The Syndicate

Young Lady

Jephthah wrote: I'm ruling Jacob out because of his hinting. If he were lying, it would be a very bold move on his part to be that specific.

This makes me think you picked up on a lot more hinting than I (or Balaam) did.

Jephthah wrote:I just went to read the roles again. The baddies do have a power that checks dead players' roles, so it is possible that Job is using that.

This makes me think we're not thinking of the same role, because the role I have in mind that Jacob hinted at would still be alive (thus Jacob couldn't possibly dead check it and pretend he's him).

Young Lady

I'm gonna try to work on a different theory called "Lazarus gamble" for possible Heathen tactics. It's less traditional and plausibile than an attempt to keep Rachel closer and maybe tip her over to save Ruth, but it actually has to do with the fact that Ruth herself didn't vote Rachel to save herself, when it would have been a safer attempt to do so, so that's why I'm having it in mind.

Ruth's vote for Absalom would normally have been a very weird way to vote, instead of a self-preservation vote to tie her and Rachel at 5 a piece. Then again, she did in fact state that she picked up (at least) on the suggestion about Lazarus and that's why she voted Absalom. It's still a gamble, because we don't have certainty about Lazarus being Simon, but a decent gamble on a decent assumption all the same. Ruth was AWOL throughout Day 6 in the thread and I don't know if that also affected her BTSC time with her teammates. But, assuming coordination wasn't affected, the best tactics they could have conceived, risking it all on the Lazarus gamble, would be the following:

A. Pile on Absalom.
B. Spread the votes on others enough that no other player would get more lynch votes that Absalom's total

or a combination of both, not to make themselves too obvious.

Now both of these tactics would require wizardry foreshadowing in absence of Lazarus actually voting for Absalom. That moment created enough awareness and panic (from some) that Absalom could be doomed, in order to make the Heathens think of something. So I'd narrow the vote scan to those that came after Lazarus.

Heathens throwing Ruth under the bus, at this point, and especially after Ruth's clear tactical vote for Absalom, would seem like the worst thing to do, since you could still try to keep Absalom high up the tally to maybe not get Ruth lynched. This makes me feel ok about Rachel, Balaam, Samuel, Bathsheba (hmm was this what you actually meant by exonerating, regarding the latter, Balaam?). That would leave Jonathan and Deborah voting Jacob and Jacob voting Rachel.

After Ruth voted Absalom, with the Absalom tactic in mind, the rest of the votes went her way and got her lynched. Since "bussing" Ruth would have been absolutely stupid at that point, that would mean both that 1) Ruth's teammates are to be found amongst those who voted before Ruth did and 2) the A tactic (pile on Absalom) theory goes out the window.

In terms of the B tactic (spreading the votes thin and gamble that Absalom would have a hard to beat 7-vote tally), it puts Jonathan and Deborah in a good position to be suspected for spreading the votes and Jacob to be suspected of doing a bit of both spreading the votes and bringing Rachel closer to Ruth.

Of course, this doesn't mean they're all Heathens and that none of Ruth's teamates didn't vote earlier than Lazarus, but since Lazarus' vote added a new perspective to the lynch situation and Ruth picked up on it and gambled her vote that way, there's a chance one or two teammates also tried to do something in that regard.

Does this make any sense?

Young Lady

Jephthah wrote:Continuing:
Side note: everything I've said is under the assumption Rachel is not bad, but it's also possible that she decided to cast a vote that would be at the most crucial time, when she herself was gaining momentum as a lynch candidate. That would establish a fantastic distance. But I'm going on with the first option first.

Now comes the Tricky part. Ruth has 4 votes and Rachel has 3. Assuming Rachel is good, they can't all bandwagon on the same person- 2 at most. So they either wait, or they cast a vote on another candidate and see how it develops with Ruth.

While I write this, I go back to the option that Rachel is bad, because I don't get the voting pattern otherwise. It's silly to jump in and vote for another person who doesn't have any votes, unless they were already giving Ruth up and planning for the day after because a civvie lynch would just secure Ruth's guilt. If that's the case, why not just vote for Ruth herself?
That would make Belshazaar the candidate for a baddie among the Ruth voters. Not too early, and not too late.

I didn't have any suspicion on Rachel as to choose between her and Ruth at that 3-4 votes point. I was pretty clear which players I was actually torn between at that point. Sure, you can put it down as a "distancing" theory, but that would mean I am bad and I had to choose which of my teammates to throw under the bus. Bit extreme, if you ask me.

You're also not taking in account that I was aware (alongside Balaam and ...Lot?) of the possibility Absalom might be doomed at that stage, because of Lazarus' vote for him. This is also why I went with Ruth.

Young Lady

Balaam wrote:Okay, so I re-read Jacob and I haven't seen anything to make me feel any better about him. Anyone not named Jacob want to give me some reasons why I am off base in leaning his way in the vote? Also, I think that I may have caught the vaguest of references in one of Jacob's posts that could be construed as a hint at a role. Not sure I buy it as a hint though. Belsh, you say you think you spotted it. Coincidence or not?

Now to re-read Jonathan.

Young Lady

Isaac wrote:
Belshazzar wrote: even more buddy buddy with Rachel since On the plus side, I agree with him that the late Ruth wagoners shouldn't really receive street cred after Ruth flipped civ Uuuuuuhhh, Ruth didn't flip civ, pal. Check again.

whoops, flipped bad, I mean

Young Lady

updating my reads on Isaac and Jacob and assessing Pilate for now, reading Jonathan will have to wait until later today - goddamn am I a slow analyser

Isaac
hard to say vote Day 3 (tied Job with Uzziah, but neither were lynched and the Mary train formed later on)
late vote Day 5 (hardly influencing the lynch anymore or seeming like a distancing act, but not very good on reasoning either)
tantrum vote for Rachel Day 6, which he regrets, then offers a symbolic "would totally join Ruth votes" in writing

inquisitive about Ruth but no more until Day 6
damning defense of Uzziah Day 3 (sides with Paul and Rachel's case on Job, plus said Uzziah "is least likely to turn up heathen at this point" and his rooting for scum is too daring to be true, then act self-aware of his defensive post and backs away)
damning defense of Uzziah Day 5, upon voting for Jeph

bottom line: votes don't make him look good, defense of Uzziah makes him look worse and if he's a Heathen he really kept some distance from Ruth until it was "bus time" on Day 6. Still don't feel good about his tantrum, followed by apologetic and oh-I-wish-I-would-vote-Ruth-now posts and he's been even more buddy buddy with Rachel since (agreeing with her that her Day 6 voters - other than him, of course - are worth watching). On the plus side, I agree with him that the late Ruth wagoners shouldn't really receive street cred after Ruth flipped civ (but nor should they receive too much flak; they are without doubt the easiest suspicion one could focus on or try to build on this Day) and I can also partially read his interest in Ruth on Day 6 as genuine, because it was a bit early to seem like Ruth was a goner and that there's need to start throwing rocks at her real quick.

He's claiming that he's just in the wrong spotlight and I have mixed feelings whether this is true or not, but overall I don't think here's the strongest candidate, based on the evidence we've got so far, I'd just keep him in mind.

I also fear that if we agree to lynch Isaac, God might stop us on the last minute

:P

Jacob

damning vote Day 1 (further pushed Samson in front 4-2 to Uzziah)
damning vote Day 3 (built up Mary's lynch 2-3 against Uzziah)
no votes Days 2 & 4 (largely considered as no pressure days for Uzziah)
missed vote Day 5
hmmm vote Day 6 (4th for Rachel, with Ruth at 5 and Absalom likely in danger at 6)

absence of any read on Uzziah until Day 3
absence of any read on Ruth until Day 6!
damning defence of Uzziah Day 3
root for Uzziah or Jephthah lynch Day 5 (aka the two wagons)
damning defence of Ruth Day 6 (too-good-to-be-true distancing from her)

rebuttals: acknowledgment of bad record; claiming "wrong spotlight" situation; claiming his doubts about Ruth's distancing act and her lynch train were genuine or at least reasonable; claiming he's an important civ and that he's hinted at it

bottom line: worse than "worst spotlight" to be honest, more like "oh-god-everything-looks-awful spotlight". Since Ruth was a tough choice to go with it last Day, considering her good distacing skills, but since it actually paid off, I'd easily stick to it rather a bit more than scanning for defenders. For me, Heathens distancing from themselves (especially from Uzziah!) is starting to make more sense rather than the other way around. And with Ruth, I'll just say this: in a past game, I was bad and was caught not having payed attention in the thread to my teammate until he was on his way to be lynched and was confirmed baddie; so this kind of angle can sometimes lead to good results. Jacob never said a word about Ruth until Day 6, Ruth never said a word about him the entire game. I'm calling this worth considering.

As for his civ hint claim, something did in fact caught my eye, but not "multiple times" as you claim, Jacob. Still, I'll think about it. Can't state it out loud for safety reasons concerning that role. The second thought I had was about you saying in your Preface post that you're "part of History". But in this case, it could be anyone, dude. So were the Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar.

Pilate

Esther's read on Pilate yesterday looked quite solid to me, because I am incredibly wary of how much "meta" Pilate is using:

"I'm a civ, but I'm self aware I've done things that look bad and you should all normally suspect me. Wait, why aren't you?" wuuut

"Uzziah is framing me by reading me civ, so that I'll look like a baddie he distanced from when/if he flips bad". And yet Uzziah's lynch has done nothing but to actually make some consider Uzziah might have distanced from him, or Pilate might have distanced from Uzziah. So is Pilate constantly foreshadowing the possible suspicions on himself, what the ???

Plus, he did a totally irrational gunning for Rachel for two Days only to call it intentional fluff.
Plus #2, whilst his gunning for Absalom is fairly consistent, in light of Absalom having likely been in danger on the previous Day, his vote and Ruth's could be seen as an attempt to push Absalom to a difficult-to-beat 7-vote tally. But not feeling very strong about this theory.

Worth considering, overall, but I have to decide if he's the strongest candidate.

Young Lady

Balaam wrote:3) While it would be a bummer to lose out on Elijah's fireworks display, there's still a chance we've got our resident spear-chucker out there. Perhaps we can come to consensus on a runner-up to be skewered?

I don't think we would find out the alignment of Phineas' victim, since Phineas himself won't be made aware. Would ninja killing a Heathen be the same as stoning a Heathen, i.e. Night phase be skipped again? Not sure on that, but I'm inclined to think the answer is no and, thus, we would not find out if the choice was right, even if we create consensus and Phineas would comply.

Young Lady

Rachel wrote:Belsh, what make you of Rebecca?

I didn't get much on her so far. Recurrent suspicions (or even votes) on Jeph, on whose flipping Day 1 she built a rather in-depth read on. First to vote Mary on Day 3 - poorly so, as well, simply latching to my objection, so that's a trigger right now, considering that Uzziah's save on that Day is partially confirmed.

Yesterday she came with the hypothesis that Ruth bussed Uzziah Day 5, which turns out to have been true - this would normally make think it can't possibly be a Heathen bussing a Heathen that bussed a Heathen, it would be too dumb of them; then again, she dropped her idea on Ruth and reverted to voting you in the same post. Still, don't think I'm close to a conclusion whether she's bad or not.

I only read her posts again, so let me know if there's anything else I should (re)consider.

Young Lady

Also, @Host: what happens if there'll be no "seventh Night", as far as Elijah is concerned? Does it take effect anyway?

Young Lady

But on other non-Jacob news:

Right now I don't think Lazarus is wicked rather than the kind of player most of us have in mind, but I'd prefer to see him make at least a more consistent case rather than come each day only to empower himself some more. I think it's the right way, if his vote also expresses 100% conviction in Absalom being bad.

I honestly can't stand Bathsheba's ways anymore and I just have to vent a bit about it. Civ or not, it was a lucky wagon for her today, but still a wagon and it's all she's been doing this game.

Young Lady

Jacob wrote:
Belshazzar wrote:Let's lynch Jacob.

4 posts containing anything about Ruth. 4 posts in six chapters. All of them the previous Day.
"Case on Ruth is intriguing."
"Ruth is unlikely to be Uzziah's teammate because she hunted him consistently."
"Feeling ambivalent about Ruth, don't feel like voting her."
"Hope you're right about Ruth"

If you actually read them, this progression makes perfect sense. I was intrigued by the Ruth suspicion, so I read back through her posts. I thought it was odd that she switched to the mary vote day 3 to prevent a tie with Uzziah, but otherwise she had been voting Uzziah a few times and kept bringing him up, so I thought it unlikely for her to be his teammate, unless she was going for the long drawn-out distancing risk which she apparently was. But that was enough to make me doubtful enough not to vote for her, and to be a bit wary of the bandwagon. I'm sorry that everything I honestly think and say in this game looks bad to you, but you will be sorely disappointed if you lynch me because I have hinted multiple times, my role strongly increases civvie chances.

Distancing was her way out.
You acting doubtful of that is your way out.

Young Lady

Let's lynch Jacob.

4 posts containing anything about Ruth. 4 posts in six chapters. All of them the previous Day.
"Case on Ruth is intriguing."
"Ruth is unlikely to be Uzziah's teammate because she hunted him consistently."
"Feeling ambivalent about Ruth, don't feel like voting her."
"Hope you're right about Ruth"

Young Lady

Out of curiosity, I noticed I just passed Paul in post count. Took me six days and four nights.

YES!

Young Lady

Balaam wrote:Let's see, that's Jonah's 2nd missed vote, Malchus's 4th, and Judah's 5th. Not chastising Jonah. Malchus & Judah though?

Didn't Judah vote for you once? Day 4 or so? That would make it only his 4th (small consolation :P )

Young Lady

Jacob wrote:I don't know, I guess for some people Uzziah was a strong suspect from the beginning, but I remember "root"gate and that seemed weak, and if there were more reasons to suspect him in the subsequent couple days I missed them.

Ughhh

Every reason for which he was suspected proved to be true. Except for an unusual "scum-read" post, he did nothing else except be suspicious and play his rootgate and Job-bash cards.

Young Lady

Ruth wrote:That's silly, there was no night.

Actually, sorry, someone asssumed, then others (including me) said that's not possible, because of that.

Young Lady

Ruth wrote:Who said I was silenced? I voted so my vote would go thru if I got trapped in
Ink it is.

Nobody said. We assumed.

Young Lady

Jacob wrote:@Belsh: Because you realized they weren't at all damning? That I was just being honest, and may have inadvertently worded it in a way that was easily misinterpreted :/

Not really. I'd redact Uzziah from your trust list, but that Day 3 quote still bothers me and no matter the ambivalence on Uzziah, he was never really a "mild suspect", according to your criteria.

linki: strong efforts there, Sam and Bath

linki: no, Rachel, he imprisoned, meaning no post and no vote

Young Lady

And Ruth just voted Absalom. She can't possibly have been silenced, right??

Young Lady

Ruth, then. Hopefully what she did on Day 3 will turn out to be true and she distanced herself from Uzziah all along otherwise.

linki, I wanted to pull Jacob's quotes on Uzziah, but I changed my mind

Young Lady

Balaam wrote:
Belshazzar wrote:
Balaam wrote:Surprised Jonah has been MIA today. We could have used his input.

Belsh, want to test the Laz theory?
In what way?
Do you want to leave Absalom at risk or push Ruth to a technical tie?

I'd go with the second, especially if what Lot about it proving Absalom isn't a Heathen makes sense, then I wouldn't want Absalom lynched.

Young Lady

Balaam wrote:
Lot wrote:And Hagar...

Fair point though, the baddies probably already had it in mind and didn't NK him because Absalom isn't heathen.

I still prefer not to say it openly, but oh well. It's done.

I still think Absalom could be horseman, but we don't skip a night by lynching a horseman.
But it shouldn't count as a civvie lynch on our countdown to another smiting, should it?

No.

Young Lady

Balaam wrote:Surprised Jonah has been MIA today. We could have used his input.

Belsh, want to test the Laz theory?

In what way?

Young Lady

I'm inclined to vote Jacob, tbh, but this won't do at all, if Absalom is currently doomed.

linki @ Balaam: Yeah, dude, but bad guyz.

Young Lady

Balaam wrote:
Belshazzar wrote:See my post, Balaam. Torn between Jacob and Ruth. Jacob looks worse, but not completely irredeemable and he falls strictly under "Uzziah defender" type. Ruth may have influenced Day 3, when Uzziah could actually have been lynched and we would be looking at a different picture right now, but her actions back then make no sense (except for a stringent saving instinct) and there's not much else, other than that, to fully convict her.

linki: A slip up of what? Pilate and Lazarus being twins?
I'm torn between Jacob, Ruth, and Deborah.

I have no more time to fully re-read Deborah, but I'm also pinged that she went from offering reads on everyone Day 5 back to obliviousness about the consecutive Day and high alert catchup posts.

Young Lady

Balaam wrote:
Lot wrote:All I can say is that if noone else got any more votes from now I can only assume Absalom would be lynched.
If Laz is Simon, then I think his vote would be worth 5 today, potentially making it 6 votes for Abs atm.

Was there really any need to state that so openly?

Young Lady

See my post, Balaam. Torn between Jacob and Ruth. Jacob looks worse, but not completely irredeemable and he falls strictly under "Uzziah defender" type. Ruth may have influenced Day 3, when Uzziah could actually have been lynched and we would be looking at a different picture right now, but her actions back then make no sense (except for a stringent saving instinct) and there's not much else, other than that, to fully convict her.

linki: A slip up of what? Pilate and Lazarus being twins?

Young Lady

Lot wrote:All I can say is that if noone else got any more votes from now I can only assume Absalom would be lynched.

Oh shit.

Young Lady

Deborah wrote:Why is day ending so early?

There was no Night. This Day is ending normally, after a regular 48 hours phase.

Young Lady

Lazarus wrote:I know I been having a case of tunnel vision towards Absalom but I really think the guys is bad look at the Cain lynch he lead. If someone is taking heat and lurking and not saying anything there is a good chance they are silenced.

Pilate wrote:I know I been having a case of tunnel vision towards Absalom but I really think the guys is bad look at the Cain lynch he lead. If someone is taking heat and lurking and not saying anything there is a good chance they are silenced.

I'm not drunk right now, so I have to ask... the hell?

Young Lady

Isaac 1.0
damning (under normal circumstances) vote Day 1 (pushed Samson in front 3-2)
absence of any read on Uzziah until Day 3 (notably, he made a solid catch-up post on Day 1, with multi-quote replies on a lot of people, but nothing on Uzziah; went with his Samson ping a day and a post after)
suspicions thrown in throughout the game (and their alive/dead status, by their color): Martha, Samson
+
Isaac 2.0
hard to say vote Day 3 (tied Job with Uzziah, but neither were lynched and the Mary train formed later on)
late vote Day 5 (hardly influencing the lynch anymore or seeming like a distance, but see below on his reasoning)

damning defense of Uzziah Day 3 (sides with Paul and Rachel's case on Job, plus said Uzziah "is least likely to turn up heathen at this point" and his rooting for scum is too daring to be true, then act self-aware of his defensive post and backs away)
damning defense of Uzziah Day 5, upon voting for Jeph

suspicions thrown in throughout the game (and their alive/dead status, by their color): Lot, Pilate (Day 4-5), Ruth (Day 6), Job, Mary
inquisitive but without assuming anything: Bathsheba, Lazarus, Ruth (until Day 6), Pilate (Day 3), Rachel
trust list: Absalom, Balaam, Uzziah

Day 6
latches on to Jeph's argument for not wagoning on Uzziah (despite thinking Jeph is bad and having voted him Day 5...?)
tantrum at Rachel and Lot, votes for Rachel
apologetic rebuttals, reads Lot as civ
can't vouch for Isaac 1.0
either I missed it or he hasn't offered/attempted to read on suspects or on what Uzziah's flip can tells us about others (except for Rachel, but more as a defensive rebuttal, and for being OK with a Ruth lynch, at Lot's suggestion) - LINKI EDIT: Rachel still suspect, would join Ruth wagon, eyeballs Pilate

bottom line: votes look bad, defense of Uzziah paints him very bad, I don't really get what exactly he can't vouch for Isaac 1.0 (it's not about 1.0's actions, it's about vouching that he wasn't and he himself isn't a baddie, right?). The only thing that gives me mixed feelings is his tantrum + apologetic sequence. Everything except the apology twist shouts 'cornered baddie", but a good part of the apology feels rather genuine acknowledgment of having misunderstood certain posts and that he rushed to conclusion and to his early vote.

Jacob

damning vote Day 1 (further pushed Samson in front 4-2 to Uzziah)
damning vote Day 3 (built up Mary's lynch 2-3 against Uzziah)
no votes Days 2 & 4 (no pressure days for Uzziah)
missed vote Day 5

absence of any read on Uzziah until Day 3
damning defence of Uzziah Day 3
root for Uzziah or Jephthat lynch Day 5 (aka the two wagons)

suspicions thrown in throughout the game (and their alive/dead status, by their color): Balaam, Jeph, Rachel (Day 6), Martha, Paul, Samson, Mary
inquisitive but without assuming anything: nobody in particular
trust list: Absalom, Job, Rachel (until Day 6?), Uzziah

Day 6
rebuttal: in essence, acknowledgment of bad record, but says he never noticed Uzziah votes and debate for the most part, always voted stronger candidate, not mild suspects
second rebuttal: his record looks bad, but it's all an unfortunate backfire
researching Mordecai (finds his defense genuine), intrigued by Ruth case (but finds here posts exonerating), still suspicious of Rachel and Jeph

bottom line: votes look bad, attitude towards Uzziah looks worse, all his suspects up to day 5 are dead, only plus side he never hunted down Job. Vouches for his record looking just bad and nothing more, but also insists Uzziah was for him never above a "mild case". Doesn't find Ruth a likely suspect, but instead his interest is piqued by what's being said about Rachel, then upon re-read maintains mixed feelings about her. Frankly, his Rachel suspicion or waryness looks a bit sudden. I'm considering a vote for him today, tbh

Ruth
late vote for Cain Day 1 (Cain being already second wagon, but Samson way ahead, on its way to being lynched)
imprisoned? Day 2 (would have voted Uzziah)
damning vote Day 3 (late push for Mary's lynch, but also a refusal to tie Uzziah up with her)
lone Uzziah vote Day 4
Uzziah vote Day 5 (pushed him ahead 6-3 vs Jeph, I think)

criticism towards Cain being lynched Day 2, although she voted Cain Day 1
consistent suspicious reads of Uzziah throughout the game, however
damning defense of Uzziah Day 3 (flip from him to Mary within short time and without any solid reasoning offered, damning reasoning for voting Mary and not tying her and Uzziah at that stage of the lynch voting)

suspicions thrown in throughout the game (and their alive/dead status, by their color): Balaam?, Deborah, Pilate (later), Cain, Mary, Uzziah
inquisitive but without assuming anything: Pilate (early), Paul
trust list: Job, Samson

Day 6
absent! (silencing not plausible because of consecutive Days)

bottom line: votes not entirely bad, but what a mess on Day 3; attitude towards Uzziah - devil's advocate version: total distancing; normal read version: true conviction that he's bad. Day 3 still a mess, though. Most of her suspects now dead, the ones alive were actually bare on "wary" level. Redeemable, just like Jacob, by never hunting or suspecting Job. All her game, upon re-read, in terms of reads and such, seems however severly non-comittal.

Regarding her Day 5 lynch (and timing of it) for Uzziah, I think it can still fall under sacrificing him - moreover, I mean to say the theory shouldn't be dismissed. I don't think the evidence on her is as bad as Jacob's and Isaac's, but I think the impact of her Day 3 actions make her accountable - Uzziah could've been lynched on that day and she influenced it. Plus, if we are to conjecture that Uzziah's teammates must be not just those who defended him or pivoted for a different lynch, but who also took convincing distance for him, then she would still be a candidate.

Young Lady

Deborah wrote:What happened to night time? I expected day to have started today. Nice job on Uzziah, I guess sometimes when someone says they are routing for the baddies, they mean it, lol? I will never understand why some players decode to bring such a spotlight onto themselves. ..so I will try to catch up once the kids are asleep, I wasn't expecting such a deadline.

An hour left on the clock, mind you...

Young Lady

Ugh, this will be my worst Day phase attendance, by far, apologies. I'll start in about an hour or so to catch up on everything posted today and also try to correlate some stats, votes, reads (even though I don't fully master the Push-Pivot...forget the third analysis, so no promises of a thorough analysis until the Day ends).

Young Lady

Balaam, I think your general scan of the players' reads and votes should normally be correlated with their reads and votes on Uzziah specifically. This is something I might pursue. Just from a quick glance, the Day 3 vote presents the greatest possible shift from the opportunity to lynch Uzziah to Mary ending up lynched - how can it not be after all, Uzziah was basically leading wagon for a while, ending up second wagon, albeit at a few votes' distance. Also at a quick re-read, Jacob and Ruth have damning statements:

Jacob - 2nd vote on Mary, Uzziah leading with 3

Jacob wrote:I feel like Uzziah is too much of an easy target. He could turn out to be bad, but for now it doesn't seem all that worthwhile to go after him.

Ruth - 6th vote on Mary, Uzziah behind with 4

Ruth wrote: caught up some today, but don't totally get the Mary suspish. I am going to try to figure out the case there, but will likely vote for Uzziah; can someone give me the Mary Mag cliff notes? I am having problems getting past his Day One antics, tbh.

and 11 minutes and one other post later

Ruth wrote:OK, gonna vote Mary. I would rather not tie it up which a vote for Uzziah would do.

Young Lady

I don't know the latin for it, but burn in hell*, Uzziah! You played us for too long.

*this feels the most appropriate game to ever use the RIP/BIH, doesn't it

Well, I can tell you right away whose votes look bad and this pagan here really needs to go repent or drink himself to death.

But I am not of Uzziah's kind and I never once took his side or desired to keep him in the game. I feel utterly bitter that I picked Samson and Cain over him the first few days, that I didn't believe he would be a "third time lucky" lynch on Day 3 and... Job... I'm so sorry, man.

Anyway, that's my moment of remorse for now, over the results and what a shit lynch game I've played.

Thanks for pulling those stats, Lot. I'll need to look over them and anything else myself, but I also need to finish my project today, so it'll have to be later today.

Young Lady

I'm voting Samuel. He chose to bandwagon the other Day, with no particular investment in either of the two wagon players, only to express an "anti-vote" for Absalom, but stating that voting for him would have been pointless, which is statistically and timeline-wise not true. He claims he didn't want to waste his vote, but has since made no effort whatsoever to further pursue and expand a case on Absalom being bad, with a full new Day at his disposal. In other words, wasting a vote on someone you actually think is bad is a no-no, but wasting a new Day not doing anything about it is fine. "Bah"

Young Lady

Lot, can you please tell us why those suspecting Lazarus deserve to be eyeballed and why Job's lynch makes him look better?

Young Lady

Jonathan wrote:Belshazzar are there any of those people you listed who have been quiet people you are thinking about voting for? I had thought about taking a leap and voting for Malchus because of the quotes Deborah found but since he hasn't spoken all day I don't know whether he has been silenced or not. I don't remember him participating very much so I may be ok with it.

I've also thought about Jepth and uzziah for votes. I don't know what to make of uzziah really but his intent seems to be to sow seeds of confusion and that doesn't strike me as a very civ behavior. Then there is your post about Jepth which brought to light some things I hadn't thought of regarding him.

I also second the request - or 3rd it maybe - for an explanation as to the connection between Lazarus and Job that would make a vote for Lazarus a bad thing.

Anyway, I haven't decided anything yet and it could be someone else comes up suspicious more so than any of these. Just looking for your input on those you found silent.

Sadly, I think the issue with suspecting and possibly casting a lynch vote for low posters has become so error-prone, it rather makes you more doubtful than certain. Or at least that's how I feel. Lazarus stands out for all the suspicions he garnered for his Absalom votes, but I'm not decided on him. I called out Bathsheba days ago for the way she voted or participated, but she missed since, so there's nothing further to project and I don't think anyone else said anything about her, except Balaam and Deborah upon recapping. I don't like Samuel's vote the other Day and reasoning behind it, even after clarifications. I have no idea what is up with Malchus, he seemed relatively engaged in the game, then vanished. I've got nothing on Esther, Judah, Rahab, Rebecca (not even retroactively, I think).

Not sure what post of mine about Jeph you reference and in what way did it influence you (good, bad about him?). If bad, perhaps you mean Lot's posts.

Young Lady

Also without a single post so far during Day 5 (sometimes even earlier than that): Absalom (he excused himself, I think), Bathsheba, Esther, Judah, Lazarus, Malchus, Rahab, Rebecca, Samuel. Judah is the only one exempt from the lynch poll. Apologies if I'm mistaken about any of these.

Young Lady

Given that she hasn't posted since Night 4, I assume Rachel is silenced or imprisoned.

Young Lady

Lot wrote:I'm also going to look sideways at anyone who thinks Lazarus is shady, tbqh. That means you, right now, Deborah.

Not that Lazarus must be good. But he certainly looks better after Job's death.

What's the connection? Lazarus picked on Absalom and sticked with suspecting him. Even assuming he would have given an "anti-Absalom vote", just like Samuel, which he didn't, how does Job's death make him look better?

I have a project to finish in the next two days, which makes me wish there'd be a third day to this Chapter, but I'll try to contribute as much as possible. So far I wish I'd have heard from more players, not just Jonah and Pilate, how they feel about Uzziah nowadays.

Pilate's argument intrigues me. He seems (or is acting) very self-aware that he should be regarded as suspicious by most, if not all, for his behaviour. To which Uzziah either expressed his usual affection for baddies (although this wouldn't make sense, because he didn't actually phrase it that way, he specifically said Pilate is civvie) or accidentally let it be known that Pilate is not part of his wolfpack. Or he's trying to frame Pilate by distancing from him - if we lynch Uzziah and he's bad, we'll interpret it as distancing and want to lynch Pilate next; if we lynch Pilate and he's bad, Uzziah would have some cred. At least I think that's what Pilate is trying to say...

...although, on its own, Pilate's "how can you guys possibly think I'm a civ" is still a very confusing way to try to say "oh I'm a civ alright, but I'm well aware what I've posted makes me look bad", in case he is civ. But...maybe he isn't...

Young Lady

Feeling good about Jeph's defense, to be honest, particularly these two fragments. Sure, we could have used more of these arguments during the end of the lynch itself, rather than post-factum, but still...

Jephthah wrote: I'm going to argue with anyone who claims I did exactly what I accused Samuel of doing. I thought Samuel was saving Ballam, and was therefore bad, but I didn't vote for him because by that time Job already had 5 votes and I wanted to save him. By my judgement, if Balam and Samuel were both bad, voting for Balam who had 3 votes was more likely to save Job, because Samuel had none and most people had already voted.

Just to make it clear, when Samuel voted, Job had 4 votes, Balam had 3, Absalom had 1. Not that much of a difference, and if you notice, 10 people voted after Samuel had, so convincing people Absalom was bad and getting them to vote for him was not that far fetched. Yet he chose to vote for Job, thus making the difference between Job and Balaam bigger.
In contrast, when I voted, it was much later and closer to the end of the day. Only 4 people voted after I did. How was voting Samuel going to help Job and get a baddie?

By contrast, Samuel's clarification is still totally wtf.

He didn't trust Absalom, so he didn't want to acknowledge Absalom's case.
He felt voting Absalom would be throwing his vote away, although, as Jeph pointed out, the lynch situation was far from clear.
He didn't want to vote the same way as Absalom, so he picked, without having any views on Job, the lynch train on him instead, simply because he wanted his vote to count (aka be part of a lynch train, except not the one Absalom contributed to).
He didn't have any view on Balaam either and didn't vote in defense of him.
Despite the lynch situation being statistically far from clear, he considered it clear enough to vote for one of two options, neither of which he had any views on, as long as it's not the one Absalom vote for.

coo coo ca choo

Young Lady

Lot wrote:Very interesting posts today, Belshazzar. I very much appreciate them.

I also don't know what to make of the two kills. It certainly sounds as though the second one was the heathen kill, although at first reading I thought Nicodemus would be an understandable choice for a civvie ninja kill.

Why's that? Why do you think a civ ninja would (have) pick(ed) Nicodemus for his one shot kill, after last Day's/Night's events?

bit of snip, sorry

Lot wrote: Your Jezebel/Pharaoah point. Very interesting indeed. Is it possible that Jezebel is dead? I looked through your analysis of who was killed, and the nightkill posts, and it doesn't seem very likely (unless Jezebel was Barnabas, of course). Possibly it's just who sent in the PM, possibly it's epi taking licence. It's worth bearing in mind, though.

Doubt it. Even if Barnabas would have been Jezebel and fallen pray to another force, it's still three straight Nights since the Pharaoh executed the kill. It rather brings me back to how much confidence the Heathens must be having right now. The Pharaoh player has literally taken upon himself to execute the kills since Night 2 and he hasn't been blocked or stopped so far.

bit of snip, again

Lot wrote: The Nicodemus kill is an odd one, being that he is someone I would have thought could be a lynch candidate today.

Again, why?
You yourself found Nicodemus genuine in his replies and defense last Night, despite challenging him heavily, but now think he would have been a more likely lynch or civ ninja kill candidate then a night kill?

Young Lady

Sorry, Balaam, as I've said, Paul's posts and especially the posts about Paul were the most to process and I indeed didn't properly go through that post you pointed out. Although, to be fair, in the same paragraph of the same post, you actually propose that Paul be "tested" for his reads in order to tell if, should his suspects flip civ, he'd continue to hunt/fish/flip/stir his ways or moderate himself in the future. But I do get that you were more analytical of him than critical. Just to be clear, my listing was very broad, for instance the "suspected by" section always includes not just decisive "suss" calls and "scum-reads", but virtually any kind of questioning, uncertainty, disagreeing with.

Isaac wrote:All is forgiven for your triple, Brother. I actually found them helpful. At least the first 2. I have a headache and skimmed the 3rd one. But I like the gist of it.
First, a response to the host post with the most... toast....: Well shit. I guess this means that another person I suspected was good. Nic, Sorry

Belsh, I'm glad you bring up the boldness of the Heathens. I've suspected that someone being really outspoken and helpful this game could easily be bad. Do I think all of the Heathens are doing it? No. That would be too bold, imo. But I think a few of the more outspoken peeps need to be discussed more thoroughly. Also, I'd be down for a fairly analyzed shotgun vote today. I think we need one to get the ball rolling today. We've been stuck in a mighty big rut for too long now. Who do you think we should look at?

Also to clarify this, it's not so much the boldness of the Heathens in their presence (although, since I opinionated that most of them must be active, it's pretty much implicit that they're doing a fine, cunning job messing with us and avoiding lynches so far) - I don't expect all of them to play this same card, either - as much as the boldness in their night kills. As for your question, here are my pressing issues so far:

Why is Balaam off the hook in the poll? Maybe Balaam himself can give us his opinion.

What do we do about Uzziah? All the suspects he offered are now dead civvies (or, in Paul's case, at least certainly no Heathen) and other than that, he has not contributed at all and has only stirred shit up. Just as a side-note, Nicodemus, who pushed for his lynch Day 3 and was bitter about it failing, is now also dead. But strictly concerning Uzziah, Job's lynch doesn't fully unlock any truth about him being good or bad. He could still be under the "feud" curse, for once. He could still be shenanigans guy and just that. Or he could bad and mocking us all along. But that's really three options instead of one strong feeling. It feels like we need to decide more or less together how we feel about him.

Even if Nicodemus died, there were other players who agreed with him that Job's lynch would be revelatory. I'd ask them what leads they got out of it, in that case.

Job's lynch could still tell us a bit about his lynchers. Of the main perpetrators, Rachel felt immediate sorrow (which feels genuine to me), while Uzziah (as expected?) is "glad" about it (which makes me wish we'd be playing this live somehow, so I can show him both my middle fingers). When I re-read Job, another player who stood out for me was Lot, even if there is now some distance in time from his suspicious regarding Job's obstinate hunt for Uzziah (due to not getting to talk about him from Day 2 onwards and never actually voted for him either...not once). His post that sort of pinged me may well be, I think, the first to put Job in the "tunnel vision" category, which further fueled the debate on him a lot during the next days:

Lot wrote:Why wouldn't Uzziah be doing it for future game set up? All will be revealed at the end... you think he can't say in a future game 'When I was Uzziah in Biblical mafia I did that'?

I hate that I'm defending this guy, but a lot of the stuff being said about him just doesn't make any sense. Job has tunnel vision, but no his reasoning is not good. The only thing about it that is true is that Uzziah is refusing to be helpful in the thread, but mostly I think Job has tunnel vision because the person Uzziah has been looking at for a lynch is Job.

And I think "Job has tunnel vision because Uzziah called Job a suspect" is the wrong angle at how things happened, because Job was pinged by Uzziah's behaviour in the first place, before Uzziah offered any suspects. It is quite serious for this whole "tunnel vision" debate and lynch factor to have stemmed from a misinterpretation of Job's suspicion on Uzziah (whilst also being in defence of such a suspicious player as Uzziah), but I admit I still have to mull over whether it's misfortunate or a very subtle build up.

Plus, strictly in this context, Lot never addressed Job's lynch, but instead launched right away into a tirade about Nicodemus and Absalom conducting Balaam's lynch. This would normally give me great pause, if only for the fact that I agree almost completely with his ultimate interpretation of how things went down.

I have to weight in on others, but I need more time. Also, if I were to accept a shotgun lynch for a low poster, I probably wouldn't be able to take anymore of Deborah's "I'll try to catch up, cross my heart guys" and Pilate's defiant "Rachel's bad because I picked it up from Belsh and I know so and I stick to it, knowingly so", but it's so little to be sure they're bad, given our piss poor lynch results based on pretty much the same reasons.

Young Lady

Sorry for the triple, but want to wrap up my thoughts for this morning:

What bothers me more right now is the Heathens having returned to killing an obvious, outspoken player, with Nicodemus as their victim last Night. I still think it's a sign that they're playing with us and taking great advantage from our conflicts. Several Heathens, if not the majority of them, must be active amongst us, since they make such bold choices. Maybe we need to look deep into this rather than saying "oh what a wifom they couldn't possibly be this obvious".

Here's my brief summary of their kills:

Night 1 - Martha, the hunny. Active Day 1.

Suspected: Paul, Absalom.
Suspected by/criticised by/wary of her/unsure about her: Absalom, Issac, Jephthah, Jacob, Job, Jonah, Malchus, Barnabas, Paul (and also a certain rabbit and octopus, that come out of nowhere

). Pilate came in Day 2 saying he would have voted her, in defense on Absalom.
Defended by: me, Rachel, Ruth, Uzziah.

Night 2 - Paul, the vocal. Active Day 1, silenced Day 2 (oy vey, the amount of re-read required here...)

Suspected: Balaam, Job, Lot, Samuel, Uzziah (sort of?), Cain, Martha, Nicodemus, Samson
Suspected by/etc.: me, Balaam, Jephthah*, Lot**, Mordecai, Rachel, Ruth, Uzziah (whilst also worshipped him for being bad

), Martha, Nicodemus. Malchus just irked one time by how much he posted.
Defended by: Absalom, Jacob, Jephthah*, Jonah, Jonathan, Job, Lot**, Rahab, Barnabas, Gideon, Samson
*notorious flip-flop, Jeph called it intentional
**suspected him early on, found his responses genuine

Night 3 - Gideon. Low Day 1, absent Day 2, low Day 3.

Suspected: Lot, Lazarus, Pilate?.
Defended: Balaam.
Questioned by/unsure about him/etc.: Absalom, Balaam, Jonathan, Lot, Hagar

Night 4 - Nicodemus. Active Day 1-2, absent Day 3, active Day 4

Suspected: Absalom (slightly), Balaam, Cain-voters Day 1, low posters, Uzziah, Uzziah non-voters (I'll just throw me as the best example), Paul
Suspected by/etc.: me, Absalom*, Balaam***, Lot**, Judah, Paul
Defended by/etc.: Absalom*, Balaam***, Job, Stephen
*Absalom read him as civ Day 1, but felt less sure about him after his Day 4 support for Balaam.
**Lot criticised his case and lynch built for Balaam, but then felt his defense was genuine
***Balaam did an early civ read on him, but obviously wasn't pleased with his case on him, felt wary about him since.

Young Lady

As for Solomon's word of wisdom, I take it as an advice to change our tactics. So far it's always been heated debates between active players throughout the Day, but a last-hour end of Day mix of votes result from said debates and votes from catch-ups or bandwagoning - and we've only lynched Righteous players this way, until now. I'm not against a shotgun lynch, but I think we'd still need to collectively agree to do so.

There's also a ninja civ, in case he's still alive, but he wouldn't know if the player he killed was civ or bad, so I assume we would not receive such information in the kill post either.

Also, does anyone wonder why Jezebel killed on the first Night, but the Pharaoh has taken over ever since?

Young Lady

Requiescat in pace, Barnabas and Nicodemus.

First off, congrats to our Amorite representative, who kicked ass in yesterday's contest. It seems every Amorite has received a day off from the poll, as a result. What I don't understand, however, is why Balaam is also missing. He was not an Amorite. Furthermore, King David is long dead and he may have used his amnesty on Paul Day 2 anyway. I see nothing else in the roles made public that would explain him receiving any exemption.

I wonder whether Barnabas was modkilled or it was someone else's doing. He was by far the most inactive player, having not posted since Day 1 and having not voted once during the lynhes (his P-Score, thus, already affected). Then again, if it's an in-game kill, I would venture to say it's could be a Horseman, presumably Famine. To address Ruth's dillema, perhaps the idea isn't that Famine can kill regularly and chose only now to do so. Perhaps Famine has a (one-time?) circumstancial kill, sort of to say if a player is particularly inactive or does not meet within several phases certain demands for activity, Famine can claim that player and starve him to death. This, of course, is a simple exercise for imagining a plausible cause for Barnabas' death.

The lynch field left is really mixed. I'll need more time later to fully analyze it, but I believe this is the ladder scheme, pretty much:

Uzziah is the bad boy.
Absalom and Rachel stand as the most active players, active in hunting but also having received some heat and votes (far from ending up as main lynch choices, though).
Jephthah, Ruth, Jonah following closely, the first two suspected at times, whilst Jonah never really being questioned till now, I think.
Esther, Isaac, Rahab, Stephen making steps towards being fully active, Rahab having been voted once, Stephen self-voted once as penitance.
Deborah always claiming to do so as soon as possible. Often criticised, but never voted for it.
Lazarus and Pilate low posters that garnered enough suspicion.
Samuel AWOL till yesterday and his comeback was quite a messy affair.
Bathsheba AWOL till yesterday.
Malchus AWOL since Day 2.

Young Lady

I have no idea about any of these tribes. I read the Amorites are mountaineers, so I'll go with them because I like going to the mountains.

Young Lady

D'oh, didn't notice the poll...

Young Lady

Jude aka Thaddeus. One can also check the first page of the game, in case it is unclear from the Host post.

Search found 229 matches