The Syndicate

Deborah wrote:I'm so sorry for missing the vote.

When I was silenced, what I was told made it expressly clear when I could talk again.

No, I assume he doesn't. I hope he doesn't. I wasn't worried about today - I was worried about the implications for the future. Ultimately there is a clock ticking down on me.

"[The Zealot is determined to eliminate his enemies; for each Day in a row that he votes the same person, his vote increases by one.]"

I read this (I hope) as resetting when he switches target. If not, I may be doomed today anyway, but otherwise the danger comes in a couple of days time. Clarification, epi?

I have had Jonah pegged as horseman since day one, until Belshazzar's read of him today. Then, I started to rethink and I think his actions can easily be seen as a teammate of Uzziah, so now I think it's possible he is heathen...

BUT, I don't think a vote for Jonah is meaningful right now in the context of today's lynch.

Esther wrote:

Lazarus wrote:LOT MUST DIE! So I am voting for him.

Why must he die?

For the same reason Lazarus must die, I suppose

I'd really like War to die, to see if it broke the cycle. Because this is really really bad news for me, if Lazarus is Simon the Zealot.

@samuel - I think there is a chance Jonah is bad.

@Belsh - does that mean you agree with my point 2 in the first post, because I sort of said it counted in favour of Isaac being civilian rather than against? Just want to be clear about your perspective here.

I definitely think it's clear Mordecai is silenced.

Thank you, Rahab, for reading the case (and Esther). It seems no one else has even commented on how Isaac did a complete about face yesterday. It bothers me that people seem to be choosing not to read it... I'm beginning to worry about the plausibility of recruits.

Belshazzar wrote:He fully contributes, but his votes have now landed early on Lazarus. I could do without the latter, simply by the way he's doing it, even if I understand if he is "compelled" to do something about Lazarus.

Join the club!

Balaam wrote:Really? I can see a Heathen in the four of us. It would make sense.

OK, but it isn't me, it isn't you, it isn't Absalom - so that leaves Belshazzar.

And, I dunno, I need to do a read back, but he has been making tables and some very good observations. I'm not 100% sold that Belshazzar can't be. On the other hand, even back on day one, Belshazzar was the very first person I ever got a civ vibe from, and it has persisted to a number of his behaviours.

I'm open to it, I just don't think it's true.

Esther, I really think Isaac, but Mordecai seems to be gaining steam and may be a good choice. At least he isn't a divisive choice.

I'd caution, though. Mordecai appears to be silenced, which is never a good time to lynch someone. Yes, I know it can be faked. But it also just seems really mean.

If you are thinking Isaac, then please just go and read the very end of my case - the last point on the second half of it.

Absalom wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:I also strongly feel, at this point, that all four of us have done reads and debates in vain, because the rest will just come and do lottery between our choices. Sorry to put it this way, but

Well, I'm convinced that at least one of us doing reads is bad, because wouldn't you? Would you let your whole team not get involved with the thread leaders? I sure wouldn't.

I'm becoming less and less convinced of this all the time. Belshazzar seems good to me, his tables etc genuine. I've actually never seen a mafia work that hard for civ cred. And as for you and Balaam, I'm confident on both of you.

Could someone be a horseman, though? Definitely.

Belshazzar wrote:

Lot wrote:So at minimum, the logic is flawed in that Martha could have been Simon the Zealot. So could have Paul but I feel like Stephen might have felt Lazarus was worth pushing harder, given his close affinity with Paul.

I finally picked up on this possible loophole (guess I didn't read your reads lists too well and your conversation with the Host afterwards, either ), interesting. But Simon was activated on Night 1, so it can only be Martha. Small window.

Small window indeed, but it had to be a small window. Absalom started his approach to hinting at it too soon for it to be something that happened later anyway. And Martha was visible enough that her being activated is plausible. Lazarus being activated on day one much less so.

Absalom wrote:Isaac's self vote is troubling. But to me it reads like a civvie who feels doomed.. He is convinced he will either get NKed or lynched. I can't see a baddie throwing in the towell like thta.

Isaac threatened to self vote in his overreaction to suspicion the first day his name was brought up...

The next day he said he'd vote 'whichever way others did' out of Mordecai, Jacob and himself.

And then today he self-votes when I build a case on him before anyone else does.

For me the whole thing looks like a big wifom, designed with exactly the intent to make people feel how he made you feel. Or at least, put it this way, if you were bad... wouldn't that angle be a good one to play.

Belshazzar wrote:What did you mean by Stephen's close affinity with Paul?

I'm pretty sure that Paul's real identity subbed in and became Stephen's real identity when Stephen's 'house exploded'.

For whats it worth, my real list is:

1) Isaac
2) Deborah
3) Mordecai

And I'll throw Jonah in at 4, as someone who I'm newly looking at and could rise after a reread.

I chose not to relax in that moment because I am not around much between now and the lynch, or at least I'm not expecting to be. Glad I made my point, at least!

1. Isaac
2. Isaac
3. Isaac

READ MY CASE!!!!

Especially the last day where he literally completely reverses his position.

I can't believe he is still not featuring in top threes, it's insane.

Belshazzar wrote:Jonah

Not the cleanest vote record either, often going spontaneously for his last suspicion (Mary, Rahab) and leaving others behind (Martha, Balaam, Deborah). Never took a stance on Uzziah (being unsure what to make of it), plus left an awfully jokey post in awe to Uzziah's troll abilities, but also came up with the "feud" theory between Job and Uzziah. That being said, he chose the case on Job over the one on Balaam, Day 4, at a time when the two were even. A flip on Balaam, at any point, could make Jonah look better or worse, in this regard.

That theory could have the effect of discrediting Job and potentially helping prevent votes on Uzz, too. Could play into a 'jonah is bad' scenario.

So Isaac's response to my case is a self-vote.

Stuff like that is frustrating.

I voted Lazarus at the very start of the day. I did mention it (at least I'm pretty sure I did).

It's a funny thing Jacob...

Here is Isaac
Here is Jacob

Isaac and Jacob both have terrible vote records
Isaac and Jacob both role hinted.

But I really believe Isaac is bad. And I really want to trust Jacob is good. That feels right and correct to me.

I hope people read what I've posted on Isaac, particularly the last part.

Also, I'll remind people of this, which I posted on day two...

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

I somehow forgot this in getting suspicious of Job and lots of other things going down. I forgot I'd ever posted it. It's so long ago and in some ways felt like water under the bridge. I found it when I was doing my Isaac reread.

I voted Uzz back here because I said I thought the Samson votes were a save. I still believe I'm right. We haven't found a single baddie in the Samson train yet. They have to be there. Samson voters are:

Mordecai (11), Mary Magdalene (12), Isaac (16), Jacob (17), Jonathan (20), Belshazzar (23), Samuel (24)

I'd be amazed if we haven't got at least two baddies in here.

Mordecai
Isaac
Jacob
Belshazzar
Samuel

I understand if people go Mordecai (you could call him the push), but I really strongly believe Isaac is your best bet for a first vote. He is the pivot.

Ironically, perhaps part of why I trust your hint more is because I can't find it.

Anyway, I read one more time and did find something. So maybe I now have an idea. It's not a role I would have called critical to the towns success, and not one that I can see any basis on which to determine it MUST be alive, but I can see how it actively assists and how you may have hinted at it.

@Belshazzar. Your post has made good reading so far. I think you are right to point out that your vote and Balaam's vote on Absalom day somewhat clear your names. HOWEVER...

If Lazarus is Nebuchudnezzar (or is on team baddie) then the baddies would know that his vote didn't have a hecks hope of saving Ruth, but they could certainly use it as an opportunity to gain civ cred for some of their teammates. So I don't think that vote alone clears you. It relies on your belief that Lazarus is a zealot being genuine.

Still, I think what you've said is quite valuable and I'm looking forward to the rest. On to Balaam's question of which of his explanations for vote patterns seems most unlikely.

So, Isaac part 2 - after taking heat.

1) Isaac describes himself as super flip-floppy. Honestly, if there is any one thing that my read of him up to this point has taught me, it's that he has stuck to his guns more than anyone except maybe Absalom and Stephen. He hasn't seemed very flip-floppy at all.

2) Anyway, Isaac's response to being suspected is very interesting indeed. He goes from this view of myself and Balaam:

Isaac wrote:FYI Lot, I am feeling better about you now. This is primarily due to how Job flipped. I had initially read you both in the same fashion. Since I was clearly wrong about Job, there's a high probability that I'm wrong about you.

Other people that I feel good about and likely will not vote anytime soon:
Rachel
Absalom
Balaam
Isaac

To this:

Isaac wrote:Thanks, Balaam, for making realize just how useless I've been this game :P I know I've been super flip-floppy (I'm about to do it again, for crying out loud!) and unsure of my votes and reads on people. I haven't been as invested in this game as I'd like to be.

After reading Jeph's post (I think it was Jeph), I realize I may have been played. I trusted Rachel fully from the beginning, and now she turns around and says I tried to get her lynched because of my wording and based on my vote patterns? You slyyy devil, you. I don't care if I'm lynched today. If I am, it will certainly help the cause. But when I am lynched I really hope that people analyze yours and Lot's voting patterns until you're on the chopping block. It took no time at all for you 2 to put me there.

By the way, I'd say it's more accurate that Rachel and Lot put Isaac there, but that could just be a perception thing. Anyway, he was certainly ready to get the threat out... 'If I flip civ, do you want everyone to go after you next?' - thats how it read at the time and still reads to me, and attempt to scare us into being more careful. Followed by this stuff:

Isaac wrote:Sure. You're absolutely right, Lot. Go ahead and vote for me. You've got nothing to lose, right? You're 110% correct

Isaac wrote:Well now I wish I could switch my vote to help you out. I'm perfectly fine with dying today

Isaac wrote:What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on

This didn't sit well with me at the time, and it still doesn't. The whole thing was a major overreaction to me saying his voting looked bad... as though it guarenteed I'd vote for him (even though he was only one person I'd called out), but the approach makes it seems like he wants to warn me off it. Which actually worked, by the way. The worst bit of it of all is where he says "You've got nothing to lose, right?" - because honestly, if you are vanilla civ, I don't think it makes much sense to say that. Because obviously civilians are something to lose, but apart from the obvious what would I have to lose?

Isaac did dial it back after that... but if the goal was to stop me going hard and to get me (and others) to dial it back, it worked. Here we are three days later and still Isaac has barely taken a vote, if any.

3) Isaac didn't mention Ruth once on day 6, as far as I can see. Not in any context at all.

4) Day 7 feels like Isaac is comfortable to not be taking heat, to me. He posts casual, uses a lot of smilies - a very good day for someone who is happy just to see that the heat is not on him any more without a lot of actual contribution.

5) Day 8, time for Isaac's rolehint:

Isaac wrote:I'm telling you, though, I'm just a vanilla who's made A TON of mistakes with my shit playing this game. I'm with Jul... I mean Jonathan No more sock games for me. Way to easy for me to mess up in my reads of others.

Isaac wrote:I call myself vanilla because there is absolutely nothing next to my role on that page.
My only slip up is forgetting to search for other apostles

Lets me very clear - there is no room there to consider this to be accidental.

6) This is where I come to the idea that any other apostles who can target Isaac should do so, because him being activated would give his rolehint some credence. Now, firstly, I don't know what Isaac expected would happen if he rolehinted vanilla (what, apostles WOULDN'T target you???) But second, he was very inconsistent in his responses to me. See this:

Isaac wrote:If I am "activated" tonight, I have a target on my head. I'm a walking dead man if that happens either way you look at it.

Isaac understood my theory of activating him completely in this post. We even talk about it some more as follows:

Lot wrote:You are a walking target right now. An activated civ tonight somewhat fixes that. I'm not sure why you would argue against your activation... unless, in fact, you would prefer civs don't target you so that no-one knows you are lying?

After all, why would you be a walking target any more than those people who Absalom is clearing based on their vote records? I think there are quite a lot of people who I can confidently call 'not heathen' right now. You would just be one more on the list.

Isaac wrote:Because I will be confirmed. Then civs would have no reason to lynch me. And heathens would have no reason to let me live.

Isaac wrote:I also wasn't trying to be specific. That's where it gets dangerous. We're getting into the specifics of my role if I am activated, and the heathens will most certainly kill me before end game, if not immediately.

Let me repeat - these posts prove that Isaac fully understood my proposed plan to activate him and was concerned that this would make him a target.

7) But not everyone understood them. Others thought I was suggesting we lynched him if he wasn't NKed. When Jacob didn't get it though, Isaac posted this:

Isaac wrote:

Lot wrote:

Jacob wrote: If we give the ultimatum "if he's not NKed let's lynch him" then duh obviously the baddies aren't going to NK him so they can get a free pass out of a lynch.

Why do people keep saying this since it is patently not what I or anyone else actually suggested....

I suggested that any disciples searching for another disciple to activate, target Isaac. When did this get bastardized into the heathen killing him?

I read it this way last night, as well. If that's not what you intended (making me a human sacrifice), then I apologize for misconstruing things. That would be why our convo got a little out of hand. I felt as if your whole intention was to get me killed one way or another just to be absolutely sure about me.

That's one massive back out of the situation.

8) Not to mention his whole legitimate response to my idea (to activate him) was immediately followed by him trying desperately to plead against activation. The whole thing reads to me like he didn't think it through when he said he was vanilla, forgot that we actually could test it, and then wanted to set up a wifom argument of 'I wasn't targetted because I pleaded with people not to'.

Well at least we are a lot of triers, eh? Look at us all and our rereading!

What have I seen from an Isaac reread.

1) One thing I will say, and I've felt this all along, is that Isaac reads well. His posts have a very civilian tone to them. There is also nothing in most of these posts that could not be read as a civilian demonstrating a perfectly valid perspective. Noting that up front, I've made a conscious effort to ignore tone and consider potential intent when analysing Isaac's posts.

2) Isaac 1.0 was around for day one and day two. He never mentioned Uzziah at all. He once quoted Ruth but it was not a very meaningful exchange. He also didn't add any real content other than a suspicion of Samson. Perhaps the most interesting quote was this one:

Isaac wrote:I think Belshazzar is generally right. If we spend all game worrying about the Horsemen, the Heathens will roll over us while we bicker. Easier to deal with what we know to be a threat, then sort out anything else. I can't see them being civ-friendly though.

That would be an odd thing for a heathen to say on day one.

3) It is worth noting that Isaac was the third vote on Samson when Uzziah was in the (previous) equal lead on 2 votes. Isaac quickly voted for Samson, then explained why afterwards. I think it's interesting to note the order and timing of these two posts. The first one came over an hour before the second, and NEITHER of Samson's posts that Isaac quoted had been made at the time Isaac voted. This almost looks like reverse engineering to justify the vote. At the time of his vote, Isaac's entire justification was 'he hasn't explained his vote'. That explanation isn't a terrible one, though, as far as day one pings go.

Jacob wrote:Voting for Samson because he hasn't explained his vote.

Isaac wrote:

Samson wrote:As usual, the Syndicate votes for oddities instead of baddies.

Carry on.

Samson wrote:I don't think that that Samuel is bad, I just wanted to vote for him.

How do you expect these two posts to add up to any kind of defense? Latching on to someone else's vote with no explanation isn't an 'oddity', it's something that makes you look like a baddie. Then you say you don't even think the guy is bad?

4) Isaac 2.0 turns up on day 3 and very quickly comes in with this. It could be considered fairly direct for a teammate.

Isaac wrote:I saw nothing wrong Uzi's posts.

5) Over the next couple of days, Isaac consistently defends Uzi and also has a tendency to bring up Ruth without sharing an actual view on her - this is a list of these...

Isaac wrote:I did not realize how flippant Job was with his accusations. He throws out quite a few names and then pursues none of them, as Paul states, but then is relentless in trying to take down Uzziah. Who, imo, is least likely to turn up heathen at this point.

Isaac wrote:Also, what are your thoughts on Ruth and Bathsheba? I haven't seen many of Ruth's posts but have noticed her name pop up here and there.
And I'm asking about Bathsheba for obvious reasons. Host post and what not.

Isaac wrote: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.

Isaac wrote:Going to respond to the hot topics of Balaam's fabulous list.

Balaam wrote:RUTH: I'm reserving judgement until she finally answers my question. Was she just silenced Day 2 or was she blocked from voting as well?
Same.

UZZIAH: Neutral. I still think he's just messing with us one way or the other. Good or bad, Heathens are probably hoping to use him as a smokescreen.
I realize I'm kind of defending right now. But this could definitely change depending on future circumstances

Sorry to piggy back a Balaam list in order to get my opinions out there. It was the quickest and easiest way for me to do so with today's schedule.

Isaac wrote:The difference is that Uzziah's focus on Job is revenge, for lack of a better term.

(That's up to date until the end of the Job lynch).

6) Also amongst that, Isaac has this very interesting post full of wifom. Not sure why Isaac of everyone in the game felt the need to make an 'if I incur God's wrath' post, but it does seem like a convenient civilian cred grab. Especially, especially, especially the last line. Isaac is now claiming to be a vanilla civ, and if smited his role wouldn't be revealed anyway. I can't imagine a scenario in which a civilian rezzer would feel the need to rez Isaac ahead of Mary Magdalene. Even he admits its 'easy to say for street cred'. I don't know what to do with this post at all. I'm not averse to making a post like this if it looks like I could be lynched, but... I mean, do we go around making these posts in case we are NKed? Weird.

Isaac wrote:Juuust in case I incur God's wrath, I'm going to throw these out there:
Still feel really good about my Job vote, although I'd to see him come back in and say something other than "UZZIAH *votes*"
I do think Lazarus is worth investigating further, and will do so assuming I survive.
Still don't see what Lot sees against Rachel, although they clearly share a concurring opinion against Absalom. I'd like to see this back-and-forth progress further to help develop my opinion on them.

And finally, should I be the one smited, I will just say that I would sooner have David (Mary M) resurrected than myself. I know, easy to say for street cred. But do with it what you will. Isaac out.

7) On Day 5, Isaac floats the idea that someone vocal is bad and that we should look at vocal people, then spends the rest of the day focussed on... Pilate and Malchus. He really mentions a desire to make a Pilate vote several times. In respect of Uzziah, here is what he has to say during this day period.

Isaac wrote:Belsh, to answer your question re Uzzi. I have felt completely in the dark here. I started out kind of defending him, but now ijdk.

Also, Pilate's latest post feels like a major gambit. The wifom is strong with this one. hooooooo purhhhhhhh.

Isaac wrote:This is not at all going the way I thought it would. I still don't feel great about a Uzziah lynch. I haven't from the (my) beginning. I'm going to go with the one person I am remotely comfortable with voting (who already has votes. Jep

Isaac wrote:

Rachel wrote:I feel like the biggest fool, Job.

Same I never saw that coming...

It's sort of a step away from defending him, saying he doesn't know what to think, but still votes in a way that is most effective for his defence and then says he never saw his lynch being bad coming, which is a bit at odds from not knowing what to think. To be clear, here is my own description of the state of voting when Isaac voted on day 5: "Day five - fourth vote for Jephthah, 7 on Uzz (possibly only 6 when he looked)."

~~~~~~~~~~

This is now the first time Isaac takes heat all game, so I'll split this analysis into two posts representing the two halves of his game and take a break here.

Balaam, I love that you do them. I've been too focussed on my Isaac reread (half way through a big post on that) but I'm looking forward to reading your stuff as my next step.

@Rahab - Pilate's day one and day 5 vote and his posts in respect of Uzziah make it very unlikely that he could be mafia, it would be beyond ballsy, I think it would have to be an actual intention to distance by getting your teammate lynched. It just doesn't seem likely that he is heathen at all. If Pilate could be heathen, then so could literally anyone including Absalom, and the argument would be that their lynch leading was tactical. I guess it isn't impossible, but it wouldn't be my first choice for pursuing someone.

OK, I just spent probably half an hour doing nothing but reading the same Jacob posts over and over and over again, and really, I just don't see it.

I mean, I see him saying multiple times that he is claiming his role increases our chances of winning. Is that all we are talking about? Or is there more to it that I'm missing. Because, I don't see that as a role hint. It's just a generic claim.

I agree with Absalom that Pilate looks unimpeachable. I can't see him being heathen.

I'm going to do a reread of Isaac today, and pull some posts like I did with Rahab, but I'm becoming more and more convinced he is the best place for a vote...

I'm also going to have one more look for Jacob's famous rolehint.

Absalom, I have not answered your question about Balaam and Ruth having similar patterns because I've made it very clear that you are barking up the wrong tree and that Balaam is definitively not Ruth's teammate.

There really isn't anything more for me to say on the matter, except I'd far rather lynch a heathen than waste time every day talking about someone I can confirm is a civ (and yes, it honestly has been every day. Yesterday it was Mordecai. It bothers me tremendously that the thread keeps coming back to Balaam.)

A reread of Rahab. First, after this reread I have a very strong suspicion that I know who is manning this sock. I might even lodge my guess with the host

Rahab has kept her nose reasonably clean thread wise, and I actually think she is not heathen after a reread. In fact, I feel pretty good about her, she has been fairly consistent, and if my read of who is behind the sock is right, she sounds like this person in their civ capacity. But her post history gives enough to think her alignment is ambiguous so it's worth posting about.

Her day 1 vote for Uzziah came quite late. After that we got this in chapter 2:

Rahab wrote:I voted Uzziah Day 1 because I thought his behavior was weird. Not much of a sound reason, and since then he's been more on topic. I see the reasoning of others that because he said "I'm rooting for the scum" (which I took it to mean "I'm cheering for the scum") he might want to brag about it post-game if he IS actually scum for shits and giggles, but I think it's more likely he was just making a joke. Too much WIFOM for my taste right now, so I won't go that way again today.

(Also, I'd point out that the very post before this one was me pointing out that the Samson votes look like a save on Uzziah and voting for Uzziah on day 2. I still feel very confident about this and it's why I still think we need to be looking in the Day one Samson train, we haven't caught a baddie in there yet. It's still Isaac and Jacob for me, they both look so bad, it's really time we took one of them out.)

Then Rahab during chapter 3:

Rahab wrote:I've been flip-flopping about Uzziah since the beginning, but if he's who I think he is under that sock I always feel this way about him one way or the other. There's no way to tell, so my gut about this behavior along with someone's mention of how conversation about him and his own commentary have fallen off today make me want to look his way again. (To be honest I also laughed out loud at his and Job's exchange about voting until one of them is dead. I love this game.) Also, I read Bathsheba's posts after much mentioning of her (and maybe this is completely off topic but I've seen a few references to her as a "him," which threw me off :P ), and some of her participation reminds me of Uzziah's (especially laughing at being called "the blendiest blender" with no other defense except she "noticed" who made the comment), while the rest of it just looks like blendy play, as she was criticized for. At this point I will likely be voting one of them today.

Ah and now Uzziah is back in the conversation (being talked about that is). I have some work to do but I'll be back in a bit for the vote and perhaps conversation, real time.

Rahab wrote:

Jonathan wrote:After giving more though to a Uzziah vote again today I have decided to wait and give that another day or two to develop. He has been silent today (at least I didn't see anything from him) but I don't know if he is laying low or legitimately silenced. I have chosen to go with Lazarus today for the reasons that Mordecai and Balaam brought up today. One thing that does concern me is that maybe he has been silenced but I'm going to take the risk in his case.

Uzziah is not silenced. He commented on his vote two (real-time) days ago in response to Job's voting for him in Uzziah's same jokey manner. He hasn't spoken since. I'm gonna go ahead and vote for him for reasons previously stated.

Her vote for Uzz was Uzz's fourth vote when Mary Mag only had 5, and her post (above) could be considered in Balaam's lingo 'a push', since she also disregarded his silence. On the other hand, the vote straight after hers was Ruth for Mary Mag, so it might have been a good distancing tactic so late in the day.

Essentially, having done the full read back, my mind just comes back to Isaac and Jacob and that day one save of Uzziah.

I think you were far from the only one. Clearly a confusing convo.

Oh, Absalom playing with Isaac's 'wifom' comment?

But the background to that was that Isaac was suggesting that a civvie being activated occurred first, and that would we what gave rise to the NK. It wouldn't just be expected out of nowhere. I'm not sure why we are pulling Absalom's quote out of the full context of the conversation.

Jacob wrote: If we give the ultimatum "if he's not NKed let's lynch him" then duh obviously the baddies aren't going to NK him so they can get a free pass out of a lynch.

Why do people keep saying this since it is patently not what I or anyone else actually suggested....

I suggested that any disciples searching for another disciple to activate, target Isaac. When did this get bastardized into the heathen killing him?

So at minimum, the logic is flawed in that Martha could have been Simon the Zealot. So could have Paul but I feel like Stephen might have felt Lazarus was worth pushing harder, given his close affinity with Paul.

Yeah, I was waiting to give Epi time to edit, as he might choose to do that after host post, but it looks pretty clear by now.

I don't know that I'd read too much into that yet given I broached the subject so late in the evening. But I might give it more weight if the same occurred next evening. And I'm not ruling out that Isaac should be lynched today. Rahab is also a really interesting approach though. First and foremost, though, I really feel I should vote Lazarus. I just feel the need. Call it bloodlust, if you like. I just know that Lazarus deserves to die.

Interestingly, with 18 left, I decided to write a list of everyone I currently suspect of being heathen to varying degrees, and how much I suspect them. Take this as a list, from top to bottom, of everyone I suspect of being heathen in order from most likely to least likely.

Isaac - I've set out many reasons I suspect Isaac. There is not yet any reason for me to suspect otherwise.
Rahab - Absalom made good points. I need to reread.
Jacob - Jacob's votes on days 1, 3, 6 are all troubling. But then his role hint... and he does sound genuine. I wonder if I'm being suckered, though.
Deborah - I still see very little about Deborah's posting or voting that looks particularly civilian.
Mordecai - His voting patterns don't look great, and his perspective on the game is very different to everyone elses. Although overall he does read genuine to me.
Lazarus - I need to go back and read the analysis as to why he could not be Nebuchuznezzar (did Belshazzar write that?). I need to think very carefully about whether or not I agree. Epi, if an apostle was activated on the same night that they died, would you show their activated power or not?
Jonah - No reason to think he is good, no reason to think he is bad. Wondered if he fit the profile of horseman. Can be very helpful when he decides to contribute, which isn't as often as I would like. Could be baddie hiding in shadows.
Rebecca - Another person for whom a reread is probably in order. Her voting patterns aren't amazing, but they are also reasonably consistent.
Belshazzar - I think a reread is in order here too, really I think the main argument that he is bad is that he can't prove he isn't. But it still means he is on the radar.
Samuel - No reason to think he is bad, but there is no reason to think he is good either.
Esther - getting great civ vibes, but no evidence to prove she is good.
Malchus/Bathsheba - could be bad, but I still tend to think they could be empty socks, and I reckon epi finds a replacement for a mafia by now. Honestly, I feel these two could use a modkill.
Malchus/Bathsheba

Esteemed host, is there a reason you have Jonathan amongst the living and on the poll?

Judah is no loss. Rachel is. RIP, Rachel.

I'm saying that we (in the absence of activation) are likely to eliminate the walking target. Not the baddies.

I'm saying that I think the risk is lower of the baddies eliminating that walking target by NK than us lynching him.

And I'm saying that if the baddies do NK a civilian because he is a 'walking target', that is still preferable to us lynching one (lets say, if we thought the odds were even of each)

I don't buy that you become a target if you are activated. I just don't buy that line of thinking in the slightest. For lots of reasons.

1) The apostles seem to have the weakest civ powers. Why would a heathen choose to target them when they could instead hit someone more powerful?
2) The horsemen may be the most powerful. Why would we assume the heathen would rather hit a civ than a horseman?
3) Even if someone is activated tonight, there is only circumstantial evidence that you are them, but the chances of you being protected by other civs goes up. You become a much riskier target for a kill.

To me, activating you is far and away the most civilian move we could make at this point - assuming you can be activated.

(For what its worth - I also think a Rahab lynch could be very interesting indeed, and after Absalom's analysis, I'm going to do a reread of her).

Isaac doesn't make me like him any more by trying to claim that it was ME who pushed him out into the open when it was HIM who role claimed.

If you are going to role-claim, you better be damn well willing to back it up. If you are scared of being killed by the heathen for being a 'confirmed civ', then don't role claim. For me, it's really simple.

I don't know what Jacob has to do with it, what did he do?

As for me pushing you out into the open, I want to make this very clear - if you are not activated overnight, I will be pushing your lynch until you are lynched. I do NOT BELIEVE YOU!

This, for me, is giving you a chance to prove you are civ. You've walked into it yourself, I didn't push you into it. Now we have a chance to prove it.

@Belshazzar - Isaac has

1) A terrible voting record
2) A propensity for only appearing when other people start talking about him as bad; and
3) A role-hint of a vanilla civ.

What do you mean by 'I don't see the priority of testing Isaac', Who else has role hinted that we can test at all?

"So basically the idea is to rely on the Heathens' actions or responsiveness to certain details" what does that even mean? The heathens can't activate Isaac, and in fact, NOONE can if Isaac is heathen.

Don't you see how Isaac wanting to back out of this and not be activated alone points to the fact his role-hint could well be a lie...

Not that I'll be voting Isaac tomorrow. I still feel like a vote for Lazarus would be the right thing for me to do.

Isaac, I would think you would want to do what it takes to show you are civ. If you are being honest, your activation might even be NK protection, and there is still the possibility of another civilian protecting you the following night.

You are a walking target right now. An activated civ tonight somewhat fixes that. I'm not sure why you would argue against your activation... unless, in fact, you would prefer civs don't target you so that no-one knows you are lying?

After all, why would you be a walking target any more than those people who Absalom is clearing based on their vote records? I think there are quite a lot of people who I can confidently call 'not heathen' right now. You would just be one more on the list.

I'm not quite sure what you think I did wrong, Belsh?

I did not call myself out as vanilla civ. Nor did I point out which roles that could be...

But now that this has been done, I think the least we can do is create a strategy by which we might be able to see if we believe Isaac's role hint.

For what it's worth, I've caught a baddie before because they said they were 'the most vanilla civvie'. In this case, we have a chance to test it. If it means Isaac ends up being NKed because he is a 'confirmed civ' (and honestly, I think that even if someone is activated tonight, it by no means guarantees it must be Isaac), then I think it is still a risk worth taking. I don't think it is a certainty that heathen would immediately kill him, and as it stands, I can't see any reason not to lynch Isaac, so he would probably die soon anyway. Better to do what we can to reduce the chance of a mislynch. Sorry if that seems a little heartless, but honestly I feel it is also Isaac's best chance at survival if he is in fact truthfully a civ.

Well here is an idea... if any apostles are out searching for other apostles and you are yet to send in a PM - send one in for Isaac.

We haven't had any new activations since night one. If we get an activation tonight, then maybe that would make Isaac look a little better.

That's why I've been saying Isaac, Jacob and Mordecai for a while lol

I know vote analysis isn't everything, but they are definitely the ones I think look worst from analysis.

Interesting that Jacob claims a very important civ and Isaac claims a vanilla civ. Not sure what to take from very different approaches.

Looking forward to your Rahab one too!

@belsh - I'm pretty sure that means any civ can die if Noah isn't around to save some.

Absalom wrote: I am very interested in Jonah's vote for Rahab. It reminds me a lot of Ruth's vote for Uzziah. An off the wall distancing vote. If it turns out Rahab is bad, I bet Jonah is too, but that will have to wait until I get to her in the rotation.

Horsemen?

Absalom wrote:Next three:

Jacob
Day 1: Fourth vote on the Samson wagon.
Day 2: Missed.
Day 3: Second vote on Mary Mag wagon, Uzziah had three.
Day 4: Missed.
Day 5: Missed.
Day 6: Fourth vote on Rachel, Ruth had five.
Day 7: Second vote on Rebecca.
Day 8: Eighth vote for Jonathan.

Observations

Judah is AWOL. Jacob's Day 3 and Day 6 votes both look really bad. I am very interested in Jonah's vote for Rahab. It reminds me a lot of Ruth's vote for Uzziah. An off the wall distancing vote. If it turns out Rahab is bad, I bet Jonah is too, but that will have to wait until I get to her in the rotation.

And again with Jacob's day one vote...