The Syndicate

It seems the vote is headed towards Epignosis, so I have been thinking hard about him.

Logically, I think the baddies would have been smarter to switch a civvie to another civvie than to protect one of their own. However, I know Rob quite well and we usually have quite a good rapport. There has been no such banter during this game. There has been a cool distance between us, and it saddens me. This makes me think that he is indeed a baddie and likely his wife with him. I would be okay with a Epignosis lynch today.

S~V~S wrote:I mean, I have been fairly tenacious since almost immediately after your ennui remark. It does not appear to have done me much good.

Why would a baddie do this?

And if I recall, i was the first to bring you up.

Yes, you're right. I looked back and you were the first to really go after me. I am not certain you are bad, nor am I certain of all your motivations, but I do think your behavior towards me has been odd.

S~V~S wrote:Um, the baddies know who the civvies are, except for the Indies. I mean why YOU? Why not any of the other 12 or so civvies?

Why not me?
I was already garnering suspicion when you started commenting on it, and one might think I was an easy target.

S~V~S wrote:Why would I try to set you up?

If you were baddie, and you knew I was civvie, you would have every motivation to set me up.

I am SO glad you're back, MP!

Pretty much everything that has happened so far, from the lynch switch to the targeting of SVS makes me look guilty. It is my belief that this is intentional, trying to get you guys to vote for me.

What I don't understand is how sure of my guilt SVS is. At this point in the game, I am not sure about anybody except MP, so it seems odd to me that she would have such conviction in going after me. I still think a frame of Epignosis is more likely than a straight baddie protection, but the person whose behavior seems really odd to me is SVS. She reads like someone trying to set me up and that it has now escalated to the point of overplaying her hand.

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:If I'm so awesome, I should deserve a rezz! Just saying.

Okay, I realize everyone gets the point, I'd really love to have a rezz because I was really enjoying this game. I'll seriously stop posting and go back to being dead now.

We can hope.

I would heartily endorse an MP rez from the Cow, if the Cow is so amenable.

blindfaeth wrote:Although to add to my previous thought, given that there is only one mafia team, and given that they also want the rogue dead because its one of their goals in order to win the game, I personally think they would probably be more concerned with getting rid of the really "good" players. Don't get me wrong, every person is valuable, whether you post a lot or a little. I'm just saying that MP has been playing a long time, posts often and has a lot of content. How accurately he perceives things as a civvie, I don't know. But he does put a lot of time and effort into the game. In general, you don't like having that type of person as an enemy, so I don't necessarily see eliminating him when they had the chance as being very outrageous. I hope that makes some sense.

It does.

reywaS wrote:I have seen the frame job thing happen...twice I think I've seen it happen. I saw it first in a game on RM...can't remember which game... Anyway, I didn't think that there was any way that the baddie team would waster their lynch switch on someone other than a team mate. I was a civvie and I was very vocal in protest of the possibility. It turns out that that is exactly what happened. It's a very bold move, but if none of the baddies are being suspected it's a perfect way to waste 2 days lynching the ones that seemed to benefit from the switch.

This is exactly what I think happened, and I think the reason I was not chosen for the switch is that they thought I would be easy to convince people to lynch me without having to resort to behind the scenes trickery. In my view, it would be foolish for the baddies to use so strong a power to lynch the civvie who's getting the most suspicion anyway.

I think the lynch protection angle is a possibility, but why would the lynch then switch to MP? Don't lynch protections usually mean the person with the next highest votes gets lynched instead? I still think a switch is the most probable.

reywaS wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Russtifinko wrote: Thanks for the analysis, FH! I agree that Elohcin looks bad here. I went so far as to vote llama, mainly because of his DP vote, and she did the same thing. Llama at least offered a rationale for his vote, even if it was a poor one in my opinion.

Oh, I freely acknowledge that my rationale for voting DP was poor, but I contend that the rationale for voting for anyone on Day 1 is going to be poor, as there is not enough data to go on. My vote was a guess, just as everyone else's vote was a guess. At least I didn't randomize like DP did.

I also suspect Elohcin and right now she is probably the most likely candidate for my vote (assuming I survive the night.)

Why do you suspect Elohcin? Forgive me if you've answered this already. Why Elohcin and not Epig?

She seems very willing to go along with what other people say without much analysis of her own. I couldn't understand why she followed my DP vote. The way she has been echoing Rob looks weird. It's possible that she's a civvie with secret BTSC, but at the moment I don't trust her.

Russtifinko wrote: Thanks for the analysis, FH! I agree that Elohcin looks bad here. I went so far as to vote llama, mainly because of his DP vote, and she did the same thing. Llama at least offered a rationale for his vote, even if it was a poor one in my opinion.

Oh, I freely acknowledge that my rationale for voting DP was poor, but I contend that the rationale for voting for anyone on Day 1 is going to be poor, as there is not enough data to go on. My vote was a guess, just as everyone else's vote was a guess. At least I didn't randomize like DP did.

I also suspect Elohcin and right now she is probably the most likely candidate for my vote (assuming I survive the night.)

reywaS wrote:So you admit that it's hyperbole? At least you can admit that. lol

I hate hyperbole. It's the worst thing in the whole world!

If I were playing a purely strategic game, I would have made exactly three posts by now, like DP, and no one would now be suspecting me, but a purely strategic game is not an interesting game, at least not for me.

Ambray wrote:
A more interesting game? You can have many suspicions, doesn't mean everyone has to vote it.
There is a point to this game, you know. Civvies try to get rid of baddies and vice versa. Kinda need to play stategicly.

If you have just said your first sentence, I would've said "okay, makes sense to me"...but no.

I play to have fun. If I manage to win while having fun, great, but fun is my priority. I happen to think it is more fun when suspicion and votes are spread around than when there are a series of unanimous lynch votes.

Why do people think the lynch switch would be more likely to go to the person with the second least number of votes? If it were me, I would switch to someone no one suspects, knowing that they will be harder to kill off later than someone who is already getting votes.

Ambray wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I like how spread out the voting is so far and that there appears to be no bandwagon effect. It fits in with my suspicion that the baddies are hiding among the low posters.

This post really, really struck out to me. The more I read what others are bringing up against llama, the more it makes sense to me.
Now I'm waring with myself, because llama is relatively new to mafia, but he has still played 2 games so should've picked up the mechanics by now, perhaps not tactics. So should he know that no it's a terrible thing to spread out the votes, because it means the baddies can manipulate the vote?
This post just doesn't sit with me.

I can certainly see your point here, and it did occur to me that the baddies could vote late and manipulate the results, but from my perspective as someone who expected to get a lot of votes, it was comforting to see that I was not the clear favorite. I also think it's kind of boring when everyone votes the same, and so for purely a-strategic reasons, I liked seeing the suspicion spread around. Makes for a more interesting game, IMO.

linki: he man, because I am already under a lot of suspicion and will probably be voted off soon anyway.

After sleeping on it, I am more convinced that the switch was an attempt to frame Epignosis.
The baddies had to know that saving Rob would cast suspicion on him and that he would be a likely target for the next lynch. So, if Rob is bad, they would likely get one baddie lynch and one civvie lynch (MP).
But on the other hand, the baddies know who all the good guys are, so if they switched the vote from one civvie to another, and then Rob gets lynched as a response, they end up with two dead civvies and no dead baddies, starting the game off with a two person advantage. It makes me really anxious about voting for Rob today.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I am tenacious, lol. I really am.

Yes, I've noticed.

So still no serious response?

Gotcha

I'm an experimental player. Today's experiment is to refuse to give you a serious response. Let's see how it works out!

S~V~S wrote:I am tenacious, lol. I really am.

Yes, I've noticed.

blindfaeth wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

blindfaeth wrote:Rip mp, I really can't believe you turned up civ. I made an error in voting for you, sorry.

I was also going to point out that in addition to the zombie having a lynch switch, the diamond sword does as well, so it might not have been a save or set up at all, but maybe the sword did it. Then again, the sword also has a lynch stop, I think on a day one that's more likely to be used.

True. What motive would the sword have to switch the lynch anyway? The civs have no BTSC.

Well for one if the person being lynched was the sword, or had secret BTSC with the person being lynched, but again, I think it's more likely they'd use the stop on day 1 if their hand was forced. You never know though.

I didn't think about the person being lynched being the sword. Excellent point.

@SVS: it's okay. I still like you anyway.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:But even without BTSC, any civ might have reason to switch a lynch, although I find it less likely on Day One. That remark, "the civs have no BTSC", just really strikes me in so many ways.

You've made up your mind about me, so I don't see much point in trying to convince you otherwise. Let's hope the others have better judgment.

You should try, you might change my mind.

Giving up seems, well, baddie to me.

Everything I've done seems baddie to you. You are either wrong or a baddie who really wants me lynched for some reason.

S~V~S wrote:But even without BTSC, any civ might have reason to switch a lynch, although I find it less likely on Day One. That remark, "the civs have no BTSC", just really strikes me in so many ways.

You've made up your mind about me, so I don't see much point in trying to convince you otherwise. Let's hope the others have better judgment.

blindfaeth wrote:Rip mp, I really can't believe you turned up civ. I made an error in voting for you, sorry.

I was also going to point out that in addition to the zombie having a lynch switch, the diamond sword does as well, so it might not have been a save or set up at all, but maybe the sword did it. Then again, the sword also has a lynch stop, I think on a day one that's more likely to be used.

True. What motive would the sword have to switch the lynch anyway? The civs have no BTSC.

S~V~S wrote:I really, really think llama could be bad

I'm sorry to disappoint you, SVS, but you've got me all wrong. Deep dow, I'm a really good guy, I swear.

RIP MoPi! For what it's worth, I thought you were good.

As I see it, one of two things happened: the baddies used their switch to save Epi because he is their friend, or they used their switch to frame Epi because he is their enemy. It seems a terrible waste of a great power to do the latter, but it also seems foolish to do the former, because now people are pretty likely to vote Epi again on the next day.

I, like indiglo, did notice Rob and Elohcin parroting each other fairly strongly, and that has me worried, so right now I am looking at those two pretty carefully.

The past is the past.
I would appreciate it if we could refrain from personal attacks in the future.

Roxy wrote: Linky with llama he reads to me like a like a petulant child who will not admit he misrepresenting what I said.

I don't think that is fair or sportsmanlike.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

Roxy wrote:Then do it again.

I don't think so. Who do you think you are? Just vote for me and get it over with!

I was really trying to give Snowie the BOTD, but do comments like these read as baddie to anyone else or is it just me?

I hate to keep defending Snow Dog, because I really have no idea whether he is good or not, but this did not read baddie at all to me. He has posted the quote in question three (I think) times now and if I were in his shoes I would refuse to do it again as well. To me, he seems like a frustrated civvie who doesn't want to talk anymore about an issue that has already been beaten to death.

I like how spread out the voting is so far and that there appears to be no bandwagon effect. It fits in with my suspicion that the baddies are hiding among the low posters.

reywaS wrote: Another thing. If everyone else was "implying" the same thing as Roxy, why in the world did you call her out on it??? You jumped onto her because of her back and forth with llama.

This is untrue. Anyone can read page 2 of this thread and see that Snow Dog and Roxy started this discussion long before I jumped into it.

reywaS wrote: well, then I take great pride in knowing that I am annoying you. Aren't you the one that made the comment that SVS talked about where you are trying to squash discussion? I will always say what's on my mind whether it annoys people or not.

To paraphrase Monty Python: "Yes you did!" "No I didn't!" "Yes you did!" "No I didn't!" is not a discussion.

reywaS wrote:Does anyone else see this implication in the above sentence?

I do, but I don't think it matters.

Implication is subjective. Just because it doesn't imply something to you doesn't mean it doesn't imply something to others. I am tired of this same argument about one line of Roxy's though, because I don't think it is relevant and I don't think we are gaining any new information out of it, just annoying people.

LittleTiger wrote:

What a strange thought process

MP asked a question, Indiglo answered with a post about the rules and you deduce that Indiglo must have received a PM from that... very strange.

Anyway, this could end up being much ado about nothing - but given that there ARE rules concerning this subject, I think it best that we leave it here

Honestly, I didn't see MP's question when I posted that. Now that I do, I agree that my deduction about Indiglo was overblown. Mea culpa.

LittleTiger wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

indiglo wrote:

Kate wrote: no reproduction of host PMs
We do not discuss prizes!

I am assuming this means we can't discuss what happened due to the Day 0 poll one way or the other.

Now this is interesting. Indiglo seems to have gotten a PM from Kate after the Day 0 poll. I certainly did not get one.

Hmm.

How do you get that from her posting something from the Host Rules in response to MP asking about it?

I don't see why you would bring up not being able to reproduce host PMs if you didn't receive a host PM.

indiglo wrote:

Kate wrote: no reproduction of host PMs
We do not discuss prizes!

I am assuming this means we can't discuss what happened due to the Day 0 poll one way or the other.

Now this is interesting. Indiglo seems to have gotten a PM from Kate after the Day 0 poll. I certainly did not get one.

Hmm.

MovingPictures07 wrote:It's just really two different people with different personalities clashing.

This is my read of the situation as well, which is why I don't suspect Roxy at this point.

I would like to respectfully request that people don't lynch me, as I am not a baddie.

I have made up my mind. I'm voting for DisgruntledPorcupine. Why? Because my gut tells me to and because of the reasons I previously outlined for suspecting low posters. How can he be disgruntled and yet also be a porcupine? It makes no sense!

*Votes DP*

Ambray wrote: Everyone else is just talking in circles and accusing any and everything that even dares to breathe in here.

I was accusing people who WEREN'T daring to breathe, and you weren't happy with that either. Make up your mind.

Ambray wrote:
So nobody at all that has been posting has given you pings??

Well, He Man had exactly one post in the forty-eight hours of Day 0 and the First half of Day 1. Then I mentioned looking at low posters and now he has 13. Combined with the general incoherence of his posts, this worries me a bit.

Ordinarily, I would agree with the points being made about not voting for low posters on day 1. However, I believe this situation is different than the norm, due to the highly vocal conflict (discussion, conversation, whatever you want to call it) providing good cover for baddies. If I were a baddie, and saw the civvies fighting amongst themselves, I would certainly stay out of it, so that is what I am basing my vote on today.

Epignosis wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying.

He Man's post makes no sense to me either. I clearly laid out my reasons for suspecting low-posters.

Right now, I am thinking I will vote for DP. Something about his few meager posts pings me and my gut is saying he is a wicked, wicked porcupine. However, since I have been mentioned so many times, I may (may) hold off and see if I need to use my vote to defend myself.

Snow Dog wrote: Was the Masters Of the Universe game your first too?

Yes, it was, although I have played many hidden role type games before.

@S~V~S: I don't agree that I have made remarks attempting to squash discussion. In fact, I have stated that I will try not to punish those who tend to be active posters for their play style.

You are taking the ennui comment far too seriously, as I was just trying to be funny by using an unusual and colorful word. Perhaps I should have posted it in sarcastic orange.

Regarding the quote you pulled, I was not trying to squash discussion, I merely found the conversation between Snow Dog and Roxy tiresome because they kept going back and forth saying the same things over and over again in what I felt was an unproductive manner.

blindfaeth wrote:i dont even know what ennui means lol. hope its not a bad word, if so, shame on me, I'll wash my mouth out with soap.

You're safe!

en·nui
/änˈwē/
Noun
Listlessness and dissatisfaction arising from a lack of occupation or excitement.

Sorry for the triple post, but I had one more thought before bed.
FACT: the baddies have BTSC.
FACT: This little snit we have going on started off between Roxy and Snow Dog, was joined by me and finally grew to include S~V~S.
QUESTION: why would an intelligent baddie willingly leap into a conflict between civvies and risk implicating himself when it would be far easier to lie back and let the civvies lynch each other? And wold he not, realizing this, advise his comrades to do the same?
CONCLUSION: I am at this point less likely to suspect Snow Dog, Roxy and S~V~S than I am those who have largely avoided the topic, and I hope others will follow my reasoning and see that I would have to be more stupid than I like to think I am to insert myself between Roxy and Snow Dog if I were in fact bad.

Goodnight.

Now, regarding suspicions for day 1. I don't actually think Roxy is a very good candidate for lynching. Her aggressive style (which is in no way derogatory, merely descriptive) seems consistent with the other games I have played with her. I am slightly pinged by Snow Dog's arguing against the logic of the house, as if he were trying to dissuade us from voting for it. And while I saw the point he was trying to make, I don't know why he felt the need to keep making it. MP seems fine, but then he always does. S~V~S, I feel, has come out against me with unwarranted strength.

My real worry is that the baddies are laying low and letting the civs bicker amongst ourselves. With that in mind, I am tempted to vote for a low-poster. I will wait and see how the discussion goes tomorrow before coming to any conclusions, though.

So apparently I am not allowed to use the words "aggressive," "vehement" and "ennui." Perhaps Roxy could submit a list of words that are acceptable for me to use without hurting her feelings, or better yet, just write my posts for me.