The Syndicate

Job wrote:Consider in addition to what I've already pointed out, how many people are subtly defending Uzziah comment by calling suspicion of him dumb or lazy. This makes me wary tbqh. I disagree that it is easy. If you want an example take a look at how difficult it is to convince the players in this very game.

People make valid points when they say 'but why would you do that if you're bad?' to which I respond, stop using that as the sum of the case. Yes it is the basis point for why I am suspicious of him, but he has done scummiest things since then, like refusing to be helpful and responding snarkily, voting early, etc.

But if you're still hung up on the rooting statement, I'll say again. The reason you would say 'I am bad' when good is so that you get lynched and everyone discovers OMG he did it as town. It only takes a few times of that happening before eventually you're dealt a scum role and now you are free to say things that are bat sit crazy without suspicion. My point being, no one knows for certain who Uzziah is, so there is no point in setting up for a future game. He's doing it for the wifom.

Mordecai wrote: Anyway I didn't find anything in Martha's posts where she points to people other than Paul and Absalom a bit. Unless I missed it somehow. So unfortunately this didnt give me anything new and this kill still only points to Paul and Absalom, which has me doing mental gymnastics. On one hand, this is an extremely obvious frame. On the other hand, that would be a perfect time for either Paul or Absalom to make the Martha kill and hide behind the reasoning of "Why would I do something so obvious?". So it's either a frame, or one of those two players has some pretty big brass balls to make that play. Still determining whether or not one of them would do that, but Absalom doesnt seem like the type who has the guts to go through with it. Paul is under my microscope at the moment.

Martha wrote:Do you not want to discuss how you and Paul are apparent teammates, Absalom dear? You seemed to only focus on the last part to get attention back off.

Martha wrote:You were trying to build cred sweetie by saying you think he would be Civ.,but you showed no opinion on him being civ or how we should not have voted him. I felt like you were trying to make yourself look good without trying to ever support him. You and Paul are not rubbing me the right way sweet cheeks.

Martha wrote: Then this whole Absalom post for his Cain vote was just odd dears. I think it was a slip he meant.

Absalom wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Jephthah wrote:I think the votes for Samson are lame. I agree that it's the easiest scapegoat. A baddie would have to be a complete idiot to just vote like that and not explain it, and then go and say he doesn't think the one he voted for is bad. And no, this is not WIFOM because it's a stupid WIFOM, just look at the votes he's getting.

I'm probably going to pick one of Samsons' voters. I still need to read back a little

I agree with this. I will be surprised if Samson flips civ.

I mean I will be surprised if Samson DOESN'T flip civ. Derp.

To me it's like he got caught, not a typo. I didn't see him steering any of us away from Samson or suggesting he was Civ so why is he so confident?

I think Absalom is definitely my vote tomorrow at this point and I think he and Paul are a little too chummy with each other for my liking hunnies.

Absalom wrote:

Jephthah wrote:I think the votes for Samson are lame. I agree that it's the easiest scapegoat. A baddie would have to be a complete idiot to just vote like that and not explain it, and then go and say he doesn't think the one he voted for is bad. And no, this is not WIFOM because it's a stupid WIFOM, just look at the votes he's getting.

I'm probably going to pick one of Samsons' voters. I still need to read back a little

I agree with this. I will be surprised if Samson flips civ.

Jephthah wrote:I think the votes for Samson are lame. I agree that it's the easiest scapegoat. A baddie would have to be a complete idiot to just vote like that and not explain it, and then go and say he doesn't think the one he voted for is bad. And no, this is not WIFOM because it's a stupid WIFOM, just look at the votes he's getting.

I'm probably going to pick one of Samsons' voters. I still need to read back a little

Malchus wrote:

Absalom wrote:Paul, your list is people you say are not scum hunting. What do you think of the very low posters, like Pilate or Mary Magdelene? They are not scum hunting either.

I'm going to vote for you.

Rebecca wrote:I take it the votes aren't changeable then?

We're all way too divided, I'm not sure how I feel about that... :/

Cain wrote:Well then vote me genius

Cain wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Martha wrote:Absalom how am I backing down from it? I was clarifying a post. I'm still me darling whether is makes people annoyed or not hunny.

You totally broke character, which is not something I would have expected from someone who seemed to be committed to playing a sock role.

You, amongst other people, were kind of mean to her about being in character, so what did you expect her to do?

I expected her to shrug it off or ignore it. Instead she got defensive, which to me is an indicator of guilt.

Belshazzar wrote:I am wary of Cain so far. Day 0, vote threat against meta hunters. Day 1, "what's everyone getting worked up about" skim of the game. I anticipate him to be a low poster type of player, but also the kind that, recalling from a few recent games, has proven to be bad and lasted long enough in the game, whilst the others ignored him or bickered over dealing with him or not. Really don't like his Day 1 comment.

Cain continues to get my hackles up too. I am leaning towards a Cain vote unless something changes my mind in the next couple of hours.

How can I continue to get your hackles up with one post?

Rachel wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Martha wrote:Absalom how am I backing down from it? I was clarifying a post. I'm still me darling whether is makes people annoyed or not hunny.

You totally broke character, which is not something I would have expected from someone who seemed to be committed to playing a sock role.

You, amongst other people, were kind of mean to her about being in character, so what did you expect her to do?

Belshazzar wrote:I am wary of Cain so far. Day 0, vote threat against meta hunters. Day 1, "what's everyone getting worked up about" skim of the game. I anticipate him to be a low poster type of player, but also the kind that, recalling from a few recent games, has proven to be bad and lasted long enough in the game, whilst the others ignored him or bickered over dealing with him or not. Really don't like his Day 1 comment.

Martha wrote:Absalom how am I backing down from it? I was clarifying a post. I'm still me darling whether is makes people annoyed or not hunny.

Paul wrote: wake me when d2

Martha wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:More:

If Martha's "hunnies" are sockplay (I didn't get the reference, tbh, I'm not that knowledgeable), then I'm fine with it. Sockplay is fine by me.

Tbh I am sock playing when I speak some of the time, but the point I keep trying to make was Paul was rubbing me the wrong way by not how he was talking, but how was he acting when he posted. I was also fishing for reactions when I mentioned so what if that is how I really talk or not? I think it's interesting some of the responses of wanting me lynched just for how I talk and saying I'm annoying. I think if anyone talks differently than normal, that's the point of a sock game to have mystery to everyone's usernames. I think we should focus on finding Heathens and less on if someone seems like a new player or how they speak, dears.

Paul wrote:miss me?

Gideon wrote:

Lot wrote:I'm quite surprised at how much heat I'm taking today with very little clear justification. I make one post about balaam, and I'm 'going after him'? By the way gideon, what is it about balaam that makes you so sure he is good?

I have nothing to say about that.

Rahab wrote:I think as usual a lot of the baddies are probably hiding and laughing at how we're going after the high posters. Reading the thread, while Paul posts a whole lot and makes me read pages, he seems to be truly scumhunting, so I don't want to vote him. I enjoy how people play differently behind socks, so like others I'm not wanting to vote people doing that to its full extent just yet and we'll see if it lasts in the coming days. Right now I'm wanting to know why Samson jumped to vote Samuel without much explanation. I'd also like to see more thoughts from people who haven't talked as much, just to see more thoughts. And more biblical jokes based on socks.

Job wrote:

Paul wrote:

Lot wrote:I could see Paul getting a lot of votes... I'd consider voting that way. So far not much has stood out for me. Paul has, very much, with posts and practices which seem designed to set himself apart. So has Ruth - what with the apparent fishing for finding out where people are from and then waving it off as a joke.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone felt that their vote in the poll yesterday turned out to be worthwhile. I, for one, do not - at least I have no reason to believe it was for now.

this post essentially says I could see a wagon on Paul so I'm not gonna commit to voting him but gonna leave the possibility here for later b/c I am scum and need to find a reason to vote someone

I agree this post of Lots was odd. Why state your intent to vote someone simply because they have the potential to get a lot of votes? Vote for who you find suspicious, don't vote someone just because all the cool kids are doing it.

Paul wrote:

Absalom wrote: Okay, the Paul show is getting a little old. I don't think he's bad, but he's drowning out everything else in the thread, make it hard for me to get a read on others.

then vote me fool

srsly I will leave now

Paul wrote:

Paul wrote: I am curious what everyone thinks of everyone else no joke try to force yourself to make an opinion of those who have posted and share it b/c that's now town wins this game

actually how about everyone instead name their top 3 scum atm

1 Samson
2 Lot
3 Nicodemus

i await your thoughts, wonderful people

Mordecai wrote:

Martha wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:Ah shit. Drinking and mafia do not often mix

You can tell me if you're a heathen, the Lord is watching and sees all anyway dear. Have another glass of whiskey, forgive me Lord I do not drink myself and would never. I don't even drink wine around Jesus.

But if our lord Jesus Christ turned water to wine, and offered it to you, would you decline a miraculous gift from the son of god himself?

Belshazzar wrote:Re: the Horsemen, I don't think they can be trusted at all or be expected to side with the Righteous. It's a heavily obscured, in terms of win condition and abilities, and terrifying, canon-wise, quartet. What Jonah said about finishing off the Heathens in order to win the game being "too easy" reminds me of Death Note: civs only had to eliminate four players (out of 27) to win, but bickered over an entire rogue faction being civ-friendly or not (granted, they were destined to receive the power to kill at certain point- although they never did), and almost all the four players that needed to be eliminated won the game unscathed. My point being we should primarly aim for the Righteous' win condition: take out the Heathens.

Malchus wrote:

Absalom wrote:I'm glad it's day 1. Now we can get moving. Despite Paul's early vote, I actually feel good about him. I also feel good about Nicodemus. That leaves.... a lot of other people. I don't know, maybe it's just his name, but Cain dropping in with only two posts, one of which was an accusation and a vote threat is something I noticed. That, and Balaam seems to be coming off a tad hostile.

How could you possibly feel good about another player this early in Day 1?

Jephthah wrote:

Lot wrote:I could see Paul getting a lot of votes... I'd consider voting that way. So far not much has stood out for me. Paul has, very much, with posts and practices which seem designed to set himself apart. So has Ruth - what with the apparent fishing for finding out where people are from and then waving it off as a joke.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone felt that their vote in the poll yesterday turned out to be worthwhile. I, for one, do not - at least I have no reason to believe it was for now.

No, but I got a good laugh out of it.

So pepole trying to set themselves apart = scum?

Balaam wrote: I fear you wasted your vote by casting it so early.

Paul wrote: scum do not win the bible

Paul wrote:yea I'm new recruited here by moving pictures

why can't we kill scum yet

Nicodemus wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:I'd study The Law to compare it with Babylon's own.

Not a fan of Daniel's book.

Intrigued by Barnabas' color & BTSC question and Paul's use of the term scum. Are you new to the site, brothers?

That or they simply wish to appear as such.

Paul wrote:can we kill scum now