The Syndicate

Requiescat in pace, Job.

I don't fully understand the contest or whatever it is. So we have to send a PM with a choice from those exact tribes?

This lynch is growing into a Catch-22 for me. Of the two wagons, I'm definitely not inclined to vote for Balaam, but if I vote Job, I won't break "my trend", as Mordecai put it. I've said how much I agree with Absalom's three-point case on Balaam before and as for Nicodemus' (interestingly, also) three-point case, #2 doesn't hold, I don't have an issue with #1 and only #3 could add up to his prior weird stance about civs being doomed, but I also don't find his rebuttals to Absalom have been that casual. Also, whilst Samuel's vote was utter shit, I don't see it as a reason to vote Balaam for it, really. Despite Samuel being so absent, you can barely read anything on him properly, Balaam actually did do a fair bit of that, calling Samuel a slacker at least, wanting him to receive divine judgement for being absent along with the other low posters and such. I don't sense teamwork in this. Call me fooled, if otherwise.

With Job, I'd hate for his case on Uzziah to prove genuine (as in him flipping a civ with a real hunting agenda) or cursed into sticking to it, but his behavior did worsen throughout the last days, through absence, testy rebuttals and lack of any effort to make the whole debate on him die down whatsoever. But if he flips civ, I believe we'll also have a real discussion on how much his hunters have fueled till now the endless "tunnel vision" debate, to the point of getting him lynched.

No choice, I guess...

Jephthah wrote:Balshazzar, being rude to people is not what most people do to gain credit and make them trust you. So the fact Job did that, just makes me think he's a frustrated civvie.
This is great. If he turns out bad, I'm going to be lynched next, but I don't think he's bad

Yes, but the rude words I mentioned were still a tad too much, even if heated, frustrated debates like this happen all the time. Bad form, at least.

On Job, as summarized as I possibly can:

Up to Day 2, I find nothing wrong with Job's case on Uzziah. Upon re-read, if one could go back to Day 2, his case and plea on Uzziah at that point has something real genuine that would make you reconsider, as in vote for Uzziah to sanction his behavior. The stuff making him look worse emerges after the first two days: not so much his obstinacy, as his refusal to dismiss the tunnel vision accusations by simply offering more than the stuff on Uzziah.

This has further evolved into various moments of frustration, testy rebuttals (with some bad words throw in like "numbskulls" or "here's a knuckle sandwich for a proof, Isaac") and No Us (particularly towards Rachel). Again, it's easy to read this as both frustration, after so much pleading for lynching Uzziah getting nowhere, and a very strange way to react to accusations. I ultimately agree that he has made some bad moves this Day with the "who cares, just vote Uzziah" when being asked why he dropped all other suspicions, plus the fact that he continued to call Rachel suspicious after she disproved his No U on her having just as much tunnel vision on him as him on Uzziah.

linki:

Jephthah wrote:Where is Balshazzar? I want to her his thoughts on this before I vote. I kind of trust him

Re-reading too much and too slow and getting behind on real events, fark.

Where is Barnabas, since Day 1?
Where is Bathsheba, since Day 2?
Where is Malchus, since Day 3?
Where is Rebecca, since Day 3?

These are the only candidates for today for being silenced and/or imprisoned, as far as I can tell.

I'm having trouble understanding what Nicodemus is up to. Day 1, he takes the "I'll speak when I have something important to say". Day 2, "mulling things over, standby", then offers input on a few matters, then misses the vote. Day 3, total absence, votes Uzziah upon return, no reason except "best case there is", lashes at those not voting Uzziah (me in particular), bitter over Uzziah not being lynched (hands out accusations to me in particular). Day 4, general absence, picks one Balaam post upon return, finds it scummy, votes and here we are.

Lazarus wrote:I will be putting my vote on Absalom. Just the way he has been playing seems kinda shady since day one.

Wow, talk about timing.

Jephthah wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:Partially so, Jeph. Maybe "goes on for days" has a meaning to it. On the other hand, I also wondered in my big post what would stop both Job or Uzziah to focus on other things, suspects, etc. even if they're supposed to hate each other and push for each other's lynch. It doesn't sound like a plausible curse: "Bicker with X. Do nothing else."

No, it doesn't sound like a plausible curse.


Any thoughts on Lazarus? What do you think about his vote for Absalom last day?

I've heard "I'm voting X because nothing has changed my read on him" from plenty low posters besides him and I don't appreciate any of them for doing so. He has 13 posts, out of which half an altercation with Mordecai. He accused Absalom on basis of believing Cain was certainly silenced. Then retracted the certainty by saying he just "assumed" things. The accusation would normally be serious, but I think Lazarus rushed to conclusions and then sticked to it, whilst not making any more moves since. May want to lay low, or maybe it's nothing.

Partially so, Jeph. Maybe "goes on for days" has a meaning to it. On the other hand, I also wondered in my big post what would stop both Job or Uzziah to focus on other things, suspects, etc. even if they're supposed to hate each other and push for each other's lynch. It doesn't sound like a plausible curse: "Bicker with X. Do nothing else."

EBWOP: doesn't have anything*, not anyway

Jonathan 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.

I'm unsure what you are talking about regarding Jonah's theory of the feud "not being of their own making". That sounds like a forcing role but i didn't see anything in the roles that could force, much less force two players. Am I missing something there? And if they are being forced couldn't the force say they cannot suspect others during the time they were forced? And also this has been going on for days and a force is usually just for a day or a day and a night. So in the end, I'm not sure he's talking about a force or something else. Can you give any kind of clue that doesn't info dump or give your role away?

I doesn't have anyway to do with my role or info dumping on myself or anyone. The reason why I said some players might not understand this has more to do with the fact that most probably are still unaffected or untargeted(...yet). Jonah brought this theory up by suggesting he might also be affected by it (separately), right? I acknowledged that such a theory sounds at least plausible, because ... well, complete the sentence. Clearer now? Since you asked, I believe it's a forcing role that has not been revealed to us (...yet?).

Jonathan wrote:

Belshazzar wrote: Belshazzar you didn't comment on Job specifically in this post and I am most interested in what you think of him. Maybe you commented in another post and i missed it. Job holds the most interest for me to vote but i would like to hear more of his reaction to the cases made against him.

I said I would, but I need to finish some work first. Give me an hour more or so.

Jephthah wrote:

Balaam wrote:

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?

That would seem like the most logical answer.

The Seven Seals
6 Then I saw the Lamb open one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures call out, as with a voice of thunder, “Come!”[a] 2 I looked, and there was a white horse! Its rider had a bow; a crown was given to him, and he came out conquering and to conquer.

3 When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature call out, “Come!”{b} 4 And out came[c] another horse, bright red; its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people would slaughter one another; and he was given a great sword.

5 When he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature call out, “Come!”[d] I looked, and there was a black horse! Its rider held a pair of scales in his hand, 6 and I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s pay,[e] and three quarts of barley for a day’s pay,[f] but do not damage the olive oil and the wine!”

7 When he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature call out, “Come!”[g] 8 I looked and there was a pale green horse! Its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed with him; they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, famine, and pestilence, and by the wild animals of the earth.

I know it's Wikipedia, but check this out (no rickrolls, I swear!) for more information on the Horsemen. The purpose of the white horse is disputed in scholarly circles but the red horse sounds exactly like your theory on Job and Uzziah. The Red Rider causes people to slaughter each other. The wikipedia article mention 'civil war' which would make sense for Job v. Uzz. If that is what's going on, then perhaps Red puts two people together like lovers but only opposite. But with lovers, when one dies, the other kills him/herself. I wonder what happens if either Job or Uzziah die? Would Red be able to pit two other players against each other? That's a lot of if's but it's certainly intriguing.

So what you're saying is they have to vote for each other because some horsemen made them? Or did I misunderstand your interpretation?
That theory is proved wrong if Job votes Rachel like he just threatened.

Not just vote. That would be the Pharaoh's doing. Jonah said "feud" and I think that's the better word. It can encompass voting, of course.

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?

Oh Lord I clicked on both links (in Balaam's post), like a total idiot.

Apologies for not posting more that a recap yesterday, I didn't have time for more than that, and apologies in advance for what will probably be a tight deadline activity from me today as well. I have work to do in the next hours and I estimate I'll be able to come back around three hours or so before the deadline. To be perfectly honest, I'm also a bit disillusioned that we're reaching the end of Day 4 and the hot topics are once again "Job vs Uzziah", plus "low posters posted / voted in a fishy way".

Regarding the former, I'll try to do a full re-read of Job and decide how I feel about him, but as far as Uzziah goes, apart from his Day 1 (rather sudden, imo) change of tone, when he "offered" two "scum" reads, he has since done nothing but banter with Job and others and not post anything helpful, constructive and baddie-hunt-oriented. Unfortunately, that still cannot make me fully tell if he's a rogue, ignorant civ or a snickering baddie. I'm not in good position after yesterday's vote, but if the Day will end and the majority will wish to get rid of Uzziah, I won't really have anything against it - although that really isn't the best mentality and I'll still do my best to find a good vote option.

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.

Regarding the latter, in particular Pilate's posts, I can't fully understand the nature of his posts, but it's either a purely defiant attitude from him or, and I've brought this up (but I notice nobody reflecting on it), something that he's forced to pursue. However, if it's the second, it should mostly reflect only his odd vote, not his odd attitude in general. On the other hand, I saw Esther and Isaac pick him right away as their potential lynch candidate, to which I have to ask what certainty do they have that Pilate is bad for arguably doing the same thing Mary did, given that lynching Mary was a screw up?


From Absalom's case on Balaam, I can't comment on his gut feeling, but I would only lightly subscribe to his point #2, in that it's a bit early and odd to state that we're doomed to lose this game to the Heathens in around two more phases or so. Not sure, though, if it's enough to say Balaam is intentionally discouraging us. It could easily be the kind of disillusionment about how things are going that I myself have expressed above. Besides, in his last post he addressed more issues, brought up more angles, questioned more players, which sounds good to me.

Pilate wrote:I don't know Absalom's role, that's a dead end way of thinking, think it no more.

Alright. What shall we make of your vote for Rachel, then?

Looks like Balaam got his wish, requiescat in pace Hagar (erm did nobody notice her death?) and Gideon, too. Regarding the latter, seems to me like a change of tactics from the Heathens, from killing active/outspoken players (for heavy wifom potential) to killing a low poster, from which you can make way fewer connections. Gideon suspected Lot and voted Lazarus Day 3, because... well I can't really make sense of his reason, to be honest. Probably because of how Lazarus acted?

Also not much to work with: no new proverb from Solomon and the Disciples have either taken a break or failed entire to find each other the past two Days. "Bah".

Bathsheba doesn't seem to have made any effort to come back after missing completely on Day 3. Makes me feel bad about having given her BOTD.

Pilate's posts and vote for Rachel are very odd. He intended to do the same thing as Mary last Day, which is to vote Rachel based entirely on my observations. In reference to this he now said he's waited too long and forgot to do so (vote her) the other Day. Still I ponder if he isn't enslaved by the Pharaoh.

Regarding his Day 3 comment about Absalom, my impression was that he misunderstood Absalom's negativity, in the sense of not realizing he is under a curse. But I'm intrigued by the "hint" angle as well, though not sure it is the case. For one, there doesn't seem to be a role checker amongst the Righteous, except if it's a secret ability. Jacob, what makes you think Pilate has hinted at Absalom's role?

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

Nevermind, it's a bit of both, I didn't read properly the exchange. So yes, one of those six might still not be killed, because the kill is random.

I believe Balaam pleaded Noah not to nominate those players to be protected from the random civilian death.

Nicodemus wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:Yeah, I'm pleased as punch.

You would be, having pulled your teammate from the fires of hell and damnation yet again.

Yep, drinks on him tonight.

Sarcasm mode off, be my guest to find anything I've said besides not voting him for the same reasons I voted Samson and Cain, given what a great job that was.

Yeah, I'm pleased as punch.

Requiescat in pace, Mary.

Wolf please

Lazarus wrote:Sorry I havent been super busy but looks like i'm getting votes for some B.S.. Looks like I will be voting to save myself.

:P

Rachel wrote:you know what i don't like?
the "uzzaiah might not be bad, but at least we'll get rid of uzzaiah" trick going on.

same tbh

Almost half an hour to go and 18 votes "shy"

I'm gonna give Bathsheba the BOTD, in case she was silenced/imprisoned. If she comes during these last minutes, her vote will very likely make her look bad again and perhaps others will suspect her more the following Day. Mary, I think, has sinned the way she voted.

linki @ Balaam: Fundamentally, maybe. I truly hope that, if she'll be lynched, it doesn't turn out to be the same situation and that she's not a civ. But it doesn't feel quite the same, after she committed to get into the game (Day 2) and considering her rebuttals after her vote today.

Nicodemus wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:
Are you really ok with this train of thought, however:
if Uzziah flips bad, yay,
if Uzziah flips civ and another civ is killed as well, eh, at least we discarded Uzziah.

I would prefer not to lynch a civ.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. :P

I found your question to be a pit-trap. Any lynch runs the risk of losing a civ.

Of course the same situation applies to absolutely everyone, but I said that, the way I see it, Uzziah is part of a rogue "trifecta" and thus my question was weighing in on Uzziah specifically.

Yeah, if I don't see his lynch better than Samson's and Cain's, it's defending, but if I vote him and he flips civ, I'll literally have the most blood on my hands than everyone else. It's always a two-sided affair.

Are you really ok with this train of thought, however:
if Uzziah flips bad, yay,
if Uzziah flips civ and another civ is killed as well, eh, at least we discarded Uzziah.

I have a bad vibe that Uzziah won't be our "third time lucky" lynch. He's only been worse than Cain, for instance, by continuing to make pro-baddie statements (most of which are just fluff and bait) and No U'ing with Job, including throwing votes at each other, after which he (as well as Job) apparently called it a day. But there's still the issue that he could be the player most have in mind, which would tell us nothing alignment-wise. I think his shenanigans can wait another day, to see if they become pure banalities or might affect the game in a different way. I really couldn't live with myself lynching a third rogue civilian in a row, especially with the bonus that another of us will die along.

I see my prophecy of Bathsheba making no move until the end of the Day, yet again, on its way to fulfillment. She hasn't actually posted at all during this Day, so I'm slightly keeping in mind that she may be silenced or imprisoned. But if she does come this late in the game and offers little to no substance, I might vote for her.

I am also considering voting for Mary Magdalene for her instant vote on Rachel. I know it was my suspicion she latched unto, but after Rachel's admission of oversight, I have no more claims about it and I believe everyone should have waited for such a reply first. Mary hasn't really addressed this or her move, instead giving a different angle to the debate (the contribution weight on a player's alignment), which is frankly sort of evasive.

Isaac wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:First off, I'd like Isaac (or perhaps The Host) to clarify what he meant by him being "technically Isaac 2.0"? I don't think we got any Host post about a replacement or a switch of any sorts.

Also, Isaac, I think you said you see nothing wrong with Uzziah's posts. It's certainly contrary to how Uzziah has been perceived throughout the game, thus far, so could you elaborate on that?

Seeing as I haven't been smited for saying that, I guess I can clarify. Yes, I am a replacement for Isaac 1.0.

As for Uzziah's comment: Why would a Heathen say they were cheering for the baddies in a game this big? I don't think anyone is that ballzy. Secondly: I don't know if it's been clarified yet but I personally read it as searching for the baddies. C: If he really was saying cheering for the scum, maybe he just has a thing for Jezebel.

Hope this helps. Now to catch up the rest of the way.
Holy Linki Plague, Balaam.

All clear now about your status, thanks.

Point C about Uzziah was funny, heh. Point A is wifom, I think. About point B, I don't think I've said it before, but I disagree with the "rooting out" version of his statement completely and I think he also conveniently latched onto the explanation to suddenly make himself look better.

Also, this just popped in my head, but did anyone notice how, especially since Paul was killed, the game has rather normalized in terms of "scum-slang", quick "scum-reads" and others outlier language signs? I think there were a few players who hinted at being new at the start of the game, certainly sparking a bit of discussion about it, but now it seems they only played that card whilst Paul was being completely obvious about it. Maybe food for thought for Day 4, anyway.

linki: No, I don't think he did. This is the only reference to Rachel on Day 3 and it's a bit far from being inclined to vote for her:

Lot wrote:I find myself getting confused between the R ladies - Rachel, Rebecca and Ruth (not Rahab). On the whole, I find these ladies to be adding value, but I really need to go back and read them to see which ones I'm agreeing with the most. Jephthah I'm now very much over my day one suspicion, he seems to be hunting hard.

Balaam, I don't know if I can find the quote you pulled on Lazarus that dubious, because he wasn't the only player to have assumed Cain's lurking was a possibly signal of being silenced. So he simply doesn't stand out to me from the rest for this. I think Mordecai disapproved of another post Lazarus made (one in which he lashed at Absalom for the case he built on Cain)... although that also basically boils down to Lazarus' assumption that Cain was silenced, anyway.

Regarding Rachel, my only issue is that she has so far been very active and consistent in her inquiring, which is why her apparent "flip-flop" is simply too sudden, without visible continuity. It rather inspires me to believe she forgot from one Day to another about having made a similar accusation towards two different players; or, perhaps given her focus on Absalom, she instantly criticised him. Anyway, I'm missing the part in her posts where she felt better about your list-making, per se. I agree, however, it probably isn't enough for a vote, right now. Of course, Rachel's say in this is most welcome.

Totally off-topic, but I chuckle every time someone does a mass read and includes themselves saying they're totally cool cats and such. :P

linki @ Mary:
"I will contribute as soon as I can... but in the meantime, thank you active player for helping me skip all that and vote right away"

But the two underlined sentences are Lot's and Absalom's, respectively.

And I see Ruth has again implied she wasn't able to vote on Day 2, whilst being silenced, although if she claims she was silenced the same way Paul, (presumably) Cain and myself were, then she would have been able to vote.

In for a bit: That's awfully convenient, Pilate. "Thank you active player for helping me decide who I might vote for."

I hope Deborah will be true to her word and try to catch up. Also, if Bathsheba will join us once again only at the end of the Day without much reasoning behind her vote, I would consider trusting Solomon's advice and voting for her.

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.

I am also pleased that we have an extra day for this phase, because I've had a pretty busy weekend myself.

First off, I'd like Isaac (or perhaps The Host) to clarify what he meant by him being "technically Isaac 2.0"? I don't think we got any Host post about a replacement or a switch of any sorts.

Also, Isaac, I think you said you see nothing wrong with Uzziah's posts. It's certainly contrary to how Uzziah has been perceived throughout the game, thus far, so could you elaborate on that?

Welcome back, Esther, and nice to see you focused on the game, but could you perhaps give us any leads you may have so far? I think we need more reads from different people, right now, even if you personally don't feel ready to rule a verdict on anyone or such.


I really need to read back on everything posted by Absalom or Balaam, to see if I didn't miss anything dubious, but as far as Absalom's posts today go, I find it clear that he has received some kind of curse with his bad-tempered comments and the "bah"s, which makes his post about Paul's death totally influenced by the curse, meaning Mordecai's accusation that no civ would speak of a night kill this way is misguided, at least.

Re: Balaam's lists, I have seen this kind of criticism towards such list making and analysis before and it has never led to any serious charge or an indication of that person being bad. I personally don't disapprove of his lists - I'm not getting any significant lead out of them either, but it doesn't feel like he is faking helpfulness with them.

To honor Solomon's message is to look into what he has pointed out: Cain's voters from Day 1 and 2, plus Bathsheba in particular. The former are Absalom, Balaam and Deborah. Absalom didn't like Cain Day 1 and felt even worse about him on Day 2, making a case on him and voting accordingly; Cain flipped civ, Absalom expressed sorrow over it. Looks like a hunting gone bad to me. Balaam pushed for Cain to be "second wagon" on Day 1, treated him as "leftover" Day 2, Cain's lurking felt suspicious to him, he voted. To be honest, Deborah looks least good of all thre: she didn't maintain her focus on Cain during Day 2, she talked about other suspects instead, yet she resorted to vote for him again in the end, saying she did not find any better suspect.

Re: Bathsheba, I would only reiterate for the third time how his reasoning for voting Cain reads like. I'm more interested right now why Jeph and Mordecai have, instead, found nothing dubious about it Sure, it may not mean for certain that she is the blendy, wagony Heathen that we're looking for, nevertheless her reasoning was very blendy and wagon-like.

Sabbatical: The Mafia

Job wrote:Everyone, I am on V/LA today thru Monday. I'll have really limited access to the thread but I'll try to pop in. Please try not to lynch a third civ and invoke divine judgment while I'm gone.

You are certain that we'll do right by Uzziah, although we have done wrong by Samson and Cain? I don't like what Uzziah's pulling, either, but I'm still torn whether he's the kind of player who normally pulls this crap, with no indication of his alignment, or another player who's playing this card and sticking to it heavily. But I'm very reluctant to vote for a third time for sort of the same reason I voted the first two times, especially with the repercussion of a second civilian getting lynched, if Uzziah also checks out as cheeky-banter-rogue-civ. What makes you sure that, if the reads on Samson's and Cain's behaviour were misguided and awful, the read on Uzziah is the good one?

Balaam, I don't fully understand the point of your third list. For instance, since I was silenced, of course I had 5 or less posts on Day 2. In fact, I had zero...which you pointed out in the second list...

Re: Bathsheba, here was my impression from Night 2 of everything she said about Cain, leading to her voting for him:

"not sure about Cain, I'll look into it"
"ooh why is Cain lurking, looking suspicious"
"ok, imma vote Cain because he's getting lynched anyway"

Whoa, I didn't catch that odd line from Ruth, probably because she said it before stating to have been silenced. If it's true she hadn't been able (read: allowed?) to vote, then she was either imprisoned by Herod and hid this fact for some reason, either she wasn't honest about being simply silenced.

As for the alleged silenced group, Paul and Cain are dead, Ruth suddenly needs to clear out her story and the rest of the players haven't come back in the game since Day 1 (or Night 1, in Gideon's case), I think. So good luck coming with a conclusion about a possible mass silence.

Requiescat in pace, Paul.

Nice combo of a slay post and a proverb from Solomon. I agree about the Heathens laying low, so I'll look into what he suggests.

I'm not sure what Malchus wanted to say in his question.

Rachel, you say Absalom voted blindly on Cain, yet I remember him making a case. Meanwhile, if I were to quickly scan Cain's voters, the majority of the other votes look way worse. My gut vote for him was crap and I don't feel good about

Paul's - who has yet to explain why he gave his silent vote to Cain, considering he never suspected Cain or even mentioned him in his posts before
Batheshba's - "not sure about Cain" > "ooh why is Cain lurking, feels suspicious" > "voting Cain because he's getting lynched anyway" I don't even
Deborah reverting to voting Cain again - despite talking mostly about other suspects throughout Day 2
and, actually, Malchus - who criticised Absalom for his vote on Cain Day 1 and made no reads on Cain himself, then suddenly felt the Cain case is more compelling than Uzziah's and voted as such shortly after.

I signaled it myself with a vote, whilst being silenced. Clarifications came after.

Perfect comeback.

I don't know, it's a bit of a chaos imo. To confirm a mass silencing ability theory, we'd need players to state they've been silenced throughout Day 2; but in doing that, we could easily give the opportunity for those who were absent, yet not silenced, to just say "yep, I was silenced, too", a few of which could also be Heathens lying low. We'd be going straight back into WIFOM territory.

Ruth wrote:He was lurking in the thread. But not posting. That's fairly standard signalling, especially in a sock game where you aren't supposed to post in your sock outside of the game thread.

Maybe I just noticed cause I was doing it, too, and I don't think anyone noticed me, either.

It's very possible, except if it's about him being visible, I've already pointed out the theory that he did it on purpose is false, because he was visible on other days as well.

Ah, I understand the "too" part now. I don't understand why you think Cain was silenced for sure (as did Lazarus, earlier), though. He obviously can't post on topic anymore, but it's one thing for players to state they were silenced and another to assume about others being silenced.

I can't comment on being silenced, too, Ruth, but I was silenced. Full Day silence, no posting whatsoever, just being able to vote.

Right. Forgive me, Cain, for I was wrong... again. Requiescat in pace.

Well I can tell you I was definitely silenced throughout this Day. I'm not very creative at signaling that, sorry. I thought about making a drunkpost in a different thread, but I got to notice Jonathan making a post in the Interrogation Room and it being quickly deleted, so I figured that won't stick.

Nobody really wondered about me almost the entire day, except for Mordecai bringing it up, late on. To him I can say he's reading my votes so far the wrong way: I'm normally a fairly active poster (and will try to stay that way, despite this not being the best period to play mafia) and a final hours voter. I voted the Law as soon as I had time to sign up. I voted Samson at the end of the day, having argued my suspicions against him and others (even if they proved completely faulty, regarding him). I'll write a bit more about voting Cain below, but I was the third to vote for him and I certainly didn't do it because he was already leading the poll or anything.

As for my silencing, I cannot personally figure out whose doing is it right now. I was able to vote in the poll, so it wasn't a full incapacitation, coming from Herod. There are prophet abilities still undisclosed, there are Righteous roles with secrets and, of course, there are the Horsemen. I'm intrigued by the mass silence theory and wouldn't disagree to it being a Horseman's doing (maybe Famine, as suggested the most, or even Death, in a sort of "put to sleep" way) - but it's such a difficult theory to confirm right now, because of the number of absent players; it could really be a mix of players affected and players who blended.

I am very curious about Paul right now. That he received David's amnesty, that much is clear. That he voted basically confirms he wasn't Herod's victim today. From my personal point of view (given that I was silenced), if the mass silencing theory won't check out, then I'll be very suspicious of Paul's tactic to stay silent and vote without signaling or reasoning it (was Cain even in his "scum" list on Day 1?). His last post from Day 1, I think, was "wake me up when d2". I can partially understand if, in case he's really new to our site, he might think Nights are off limits or not worth posting. But if during Day 2 he wasn't really silenced, yet chose to play this card, then it's either very bad form or totally 'scummy' behaviour. I'd ask others to think about this as well. Of course, I await Paul's explanations, too.

As for the Day, I read it with great frustration (due to not being able to participate in the discussion), because the first half was just talk about Martha's death and the trio of "brash" players from Day 1 (Samson, Cain, Uzziah), basically just circling around WIFOMs and such, to the point where the debate on suspicions didn't get to develop at all. The second part was full of distress over possible silencing shenanigans and lack of activity from a lot of players and such. At this point, I'm fairly inclined to believe the Heathens are throwing WIFOMs at us and sit back to watch whatever unfolds.

My vote for Cain was a gut-based one. I had a theory on Day 1 about this type of low poster, "I see nothing worthy that has happened" recapper having proved to be a low-lying baddie in past games, plus his flippant replies afterwards didn't help at all. I decided to stick with it, while also thinking his flippant responses + his absence today can indicate nothing good about him. I think Absalom explained the case on him more eloquently today. I'm very ashamed to see the result was the same as Samson's, to whose stoning I also contributed, and that his behaviour had nothing to do with him being bad.

Side note to Cain's absence, I think Lot has said Cain has never been a visible sock. That is false, I remember seeing him plenty times as a visible sock. Of course, that doesn't matter anymore right now...

Side note to Samson, what the heck is it with him voting? Did anyone ask the Host? If not, I'll do the honours. Host: What's going on with Samson voting? Is it just an illegal move?

Lazarus, ya blew it. But I won't tell either. And I think your vote for Absalom had a horrible reasoning. From where do you gather with certainty that Cain was a "silenced player", so to apply the "no lynching of the silenced" principle and shame Absalom for doing so?

I'm certain I missed addressing other viewpoints, but writing this catch-up post, once coming back from the land of the Mute, was exhausting, so I'll leave it at this for now.