The Syndicate

Deborah
Not a fan of her and growingly immune to her repeated late-minute showing up and apologetic posts/votes/whatnot (however truly affected her RL time for playing is, sorry, but that's how I feel). So I don't get genuine civ vibes out of such "laments", but neither is the rest fully incriminating. Reading back, her catch-up effort from Day 5 should have been the kind of re-read from which to built further interpretation, not just establish basic civ/bad reads and such and leave it at that, so maybe that's an attempt to improve her image that can be interpreted both ways. I'm really considering Balaam's Day 6 bad projection of her vote. To an extent, I can see her consistent voting for Cain during the first two Days as the type of voting for an unhelpful player that civs often do. Day 3, I dislike her "foolish bandwagoning following" (the way Balaam put it) more than the implication of protecting Uzziah or something (which doesn't show up much in writing). From there on, it can be anything. Those who actively suspect Deborah could maybe refresh the arguments, so I can fully figure how I feel about it.

Esther
One mislynch, one baddie lynch and a consistent two-day hunt (Pilate). Wasn't a fan of her at the beginning (missing days and votes, but claiming to be observant in the shadows), but then she actually started delivering on her claim, even if much later on. Bit of flipping from lynching Uzziah to lynching Job on Day 4, but then I can rather read her Uzziah vote as civ-like (finishing the job once... oh wait, damn, pun not intended...once Job proved the bad choice).

Looking good ever since, I agree. Solid case on Pilate. Her input on Jonathan had enough interpretation and offered some angles in case he would flip bad, even if it proved wrong. As for the votes Day 6-8, I can't read much into them at this point. I'm not looking into her Day 6 vote as much as others, because Lazarus didn't vote yet, so spreading votes would have been a worse attempt to save Ruth than, for instance, pushing for Rachel to be lynched, in case of a normal tally. Think that's pretty much it, so far.

Isaac
Jacob
Think the sheer stats on both pretty much still stand. (I + J) (J2) I'm not sure if I intend to defend Isaac's claim. I'll read carefully Lot's input that he just wrote. Jacob's claim, meanwhile, puts me in an awkward position, especially after my vote post yesterday. To suddenly flip on my stance and vote Jacob would probably not make me look good. But since only Jeph believed the same hint as I did and is now dead, for everyone else to distrust his claim and wish to pursue lynching him, whilst I stick to believing his claim that he's , that would look weird as hell, too. A metaphorical catch-22. I really have to (re)consider all of this.

I could probably stretch it a bit more till bedtime with a few more players, but my guess is I probably won't manage.

Oh God. Only three players re-read so far and I can actively feel my brain begging me to quit what I'm doing. And Mafia altogether. It seems I've clearly taken the wrong angle, in terms of processing the material, but what can I do.

Okay, for all these reads, I started working following Absalom's and Balaam's own lists, so I have those vote stats and possible "bad" angles fully in mind, but you'll have to correlate them yourselves, if you have such power of synthesis, because I don't wish to create a clusterfuck of an 18-player-analysed-by-three-people joint list. This will be dense enough as it is.

Absalom
I'm reading Absalom mostly fine. He was not shy himself to call his hunting consistent and his better record than most: two lynched Heathens and two bad mislynches. I'm looking at a different angle for Day 1 Heathens activity (them spreading or piling on Samson, whilst Uzziah and Ruth built a separate Cain wagon), so it would take, idk, Deborah flipping bad or something like that to make me reconsider that they all actually went for Cain and Absalom in it.

Since on Day 3 the Mary wagon didn't even start prior to his vote on Uzziah (which made him by then a reasonable lynch candidate) - plus only he and Rahab are still alive, from those who actively pursued Uzziah, whilst Job is confirmed civ and Nicodemus was NKd - and on Day 5 he added an early vote to a growing Uzziah lynch, it's hard to find anything wrong with those votes.

I can't tell why he was blind to Ruth until Day 6, but actually the thing that really makes him look good to me is his Ruth case itself, because I can't imagine him being teammates with her and Uzziah and proceeding, first thing Day 6, with full hunting intent, to set her up for a lynch. Idk, overall I think it would take an incredible amount of subtle distancing and then cruel bussing for him to be involved with both of them.

Again, consistent hunting overall - meaning no signs of fluff, waffle, flipping, hesitating. Maybe just curious that his case on Balaam vanished after his talk with Lot on Night 4, but it's nothing to account him for at this point.

Balaam
Disclaimer: this will be a very messy read. I spent an hour on it. An hour. In fact, I think I'll just throw in the raw daily data I wrote whilst reading, but even these are messy, so sorry about all this, but I literally have no idea how to synthesize him. In theory, the results show him vulnerable to interpretations and suspicions of Heathenship. Lot's complete vouch for him notwithstanding (for which I can see one or two possible civ theories, whilst the opposite theory is highly predictable, depending on how either of them would flip), I can agree with Balaam about his Ruth vote; I do not find it that it was a 100% critical moment for Ruth in order for the teammates to throw her under the bus, and Balaam ultimately worked towards a potential Absalom save and a proper Ruth lynch.

Day 1: not really the most perfect day, with mixed content (low of suspicions, high on debating) and a vote post in which several sentences can come off wrong; distances completely from Samson train; again, Heathens mostly piling on Cain (which would mean Deborah, Balaam and/or Absalom) is not my primary Day 1 angle and it would be indeed pretty ballsy from Balaam to be the third of their kind to do the same, late in the day, with so little backup for his action
Day 2: very dense day of posting, complete with lists and full scenarios regarding specific quarrels between two players; not the most consistent path towards voting Cain again, but overall finds his absence suspicious and thinks Day 1 was a Cain save in motion (...I think); assesses Uzziah vs. Job, but without conclusions; chats with Ruth on issues that now read total fluff
Day 3: dense posting again, without a clear and consistent hunting dynamic. Takes the Mary path in suspecting her bandwagoning and deeming it lynchable. Is not sure about voting her (too similar to Samson's lynch), but ultimately would rather lynch her than find out which side will Uzziah flip. Reads Uzziah neutral, surmising he's either baddie smokescreen or will turn out civ casualty like Samson and Cain. Questions Ruth on her silence contradiction, nothing else.
Day 4: "my head a splode" level of content density and variety. I can't fully make sense of his variation on the Job case - from wanting to test his and Uzziah's obstinacy by trial of lynch, having theories on Job's civvieness, partially disagreeing with Rachel's arguments, then, after having to deal with banter with Absalom and suspicions on him, returning to vote Job. Nothing on Uzziah except in context with Job or simply laughing his ass off at one of his stupid ruse. Nothing on Ruth except repeating the same question for her.
Day 5: "courteous" refraining from voting, because of being in constant re-read throughout the Day. either my brain has stopped being able to filter at this point, or I don't see notable mentions towards Uzziah and Ruth
Day 6: Day of Reads, Tehnicolor Lists and suspicions. Mostly has other in mind than Ruth (interestingly, if Uzziah would have been lynched Day 3, it would have caught Balaam offside during both Heathen lynches by openly stating that he reads them neutral), but then considers going along, plus the whole thing gets aggravated by the Lazarus effect, so in the end he contributes significantly to Ruth clinching the lynch.
Day 7: again, not an blessed day for him to end up switching from other suspicions to Jeph
Day 8: Easy path back towards suspecting Jonathan and Jacob. I don't think I can actually find his vote post in which he decides to go with Jonathan (and mind you, his vote for him was among the first batch)

Bathsheba
I believe Bathsheba would have been a decent suspect during the first few Chapters, given her posts. But the momentum has completely gone ever since she went AWOL. She's a "what if" inactive player category, at best. In fact, you'd say that right now she's more likely a candidate for "hunger" (if such a night demise will ever reoccur) or divine judgement or such. Second to Malchus, if such classification even matters. If she's civ, the Heathens probably have little reason themselves to spend a night taking out a player like her, since they've been doing brazen kills almost at every oportunity. Can she really be our inactive Heathen, whose sudden return on Day 6, to push Ruth deeper into a certain lynch, actually points to a scenario in which Ruth realized she's doomed and sent Bathsheba to gain cred? I'm open to the idea, but why would it be a better tactic, in that case, rather that Bathsheba remaining silent, just like she has five out of the last six freaking days?

Belshazzar
heh, 'tis I. I think I'll just link back to what I've said upon Absalom's read of me. It is not a complete shock to come off again as a grave mislyncher (I've often been this way in previous game, as well), but I do still regret all the bad outcomes thus far. If players will feel I need to be lynched, I think Day 6 is as good a voucher for me not being Heathen as it is for Balaam, plus I firmly believe to have never actively defended either Uzziah or Ruth (the way such theoretically damning statements have been made by others).

Balaam wrote:
I still struggle to see Jacob's role hint. I thought I saw something but it was vague and I no longer think I saw what you seem to see. Can you point me in the right direction or at least clue me into where it's at- (like first half or second half of the game or a 3-day group- not asking to go all "Laz could be Simon" just yet).

After Uzziah's lynch, methinks. I really can't see anything else prior to that (there's little in post count as well, anyway).

Absalom wrote:

Belshazzar wrote: Absalom, have you had a chance to re-read Pilate?

Yes. The only remotely odd thing there is thta he seemed to know a bit too much about my foul humour.

Why are you so interested in Pilate? I told you, he is unimpeachable.

That's a bit of a loop question. Why am I interested in Pilate, you ask, since you find him unimpeachable, but I asked why do you find him unimpeachable, since I personally am intrigued by his behaviour.

But I guess I find him more suspicious of posts and attitude than you do.

I also applaud Balaam's worst light angle in his walkthrough, although its downside I see is that, on one hand, it might attract a few very plain "Player X looks the worst, get him!" reasoning or even votes come tomorrow and, on the other hand, it got us mixed results in the past. Not that I'm denying that such readings, in the worst light, usually motivate the reasoning behind voting to lynch a player. But think of Jonathan, whose votes were accountable enough for a lynch, or think of Jacob, whose role hint is still making some of us hesitate completely, despite how awful his votes and such would make him look.

I'll start my re-reads in a bit, but they are to be expected in batches as well, because I'm almost certain I'll not manage them in one sit...afternoon...d-day?

Absalom, have you had a chance to re-read Pilate?

Requiescat in pace, Rachel. And Judah, nevertheless.

No activation of new disciple abilities, by the way.

Uh, Jacob has hinted to be very important for the civ cause?

I read Isaac just as bad as you before, to which his general defense was the "wrong spotlight" one, after which today he took it a step further by (accidentally or not) role hinting.

As for what I meant about the Heathens, I was questioning why do we have to take the angle in which we'd rely on whether they eliminate the "walking target" or not, in order to test the "walking target's claims. It seems to me like a backwards angle to simply trying to debunk the target's claim, call it a bluff or test it through lynch, if we're really that doubtful about the claim itself.

Although I think I finally understand better your activation angle...

Civ-reading players or calling them suspicion-free, like Absalom did in his walkthrough, isn't exactly making any of those players "walking targets". If it were, we'd never resort to civ-reading players at any point and that doesn't make much sense. Meanwhile, this proposed tactic re: Isaac feels, IMO, way more distracting (in terms of proper hunting) and slippery. So basically the idea is to rely on the Heathens' actions or responsiveness to certain details, in order to check a player's civ claim? To a certain extent, I get it - for instance, if the role Jacob is hinting at would noticeably appear to be have been eliminated, whilst Jacob is still alive, it would make me turn rage mode on Jacob for clearly BS'ing us the whole time. But my main issue, in this case, as I've said, is that we already have a considerable pool of so-called 'walking targets' and I don't see the priority of testing Isaac out of everyone else. Do all of them become suspects of lying, if neither of them are taken care of by the Heathens tonight? This all sounds very confusing to me.

Really? We have so far at least two players who have hinted civviness (to save their butts, tho), a player whose actions would infer civviness, a player who someone else has vouched to be confirmed civvie, but if the Heathens don't dispose of Isaac tonight, that automatically means he lied?

I think the wheels on this discussion have long fallen off.

Actually Lot did the last part, oops, don't know why I mixed them up.

I don't know what I like less: Isaac borderline outing himself under simple pressure of suspicion or Absalom infering out in the open on Isaac's role or giving signals that could attract not just the good guys, but the Heathens as well.

Absalom wrote:

Esther wrote: What do you mean he's unimpeachable?

I his his voting record makes it almost impossible that he is a Heathen.

Hmm. I was actually thinking you mean it's almost impossible to read a tactic into his votes due to him being always first or early to vote. What about his posts, then? His two-day self-proclaimed "phoning in" for Rachel Days 3-4, whilst Uzziah escaped a lynch and Job got lynched? His "quickie" votes for Jonathan the past two Days?

Double checking: Stephen voted Job Day 4.

I plan to correlate the vote stats of the players (thanks for that, btw, Absalom; since it's mostly pure statistics, I might work using these) with their read posts, especially towards Heathens.

linki: now that Mordecai mentioned it, I also double checked Absalom's lists and I think he also omitted this

Esther: Day 3 - 4th vote for Job

Lot wrote:

Esther wrote:I am on the fence about lynching those who are not active like Bathsheba and Judah? They could possible be bad, but if they aren't then we aren't helping ourselves at at. There is power in numbers even if they aren't helping, right? What do you all think about it?

I think Noah is probably still around and if he picks seven active people, he ups the chance of one of them going home if they are civilian, which would be good. That's a starting point. I feel like they are wasted lynches when we still have info to go on.

Epignosis wrote:

Balaam wrote:HOST: Does God only inflict divine judgement on a random civvie while Noah is still alive? Or is divine judgement a permanent fixture and only a few people can be protected from it while Noah is still alive?

Divine judgement will occur whether Noah is alive or not.

Although, now that you bring it up, I'm not sure if it also means Noah will pick seven players even if he's dead. Hmm.

Sorry, Jonathan. Requiescat in pace.

I agree with a re-read of the players. I'm fearful, however, of bringing (partial) conclusions forward during the Night phase, given the Heathens' penchant in the past to create WIFOMy kills.

Absalom wrote: It's possible to see a narrative where Belshazzar is a Heathen. He tried to save Uzziah on Day 3. On Day 5, is team decided Uzziah was done for and they ahd to scatter their votes. Ruth voted for Uzziah and he voted for Samuel (who had no chance of saving Uzziah) in quick succession. The vote for Ruth would have been cover, knowing that she had no chance for survival.

If I am the next to be taken outside the city for this sort of narrative, my defense will be swift, because there's not much room for it, but you will not get a better result than the previous couple of days. I am fully aware my vote record is still utterly shameful, despite contributing to a Heathen lynch as well. I stated before that, to some extent, I cannot fully condemn Jonathan's votes that looked the worst because mine were just as sinful - regrettably taking the pedal off Uzziah on Day 3, for instance.

The only part of your narrative I don't quite agree it is Ruth being bussed on Day 6, because I'm more of the belief that she and her teammates did play their best with the votes (either by spreading them and influencing such a spread, either by pushing for Rachel as 2nd wagon), while also having in mind the possibility of you being doomed with Lazarus' vote (plus Pilate's, plus Ruth's). The greatest indicator is Ruth herself gambling with a vote for you, instead of tying herself with Rachel, like in traditional self-preservation dynamics. So the idea that Ruth was thrown under the bus seems least likely to me, out of all possibilities. Their plan must have simply backfired because, after her move, she got four more votes and got lynched after all.

I can't stay until the deadline today, so decision time. Jacob's hint is really the only thing keeping him from being lynched, tbh, but, uggh, it's too significant to disconsider it and I'd really hate myself if it would prove true upon his lynch. (On the other hand, a well deserved post-game Balls Award for him, if he tricked us with this thing the whole time ). So I'll go with Jonathan. Hope we're right about him.

Deborah wrote:

Absalom wrote:Jonathan: "Don't lynch me!"
Absalom: "Who should we lynch instead?"
Jonathan: "There are lots of cases out there."
Absalom: "Okay, which one looks good to you?"
Jonathan: "Doesn't matter. Just not me."

Voting Jonathan.

I will go along with this and vote Jonathan. I haven't had a chance to re-catch up.

Do you ever?

I still have my read on Isaac from the previous Day, but I don't think much has changed about it since. He only argued against my idea that he's buddying with Rachel excessively, followed bit a few more posts, missing the vote and apologetic post-lynch post.

linki: Oh, Rachel! I was starting to think you were silenced.

I'm sorry, but doesn't that quote you pulled from Balaam read like he's asking you if that's what you're implying of him, not a statement (or slip) he's making himself.

So here's a basic comparison of Jacob vs. Jonathan, if it's any help. The "civ/bad read" beneath each Day vote statistic means precisely to try to read their votes both ways and maybe figure out which one is more plausibile.

If you ask me, Jacob still looks worse in all chapters except his hint, which is certainly having its effect on most of us.

Jonathan wrote:Belshazaar, this was the line I was questioning. I don't understand how we know he has been compelled to bring something against Lazarus from this Day onward. Aren't these curses only for a day? If not, do we know it because others have been cursed for longer than a day? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you are saying here?

Belshazzar wrote:I'm a leader?

Jonathan, it's not so much about being appropriate to talk about that, although I think we're already way past subtleties about Lazarus' actions by now. It's just that Lot's theory can be debunked, however misfortunate, since he apparently was compelled to bring something against Lazarus from this Day onwards.

I don't think you are misunderstanding. Reading back, I think I actually misunderstood, thinking you were talking about past days when you said "every day", not every future day.

As to why I have the impression this affliction might not last just one phase, yeah, maybe I shouldn't say much more about it. But thinking back to Job, who went at Uzziah for days till his death (even though it was a mix of proper hunting, since Day 1, and likely forced relentless gunning), it's a possibility.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I'll have to wrap my head a bit later around what Mordecai is suggesting.

Only nine players have posted so far this Day, wtf? Some are really taking the sabbatical to the extreme.

Jonathan wrote:
Belshazzar, i actually wasn't talking about the Lazarus stuff when I said it might not be appropriate to talk about. I don't mean to make this a big mystery because it's not that big of a deal but I still don't want to say it. How do we know he has been compelled to bring something forth every day about Lazarus? Or would you rather not say, which I could understand.

I don't get the underlined part. If it's about Lot, then the theory is he got afflicted starting this Day, not every day.

Lot wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:but Day 1 is becoming almost as interesting, now that it shows that Uzziah and Lot have both voted late for Cain.

I assume you mean Ruth? I voted Jephthah on day one.

Yes, I corrected that statement.

sorry, I meant Day 1 is becoming almost as interesting, now that it shows that Uzziah and Ruth have both voted late for Cain

I'm a leader?

Jonathan, it's not so much about being appropriate to talk about that, although I think we're already way past subtleties about Lazarus' actions by now. It's just that Lot's theory can be debunked, however misfortunate, since he apparently was compelled to bring something against Lazarus from this Day onwards.

I'm keeping Jonathan in mind as well, although he's still not really my top choice, based on evidence. He's not saying much by using the same "you lynch me, you'll see your mistake" card Isaac and Jacob have used (I mean, seriously, this is basic mafia defense in any game, regardless of context), but if he's decided to say no more, we'll have to go back and maybe read him once more.

If his role hint wouldn't be so damn hard to get by, I'd still go with Jacob. From Balaam's new technicolor lists, I still think Day 3 is the best we can analyse, regarding how Uzziah's save may have been achieved, and maybe Day 5 too, if Uzziah's teammates mostly threw him to the lions, but Day 1 is becoming almost as interesting, now that it shows that Uzziah and Lot have both voted late for Cain (who ended up 2nd wagon, but only just, because at that point he only had 2 votes, as many as Uzziah, Absalom, Samuel). Could this mean the other teammates worked on lynching Samson? Or did they partially give even more spreaded votes?

I'll try to find something in the other Day polls as well, but so far I'm not seeing anything concrete.

Will try to make catchup posts each morning and late afternoon, otherwise I'll still be too busy this weekend to be more active than that.

Yay no kill. Whatsoever. I guess Elijah is either dead, got emasculated by Jezebel or is simply a low poster who didn't even pay attention. If it's the latter, good game, son.

I find it ironic that the moment the Heathen chose to hand over the kill to Goliath (instead of Pharaoh, who carried out the kills with ease during Nights 2 to 4), it failed. I don't see any blocker except Goliath himself, so... a Righteous with secrets or a Horseman? Either way, it'd be interesting if we'll get any "crumbs" or hints that could help us flush out the Giant.

I think the host posts have a very nice format and don't really need a proper lynch explanation. However, they are indeed getting subtler by the day. I basically had to wiki that Thaddeus' real name was Jude. Thomas the Doubter was a nice touch, but after five hours of mafia frying my brain, good luck figuring that out on the spot.

I think I have an idea what's up with Lot. We talked a while ago about Job being forced to go at Uzziah (and maybe Uzziah to go at Job, as well??) rather than having tunnel vision - I think Jonah acknowledged the possibility and then so did I - and that it might be a Horseman's doing (War? Conquest?). For Lot to suddenly be enlightened of that must mean that he just got afflicted and Lazarus is the player he must go at.

The only part that threw me off a bit was the "Horsemen shall ride on." sentence. It made me think of Lot being recruited by another Horseman (Conquest?) and having to adulate him or the Horsemen altogether. But it doesn't usually make sense for a recruited player to hint so hard and root for the recruiter.

As to why Lot got Lazarus to go at, my guess is that Lot threw that suspicion on him, the whole Nebuchadnezzar thing, during the Night, the Horseman caught on to it and tied him with Lazarus (or both togheter?). Which is rather unfortunate, because his theory on Lazarus being Nebuchadnezzar (or a teammate) doesn't quite hold up. Here's why:

Here are the players who can statistically qualify as Simon:

Absalom - voted Cain Days 1 and 2
Balaam - voted Cain Days 1 and 2
Deborah - voted Cain Days 1 and 2
Esther - voted Pilate Days 6 and 7
Lazarus - voted Absalom Days 2-6
Rachel - voted Job Days 2-4
Rahab - voted Pilate Days 6 and 7

Job - voted Uzziah Days 1-3, lynched Day 4, flipped Thaddeus
Uzziah - voted Job Days 2-4, lynched Day 5, flipped Herod

I think you can see what the problem is. Every candidate, except for Job and Uzziah (who were lynched and had their roles revealed), is still alive. So it's unplausible for Nebuchadnezzar to have dead checked Simon and get inspired to trick us. Lazarus is still the obvious candidate for Simon, even if his power is now back to square one, after having switched his vote to a player not named Absalom, and even if he piled onto the Jeph lynch (likely making Jeph get roasted with 12 votes instead of 6), which makes it impossible to discern his power from the rest of the votes.

Requiescat in pace, Jeph. Sorry to see you go.

Just in case, minimal activity from me this weekend.

It's gonna be a dreary night if multiple kills will take place. Hopefully Elijah will be inspired in his choice. Also, if we're not far off on the theory about Famine, things aren't looking great for Malchus, Judah or Bathsheba.

Lot wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Lot wrote:I know what you mean Absalom.

I'm comfortable about me, Balaam, Lazarus...

Jonathan and Rebecca could be called defensive votes (but that doesn't mean they are good).

That leaves Samuel.

do you mean you're totally comfortable with lazarus or that you are comfortable with his vote?

i am not comfortable with lazarus.

You know what? Maybe I shouldn't be either.

No-one has disproved or complained about his clear role-hint, though. BUT

Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon
Nebuchadnezzar has a revelatory dream every Night, seeing the identity of someone dead.

So perhaps I'm more comfortable than I should be.

@samuel - yeah, but, what is ridiculous? Because I wasn't accusing you of being bad.

Lot, can you clarify what you mean here? What's up with Nebuchadnezzar?

Jonathan, of the two.

Rebecca wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:His vote for Rebecca comes for a post of hers that isn't good.

What about the post wasn't good?

There's still plenty of time. I can very well die instead of him anyways, I'm sure.

"Ruth bussing Uzziah doesn't sound like what a teammate would do, so I'll feel comfortable voting for Rachel instead, on which I had almost no opinion on throughout the game"

Great, neither Jonathan or Jeph are close to my top choices, the hell am I supposed to do now, cause I don't want any spreading as well, in case Lazarus drops the bomb. I don't have the mental strength anymore for today to thoroughly re-read Jeph. Are his theories and suspicions really that over the place? His vote for Rebecca comes for a post of hers that isn't good. His Yin-Yang vote reads based on Rachel are a bit Rachel-centered, but with some fair points in case Rachel was a wagon to save Ruth, except for not counting Jacob as bad as Rebecca and Mordecai.

linki: the Lazarus sentence was written before the wave of votes for Jeph

linki: well, he's toast now

Samuel wrote:Wait, Jeph wants to vote Jacob, I don't think I want to vote there. Ugh!

Jeph voted Rebecca.

re: Jonathan, his shadiest vote has been called to be on Day 3, but I can't fully convict him for the sin I myself committed, which is to take the pedal off lynching Uzziah. Although, to be fair, Jonathan brought slightly different argument for doing that - that Uzziah has gone silent and he doesn't know what to make of him...and then voted Lazarus despite acknowleding the same risk of him being silent...a risk he didn't take on Day 2 with Cain, for the same reason; kinda inconsistent indeed.

His statements on Uzziah have been as wobbly as several others', including myself: that Uzziah is full of shenanigans, then doubting that because Uzziah made one serious post, then back to having no grasp on how to read him. I also read that his Day 3 flip (both in regards to easing on Uzziah and picking on Lazarus) was actually somewhat influenced by an earlier read of Balaam of all the players. I don't know, overall, of all the vote records I checked, this one is more open to interpretations rather that factually and double-checked with posts incriminating. He actually referenced all this himself in his rebuttals, but wasn't picked up on.

The other things that don't make him look good are his weird ass defense retort to Absalom and, upon doing the re-read, a bit too much inspiration taken from other players' cases, notably Balaam. Perhaps shrugging responsibility, indeed, as Balaam put in his rundown of his votes.

And with that, it's one hour to go and I'm not sure where to vote. Lazarus has disappeared and his vote can still change things, no matter who he votes, if his vote actually carries the weight of six right now. My gut tells me to vote Jacob, but he really slipped a frustrating dillemma with that hint. Other than that, I can't imagine how he can hard claim being the wrong guy in the wrong spot and do nothing better about it, including his latest vote post. I also find him at a tie with Rebecca out of Day 6's Rachel voters that look bad. Both dismissed Ruth and voted Rachel for inconsequential reasons (Rebecca moreso than Jacob), pushing her a bit closer to Ruth.

Lazarus wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:Lazarus, you didn't even express any sort of anxiety regarding Horsemen before! What the hell is "Who do you think is more dangerous the heathens or the horsemen??" supposed to mean, isn't the civ win condition clear?

Lazarus wrote:No but with a horsemen named Death and War I feel like they arent going to be civvie friendly?

Yes, they're not trustworthy, but they're not primary lynch objectives for the civs either. So far we haven't lynched a Horsemen at all, let alone one to be revealed to have sided with the Heathens. All signs so far that seem to come from a Horseman have only appeared to show they're messing with us, at the very most. War perhaps makes certain players quarrel. Famine may take a very inactive player's soul - but mind you, this is totally uncofirmed speculation. Death seems to really not do its job, in case he has a name-related ability. Civvie-hurtful indeed.

Spoken like a true Horsemen.

Nope, spoken like I actually know who I need to lynch to win this game. Horsemen are for the trophy cabinet, at best.

Lazarus wrote:Here is the problem Absalom my gut is pretty good at fining baddies. So what if you are a horsemen and I'm right wouldn't that help the civvies? I might give you the BOTD this lynch . I'm not sure yet. Also before I forget, if I had the role you think I have I would not like having a super powerful vote it makes you more of a threat to the mafia team.

Actually, if Absalom is not a Heathen, I imagine they'd actually love having a guy that's not them receive six votes at once, at this point.

Lazarus, you didn't even express any sort of anxiety regarding Horsemen before! What the hell is "Who do you think is more dangerous the heathens or the horsemen??" supposed to mean, isn't the civ win condition clear?

Lazarus wrote:No but with a horsemen named Death and War I feel like they arent going to be civvie friendly?

Yes, they're not trustworthy, but they're not primary lynch objectives for the civs either. So far we haven't lynched a Horsemen at all, let alone one to be revealed to have sided with the Heathens. All signs so far that seem to come from a Horseman have only appeared to show they're messing with us, at the very most. War perhaps makes certain players quarrel. Famine may take a very inactive player's soul - but mind you, this is totally uncofirmed speculation. Death seems to really not do its job, in case he has a name-related ability. Civvie-hurtful indeed.

Mordecai wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:Mordecai's post confuses me more than not.

Mordecai wrote:Going over my notes, I noticed that when Ruth voted for Absalom, if she had voted for Rachel instead it would have tied the vote. In a situation where a heathen is facing a lynch, why would they not try to tie the vote so they dont die? Because of the gamble that Absalom may have received a quintuple vote from Lazarus, thus standing on the lynch chopping table at that point. Ruth clearly stated this is how she saw her way out of the lynch.

I'm wondering if by voting for Absalom, Ruth was actually trying to make Absalom look more civ. In the same way that a baddie's suspect reads become mostly void, Ruth's vote could be read like that as a baddie normally doesnt vote for another baddie unless the lynch is basically guaranteed. Could be, but this is honestly the most "reverse psychology" theory I've read so far on the votes. Further emphasized by that with Ruth's death, we skip another night phase. [color=#BF40B]And?[/color] It could have been a desperation attempt to break the cycle. Well, yeah, that's the point of her trying to get herself out of the lynch, isn't it? But that would paint Absalom bad...?

Nothing very interesting from her vote pattern either. She voted alongside Deborah and Belaam Days one and 3, after not voting day 2. Voted Uzziah day 4 because she had previously called out that vote. Essentially had no choice but to double down on Uzziah day 5.

So her confirmed blatant save for Uzziah day 3 was "nothing very interesting"?

What's the point of this post being almost entirely an analysis of Ruth, anyway? We have to analyse confirmed baddies in order to come up with other possible baddies and you've thrown in only Absalom, in a rather twisty logic and nothing besides that.

I see that sharing your thoughts, regardless of context, is frowned upon in these parts. I guess I'll stop doing that and keep it to myself again since clearly nobody gives a shit about my opinion.

"It's confusing so it's worthless why did you even bother?" Whatever dude.

The day 3 Uzziah save was pretty easy to see. As you have stated by referring to it as "confirmed blatant" save, I dont see why you take issue with me not rehashing something most people should have noticed already.

Because I didn't read it that way. You did not make it clear at all that you are not going over Ruth's votes and their meaning because others already did.

Did I say your post/opinion is worthless because it's confusing?

Jacob wrote:Okay I have to go now. I'm voting for Rebecca. I think either she or Mordecai could be bad but I've been less certain of Mordecai.

Jacob
In Topic
Search these results: Rebecca
Search found 1 match

My eyes couldn't roll further away in my skull right now.

Lazarus wrote:Wow bass really? Come on dude get it together.

Absalom I understand you might not be a heathen but you still could be a horsemen.

Do you need the Horsemen dead to win?

Bass, how hard is it to put your sock on? You mess it up almost every day, now.

And since I made this OT post, is the non-players poll telling of which players have left the scene? Simple curiosity.

to say something more on topic, Pilate's vote is pretty much as crappy as usual from him. Don't see the connection with Absalom. Apparently he dropped Absalom off his list just like he dropped Rachel after two Days of voting her (or intending to).

Mordecai's post confuses me more than not.

Mordecai wrote:Going over my notes, I noticed that when Ruth voted for Absalom, if she had voted for Rachel instead it would have tied the vote. In a situation where a heathen is facing a lynch, why would they not try to tie the vote so they dont die? Because of the gamble that Absalom may have received a quintuple vote from Lazarus, thus standing on the lynch chopping table at that point. Ruth clearly stated this is how she saw her way out of the lynch.

I'm wondering if by voting for Absalom, Ruth was actually trying to make Absalom look more civ. In the same way that a baddie's suspect reads become mostly void, Ruth's vote could be read like that as a baddie normally doesnt vote for another baddie unless the lynch is basically guaranteed. Could be, but this is honestly the most "reverse psychology" theory I've read so far on the votes. Further emphasized by that with Ruth's death, we skip another night phase. [color=#BF40B]And?[/color] It could have been a desperation attempt to break the cycle. Well, yeah, that's the point of her trying to get herself out of the lynch, isn't it? But that would paint Absalom bad...?

Nothing very interesting from her vote pattern either. She voted alongside Deborah and Belaam Days one and 3, after not voting day 2. Voted Uzziah day 4 because she had previously called out that vote. Essentially had no choice but to double down on Uzziah day 5.

So her confirmed blatant save for Uzziah day 3 was "nothing very interesting"?

What's the point of this post being almost entirely an analysis of Ruth, anyway? We have to analyse confirmed baddies in order to come up with other possible baddies and you've thrown in only Absalom, in a rather twisty logic and nothing besides that.

Rahab wrote: And just as a comment, I find Belsh's "Lazarus gambit" intriguing, after several times of reading it I THINK I get it now...maybe. I find it complicated, almost too complicated for it to be plausible, but I find that just about anything's possible in mafia. But I just like the thought process, too, and if I find the time I might look into it and apply it and see if it makes more sense to me. Anyway, I don't really know where I was going with that, but I figured I'd say something about it since it was on my mind. What do others think?

I think a really simple version would be:
1. Lazarus' vote changed the dynamics of the lynch.
2. Ruth voted gambling on Absalom being in the lead because of Lazarus' vote.
3. Since she is confirmed baddie, either she likely passed that thought amongst teammates or they themselves were perceptive already (following Lazarus' vote and the overall panic in the thread about Absalom's fate).
4. This theory would rule out that any of Ruth's teammates threw her under the bus (since any extra vote for Ruth would be against the point of trying to save her).
5. Since nobody else piled up on Absalom, the only other plausible tactic in which the gambit/gamble would potentially have worked would have been for her teammates to spread their votes and influence a spread vote as well, so that no particular player, including Ruth, would reach as many votes as the Absalom's predicted amount

I don't find Jeph's theory on Rachel totally disprovable, tbh. She really hasn't brought up much about Ruth in general. Her being wrong about Job does not make her bad and she has received her fair share of accusations that she might be Uzziah's teammate, whilst she was hunting down Job, but she generally dismissed them well and it doesn't read like she covered Uzziah's ass, either. I remember Jeph also making a bold, slightly out-of-the-box read on Rachel, but frankly I can't read her as bad based on everything else.

Is anyone getting worried that Lazarus might arrive and just dump a (potentially sextuple) vote on Absalom yet again?

Jacob wrote:No I'm obviously Zombie Jacob. The Island needed me.

Pfft. I made a Lost joke even from the sign-up thread, but nobody went with it.

Jonathan wrote:never mind. I was thinking Herod silenced you but you could vote but Herod both silenced the person and their vote. There are those other silences that we never figured out so that could be the case with Pilate. Other than that a drive by vote looks bad.

But Pilate posted...

I didn't like he's "I got everything I need from others" reasoning either, although that's hardly a surprise, not agreeing with his reasoning ways, in this game.

Jacob wrote:Lot- Belsh made the point that my role is one that could not possibly be dead at this point. That might help. But I feel like I should shut up now because I don't know to what extent Epi allows hinting

You're hinting at being not dead? Isn't that obvious?

What would Herod have to do with Pilate's vote for you?

I think I did, yes.

Yeah, but Ruth voting for Absalom (in the idea that he might stand at 7 votes in that case) and the others spreading votes around (in the idea that no other player would get 7 votes or more that way) wouldn't be putting all eggs in one basket. That's the B-tactic of my theory.

I totally get your theory as well, but as you've said it yourself, it would be a "fantastic distancing" from Rachel. Granted, her actual vote post ("Oh do I need to save myself? Ruth then.") wasn't by far completely sound - it wasn't actually backed up by anything she had on Ruth on that Day, but self-preservation votes in the heat of the moment aren't un-civvie-like, either.

Jephthah wrote:As for your previous post, you lost me where you exonerated Rachel. If Ruth voted Absalom hoping he would get more votes instead of voting Rachel, wouldn't that make Rachel look worse? I guess I misunderstood something. I'll try and read it again.

Why would that make Rachel worse? I said Rachel would be clear because she voted for Ruth, and Rachel being bad and throwing Ruth under the bus would be the worse possible tactic under the "Lazarus gamble". Maybe this doesn't fall in line with your "Rachel good / Rachel bad" theories, although I did say it's rather an alternative theory to that.