The Syndicate

Phoebe Buffay

Belshazzar wrote:
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.

I agree with this. Especially since like I've said before, he said rooting for the baddies and not rooting out. English 101

Phoebe Buffay

Mary Magdalene wrote:So what you're both saying is contribution determines alignment.

How well did that work in lynching Samson? And Cain?

I didn't vote neither. What about you? One vote for a civvie, and one missed vote. Did you ever explain that by the way?

linki: I believe you didn't.\

Lots of linki

Phoebe Buffay

Mary Magdalene wrote:
Jephthah wrote:
Mary Magdalene wrote:
Jephthah wrote:And Mary Magdalene is continuing her bandwagoning style. No problem voting there either.

While I think there was a good point made on Rachel, I also agree that she's at least seemed to try looking for bad guys, so I think we should give her the BOTD for now.
What does that have to do with Rachel not being a baddie?

A baddie can contribute a little or a lot.

I have not had time to devote to this game, I recognize that. I am sorry. I should be able to soon. But this is very suspicious of you.
Because Rachel had some good and valid thoughts herself, while you have haven't had an ounce of original thought. This may be your first
And that makes me bad and Rachel good?

I didn't say she's good. I said she deserved the benefit of the doubt. If you want that too, start doing something helpful.

Phoebe Buffay

Mary Magdalene wrote:
Jephthah wrote:And Mary Magdalene is continuing her bandwagoning style. No problem voting there either.

While I think there was a good point made on Rachel, I also agree that she's at least seemed to try looking for bad guys, so I think we should give her the BOTD for now.
What does that have to do with Rachel not being a baddie?

A baddie can contribute a little or a lot.

I have not had time to devote to this game, I recognize that. I am sorry. I should be able to soon. But this is very suspicious of you.

Because Rachel had some good and valid thoughts herself, while you have haven't had an ounce of original thought. This may be your first

Phoebe Buffay

And Mary Magdalene is continuing her bandwagoning style. No problem voting there either.

While I think there was a good point made on Rachel, I also agree that she's at least seemed to try looking for bad guys, so I think we should give her the BOTD for now.

Phoebe Buffay

Balaam wrote:Why the shift in opinion on Bathsheba?

I shortened the post because it was huge, so I only left the question. It's not a shift but more like: while nothing screams baddie to me, nothing really makes me feel good about her either. And if she continues this evasive low posting trend, I have no problem voting for her.

Phoebe Buffay

And I meant the second underlined. I didn't notice there was already an underlined one when I quoted it.

Uzziah and Job went quiet this day. While Job said he was going to be MIA untill today, Uzziah didn't. They both just said they'll vote each other and that's it. I hope Job will have time to stop by before the day ends. As for Uzziah, I've given up on him actually trying to help. Question is, does it make him a baddie? I'd vote for him just for being annoying, but I'm not sure it will help the civvie cause. If whoever said they are going for the annoying is right, Uzziah, assuming he isn't a baddie, should be next on their list

Linki: great minds.

Phoebe Buffay

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

Haha, my mistake

It doesn't rule out the belndy factor, but at least she's not pretending to be something she's not.

Phoebe Buffay

And I too can see myself going with Batsheba if she only comes in and throws a vote like that.
Rachel needs to explain why she accuses Absalom for something she did herself.

Phoebe Buffay

Jonah wrote:
Isaac wrote:
Lot wrote:Now Absalom feels soooo closely linked with three out of four deaths. For me there are really only two possibilities - either Absalom is bad, or the heathen really have it in for him and are trying to set him up to look bad.
So, Lot, this is the only thing I find myself agreeing with in your expansive post against Absalom. And I'm surprised you're not more willing to consider this a possibility. As I've stated in a previous post, I believe that someone may be trying to control him in some way that causes him to be very angsty today. I'm also surprised that noone else seems to be talking about the possibility of Absalom being framed. Imo, Absalom is such an obvious link between 3 of the 4 deaths so far that I think there actually is a pattern between the NKs. And it's not that they were annoying.
Yeah I gotta agree if anything it points to a setup. From my experience a team of five isnt gonna follow the whims of one member. if Absalom is a heathen he doesnt have total control over the kills. But the heathens as a group might decide to make the kills that will incriminate him. Odd that Lot isnt considering this possibility more and the fact that hes pushing this angle causes me to trust him a little less. Would not be surprised to find myself voting for Lot as I feel theres been a few posts of his that have stood out to me in a bad way like this

Rahab wrote:This is probably the quietest full game I've ever played. It's great for catching up on RL busy days, but terrible for finding things to catch mafia on. Or for much conversation, really.
Makes it harder for mafia to latch onto other peoples wrong thoughts too now doesnt it
Something about this post Rahab. Something about this post. makes me think you want people talking for all the wrong reasons. since you complain about no one talking but dont bring up any talking points except to ask balaam about his lists or whatever. you want us to do the dirty work so you can help us stone one of our Lord's chosen
Got my eye on ye Rahab

Jephthah wrote:Batsheba was the last to vote for Cain. She didn't really have to do it, because it was the end of the day and he was getting lynched anyway. So to me, it's more likely that she's either a civvie who believed Cain was bad, or a baddie who thought he was another type of baddie, out of her group, if the horsemen are bad for example. Either way, it seems as though that's what she believed. Otherwise she just ends up looking like the worst bandwagoner.
Well yeah she didnt have to but she did. And as a heathen she may have felt that it would appear to be the most genuine looking vote she could muster. Look at Sheba's other posts in the game theres not many of them but they all talk about Cain. It would have stood out if she voted for anybody else. And I'm thinking she doesnt want to stand out.

But guys I think Deborah is a whale check this out

CHAPTER I
Deborah wrote:
Pilate wrote: What does it tell you specifically?
You do not think that there is a chance Cain is bad? And that him picking up some votes may have made it a lot easier for people to vote for Samson?

And to Rachel, here is how I work. I read the thread in general, but I prefer to click the "in topic" button and read a player's post in order. It is easier to see apathy, suspicious tendencies, over-posting about useless crap to hide a lack of real content, etc. So I read through the people who hd acted on the poll and those getting votes, and Cain pinged me. I am sorry that you do not like that. I can write a gigantic wall post breaking down my thoughts on every single player if you want, but it feels like ever since I voted for Cain that you and a few friends have been actively TRYING to make this into a thing, and you are not even bothering to consider that my ping may be right and that those votes against him were proper. I am sorry, but I am not going to apologize for that vote.
CHAPTER II
Deborah wrote:
Absalom wrote:I think it's weird that Cain disappeared today. Did he hope I would forget about him? I forget nothing!
I think it is weird that a lot of people are not posting. No Paul, no Cain, no a bunch of less chatty people. There is only one silencer. Paul I could see silencing, tbh.

Deborah wrote:
Malchus wrote:I think things point more to Cain being bad than Uzz.
Only in for a moment. I didn't like Cain yesterday and I haven't found a better case to replace it, so he gets my vote again.
I dont like the way Deborah quotes other players posts to prop up her own suspicions without actually saying things like I agree. Feels like theres some subtle manipulation going on here. Solomon asked us to look at the late voters but I think the middle voters are more suspicious. They don't wanna start something but they don't wanna end it either. Deborah falls squarely in that range in my book.

My stone is probably getting thrown in Deb's direction because her posts feel slimy to me. Check it out all ye faithful and tell me if you agree or disagree. On page 1 you can find a filter of only Deb's posts I suggest ye all take a look and tell me what you see because Im seeing a whale
I know Ive been quiet lately but we gotta start talking or we'll never figure out whos trying to swallow us up and whos really trying to help
Right now we're all just blending together and that doesnt speak well of our chances to beat the evildoers

Good that you're back. I can see the blendy factor in Deborah's posts, and I think it was Belshazzar who brought her up earlier as well. I find the underlined sentence interesting because it feels like she's trying to sound aggressive and focused on finding baddies, when in fact, she hasn't done much. It's a possible vote for me, as are Rebecca and Lazarus at this point, as I've stated earlier

Phoebe Buffay

And that's a good point about Rachel.

That said, I think that Balaam's lists are bothering me less. It's like he doesn't care what we think. He's been called out on the unproductive lists, yet he keeps doing them anyway. Makes me feel much better about him.

Phoebe Buffay

Belshazzar wrote: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.

Batsheba was the last to vote for Cain. She didn't really have to do it, because it was the end of the day and he was getting lynched anyway. So to me, it's more likely that she's either a civvie who believed Cain was bad, or a baddie who thought he was another type of baddie, out of her group, if the horsemen are bad for example. Either way, it seems as though that's what she believed. Otherwise she just ends up looking like the worst bandwagoner.
In any case, I didn't say she isn't bad, just that I don't see anything that looks more evil then any other of the voters. I thought the reasons for voting Cain were bad, so none of them felt good to me.

I'm more leary of the early voters for Cain, and the later voters for people with only a few or no votes. For example, Lazarus, who also latched on the Absalom suspicion, and Rebeca who voted for me, even though this may look as a NoU. They were the 17th and 18th voters. What good would their votes have done. So easy to come in late and vote. You can always say you didn't have time to convince others not to vote for the person who was lynched. My vote might be going to one of them

Phoebe Buffay

Absalom wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Absalom wrote:
It's a complaint to everyone, because it's too hot and there's a lot of monkey business going on here that's not being called out, and I hate it. Bah.
Absalom I hope you don't mind that i cut your post down to this one line. The original had quotes and all but all I want to ask about is this one line. What do you mean about the monkey business going on that's not being called out? I didn't see any further explanation.

Also, i just read all of your posts and it seems obvious to me that all of your Bahs and complaints and general bad mood has been caused by some kind of curse. The change from your normal style to this new style was abrupt. I also did not see anything I personally am suspicious of at the moment so I am not looking to you for a vote unless something big comes up to change my mind.
Oh I'm just mad in general, but particularly at the things that are getting people suspected. People aren't connecting the "I noticed this" to the "this makes him likely to be bad" dots. They are just jumping from one to the other. Also, I have to work this weekend and how is that fair? There's a rock in my shoe. Bah.

I think we really need to make a good decision this day, so I think we should bring up as many names as possible. In the last 2 days, there were 2 leading candidates for the lynch without real talk about all the rest. It ended up in people coming in and just voting poorly.
At this stage, I think it's better if we jump from one person to another, and hopefully end up landing on the right person

Phoebe Buffay

Mordecai wrote:
Jephthah wrote: What worries me about your posts is that you talk about Absalom and how him saying he would have liked the baddies to kill someone else is wrong and how it irritates you, that it's fluff and overcompensation....yet you say you're not sure it makes him bad and end up just being annoyed. If that's the case, why are you wasting time talking about him? I thought the game was about finding baddies.
I was asked what I thought of him. That was my answer. Had I not been asked about Absalom I probably wouldnt even be talking about him.
The kills do feel more like a potential frame, but why would the heathens try to frame him specifically? If they wanted him dead why wouldnt they just kill him?

This game isn't making any sense.

Also why did Lazarus lock onto Absalom because of the Cain lynch? 7 other people voted for him, yet you pop up after 2 days and call him out specifically? Why just him? I feel like you asked me my opinion just to see if I would help you build your case.

This is actually something I've been thinking about too, not just Lazarus, but others as well. Why did everyone suddenly focus on Absalom?

Phoebe Buffay

Lot, while I feel good about you too after the first initial suspicion, I don't agree on Absalom. I do think he is somehow told to do the Bah thing, and I agree with Isac who said that killing those 3 people was just going to get him unwanted attention. Why not just kill randomly, or people who are suspicious of him? If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't risk it. I'm not him, so I don't know what he would do, but it just seems silly to do that.

Mordecai wrote:
Absalom wrote:
Mordecai wrote:
Isaac wrote:
Also, Mordecai, can we have your sober opinion now that we have an extension?
I barely remember making that post, but they say a drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts so I'll stick by it.

Basically the condensed version is that I feel like him making that post was unnecessary fluff. If you're a civ, you shouldnt like a night kill period, no matter who dies. Saying "RIP" and what not is one thing, but specifically stating to the thread that you didnt like the nightkill and that you disagree with it seems weird to me. I'm unsure on whether or not that makes him bad, but I don't like it. It seems like over compensation. Like in a movie where somebody kills another character and they really oversell their reaction to the cops. It just seems off.
There's no one in the game you would mourn more than anyone else? Bah, I don't have time for this. My feet hurt, and the beer is getting warm.
Quoting this from you previous post for context on the matter
Yeah, a Horseman would have been nice. Or maybe someone who is not contributing. It's disingenuous to pretend that all living players are equally valuable. Paul was contributing. Others aren't, so yeah, I would have preferred a different kill. Bah.
Well I mean somewhat. It sucks that he's dead because he was at least making conversation for when he was able to talk, and the thread is less active without him. But surely you see why I think it's wrong that you would go "I would have much preferred that you guys kill Player A instead"? We don't want town deaths because it hurts our numbers, no matter who it is that died. Anybody can become valuable at any point in time. Just because they arent doing it now, doesnt mean they wont later.

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

What worries me about your posts is that you talk about Absalom and how him saying he would have liked the baddies to kill someone else is wrong and how it irritates you, that it's fluff and overcompensation....yet you say you're not sure it makes him bad and end up just being annoyed. If that's the case, why are you wasting time talking about him? I thought the game was about finding baddies.

Phoebe Buffay

I've been asked this before and I see people talking about it now. Yes, I'd rather a silent player is NK, because when they're not participating, it makes it very hard to decide whether they're good or bad.
If someone is bad and is barely posting and laying low, I'd consider their win pathetic. Anyone can play it safe, do nothing in the game and let everyone wait on them to come, while seeing all the high posters get lynched or NK.

So to answer Rachel's question: No, not every low poster deserves to get lynched. If their posts have enough substance and quality in them, I think it's okay. People have lives, and we all get it. But while one can talk more than the other and that would be fine, if you just come in at the end of the day, post a noncomittal post and then vote, or worse, be absent for a few days every game, in my opinion you're hurting the civvie cause, and I don't mind lynching you.

That's not to say that if I have a better case, I won't follow it. But sometimes, when you don't, lynching a low poster is fine by me.

And now, back to my thoughts ...in a new post

Phoebe Buffay

Went to read Batsheba. Didn't find anything unsual there. She posted 5 posts, which desrves a lynch by itself, but other than that, I don't see much there.

Mary Magdalene, you've been gone the entire day 2 and then you come in after the night and just say "Shame"? Can you explain why you haven't been here or voted and who do you find suspicious?

Phoebe Buffay

Sorry for not being here, I was busy.

RIP Paul.
It's a shame, because it was nice having someone opinionated and talkative with all the low posters. If you are really new to this site, I hope you keep playing here. It was fun having you.

So Paul couldn't talk but could vote, yet Cain couldn't do either, I assume, becuase he didn't vote. Ruth as she claims, could do neither as well. We're looking at two different kinds of silencing. Even if there was a mass silencing, it's more probable that those silenced would be able to at least vote, so I'm puzzled by the fact that both Ruth and Cain could not vote.

As for Ruth, I don't remember much of her, in the first day, she voted for Cain, so I don't think it's likely she was silenced by Herod. Was Cain? He voted for Absalom before he was silenced.
There is also Jonah. Where on earth is he? He was quite active on day 1. Was he silenced?

Phoebe Buffay

Cain wrote:

Sorry. I don't think my vote for Uzziah would have helped much, but I still apologize.

Phoebe Buffay

Damn, I'm sorry. I thought I still had an hour left. Probably would have went with Uzziah, but there's no excuse for this. I should have voted. I messed up

linki: So was he good or bad?

linki: never mind.

Phoebe Buffay

OMG, did I just miss the deadline??????????

Phoebe Buffay

Rebecca wrote:
Stephen wrote: Voted for myself, for being such a terrible player. I'm really going to have to find time for this. It's just been a long week.
I'm tempted to do this too, but I feel it may be wise to use the time I do have to quickly review what's going on right now

I see thoughts that Cain's been silenced, and I would imagine that's a possibility. Whether it was done to him in earnest or to create a ruse is the important distinction.

Jeph still doesn't sit right with me. I don't see him taking any stance of a sort today either, just more vague semi-defensive statements to keep appearances up whichever way Cain flips. He seems to be subtly expressing desire for a Mary Magdalene lynch, but isn't invested enough in it.

I'm up for a MM lynch, but I see no point in doing so, if no one else is even thinking that way. And I'm not sold on either Cain or Uzziah, but I'd rather vote for Uzziah. There are other people I'd rather lynch. MM for example, and Rachel too, for voting Job

Phoebe Buffay

Bring out the cheeze. They're here.

Jonathan, if Cain is bad, you just encouraged him not to post anything

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:I've looked back at the voting record, and...

Actually, it was Uzziah who was up to two votes when all the Samson votes suddenly started coming in, not Cain. Possibly Samson was a save on Uzziah.

I dunno, I'm not going to vote for the guy who seems silenced at this stage. I don't personally feel comfortable with that. Later in the game, when there is more of a body of work? Sure. But it's awfully convenient at this point that the guy with the second most votes is MIA - both if he is bad, but also if he isn't bad.

I'm going to vote Uzziah. The case on him is good too, he is actually talking, and considering I felt the Samson votes felt like a save, and I've looked back at the voting pattern... if they were a save, they were a save on Uzziah.

Uzziah

Absalom - I take your point completely, by the way. No-one should have a pass just because they are silent. Nevertheless, it is something which I am torn over, particularly because I know how upsetting it can be to be civilian and be lynched when you can't defend yourself. There are about 13 people who haven't posted today, and I personally believe that points to some massive silencing event, so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that people not speaking today are silenced.

So you think so many people are not talking because they are silenced?

While part of me agrees with you about not voting for those who can't defend themselves, the other part feels that it's even more unfair to lynch those who are at least giving it their best shot than those hiding in the shadows. That's why the question of was he silenced or not is very important.

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

Phoebe Buffay

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

Has he been here this day?

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:A few more notes...

I have felt much better about Jephthah (Geoff? We call him Geoff now?) than I did yesterday. The turn around at the time was odd, but he hasn't done anything else that cricked my brow.

Not sure where the sudden Balaam suspicion came from, and I mean that in terms of intellectual honesty. Those posts seem to be among the most helpful in the game, to me. The one discussing the low posters allowed us to analyse if there was a pattern to them being quiet (eg, rule out that it was the law preventing some from posting). I really like the Job/Uzziah one as that's something I've been trying to think through and I found it very helpful and it raised lots of options I hadn't considered. Every time something 'stands out' it appears at least one person decides to just go after it.

I normally don't like voting for someone who doesn't appear to be able to post. Cain is someone I'd like to lynch, as I had a distinct feeling like some Samson votes might have been to save Cain's backside. But I'm torn about the fact he may not be able to come in to the thread and defend himself.

I didn't find it helpful, but I guess I can see how you might. Honestly, I liked Balaam's posts up until those two, so I probably won't be voting for him. Also, the vote he got, don't remember from who was more suspicious than his votes. I think it was Rachel. Just came in, found one post and voted. I don't like these kind of votes. It's like they're looking for the smallest thing to defend their votes and go with it.

But I also don't really see how the votes on Samson were a way to save Cain, when Samson had significantly more votes up until the end. If anything, people stopped voting for Samson when some of us said voting for him was a cop out and lame

Phoebe Buffay

Absalom wrote:
Malchus wrote:
Absalom wrote:
Jephthah wrote:Um, did I miss something? Isn't Samson dead? How can he vote for Samuel?
Samson appears to have voted illegally, unless something very strange is going on.

Jumping the shark a little there with that accusation.
Jonah is the only one who should be worried about jumping over sea creatures, I think.

Maybe he's already inside the whale, hence his disappearance

Phoebe Buffay

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

Does anyone remember Paul talking about Cain last day?

Phoebe Buffay

Absalom wrote:
Jephthah wrote:
Absalom wrote:I'm liking Geoff this game. He's on the ball.
Who's Geoff?
You are Geoff. Jephthah->Jeph->Jeff->Geoff.

Oh sure. I have no idea how I didn't realize it myself...

But thanks

Phoebe Buffay

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

Who's Geoff?

Phoebe Buffay

It got a little screwed up, but the underlined is Jonah's replies to Mary Magdalene's posts

Phoebe Buffay

Balaam wrote:
Jephthah wrote:I like Job. Will not be voting there. Maybe Ballam, maybe Uzziah, maybe someone else. I still have time.
I wonder if Jonah was silenced, because he was quite talkative last day, and maybe killing him would have been too obvious, so the baddies silenced him, which would make me believe we were right about Mary Magdalene
What was the theory on Mary Mag again?

I'm just going to quote Jonah because he was the one who suspected her, while I ended up agreeing. There are two places:

[quote="Jonah]

Mary Magdalene wrote:Oh wow, this is really hard. I'm not used to the avatars or names and I tried a quick catch up but my eyes are bleeding. It's hard to remember who posted what. I think I missed Samsons reasoning for his vote so I guess I'll start there.

Samson wrote:I am also voting for Samuel.

There are actually many female-identified socks in this game.
I guess I didn't miss it, it seems to not exist. Samson can you please explain why? Right now it just looks like you are coat-tailing.

Props for finding the easiest thing in the thread to question. You said this is where you were gonna start but it looks like its also where you ended. is there nothing else you want to discuss mary?[/quote]

Jonah wrote:
Mary Magdalene wrote:Oh wow, this is really hard. I'm not used to the avatars or names and I tried a quick catch up but my eyes are bleeding. It's hard to remember who posted what. I think I missed Samsons reasoning for his vote so I guess I'll start there.
Woahh waitaminute Mary why does it matter if its hard to remember who posted what. I mean I get that. but did you find anything that was said to be suspicious? and if you did why didnt you just take a look at the name right above the post and quote it? This excuse feels fake. I get the feeling you only read the thread to stay caught up because it doesn't sound like you were actively looking to identify anyones alignment while you read.
There's something about Mary......

Phoebe Buffay

I like Job. Will not be voting there. Maybe Ballam, maybe Uzziah, maybe someone else. I still have time.
I wonder if Jonah was silenced, because he was quite talkative last day, and maybe killing him would have been too obvious, so the baddies silenced him, which would make me believe we were right about Mary Magdalene

Phoebe Buffay

Okay Balaam, I was going to say I see where you're coming from, with regards to that huge post, but then I saw your other post Rachel quoted. Not looking good. Another huge post that brings us no where.

Phoebe Buffay

Balaam wrote:
Mordecai wrote:I very much dislike being ignored. I asked you a question Job. I expect an answer.

If uzziah isn't setting up Meta for a future game, why would he be so obviously bad? What do you think the probability of him being a horseman with a death activated ability is? Your initial non response to my question makes me wonder if you know that its true, and that you're trying to push his lynch for specifically that reason. Which would explain why you ignored that part of my post to avoid the issue.

I apologize if you answered me earlier and I missed it.
Good idea and very chilling. Let's look at the possibilities for the Job v. Uzziah conflict:

1) Job is civvie and sincerely believes Uzziah is Heathen and Uzziah really is Heathen. Lynching Uzz would help the civvies and lend cred to Job, possibly even Paul via extension because Paul and Job seem to be okay with each other.

2) Job is a civvie and sincerely believes Uzz is Heathen but Uzz is really civvie. Lynching Uzz hurts the civvies and forces us to take Job's opinions with a grain of salt just like Paul. We would also be a civvie stoning away from another civvie being struck down via divine judgement.

3) Job is a civvie and sincerely believes Uzz is Heathen but Uzz is really a Horseman. Uzz may have made that statement to get attention and possibly to get lynched to activate some kind of Horseman shenanigans. Lynching Uzz would play into his plot with unforeseen consequences. Gets us no closer to eliminating the Heathens but also avoids a civvie stoning. Might call into question those trying to brush aside Uzz's "root" comment.

4) Job is a Heathen and is trying to get us to waste another lynch on someone who is not Heathen. Results could be similar to #2 and #3.

5) Job is a Heathen and suspects/knows Uzz is a Horseman. If the Heathens perceive or understand the Horsemen to be threats and they've found one of them somehow, why not have the civs dispatch him for them instead of using their kill.

6) Job and Uzz are both Heathens and this is an early attempt to gain credibility for Job and potentially any teammates that may align with job in the thread. It's never too early for a baddie team to sacrifice one of their own but I've seen this tactic more often when there is a larger baddie team.

7) Job and Uzz are both Heathens and there is major discord among their team. It's rare, but sometimes personalities conflict so much that the rest of the team decides to take out a member that wants to march to a beat of a different drum. It gains one of more of them cred while diminishing their numbers.

8) Job is a Horseman and thinks Uzz is Heathen. Without knowing what the end goals of the Horsemen are, all we can do is speculate. If the Horsemen have a team win condition, they need to eliminate the Heathens. This works in favor of both the civvies and the Horseman.

9) Job and Uzz are both Horsemen and it's a ploy to wreak a little havoc with Uzz's death and/or gain a fellow Horsemen some cred.

10) Job and Uzz are both Horsemen and it plays out kind of like #7.

The big flaw to all this though is that no matter who we analyze like this, there are always more ways to rationalize a player as bad than there are ways to rationalize them to be good.

What exactly is the point of this post except to appear like someone who's putting a great effort to analyze things?
In addition, it has nothing to do with what Mordecai said, because he was referring to the lack of response to a question, not to the possibilities of the Uzziah vs. Job fight off.

I didn't like this post one bit. You just took a whole lot of space without saying anything.

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:
Deborah wrote:
Lot wrote:root 1
(ro͞ot, ro͝ot)
n.

4. a. To dig or pull out by the roots.

b. To remove or get rid of.

I never thought Uzziah meant he was cheering the scum on. Turns out there are a lot of definitions of root. Not all of which I find it appropriate to post at this time.

Not that I'm defending Uzziah - I dunno what to make of him. But now at least I understand why people are saying Uzziah has admitted to being bad, which I couldn't figure our before.
I do not know what to even think of this post. Like, we are breaking down the word choice in Uzziah's infamous post now? The idea of alternate meanings of the words, coupled with Uzziah supporting this by saying that his choice of words was deliberately ambiguous, makes me swing back to thinking he could well be bad. This whole thing is starting to make my head ache. Also, Lot just sort of supported him again.
I defined it because it seemed clear to me at the time that Uzziah and Job were speaking at cross purposes. Uzziah said 'tell me one post where I claimed to be bad', Job quoted that one, and Uzziah promptly voted for him - it looked to me like the whole thing was a misunderstanding to me at that time and a light went on in my head, which is why I posted the definition.

Now, it doesn't so much, since Uzziah admitted to deliberately playing with a double meaning and Job has tunnel vision. I don't like at all that Uzziah said his double meaning was intentional - why then vote Job for quoting it? (Yes Uzziah, I would like an answer to that). It's not that I think Uzziah is definitely good, in fact I don't have a good vibe from him either - I'm very aware that it seems like I'm defending Uzziah but really the reason I'm doing it is because I think Job's case is a crock and I don't trust him a whole lot AND because I'm very aware of how easy this game will be to win for the heathen if we keep taking the easy way out instead of looking for disingenuous posts and people who can't keep their logic straight. But there is always the possibility both are bad eg one horseman, one heathen.

I don't believe it was a misunderstanding. I don't even think it was a double meaning because like someone said, he'd have to say "rooting out" and not rooting for. I also think that when Uzziah asked Job to quote a post where he admitted to being a baddie, and Job quoted that one, the difference is Uzziah never addmitted to being bad himself, just to rooting for baddies, while Job treated it as the same thing.
I have no idea what that means, but Uzziah is just playing a game which is not helpful at all, if not the opposite. Sadly I've seen enough civvies to play that kind of game. I can't blame people for wanting to lynch him, though I'm not sure it's enough to get me to vote that way. But the potential is there.

I have to say I'm feeling better about Lot this day.

Phoebe Buffay

RIP Martha.

I could easily see those who Martha suspected, killing her. There's so much WIFOM in this, that there wouldn't be any consequences. Not sure it's what happened, but I wouldn't rule it out just because it's so obvious. I would kill a person suspecting me without hesitation knowing that people will just say it's too obvious.

That said, between Paul and Absalom, the one to get more out of this would be Paul. I don't believe they are working together like Martha thought. If one of them is bad, Paul would benefit more from this because Absalom was the one she really went after, whereas Paul was just assumed to be connected to him. Now, if we think Martha was killed by one of them, the most obvious choice for a lynch would be Absalom. If he's a civvie, and Paul a baddie, he gets two birds with one stone. He gets a civvie lynched, and looks better because it shows Martha was probably wrong.

While I think Paul drew a lot of attention to himself on day 1, I'm not sure it was intentional. I think that maybe where he came from, throwing out accusations like that is pretty common, so whether you're good or bad, you have to look like you're trying to progress the game. Funny how he was so gung ho on the first day and now he's quieted down considerably.

Phoebe Buffay

Should be Mary Magdalene of course

Phoebe Buffay

Meh, both players with most votes don't seem suspicious of me. I think I'm going to vote for Maria Magdalena. I agreed with Jonah when he said her post was suspicious, even though I could also see it as him trying to find something easy to go after. Still, he's one of those who made most sense to me the past day, and Maria Magdalena looks like someone who's also trying to lay low. My vote is going there

Phoebe Buffay

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

I'm probably going to pick one of Samsons' voters. I still need to read back a little
Or you could vote the clear baddie uzziah

I'm still thinking about it, but even though I don't like the way he's playing, I'm not sure I want to vote for him at this stage. There's also Lot, who didn't get any votes, so I'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt this day because it will be a wasted vote.
I don't think Cain is bad either, and thinking one of his voters could be.

Phoebe Buffay

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

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

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:
Jephthah wrote:I said that Paul and Lot could be trying to distance themselves after going at it for plenty of posts, where Paul said he thinks Lot is scum and just couldn't vote for him becuase he already has a vote, and Lot saying he wouldn't vote Paul because he's going to wait. Well, what do you know? Paul is already feeling better about Lot
I think you are doing a very sly no u. I've called you out several times now, and you have neatly avoided addressing the substantive accusation I've levelled at you. Instead, you've just decided to go after me. I'm fairly certain you are going to be my vote today. I've mentioned this several times, and it hasn't really gotten traction, but I seriously encourage people to do a reread of Jephthah before they vote. I doubt you will regret it. I think he would be a very sound lynch option (not to mention, he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering.)

Says the man who willingly chose to live in the worst citty ever in terms of sinners and bad people...
I don't think I've avoided anything. I've told you or whoever it was that asked, that the fact I eyed someone for expecting a thougth through explanation for voting someone after 2 short posts, and that I thought Paul's tactics could be a legitimate way to look for baddies, did't mean I couldn't question him as well. I was questioning whoever I felt like and wanted to make sure what was driving him. If that makes me bad in your eyes, that's your problem, and I wouldn't trust your judgement of character if I were any of people you're trying to convince to read me. By all means, I hope they do. I've got nothing to hide

As for your quote above. It's kind of throw your hands up in the air stuff, because I don't even know how to address it. Let's just say that anyone with any decent mafia experience knows that such a distancing tactic would be really shite, it would only serve to draw a whole lot of attention to the connection, rather than actually creating distance. I said I was going to wait to vote because there were 48 hours left in the day and I was trying to draw Paul's attention to how ridiculously early his vote was. It's the kind of thing that shouldn't need to be said, but I felt I did need to say it to make it clear to Paul that I was calling him out.

That's just WIFOM and excuse me if I don't take your word for it and state what I think could be a potential baddie tactic

Phoebe Buffay

Uzziah wrote:
Lot wrote:I did a reread of Job (just in case Uzziah actually finally had something to add). I don't see anything pertinent that would cause you to declare him scum Uzziah, care to elaborate at all?
Well for one the post above where he accuses me of having a wife in front of me, an obscure acronym which I had to look up in the dictionary, is such nonsense that if I wasn't a fan of logical phallasies I'd be facepalming so hard right now that my hand would be coming out the other side of Australia. Earlier he was very much against trying to figure out which sock is who, yet he clearly bases his judgement on whom I'm impersonating. Finally the subtlety of how he and Paul have been building the Martha case makes it obvious they're in the same team. And why is he so morbidly obsessed with horsemen anyway? Could it be because he's desperately trying to deny the fact that he is one? The same goes Paul, who himself is the biggest scum -- and for that I applaud and support him.

You just told Paul that you helped him find 2 scums. Now you're saying you're applauding and supporting him for being the biggest scum? Are you trying to help him find scum or are you trying to help him as a scum? How is that helping him if you're allegedly outing him? You're making no sense even for your twisted playing style.

Are you trying to be helpful or not? I have no problem lynching you.

I don't remember who asked this, but you can call me Jep or whatever it was you wanted.

I said that Paul and Lot could be trying to distance themselves after going at it for plenty of posts, where Paul said he thinks Lot is scum and just couldn't vote for him becuase he already has a vote, and Lot saying he wouldn't vote Paul because he's going to wait. Well, what do you know? Paul is already feeling better about Lot

Jonah wrote:
Mary Magdalene wrote:Oh wow, this is really hard. I'm not used to the avatars or names and I tried a quick catch up but my eyes are bleeding. It's hard to remember who posted what. I think I missed Samsons reasoning for his vote so I guess I'll start there.
Woahh waitaminute Mary why does it matter if its hard to remember who posted what. I mean I get that. but did you find anything that was said to be suspicious? and if you did why didnt you just take a look at the name right above the post and quote it? This excuse feels fake. I get the feeling you only read the thread to stay caught up because it doesn't sound like you were actively looking to identify anyones alignment while you read.
There's something about Mary......

I can't decide if I agree with you on this or suspect you for going for the obvious. Basically, you seem one of the more trust worthy here, but it seems a little too perfect.

Phoebe Buffay

Lot wrote:
Absalom wrote:
Paul wrote:
Paul wrote: I am curious what everyone thinks of everyone else no joke try to force yourself to make an opinion of those who have posted and share it b/c that's now town wins this game
actually how about everyone instead name their top 3 scum atm

1 Samson
2 Lot
3 Nicodemus

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

I wish Cain would come back. He is my biggest suspect at this point. I am not reading Nicodemus as bad, but it seems like Lot said something to make me nervous a while ago. I will have to reread. I have no reason to suspect Samson.
Absolutely. And it's getting very tiresome that he throws an allegation my way, says 'lot is scum', but pays absolutely no heed to anything I have to say in response He has misrepresented what I've said at every turn but he has ignored that and just continues to throw my name out to see if it sticks.

I don't know if Paul is bad, but Paul - in a game when everyone's avatar looks the same, and it's flippin hard to work out who is who, you are making life VERY difficult.

I'm surprised at how few people actually seem to have noticed the point about Jephthah, which for me is the most convincing thing I've seen so far by quite a lot.

Which is?

Phoebe Buffay

Still in the middle of the catch up. Two things that I noticed are a lot of people are seeing my flippiant behaviour as suspicious, and Paul vs. Lot back and forth.
Well, I admit it, I'm enjoying the sock identity. It's freeing, and I for one intend to enjoy it. I used Paul's terms because it was fun trying to get you to guess whether I was new or not. Busted.

I did not defend Paul, nor did I accuse him of anything. I questioned him. The fact that I like that he's moving things a long doesn't mean I'll declare him as righteous right off the bat. So I both eyed those who expected him to explain what it was he saw as scummy, when I don't really think he could have done that, and I pushed him as well.
You are all funny. Someone plays a little different than you're used to, you automatically feel the need to mark him. It doesn't mean you need to give him a free pass, but don't all jump on him.

That said, and I'm coming to the second thing I noticed, Lot and Paul seemed to go at each other quite strongly. I'm thinking maybe too strongly. Conveniently, Paul has already voted, and Lot said he wouldn't vote for Paul now, because unlike Paul, he's holding off on his vote until later. I wonder if they're not trying to put some distance from each other. In any case, if I had to call one of them bad right now, I'd go with Lot.

And Martha is just annoying. I wouldn't mind lynching her just to get rid of the dear hunny

Phoebe Buffay

Well, I have a party to go to. If I'm not wasted, I'll be back later.
By the way, did I mention that all the avis look the same to me? And that's when I'm sober

Phoebe Buffay

Screwed up the post.

Phoebe Buffay

[quote="Rachel

Paul wrote:
Samuel wrote:Check in. I see we are all trying to play our little parts. How cute, in that case I recommend not crossing me or I may have to call down some bears on your ass. Just sayin'.

@Host, will it be relevant to the game to figure out who the other players are?
scum post if there ever was one

Why?

Jephthah wrote:
Balaam wrote:Holy early vote! Got any proof there Paul?
Are you seriously asking this? What exactly do you expect Paul to say?

An analysis of the posts that Paul finds so suspicious?

[/quote]
An analysis of two posts with barely something in them? Either you feel it or you don't. There's no way someone can logically and methodically accuse another person of being bad based on that and come out looking good.

Phoebe Buffay

Paul wrote:
Jephthah wrote:
Paul wrote:now this is d1
You have voted early and maybe hastily wasted a vote.
You have not really given solid reasons for your vote. By your standards of d1 and how this game should be played, should we now vote for you? If not, why?
im catching scum that's why

Do you have tell signs so we can make sure of it?

Phoebe Buffay

Paul wrote:now this is d1

You have voted early and maybe hastily wasted a vote.
You have not really given solid reasons for your vote. By your standards of d1 and how this game should be played, should we now vote for you? If not, why?

Search found 155 matches