?

Dom wrote:

speedchuck wrote:Eh. Voting Dom.

Who's on your team with you?

Dom wrote:

nutella wrote:

Dom wrote:For a linguist, nutella didn't choose her words carefully

First of all, I don't know what you mean by this or why you think this. Second of all, if you think this, do you think that means I'm bad? Or do you think I would be more careful about words if I was bad?

Did you not major in linguistics?
So why is your language so vague?

Dom wrote:

nutella wrote:As I said earlier, he's usually a much lower poster, though I suppose he does occasionally get invested in discussion (I don't specifically remember any alignment-based meta differences tbh). Something about his engagement in this feels insincere and/or overblown.

Rob outlined this nicely, but what are you talking about here? You know words are important. "Something about" tells me nothing. It tells DFaraday nothing. There's so much room for manipulation and skewing of your intent.

nutella wrote:Hm, I wonder if Juliet is a regular civ this game or not. In season 3 she pretty much started out as one of the bad guys and then defected to the losties. My instinct is to trust Epi and assume Juliet is a civ role, since it would be a weird/less "safe" role to set up as a fake claim.

And you don't actually make any sense of a stance here. You say Rob could be bad. Or good. Whatever.

GMan described this as "two way". I describe it as leaving your options open for when you have to make a stance that's expedient for your agenda.

Dom wrote:I'm just getting home from work to go to other work. I am voting for nutella again. will catch up tonight or tomorrow morning

Dom wrote:i don't know what's going on i voted speedchuck

Dom wrote:wait.

dfaraday's the other one?


i switched to him i dind't like something he said earlier

Dom wrote:all ik now is that quin is arguing either he or dfardaay is bad and dfaraday wasn't?


edit:

i am so much more confused than ever.