The Syndicate

Always a pleasure to see Lazarus back to his old tricks.

So no one else is with me on Balaam, huh? Well I don't care. He's my top suspect and I'm voting him, despite his heroic efforts to talk me out of it.

Belshazzar wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:Balaam speaks of several theories on what could influence both Job's and Uzziah's obstinate gameplay and I can think what some of them might be myself. Jonah also brought up a theory of their feud "not being of their own making" and, while this may not be clear to all the players, suffice to say I'm also aware of this possibility. The problem, however, is that neither of these cases, if they're true, would force Job and Uzziah to focus solely on each other, instead of performing more than that. And yet, they both aren't doing anything besides that and are not helping in any other way, which is still a very questionable thing.

You're right- I never thought of their feud as being something laid upon them. Could be some Horseplay going on there?

Think so too. If I were to guess...War?

This makes a lot of sense, now that you've said it.

Balaam wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Absalom wrote:Are you bad?

I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.

I notice you didn't say "no".

Oh now you done did it, Absalom. Just for you, buddy, here's Balaam's list of responses to your question:

Absalom wrote:Are you bad?

No.
I am not bad.
I am not a baddie.
I am not a Heathen.
I am not a Horseman.
I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.
I am not a civvie role that can turn against other civvies.
The Heathens need to kill or outnumber me and the rest of the civvies to win.
I personally believe the same is true about the Horsemen.
I am trying to help my fellow civvies win the game.
I want to stone Heathens and Horsemen.
I am good.
I am a C.
I am a C-I.
I am a C-I-V-I-L-L-I-A-N.
And I have C-I-V-V-I-E in my H-E-A-R-T
And I will L-I-V-E E-T-E-R-N-A-L-L-Y.*

* actually I will only continue to live so long as I am not stoned or NK'ed

Thank you for your answer Balaam. II give you credit for your responsiveness. What I learn from this is that you really don't want to be lynched (I don't think you're in danger since I am the only one talking about voting for you.) What I infer from that... remains to be seen. Rest assured that I will think about my vote before I cast it.

Balaam wrote:

Absalom wrote:Are you bad?

I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.

I notice you didn't say "no".

Balaam wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Balaam wrote: I'll ask the question again, Absalom- is there anything you want to hear from me that might help ease your mind about me? Fire away- I'll answer any question you like. I'd much rather be voted for due to concrete evidence than for tone reads and gut intuitions, neither of which have proven to be very successful thus far.

I'm sure you see the problem. If I said "Balaam, old buddy, if you say X I'll believe you're good" and then you say X, it proves nothing, because anyone can say what they are told to say regardless of alignment. It's an impossible request that seems to make you look reasonable, and make me look unreasonable by failing to comply with it. Very cleverly crafted, but in fact that question makes me feel worse about you.

Fine, I'll simplify the question so you don't end up over-analyzing it: Hey Absalom, got any questions for me? Fire away- I'll answer anything. I've got nothing to hide.

Are you bad?

Balaam wrote: I'll ask the question again, Absalom- is there anything you want to hear from me that might help ease your mind about me? Fire away- I'll answer any question you like. I'd much rather be voted for due to concrete evidence than for tone reads and gut intuitions, neither of which have proven to be very successful thus far.

I'm sure you see the problem. If I said "Balaam, old buddy, if you say X I'll believe you're good" and then you say X, it proves nothing, because anyone can say what they are told to say regardless of alignment. It's an impossible request that seems to make you look reasonable, and make me look unreasonable by failing to comply with it. Very cleverly crafted, but in fact that question makes me feel worse about you.

Well, I see that everyone has been as busy as I am, which makes for an easy catch-up, but may not be ideal for baddie hunting.

Rachel, I see your case on Job. I understand it. I don't agree with it. I am not getting baddie vibes from Job.
I also see the case on Rachel having contradicted herself. I don't think she's bad either.
I am a little suspicious of Uzziah for narrowly avoiding lynches day after day. Smells a little fishy to me, but...
I'm going to have to give my vote to Balaam today. Here's why:

1. His lists, while they have become more helpful, initially read to me as a way of saying "look at me! I'm helping! I must be good because I am helping!"
2. His comment about the Heathens having the game all sewed up, besides being untrue, felt a little like wishful thinking on his part.
3. My gut is just screaming at me to vote for him, and I like to listen to me gut.

I'll hold off on actually voting to see if anything else comes up today, but thta is probably what I will do.

Belshazzar wrote: linki: Modkills? Gideon was night killed. Hagar was the victim of divine judgement. The Lord =/= the Host.

My mistake. I interpreted that as Hagar being killed by the Host for inactivity, but now I see that I was mistaken.

Well, it looks like Modkills are in play. That may not bode well for us. RIP Gideon, RIP Hagar.

Pilate is frustrating in his unwillingness to actually do anything constructive.

You guys, I can't help it, I am all pinged out over Balaam. I just don't trust the guy. I know I'm alone on this, but it's how I feel.

Rachel wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Rachel wrote:^I think that logic is sound despite my suspicion of you.

Thank you, Rachel. I always appreciate clear thinking, even when it comes from people who want me dead.

What say you of Job?

I have no issue with Job. I think he thinks Uzziah is bad and is frustrated that he keeps escaping lynches. I can relate.

Rachel wrote:^I think that logic is sound despite my suspicion of you.

Thank you, Rachel. I always appreciate clear thinking, even when it comes from people who want me dead.

Balaam wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Balaam wrote: You know, you've almost convinced me to test my theory on you. Stoning another civvie would all but guarantee the Heathens or Horsemen win though.

This kind of fatalism pings me, especially since it isn't true. Assuming a night kill tonight, a civvie lynch tomorrow, and then another night kill, there would still be 26 players left, only five of which would be Heathens. That's a guaranteed heathen victory? Like fun it is!

I think your assumption that the Horsemen aren't a threat is foolish.

That's ridiculous. I make no such assumption. I've explicitly said I think the Horseman should be considered a threat from the beginning. But I don't have any reason to think the Horsemen are working with the Heathens, or share a win condition. Some Horsemen may have already been killed, and we have not seen a kill from them yet, so I'm assuming they don't have one. That means they shouldn't be counted as part of the Heathen team, and they are just as capable of voting to lynch Heathens as we are.

Balaam wrote: You know, you've almost convinced me to test my theory on you. Stoning another civvie would all but guarantee the Heathens or Horsemen win though.

This kind of fatalism pings me, especially since it isn't true. Assuming a night kill tonight, a civvie lynch tomorrow, and then another night kill, there would still be 26 players left, only five of which would be Heathens. That's a guaranteed heathen victory? Like fun it is!

Balaam wrote:

Absalom wrote:I completely forgot Hagar was playing, to be honest.

THis is actually one of your more helpful lists, Balaam.

Glad to hear it. I wasn't sure it was going to be useful but what else am I here for? :P

By the way, Absalom, are you able to confirm that you were under some kind of curse/order to do the crabby pants 'BAH!' stuff for Day 3?

The host didn't tell me not to say anything, but I'll play it safe and say nothing other than that my skin hurt really bad.

I completely forgot Hagar was playing, to be honest.

THis is actually one of your more helpful lists, Balaam.

Not the best result. RIP Mary.

In other news, my skin is feeling much better now, thanks for asking.

Ugh, I need to vote. I hate voting. Everything is terrible. Argh. I will vote for Uzziah, because his silence is suspicious and his identity is a question that needs to be answered.

I am trying to make up my mind who to vote for and noticing two things.
1. Uzziah, who was on the verge of being lynched the last two days, has gone eerily quiet.
2. The suspicion of him seems to have evaporated as well.

Do people no longer think he is bad? Is he being opportunistic and taking advantage of other suspects by laying low so we forget about him? (that's something anyone would do, bad or not, so I don't blame him for that.)

Belshazzar wrote:One more thing that stuck out to me was how Rachel criticised Absalom this Day for criticising Balaam's list-making, with an intention of voting him for that

Absalom wrote:

Pilate wrote:I am not a pirate. Absalom seems especially negative today. I wonder what boils his blood?

No, it's not boils. I wish it were. Anything else would be preferable to this. I hate it. Bah.

Also, I want to lodge a complaint about Balaam's long, irrelevant lists. They make me want to vote for him, frankly.

Rachel wrote:Absalom, wanna elaborate on how that might make him bad? Or are you going to continue to act irrationally and condemn others for doing the same.

although she herself criticised Balaam's list-making on Day 2, with an intention of voting him for that

Rachel wrote:

Balaam wrote:Now then, on to other matters and curiosities. Here are some points to ponder as we close in on the next stoning:

A whopping 13 players have not posted during Day 2. That's 13 out of 32 living players, or 40.625%. Here's who has been playing hooky, how they've voted, and who they've commented +/- on:

<sorry, snipping the actual list>

Anyone see anything to infer from this data?

I might vote for you just because you are trying so so hard to be helpful without doing anything helpful.

Oh snap! My back hurts.

Jonathan wrote:

Absalom wrote:
It's a complaint to everyone, because it's too hot and there's a lot of monkey business going on here that's not being called out, and I hate it. Bah.

Absalom I hope you don't mind that i cut your post down to this one line. The original had quotes and all but all I want to ask about is this one line. What do you mean about the monkey business going on that's not being called out? I didn't see any further explanation.

Also, i just read all of your posts and it seems obvious to me that all of your Bahs and complaints and general bad mood has been caused by some kind of curse. The change from your normal style to this new style was abrupt. I also did not see anything I personally am suspicious of at the moment so I am not looking to you for a vote unless something big comes up to change my mind.

Oh I'm just mad in general, but particularly at the things that are getting people suspected. People aren't connecting the "I noticed this" to the "this makes him likely to be bad" dots. They are just jumping from one to the other. Also, I have to work this weekend and how is that fair? There's a rock in my shoe. Bah.

Mordecai wrote: Secondly I have great disdain for the fact that you are placing some kind of "value" rating on players. Get off your high horse. It makes it seem like you think some people are expendable and I do not agree with that in the slightest.

People who don't post or vote are more expendable than people who do. Fact. Horsemen are more expendable than civilians. Fact. I have a headache and my knee is acting up. Storm's a comin'. Bah.

Mordecai wrote:

Isaac wrote:
Also, Mordecai, can we have your sober opinion now that we have an extension?

I barely remember making that post, but they say a drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts so I'll stick by it.

Basically the condensed version is that I feel like him making that post was unnecessary fluff. If you're a civ, you shouldnt like a night kill period, no matter who dies. Saying "RIP" and what not is one thing, but specifically stating to the thread that you didnt like the nightkill and that you disagree with it seems weird to me. I'm unsure on whether or not that makes him bad, but I don't like it. It seems like over compensation. Like in a movie where somebody kills another character and they really oversell their reaction to the cops. It just seems off.

There's no one in the game you would mourn more than anyone else? Bah, I don't have time for this. My feet hurt, and the beer is getting warm.

Ugh, everything is terrible. I mean the worst. I hate it. Let me post one more time to make my position on Cain quite clear so people stop accusing me of being proud (a sin) of lynching him.

I had one vote to cast, with the following options.
1. Vote for the person I thought was bad.
2. Vote for someone I didn't really think was bad, because the person I though was bad was either silenced or faking being silenced.

To me, option 2 is ridiculous and insane.But I realize other people disagree, and I don't call them out and vote for them just because they disagree with me. A difference of opinion on this question does not mean the differing parties are on opposite teams. I am also not the only person who voted for Cain. Many other people did, and the fact that you are singling e out for that vote is unfair and I am complaining about it. I hate it.



Bah.

Rachel wrote: I am very much at odds with Absalom. He seems to have an excuse for everything and anything. In particular, he should show some shame for silencing a silenced player, but does not. Rather, he seems proud of it. I am not sure if that makes him bad, but it certainly makes me wary of his words.

I have to complain about this representation of me. I've explained why I disagree with you on this. If you're going to lynch everyone who disagrees with you, you're going to lose the game (unless you are a Heathen). I am not proud of lynching Cain (nor am I the only one who voted for him). I just don't think people who are not posting should be given a free ride if there are other reasons to suspect them. I'm so cranky about this, and I hate it. Bah.

Balaam wrote:

Absalom wrote:Also, I want to lodge a complaint about Balaam's long, irrelevant lists. They make me want to vote for him, frankly.

Rachel wrote:Absalom, wanna elaborate on how that might make him bad? Or are you going to continue to act irrationally and condemn others for doing the same.

What she said. But seriously, Absalom, is that a complaint to the host or a complaint to your fellow players? If data scares or irritates you, then go ahead and vote for me. I think I'm being helpful. If you think I'm being a distraction or obstructive in some way, please let me know how and why. Maybe I can make my data dumps make a little more sense to you.

It's a complaint to everyone, because it's too hot and there's a lot of monkey business going on here that's not being called out, and I hate it. Bah.
I don't think you're being a distraction, I think you're creating the illusion of helpfulness. Posting a lot of data or superficial analysis makes it seem like you are helping the civvie cause, without actually accomplishing much. I think it's a baddie play.

Mordecai wrote:

Absalom wrote:Why would someone kill Paul? That's lame. I disapprove of that decision and I hate it. Bah.

This seems like ober compensation to me. A player who is a civ should never APPROVE of a night kill in he first place. I really dont like that he came in here just to state that he didnt like the night kill. The only time someone disapproves of a night kill is when they are with the baddies and their team made a decision they didnt like. Otherwise you never want anybody to die at all because it lessens your chances of winning Perhaps Absalom would have preferred the death of someone else instead?

Yeah, a Horseman would have been nice. Or maybe someone who is not contributing. It's disingenuous to pretend that all living players are equally valuable. Paul was contributing. Others aren't, so yeah, I would have preferred a different kill. Bah.

Pilate wrote:I am not a pirate. Absalom seems especially negative today. I wonder what boils his blood?

No, it's not boils. I wish it were. Anything else would be preferable to this. I hate it. Bah.

Also, I want to lodge a complaint about Balaam's long, irrelevant lists. They make me want to vote for him, frankly.

Rachel wrote:Who do you think did so, Absalom, son of David.

Some idiot. The pattern seems to be killing people who are annoying, which is a foolish strategy for the baddies. I hate them. Bah.

Why would someone kill Paul? That's lame. I disapprove of that decision and I hate it. Bah.

Nicodemus wrote:A good name is better than fine perfume, and the day of death better than the day of birth.

What is this nonsense? It's nonsense, and I hate it. Bah.

Rachel wrote: "Don't defend themselves"
Weren't able to defend themselves. There's a difference.

I have no way of knowing whether someone is silenced or pretending to be silenced.

The sparks between Lazarus and Mordecai are certainly interesting. Glad to see some action around here.

I'm also having trouble believing that SO MANY people were actually silenced. It doesn't seem like a wise host mechanic at all to have so many players unable to participate.

Lazarus wrote:Sorry for low participation but it hard for me to get into sock games. Anyways I will be voting Absalom because its uncivvie to vote and push a case on a silenced player.

I'm sorry, I just disagree with you. I think it's uncivvie to give suspicious people a pass because they don't defend themselves.

I'm pretty bummed about the result though. Sorry, Cain. I'll try to do better tomorrow.

Lot wrote:

Jonathan wrote:Well Cain hasn't been to the thread at all today but now i see him lurking in the thread. Whether he talks or not will be my deciding factor in the vote. I will wait until I have to vote to see if he says something.

It's this kind of crud that really catches my eye.

Why would Cain show his face - my sock at least, and I'm assuming yours too, was set to hidden before we started the game. I can't see you lurking. Cain has never been visible before. So why would he show off that he is lurking now? And if he fails to post, why would the fact he deliberately showed himself to be lurking be the deciding factor for you?

Shaking my head at the logic going on in this game - this is such a terrible reason for someone about to jump on to a second consecutive bandwagon.

(Absalom, I forgive you. You are absolved!)

I don't think all the socks were by default set to hidden. I saw a few people on the first day, and I doubt they intentionally changed their settings.

Lot wrote:

Absalom wrote:I'm really finding myself agreeing with you a lot, Geoff. I hope you're not tricking me.

Are you stealing my gig?

Yes. I'm stealing it a lot.

Jephthah wrote: In any case, I think that closer to the deadline we're going to see all the mice crawl out of their holes and start saying how they had a crazy day and how busy they are and how they don't have time to catch up, and then they'll vote for the silliest reason an we'll lynch another civvie. That's why I'm waiting with my vote

I'm really finding myself agreeing with you a lot, Geoff. I hope you're not tricking me.

Lot wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Lot wrote:It might not be logical, it was just the vibe I had at the time the vote was going down. But I'm also surprised a lot of people are willing to vote Cain when he is clearly absent. I'd expect at least a little concern and holding of votes to allow him time to talk.

He's had lots of time to talk, and he used it to be threatening and dismissive.

I meant on Day two, which I think you know full well. I agree with your case, Absalom, but it's also generally considered bad form to take someone out when they are silenced, especially so early in the game.

SO anyone can escape being lynched by pretending to be silenced. Gotcha. That's good to know for later.

Lot wrote:It might not be logical, it was just the vibe I had at the time the vote was going down. But I'm also surprised a lot of people are willing to vote Cain when he is clearly absent. I'd expect at least a little concern and holding of votes to allow him time to talk.

He's had lots of time to talk, and he used it to be threatening and dismissive.

Malchus wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Jephthah wrote:Um, did I miss something? Isn't Samson dead? How can he vote for Samuel?

Samson appears to have voted illegally, unless something very strange is going on.

Jumping the shark a little there with that accusation.

Jonah is the only one who should be worried about jumping over sea creatures, I think.

Jephthah wrote:Um, did I miss something? Isn't Samson dead? How can he vote for Samuel?

Samson appears to have voted illegally, unless something very strange is going on.

Jonathan wrote:What is the case on Cain?

I don't know what THE case on Cain is, but I can tell you MY case on him.

1. He initially dropped in, made a vote threat, and disappeared. That was his only contribution for a long time.
2. When I brought this up and said I suspected him, he got hostile. He said he was in four games, and therefore shouldn't be expected to participate.
3. After I voted for him, he disappeared and has said nothing. I interpret this to be an attempt to make us forget about him.
4. I am more suspicious of quieter players this game than usual. I think it's really easy for baddies to do well in a sock game by laying low, and I think Cain has been laying low. That's why I voted for him over Uzziah.

I don't claim it to be an airtight case by any means, but those are my reasons for my vote.

Jephthah wrote:

Absalom wrote:I'm liking Geoff this game. He's on the ball.

Who's Geoff?

You are Geoff. Jephthah->Jeph->Jeff->Geoff.

Mordecai wrote:Paul votes but isn't posting? Why? The heathens have a silencer, but it says that those who are silenced cannot post OR vote.

I don't have anybody I am really ok with voting for. This day had a lot of bickering back and forth, but nothing that really telegraphs heathen to me. Job has my suspicion but I wouldn't be ok with him dying yet. Mary seems odd as well as Cain. I don't want to commit to one because of a small suspicion, and be part of a mislynch again. That bugs me beyond belief.

Yes, accountability is tough when you're a heathen, isn't it?

I'm liking Geoff this game. He's on the ball.

Well, I think I am going to join Silent Paul and vote for Cain to let him know he still has my attention. I feel no better about him today than I did yesterday. In fact, I feel worse.

Balaam wrote: CAIN- He was 2nd in the stoning poll. Made a vote threat if someone didn't stop trying to unsock the game. Claimed to not be very into the game and hadn't spent time to get caught up. Admitted to playing 4 other games besides this one. Completely absent today. Absalom- can you add anything more to this? You seem to still have him on your radar.

Not really much to add. I still suspect him for the same reasons as yesterday, with the added "disappearing to try to get people to forget about him" ping. I really think most of the bad guys are laying low this game.

That being said, I think Jeph (Jeff, Geoff) has a good point about long analysis that doesn't really add anything but appears to be helpful.

I think it's weird that Cain disappeared today. Did he hope I would forget about him? I forget nothing!

Job wrote:I agree its odd we don't have additional options were really discussing. At the same time neither of you are offering to do the legwork yourselves. Are you afraid to stick your neck out? What do you think of Paul /absalom re: martha? Or Rachels theory about mentioning Paul while possibly silenced? If this really concerns you, you should be discussing things like this at greater length..

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Paul were silenced. Multiple people commented on him posting too much, so it's a logical choice. I still think we should be looking at the people who are not attracting much attention to themselves, because that's how you win as a baddie in a sock game.

Uzziah wrote:If Job was good, he would have backed down on pursuing me.

I don't see how that's true. Aren't good guys just as tenacious as bad guys?