The Syndicate

I may switch to Long Con. I only suspect him very mildly, but I don't want to risk a very late tie.

Elohcin wrote:I guess no one is going to make me laugh today. *self vote*

Don't self-vote! It's not allowed!

Will you switch to someone evil if I tell you a joke?


A pirate walks into a bar with a ship's steering wheel sticking out of his pants. He sidles up and says, "Arrr, gimme a cuppa yer best grog!" And the bartender says, "Sure. And it's on the house, but first you have to tell me why that steering wheel's in your pants."

The pirate lifts up his eyepatch and gives the bartender an exasperated look, and says, "Yarrrr, it's drivin' me nuts."

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Brief appearance. Ask me things.

How was your day?

Splendid, thanks for asking! I spent most of it on planes, trains, automobiles, and a bed, but I'm in great spirits. How was your day?

Russtifinko wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Brief appearance. Ask me things.

What are you in Sweden for? And what part?

I'm in Stockholm for leisure. I visited Oslo, Norway a few months ago and loved it, so I wanted some more Scandinavia in my diet. I love the umlauts and I love the blondes.

You and me both, brother.

Linki: Yeah I figured that was probably it. Hopefully I can be more Supatown and convince you otherwise!

I really don't see any reason to lynch llama at the moment and don't trust the reads of the people voting him. If necessary I'll switch my vote to prevent it.

Matt F wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:You suspecting my suspects and Matt F suspecting you makes this really hard, but it does make me feel like at least one of the three of you is lying.

Again, Russ, is there anything you'd like to ask me? I am not afraid of any questions as I have nothing to hide. Ask away.

Also, as with Roxy, I believe Sorsha only started suspecting me once I became suspicious of her and Eloh. In fact, I believe you are one of the few people to suspect me without NOU. And again, if you have any questions, ask away.

Linki JJJ - Thanks

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:@Rus

Same reason I'm obviously town. Supatowning. It doesn't have to be agreed upon, as long as there is content, and that content appears genuine.

Thanks Matt. You're quickly dropping off my radar with your willingness to be open and with Zebra's support.

To Zebra, if you have anything you want me to address, I'm happy to. You seem to think I'm bad, but I don't completely understand why.

I will be in Boston from tomorrow through Monday midmorning. I will also be at a party Sunday night. I'll try to be as active as possible during my trip, but given the timing it's unlikely I'll be a major contributor during the late stages of the lynch. I apologize in advance for the inconvenience.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Brief appearance. Ask me things.

What are you in Sweden for? And what part?

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:Matt F is definitely town.

Definitely? What makes you say that??

Sorsha wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:To clarify, I think Sorsha's most recent post is trying to get motel room to switch back to LC. It's suspicious to me since she just voted bcornett. Why promote lynching a major candidate that you yourself won't vote for? If she were to get motel room to vote LC, and LC flips civ, she could sit back and laugh and let motel take the heat for it.

Linki: Wait, so are you trying to convince motel room NOT to switch back to LC? Now I'm confused.

What?! I'm trying to get players to NOT vote for LC.

I'm just sus of why motel is moving his vote around like he is.

Aha. I took that completely the wrong way, then.

Well in that case I dunno who to vote. I still suspect Epi and Matt F but don't see either being lynched today.

I feel like Matt is stretching with trying to find links where there are none and he's still on day 0 when everyone else is on day 2 so yeah... I can see that. Epi hasn't seemed like himself this game but getting lynched early a couple games might have him trying to lay low early for a change? Not sure on him yet.

Don't agree with me when I'm suspecting you!

Seriously though, I could go for Epi if we can get it together.

You suspecting my suspects and Matt F suspecting you makes this really hard, but it does make me feel like at least one of the three of you is lying.

Sorsha wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:To clarify, I think Sorsha's most recent post is trying to get motel room to switch back to LC. It's suspicious to me since she just voted bcornett. Why promote lynching a major candidate that you yourself won't vote for? If she were to get motel room to vote LC, and LC flips civ, she could sit back and laugh and let motel take the heat for it.

Linki: Wait, so are you trying to convince motel room NOT to switch back to LC? Now I'm confused.

What?! I'm trying to get players to NOT vote for LC.

I'm just sus of why motel is moving his vote around like he is.

Aha. I took that completely the wrong way, then.

Well in that case I dunno who to vote. I still suspect Epi and Matt F but don't see either being lynched today.

To clarify, I think Sorsha's most recent post is trying to get motel room to switch back to LC. It's suspicious to me since she just voted bcornett. Why promote lynching a major candidate that you yourself won't vote for? If she were to get motel room to vote LC, and LC flips civ, she could sit back and laugh and let motel take the heat for it.

Linki: Wait, so are you trying to convince motel room NOT to switch back to LC? Now I'm confused.

Roxy wrote:

Matt F wrote:RIP bwt. I'm sorry to see you go, and feel bad about contributing to your lynch, but I stand by my vote in the fact that it did not appear civvie-like to say and do the things you were doing during dusk. You will be missed, though

Sorsha - Thank you for bringing attention to Rbz's post (the same exact post that pinged me, ironic) where he stated who he was. I shouldn't have missed that, however, since it was in OT green, it's entirely possible I skipped over it. Sometimes I read OT, sometimes I don't. Either way, thanks.

Roxy - I did not want to vote for you or Rbz because I was waiting for Rbz to clarify. Fortunately, Sorsha took the time to show me what was up, contrary to your actions, which was just to NoU me. As for bwt, if I am the only player that thinks his behavior was suspicious Dusk 0, then so be it. However, even after seeing the results of the lynch, I still find his behavior during Dusk suspicious, and believe my reason for voting him was valid.

Some have been pinged by me voting third for bwt. I've played about two dozen games of mafia, and I don't ever remember this being a thing. I haven't played for about two years, though, so maybe it's something new? Either way, all I can is circumstance. I had to go to work, I wanted to vote early in case I didn't make it home in time (I didn't, btw), and BWT was my strongest feeling at the time.

Straw - To me, it sounded off. "Kinda" and "very" don't go together IMO, in fact, I've never heard anyone utter "I had a kinda very good day" or "My meal was kinda very good", so I questioned him on it. It wasn't a strong ping, but it was there.

Again, RIP birds.

I voted for you and am suspicious of you is a bit more than a No u. That characterization seems to try to make my suspicion into fluff which it is not.

You start out with your bogus claim that RBZ and I had btsc or communicated by PM and that my post saying "Keterman is RBZMNGHJ??" was fake - which if you had actually read the post from which you quoted this "suspicion" would have never happened. The fact that it did happen and that you pushed it (but not hard enough to vote for) is highly suspicious to me.

Then you move onto Teeth - which my vote was NOT based that you were the third voter moine was bc you had pushed me and RBZ then suddenly without so much as have an apple you jump on the Teeth wagon. With your bogus reasoning about the day 0 poll.

You keep saying that he ended the vote when he moved his vote is something I am not grasping please elaborate. Are you saying Teeth personally picked the winner of the Day 0 poll and told MP and Sloon to end the Day 0 bc he had chosen the winner? BC that is what it reads like.
You do realize Teeth was civ right?

When you made your sudden turn onto Teeth you slammed your suspicion down and voted without bothering to wait for a response, which is weird bc you said you did not want to vote for RBZ or me until hearing from him - so why does RBZ have a chance to respond but you give Teeth no window of opportunity to respond? Double standard much?

I see you keep harping on the Day 0 poll crap and tbh it has already led to a civ lynch are you really srsly going to keep going down your bogus path? So much else has happened yet you still hold onto your Day 0 suspicions like they are your last breath. I find it odd.

Yep I am this far behind I read some last night and fell asleep will be on it today.

Roxy, I am probably the most suspicious of Matt F besides you. I say this in the most friendly possible way, so please don't take it wrong, but this reads a little like Roxy tunneling to me.

I missed Day 0, so someone please correct me when I am wrong, but my understanding is this: the Day 0 poll worked such that when 2 players had 5 votes each, it ended immediately and they won. So in essence, yeah, BWT basically chose the winners and told our hosts to end the poll. Again, I could be wrong there, but if my understanding is right I still actually find that part of Matt's suspicion very reasonable.

That said, I still think the timing on his vote was suspicious. As I'm writing this I'm finding that I'm convincing myself more and more that he might not be bad, though. Reading back, he's shown me absolutely nothing today as far as meaningful contributions, but the more I read over early game stuff, the more genuine I see him.

MacDougall wrote:I'm not sure how I'm really catching flak for this actually. Seaside was getting votes before I said anything. If I wanted him lynched and I was scum I could have just shut up and put attention elsewhere. As it stands I actually do think he's the best chance of flipping scum. Sometimes things ARE what they seem. Actually most of the time. It's called Occam's Razor.

I haven't really heard any good reasons why we shouldn't lynch him and we should instead lynch someone else.

You guys are coming across like scum players preparing for a town flip and planning your next townie lynch candidate.

Interesting thought. By "you guys", who do you mean here besides Sorsha?

I feel worst so far, in no particular order, about Sorsha and Epi.

I also would like to hear what Chouthas says to motel room. That vote looks like the Day 2 equivalent of Matt F's.

FZ., I really don't like your vote here. I think you should go with your gut instead of taking other people's word for it.

Linki: Also don't love Sorsha trying to push LC harder to people who don't know LC here. I'm voting Sorsha.

Thanks for the response, FZ. I suppose I can see how a neutral bcornett read miiiight be a case for a vote if all RYMers suspect him.

I could in theory be down for an Epi vote. Having a bit of trouble making my mind up on him, as usual. He decided I was bad when I mentioned him in my first real post this game, and he's been talking about me since. Admittedly that's fairly common for me and Epi, and it's possible it's colluding my judgment on him, but I can definitely see why people would say he hasn't been as helpful or scumhunt-y this game.

It's probably a moot point, as you said, because I don't see him garnering the votes today. Something to think about, though.

Strawhenge wrote:llama's response reads as, 'Trust me because trust me.' The we wouldn't kill k4j stance is a big ol' sifter of WIFOM and I don't like it one bit. Why would anybody have any reason not to kill any player as scum? Roles, yes. Players in the context of the game, yes. But players on the whole? That's like saying, 'Oh, we wouldn't kill HamburgerBoy, because scum-RYMers never kill HamburgerBoy.' That just makes no sense. That's basically admitting that Syndicat scum teams aren't great at their job if there are certain players they never kill.

Epignosis's response just doesn't sound like a productive outlook. This is out of context because I'm not used to playing with you guys, but on the onset this, I like making people look like they don't know what they're talking about sentiment is like saying that you want to undermine people's convictions and confuse people. Which is what scum want. Scum don't want people to feel certainty.

I do think the llama suspicions by RYMers are because you guys don't know him. To Syndicaters: he's been getting quieter lately in response to being lynched early so often, so this seems like a normal game for him to me. He always says wacky stuff.

And Epi actually does love making people look like they don't know what they're talking about. Probably more than winning mafia, although he thinks it's best if he can do both at the same time.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Seaside is either scum or a liability that we can't take further into the game.

When I placed my vote for him, I was leaning towards the latter, because I would rather vote for a civilian who's hurting the civilian's progress than someone who migggght be scum but then flips town and sets us even further back. However, if seaside has chosen the more productive path like recent posts would imply, then I can no longer keep my vote on him.

Epignosis is defending more than scumhunting, which is unlike him. Even more unlike him, his scumhunting is super weak so far. At first I was reluctant to give the suspicions towards him much credit, but that was because I assumed his defend:attack ratio would improve. In actuality, it's gotten significantly worse.

What do you think about his two "R suspicions" (Rico and Russ)?

Both of them have caught my eye as well for being suspicious, especially Rico who keeps thinking that by proclaiming that he's not nervous, that will convince people that he's not nervous, as if being nervous is the sort of thing that can be flipped on and off like a light switch.

Epi also suspects reywaS, right?

If he's decided we're bad, in a normal Syndicate game it would inevitably mean we were dead. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but when Epi gets a negative read on someone it's a death knell. Hopefully for my sake you RYM types can change that.

FZ. wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Ugh, I'm on time to vote but feel like I may be late to the party. This was a very good point.

FZ. wrote:How is it, that not one regular syndicater voted for LC? How is it, that none of the Rym players don't take that into consideration? Are we missing something here?

I should say that I have suspected LC as recently as my last post, though, and I'm a Syndicater, so it's not 100% true. Everyone seems to have ignored my posts, though, as I don't think anyone answered a question I asked...

Anyway, the fact that no other TSers are suspecting LC makes me feel a bit better about him. However, I have absolutely no read whatsoever on bcornett, and I think voting seaside or Macdougall at this point seems like a real bad idea. So I don't see a ton of opportunity to influence the lynch with my vote.

Also, I know Golden is a SuperStar Civ, but it's weird to me that at least 2 people (bea and motel room) are willing to just accept his suspicion at face value and go that way.

Actually, I'm considering it too. Out of the options I have, this seems like the one I could live with. Maybe because I don't know him...


lots and lots of linki

Considering voting LC, or voting whatever Golden says to vote??

Also, I am on board with seaside sticking around after his big post. I was also reading Macdougall as genuine in that exchange and won't be voting for either of them today unless they literally post a screenshot of baddie BTSC.

motel room wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Also, I know Golden is a SuperStar Civ, but it's weird to me that at least 2 people (bea and motel room) are willing to just accept his suspicion at face value and go that way.

who's suspicion of who am I accepting?

Golden's of bcornett. Is that not what the post below means?

motel room wrote:

FZ. wrote:

motel room wrote:^ talking about Long Con not Wilgy here, apart from that first sentence

what do you think about bcornett? Do you agree with Golden and JJJ?

linki: So is he familiar with LC's game?

I don't like bcornett relying on his own interpretation of his meta to defend himself.

JJJ is higher on my To Hang list but if golden is genuine this game I've seen his intuition pay off so yeah.

Some off topic stuff I just want to get off my chest.

thellama73 wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I think the K4J kill was more likely to come from an RYMer than a Syndicater, so I will concentrate my attentions there.

Something about your posts today feel a little staged/rehearsed however you want to put it.

Thank you. I like to be well-prepared.

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote: Hello, I'm Epignosis.

Hi, Epignosis. How are you?

Tired. You?

Also tired. I basically just got home from work, and I have to be on radio at 7:30 tomorrow morning to talk about the education secretary.

Oooooh, you're on the real radio? Cool! Do you do that a lot?

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Long Con's claim that his early aggression against bea was deliberately false and actually a test is highly dubious for a few reasons:

1. I asked him to expand on his beef with bea and he did so thoroughly, suggesting to me that he had at least some degree of real investment in it.

2. His stated reason did not bear out in his experiment results -- only BWT was implicated apparently and LC didn't even commit substantive suspicion in that direction.

3. It's just plain convenient; it looks like escapism.

We must ask ourselves if LC ever makes the claim that his bea aggression was a test if that conduct doesn't draw the negative attention that it did.

Howe wll do you know LC? I realise that you did not play real time with him in Bullets over Broadway. Have you at all? LC's ability to demonstrate real investment in a completely fake case would not surprise me in the slightest, that's pretty normal LC.

Also, I think you used escapism wrong.

Pedantic Pink strikes again!

DrWilgy wrote:Ok, just now catching up. (I think I did alright on my exams) Voting LC for now, not reading the interactions with bea to be genuine. Still really far behind, though.

If you're a doctor, why do you still have exams?

Ugh, I'm on time to vote but feel like I may be late to the party. This was a very good point.

FZ. wrote:How is it, that not one regular syndicater voted for LC? How is it, that none of the Rym players don't take that into consideration? Are we missing something here?

I should say that I have suspected LC as recently as my last post, though, and I'm a Syndicater, so it's not 100% true. Everyone seems to have ignored my posts, though, as I don't think anyone answered a question I asked...

Anyway, the fact that no other TSers are suspecting LC makes me feel a bit better about him. However, I have absolutely no read whatsoever on bcornett, and I think voting seaside or Macdougall at this point seems like a real bad idea. So I don't see a ton of opportunity to influence the lynch with my vote.

Also, I know Golden is a SuperStar Civ, but it's weird to me that at least 2 people (bea and motel room) are willing to just accept his suspicion at face value and go that way.

RIP to our departed friends.

I had a Hell Day at work and am keeping it light tonight, since reading hurts my head.

Long Con wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:I wasn't convinced by JJJ's single read on Long Con. The Llama Gambit (saying you're suspicious of someone you're not to see who bandwagons it) is a fairly common Syndicate ploy. But this analysis by Matt F might have some merit. The posts you're highlighting show Sorsha acting how I'd imagine myself acting if I were on a baddie team with LC. Sorsha, you say you and LC have been playing together for years, but what made it obvious to you that LC's suspicion of bea was a ploy if you think she's the last person he'd use to pull a ploy?
LC, what are your thoughts on Sorsha at the moment?

Nothing too pingy at the moment. Sorsha's not always the easiest to read, but I haven't found her particularly suspicious yet.

Well this is waffly.

FZ. wrote:And I would really appreciate it if people stopped ignoring my suspicion of Epi. At least the syndicaters that are supposed to know what to expect from him. Has he really delivered in any sense so far? Every game I've played with him, and he was a civ, he'd manage to either annoy someone, get on their case, find some reason to make sure he's going after them.
Nothing so far. All he's really done so far is:

1. excuse my accusation by making it something it wasn't and then playing ignorant to what I really meant (yes, I meant you being quiet is a bad thing in terms of alignment, not in terms of you not being a lousy civvie like any of us at times).
2. making long posts with multi quoting where he mostly addresses general comments like what is his opinion of lazy playing and other irrelevant topics.
3. Go after BWT's voters when it was an hour before deadline (way too late in my opinion) and comment about how he doesn't understand how BWT was the leading candidate, but not really offering any other solid option other than K4J and saying it was too late (which we know how that ended, by the way), and then voting for someone for the silliest reasons.

And how much has he really posted on topic relative to the civvie Epi you all know in other games?

I'm going to start looking at people who ignore this and don't at least give me a good reason for not suspecting him.

As much as I hate to defend Epi...

he did go after me. And I think he's been quieter in recent games than previously.

Choutas wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Voting Seaside until he explains his numerous arbitrary reads to satisfaction.

Your view of Seaside is right and I agree with it it's just that he told me before the game starts that he'll try his best to get lynched early in order to have more free time. It might sound ridiculous but I know Seaside and he's frankly ridiculous. On the other hand if he stops playing midway he'll be a problem to the mods and us.

It's a lose-lose situation to me.

This strikes me as BTSC. And also puts the whole thread in a rough spot regarding him. Why sign up if you don't want to play? Now we have an impossible choice: lynch someone we have no useful intel on whatsoever and risk wasting a day we could be doing useful analysis to get baddies, or don't lynch him and let a non-participant potential baddie skate until endgame.

Choutas wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

Matt F wrote:
Also, in case people didn't know, I pointed this out in the Day 0 thread, but on the TS side, Sorsha and Elohcin were the only two players to vote for the same three options...two of those options, 5 and 7, ended up winning. And in fact, option five won about 17 votes total from BOTH forums.

I don’t have btsc with Elo or anyone else in this game. I picked option 2 because it would give the girls btsc. Options 5 and 7 were pretty popular with everyone.

Maybe we are just cooler than everyone else.

No, but seriously. Do you really think if we had BTSC that we would vote the same way? And, I think I was the first to vote too. I think you are grasping at straws here Matt. (Nice to have you back on the syndicated though I have fond memories of our BTSC together. Don;t ask me the name of the game, I never remember that sort of thing. But I remember having fun with you.)

I think the day 0 poll for the extra power is not as important as the assistant to the CEO poll where we have no idea what was gained. If for example it's some kind of immunity scum would be extremely interested to take at least one of the two openings. Even that poll is pure theory. Perhaps if the first scum flips we can confirm if he had something to do with the polls until then ingame behaviour is much safer to use for voting someone.

So are you suggesting that at least one of the two poll winners must be scum? If so, which one? And why not push harder for their lynch? 50% odds is damn good at this stage of the game.

Sorsha wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Matt F wrote:Anyway, checked out some of her other posts...

At one point, she tells Long Con that she disagrees with him on his mild ping of BWT, but then later...votes BWT.

In addition, after Long Con says that his vote for bea was a fake, she responds saying how she figured that's what Long Con was doing. However, after that, she says "I'm not sure if LC is civ or bad based off his ploy".

Seems a lot of back and forth on her part.

Also, in case people didn't know, I pointed this out in the Day 0 thread, but on the TS side, Sorsha and Elohcin were the only two players to vote for the same three options...two of those options, 5 and 7, ended up winning. And in fact, option five won about 17 votes total from BOTH forums.

Sorsha, can you explain why you disagreed on LC's ping on BWT, but ended up voting for him? And can you also explain why you said you figured that's what LC was doing in regards to bea, but then later say "I don't know if he's bad or not for that". I mean, you said you figured that's what LC was doing, but now he might be bad because of it?

I wasn't convinced by JJJ's single read on Long Con. The Llama Gambit (saying you're suspicious of someone you're not to see who bandwagons it) is a fairly common Syndicate ploy. But this analysis by Matt F might have some merit. The posts you're highlighting show Sorsha acting how I'd imagine myself acting if I were on a baddie team with LC. Sorsha, you say you and LC have been playing together for years, but what made it obvious to you that LC's suspicion of bea was a ploy if you think she's the last person he'd use to pull a ploy?
LC, what are your thoughts on Sorsha at the moment?

I was able to recognize it as a ploy because it wasn't like LC to go after bea or try to get a bandwagon going against her. Why he chose bea is something I'd like him to answer tbh. I don't know why he picked her. It doesn't really make sense.

Hmm. Not sure I totally understand. You seem to be saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying, but with all the same words haha.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Yep, it was Zebra.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:I'm back (overslept, just a reason, not an excuse), catching up right now. RIP bwt, with seven votes I'm willing to bet that at least two of them are baddies.

I think Epi singled out the seven of us to. He did make posts on a couple of us but I don't remember which ones. (and I'm getting ready for work right now so I don't have time to check myself)

It's one thing to focus your attention on each of the players that voted on a civilian lynch-wagon.

It's another thing to say that 2 of the 7 voters are probably bad, and to try to fit two players into that statement.

I disagree with the language here strongly. Epi didn't single out each of those 7 players. He actually discussed 2 of the votes. I'll admit it's better that just saying 2 names like seaside did, but not much better.

This looks a lot like an attempt to make seaside look worse an Epi look better than they should.

I will say I just noticed that Zebra and seaside both said 2 players from the lynch should be bad. Epi singled out 2. In a standard mafia party game there'd be 2 baddies and 7 civs. Probably coincidence imo, just think it's worth mentioning.

Linki: I don't have Floyd as bad, but I certainly don't have him as good either. I'm giving people with strong reads on him the side-eye. How could you possibly know without info?

Matt F wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Matt, for me it wasn't that you voted third for BWT per se. The main thing that got me was that you voted him without ever having mentioned him before, and for a weak reason. (He changed his D0 vote before other people had voted.)

The thing that pinged me about the timing of your vote is secondary to the point above. That looked bad to me because a third vote at the time put BWT above Diiny and tied him with sig for top vote-getter, and then he took 3 of the next 5 votes. So your vote was a big deal at the time, and it appears to have sparked off a run of BWT votes.

RussT, you're correct. I had not mentioned him before, and for that, I'm sorry. I should've made it known right away about my ping on BWT, but I didn't.

Let me ask you, why is it a weak reason? The Dusk 0 poll decided who the CEO's were going to be, and IMO, the mafia would want at least one CEO on their team. Don't you think? Then for BWT to come in and say "Let's make it interesting ", then end the vote before everyone has a chance to vote (and let's remember he SWITCHED his vote)...it did not sit right with me. Even knowing he is civvie now, it still doesn't sit right. I truly wish he had not done that, because I wouldn't have voted for him had he not.

RBZ - Opportunistic? I think not. I asked you guys a question, and then I refused to even vote for you until you answered. You didn't point this out in your reread, but Sorsha (thankfully while Roxy was NoUing me) let me know what was up in regards to my ping, and that was that.

Thanks! That actually makes me feel a bit better.

Having not been around for Day 0, I didn't see BWT's move there in real time. That could play a role in why I wasn't convinced he was bad, although the major point for me was just that I've played with him a lot, and he always seems bad except when he is bad. Point being, I suppose I can see where you were coming from. I still don't think your vote timing or reasoning at the time were great, so I'll be eyeing you. Thanks for the response.

seaside wrote:DrWilgy (12), bcornett24 (14), Matt F (23), HamburgerBoy (25), Sorsha (27), Diiny (28), sig (31)

i reakon we got at least 2 scum here
dr wilgy and diiny?

To echo someone (JJJ??), why them in particular? Vote order? Posts? One of them ate all your Cheez-Its? And while I'm asking you things, why is Floyd a major town read?

MacDougall wrote:

seaside wrote: 3. Floyd is a huge town read.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Long Con's claim that his early aggression against bea was deliberately false and actually a test is highly dubious for a few reasons:

1. I asked him to expand on his beef with bea and he did so thoroughly, suggesting to me that he had at least some degree of real investment in it.

2. His stated reason did not bear out in his experiment results -- only BWT was implicated apparently and LC didn't even commit substantive suspicion in that direction.

3. It's just plain convenient; it looks like escapism.

We must ask ourselves if LC ever makes the claim that his bea aggression was a test if that conduct doesn't draw the negative attention that it did.

Matt F wrote:Anyway, checked out some of her other posts...

At one point, she tells Long Con that she disagrees with him on his mild ping of BWT, but then later...votes BWT.

In addition, after Long Con says that his vote for bea was a fake, she responds saying how she figured that's what Long Con was doing. However, after that, she says "I'm not sure if LC is civ or bad based off his ploy".

Seems a lot of back and forth on her part.

Also, in case people didn't know, I pointed this out in the Day 0 thread, but on the TS side, Sorsha and Elohcin were the only two players to vote for the same three options...two of those options, 5 and 7, ended up winning. And in fact, option five won about 17 votes total from BOTH forums.

Sorsha, can you explain why you disagreed on LC's ping on BWT, but ended up voting for him? And can you also explain why you said you figured that's what LC was doing in regards to bea, but then later say "I don't know if he's bad or not for that". I mean, you said you figured that's what LC was doing, but now he might be bad because of it?

I wasn't convinced by JJJ's single read on Long Con. The Llama Gambit (saying you're suspicious of someone you're not to see who bandwagons it) is a fairly common Syndicate ploy. But this analysis by Matt F might have some merit. The posts you're highlighting show Sorsha acting how I'd imagine myself acting if I were on a baddie team with LC. Sorsha, you say you and LC have been playing together for years, but what made it obvious to you that LC's suspicion of bea was a ploy if you think she's the last person he'd use to pull a ploy?
LC, what are your thoughts on Sorsha at the moment?

sig, you said earlier you're a weak player and an easy lynch candidate. Any examples? I'm not sure if I've played with you before.

espers, why did you change from voting seaside with a reason to voting me without one? And no, "to make things interesting" does not count. If tightening up the lynch was really your objective, sig would've made more sense than me as he was closer to BWT in votes.

Matt F wrote:Some have been pinged by me voting third for bwt. I've played about two dozen games of mafia, and I don't ever remember this being a thing. I haven't played for about two years, though, so maybe it's something new? Either way, all I can is circumstance. I had to go to work, I wanted to vote early in case I didn't make it home in time (I didn't, btw), and BWT was my strongest feeling at the time.

Again, RIP birds.

Matt, for me it wasn't that you voted third for BWT per se. The main thing that got me was that you voted him without ever having mentioned him before, and for a weak reason. (He changed his D0 vote before other people had voted.)

The thing that pinged me about the timing of your vote is secondary to the point above. That looked bad to me because a third vote at the time put BWT above Diiny and tied him with sig for top vote-getter, and then he took 3 of the next 5 votes. So your vote was a big deal at the time, and it appears to have sparked off a run of BWT votes.

Also RIP. :/

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

bea wrote:RIP Teefies. I'm sorry you dieded. on the plus side, you can point and laugh at sockhost now while he stresses out and you enjoy your vaca!

Well right now I'm riding back from an amazing Mexican dinner with Daisy driving and MP being super tipsy from an enormous sangria. I recorded two drunk conversations of him already and he only knows of one! :P

OMG I MUST SEE

Epignosis wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Epignosis wrote:"I do think it's suspicious that Epi deliberately misinterpreted this point. At least, it looked like he did to me. I mean, I get why - no one wants to be suspected on Day 1. But he wrote a pretty impactful-looking response that really didn't address the point against him."

That adverb.

How do you KNOW I deliberately did something? Maybe I didn't mean to...maybe I misunderstood. That, of all the things you supposedly read, you chose to comment on this?

And you can't deliberately misinterpret something. If you deliberately misinterpret something, we have another word for it: You're lying. There's no such thing as deliberately misinterpreting something. That's like saying, "He deliberately misjudged the trajectory of his car so he could run over a civilian."

Nah.

Voting Russtifinko.

Addendum: Roxy harps against voting people new to the site (that's my understanding of her ways).

Or maybe I'm deliberately misinterpreting something.

I don't know you deliberately misinterpreted it. But as I said in the next sentence, it looked that way to me.

If vertically challenged = short, deliberately misinterpreted = lying. So yeah, I think you lied. Rattled much?

My word! I've incurred the Wrath of Epi! Someone save me! Have mercy!

No. Syntax.

"I do think it's suspicious that Epi deliberately misinterpreted this point."

The predicate here indicates a posteriori knowledge that I was being deceptive. That you add a phrase that does more than qualify (it negates what you imply) looks even worse to me.

If you think I'm a liar, come out and call me a liar. Don't use weasel words and say you're gonna read me tomorrow.

It does qualify my statement, as opposed to negating. Regardless...

I read you today. I said I'd pursue you tomorrow. For someone so concerned with "weasel words", you don't seem to mind using them against me much.

Linki: I am at quarter-end in a finance job I started less than a month ago, so I'm very busy learning the ropes and doing quarter-end-ish things. In case I forgot to say before.

Double linki: Yes. Encouraged by some, viewed as risky by others.

Epignosis wrote:"I do think it's suspicious that Epi deliberately misinterpreted this point. At least, it looked like he did to me. I mean, I get why - no one wants to be suspected on Day 1. But he wrote a pretty impactful-looking response that really didn't address the point against him."

That adverb.

How do you KNOW I deliberately did something? Maybe I didn't mean to...maybe I misunderstood. That, of all the things you supposedly read, you chose to comment on this?

And you can't deliberately misinterpret something. If you deliberately misinterpret something, we have another word for it: You're lying. There's no such thing as deliberately misinterpreting something. That's like saying, "He deliberately misjudged the trajectory of his car so he could run over a civilian."

Nah.

Voting Russtifinko.

Addendum: Roxy harps against voting people new to the site (that's my understanding of her ways).

Or maybe I'm deliberately misinterpreting something.

I don't know you deliberately misinterpreted it. But as I said in the next sentence, it looked that way to me.

If vertically challenged = short, deliberately misinterpreted = lying. So yeah, I think you lied. Rattled much?

My word! I've incurred the Wrath of Epi! Someone save me! Have mercy!

Epignosis wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Roxy wrote:Those voting low posters based on there content after all the discussion we have had twitch my nose FYI.

What about people voting those new to The Syndicate?

If you are referring to my vote - he is not new to me.

Linky - Golden - what do you mean "side I took"?

No, you always harp against voting new people- well half the people here are new.

But new to this site =/= new to mafia. RYMers seem very experienced, generally speaking.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:As I catch up, I'm starting to get used to how often this community straight up asks out of the blue "are you bad?" to other players for little to no reason. Maybe it's a useful tactic here but in my experience it only does any good for the mafia. For example, I didn't like the look of this:

Ricochet wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I accidentally implied I was civilian.

But you're not, right?

How can you accidentally imply you are civilian? Isn't that like the most basic claim used in mafia history, at the beginning and throughout the games?

Here, lemme make you imply some more: Are you bad?

To me it's so obvious that mm was joking that it seems opportunistic to call him out for this, but if it's a community thing, feel free to shoot me down.

I like Zebra! Seems like a heckuva player for Day 1. I also agree that it seemed super obvious MM was joking. It seems on reading Rico's posts that he is playing a joking style as well, so maybe he was bantering back, but this post in particular read pretty serious to me. And maybe he really didn't get the joke, but I think Rico is plenty smart to get it and was trying to throw shade.

Choutas wrote:

seaside wrote:Someone called me the most active user in the old thread and I've explained why I haven't posted much and why they are brief posts. If you refuse to see the difference between that and someone who has only posted a couple times without providing a reason, then u are angling which is scummy as!

In defense of seaside he did tell he's leaving for the countryside, I think it was a footy match or something. As long as he commit later on I don't think it's bad if some people have a slow start.

How can you have Desmond Green as your avatar and still say "footie"? Pick a side of the Atlantic!

kneel4justice wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

FZ. wrote:On to someone else, quiet Epi is never a good thing...

Is loud Epi always a good thing? Be careful what you wish for.

And I think...

...nope, I'm going to harp on this one comment.

"Quiet Epi is never a good thing."

Well now let's see.

Raise your hand if loud Epi ever railroaded you when you were a civilian and got your ass lynched.

Raise your hand if you wished loud Epi would have shutted up the fuck.

I thought so.

I don't see why me being quiet is "never a good thing."

But the "never a good thing" comment is referring to your alignment. Not your success rate.
While you might wrongfully lynch civvies when vocal, I think that your vocal persona is associated with civilian. Maybe you're not leading the lynches of civvies when quiet, but who's to say you're not killing us off instead?
It is weird that you would try to write your quietness off as something positive, IMO.

I do think it's suspicious that Epi deliberately misinterpreted this point. At least, it looked like he did to me. I mean, I get why - no one wants to be suspected on Day 1. But he wrote a pretty impactful-looking response that really didn't address the point against him.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:Posting because the host tells me I will be a non-participant if I don't.

I will read up throughout today and try to say something intelligent.

I hope you're able to get involved Russ. I've only gotten to play with you for maybe one day phase, and I think we'd get along great (just generally speaking as players).

Thanks, JJJ! Don't think your buddying up will get you anywhere with me, though, bub!

Linki: Damn, that Matt F vote though. And it being the 3rd one looks really bad, since 3 votes is about the threshold where the top candidates are. 3 of the next 5 votes went to BWT after. Matt F may not know, but as some have already pointed out, BWT always looks suspicious, pretty much without fail. Even without that it looks bad.

I will pursue Epi and Rico more tomorrow, but I am voting Matt F today.

Double Linki: But Epi, he's not new to mafia, right? I mean, he may not know BWT, but any experienced player would know that vote looks suspicious, right?

Triple linki: content?

Ok, I haven't read everything, but I have read most things, and I am committed to playing this friggin' sweet game with you awesome people. Since the poll is about to end, I'm posting what thoughts I do have and then voting.

Please expect me to be more involved in future days.

Posting because the host tells me I will be a non-participant if I don't.

I will read up throughout today and try to say something intelligent.