The Syndicate

Job wrote:I agree its odd we don't have additional options were really discussing. At the same time neither of you are offering to do the legwork yourselves. Are you afraid to stick your neck out? What do you think of Paul /absalom re: martha? Or Rachels theory about mentioning Paul while possibly silenced? If this really concerns you, you should be discussing things like this at greater length..

Are you kidding me? Not doing the leg work myself? I've put so many possibilities out there for discussion....

I wrote posts on Jephthah that everyone ignored, despite me suggesting people read it about three of four times... I gave up.
I have been writing posts about you...
And I've specifically called out a number of low posters...

I've done a lot of leg work, it's just that it gets ignored.

I've already said I think Martha was killed because she was annoying. I doubt very much it was Absalom who did it, because Absalom would have to be fairly dumb to do it. Paul is silent, he still could be bad, but I'm not drawing that from Martha's death.

Don't tell me I haven't done leg work unless you actually read my posts.

I think I had said it only twice before you said I was trying to make everyone believe something... and even you yourself say you sound like a broken record. And I said it because it seems you were just ignoring anyone else who was speaking on the subject rationally but questioned your view, or called them Uzziah's teammates... as you did with me. That's what I see as being tunnel vision.

That doesn't mean you are wrong. I just don't know that I trust you or your reasoning, which has seemed disingenuous to me because of the things you have chosen to ignore. Your answers to the questions below make me feel a little bit better about you, but on the other hand what else could you say? I was bringing some home truths about the holes in your argument.

I respect a suspicion based on gut, and I completely agree with you (believe it or not) that Uzziah has done nothing worthy of the benefit of the doubt. Even after I provided a definition of root, he said he deliberately used a 'double meaning'. I don't like that at all. I don't have a whole lot of love for people who think that getting a bit of suspicion is a good way to stay alive. More often than not, I think that if people take that approach, it's harmful to the town ultimately.

BUT - who usually takes the 'I want a bit of suspicion' approach? In my book, its civvies, who want to survive the NK, not the people with the NK. So I really see both sides on Uzziah. Does he offer anything of value in the thread? No, I don't think so. Might he offer something with his role? He may - sometimes people add no value in the thread but provide major assistance to winning the game at night.

I feel like this entire day has been about nothing but Uzziah, and this I don't like. Even if we ultimately lynch Uzziah, it might be nice if we had a good amount of time talking about other options as well.

This might surprise you too - I think I'm more likely to vote Uzziah than I am to vote you. I do attach more value to people who talk a lot than people who don't. One thing you are not doing is hiding. But when I don't trust you, I'll put you to the test - even if the person you are going after is also someone I don't trust.

You say you don't have tunnel vision, but you call me 'Uzziah's friend' and say I'm 'trying to make everyone believe' something.

And you wonder why I suspect you? These are the exact kind of buzz words I expect from baddies who feel they are under pressure - you want to make it sound like I'm the one dominating the thread. I'm not. Hardly anyone has even picked up on my posts. You're the one who is posting a whole lot about a single player, and accusing everyone who disagrees of being Uzziah's friends and teammates.

I'm not pushing an agenda to the edge of common sense - so instead of throwing vague accusations at me (eg, 'I remember why I suspected you on day one') why don't you answer this question - what prevents Uzziah from using this as wifom in a future game, exactly? You have said something untrue and push it as fact, to the exclusion of anyone being allowed to question you. Answer the question.

I also asked you this, which you conveniently ignore to throw vague accusations my way instead:

Lot wrote:Do you really believe, if you are right about Uzziah being heathen, that it would just be all his teammates coming in to the thread to call it lazy? Can't you see the truth of the fact that it would be a lazy vote?

How about you answer those too while you are at it.

A lot, but not all. I voted for law, and I'm not silenced or anything.

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.

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

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

Job - people are calling it lazy because it is. It's not lazy from you, you clearly believe it (If you are civ, that you've found a heathen. Even if you are heathen or horseman, my sense from you is that you genuinely believe you've found someone of the other faction), and you've worked hard. But it's a very easy outlet for a bandwagon full of people who have barely spoken. Do you really believe, if you are right about Uzziah being heathen, that it would just be all his teammates coming in to the thread to call it lazy? Can't you see the truth of the fact that it would be a lazy vote?

There are a whole lot of people I want to hear more from, but here are some for starters who my eye is on for saying virtually nothing. Esther, Bathsheba, Stephen, Hagar, Lazarus, Gideon.

A lot of my posts are shit. Allow me to clarify some points from that last one.

On Balaam, I mean he didn't come across as someone who was trying to look as though he was helping, he looked like someone who was actually trying to help.

On Uzziah, I meant - why would anyone, good or bad, make that statement. I'm not sure why we'd see it as an indicator of guilt, even giving the 'admitting he is bad' interpretation to it.

Deborah wrote:

Job wrote:RIP darlin.

Public enemy number one is obviously uzziah. He point out blank said he's rooting for the scum.

I also suspect absalom. Why else would Martha be dead? She gained more than her fair share of suspicion day 1 IMO.

Judging Uzziah's rooting post would be a lot easier if I could know who the player is. Without that knowledge, it could just be a stupid early game comment meant to stir the pot. As it is, I don't think a Uzziah lynch would be a bad idea, but it would be lazy. Lynching someone for a post that could have been a joke is lazy, but it is fine if nothing more concrete emerges. I hope that makes sense. Off for lunch now, will continue to catch up later.

I agree with this completely, it's very much how I feel...

Uzziah is not a terrible lynch option but he is a lazy one, after we just had a lazy one on day one. And what bothers me the most is we have a lot of people on this site who, if they made the comment Uzziah is taking hell for, we would just say 'oh, thats just x playing their normal game'. Not just one specific person, but a few. It doesn't make sense to me to say 'I'm rooting for the scum' makes him bad - even if you interpret it as him stating he is bad, why the heck would he say it if he is actually bad?

I also yesterday raised the same post you did on Balaam, although I'm feeling quite a bit better about him now. I did a reread of him and actually I don't think he comes across as just 'trying' to contribute for most of the time.

And Job is someone I'm now feeling very wary of. He is quite wedded to his ideas and combative. I'm going to do a full reread. Early on day one, Job was the first person I thought 'he looks civvie', so I think I need to have another look at the full picture with him.

Absalom, I completely agree on Cain too... even at the time I think I said (I was certainly thinking) that in some ways the Samson votes felt a little like a protection of Cain.

Lastly, when I checked yesterday, a full 14 players were still under 10 posts. This is ridiculous. In a sock game, where people blend in, it becomes very easy to hide. I wouldn't object at all to some pact to start lynching some of them if they don't start actually contributing.

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.

@Job - I would have considered killing Martha because she was annoying. Not having the kill be based on suspicions means there are no threads to pull (I would have said not a lot - but I really mean literally none) - that's still strategic and thinking it out.

Jonathan wrote:RIP Martha. This seems like such an odd kill to me. Martha was brought up as a possible lynch so why would the baddies kill her?

Perhaps they just found her saying hunny a lot annoying. That was my first thought when I saw she was dead.

RIP, sweetie.

I am officially sulking for the night period because the host keeps bursting my biblical bubble.

I'm not even going to use the word lot in any creative way in this post!!!! Take that!

RIP Samson.

I don't have a lot more to say on that front. I don't blame people for voting for him - I think Samson's actions sort of brought it on himself. But on the other hand I think he was an easy vote and I definitely will be looking at his voters tomorrow to see which of them seemed to be simply taking the easy way out.

Voted Jephthah, because that's who I think is actually bad.

I toyed with a vote for Cain, because when reading the thread it felt a little like the Samson votes might be coming in to take heat off Cain. But the timing of the votes doesn't really bear that out on closer analysis. Still, I'll keep a closer eye on that now.

I tend to think the votes for Samson lack depth - it's the easy vote, not the one that came with thoughtful analysis. It felt like a day one where there were an awful lot of people who kept themselves completely out of trying to do any kind of thinking or discussing of candidates, so I think I'll have to go back and do a reread of the day and see who I think have just taken the easy way out.

Uzziah was firmly on my radar for a possible vote, but I'm now feel a lot better about him because his last post comes across as genuine to me.

Uzziah - assuming you are not pulling our legs, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt - wifom means wine in front of me, but actually what it REALLY means is trying to fake someone out, like 'you wouldn't do that if you were bad, but then you might do it if you were bad because other people would think you wouldn't do it if you were bad.' A good example of wifom is actually the post I just made above this one to Jephthah - when I said I wouldn't distance in the way he is accusing me of doing because it's a bad tactic (and the reason I throw my hands in the air is because it's hard to respond to his accusation as just about anything I say would come across as wifom - the only possible defence is 'I didn't do it, and I wouldn't do it'.). This acronym is not obscure for regulars of this site, it is used quite commonly, but I can definitely understand why it would come off as obscure if you aren't familiar with it.

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.)

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.

I just noticed that we are all sinners. Is there not one among us who has not sinned? (For the record, I thought I was pretty clean. My wife sinned a lot, and she got turned into a pillar of salt, but I came out fine. I was the only person in all of sodom who... well, I'll let you draw your own mind-picture).

I'm loving Jonah's posts. 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?

Hello, Pilate, glad to see you have arrived.

Indeed, Absalom. But given those are the only people with apparent BTSC, why would Gideon make it so obvious? It's very wifom. That's why I'm not willing to vote for either of them, but why I've also said 'today'... it's something interesting to keep an eye on.

I feel like I'm not seeing eye to eye with a lot of people this game - the only people I've really felt are seeing things a similar way to me are Absalom and Belshezzar, and perhaps to some extent Job (except as his posts apply to suspicion of me).

No, you didn't say lynch. That's why I used the word imply. So, if you wouldn't lynch him, you would have us debating Paul's actions and following Paul's lead... for what? You clearly agree it proves nothing about Paul, since you've now clearly stated you wouldn't lynch him for being wrong. So what would you be trying to achieve? You want Paul to be quieter? Why? You think if Paul is wrong about one person, his words should no longer hold weight? What if he is right about the next one?

I honestly - and again, self-interest here probably plays a part - but I can't see any civilian reason for you to suggest that we just follow Paul blindly and then stop listening to him if he is wrong. But imagine, for instance, you know Paul is wrong about Samuel and me but right about Nicodemus, or about other people he might have mentioned but not pushed today - might it not be in your interests to lynch a civilian and discredit Paul in one go?

I'm willing to listen to Gideon today, and take heed of the shot he made across my bow. He essentially vouched for you, and I'm willing to put a lot of trust in that for now. But I'm just saying - to me your idea looks like it can achieve nothing good, and didn't seem to me like a very civilian thing to say.

Gideon wrote:

Lot wrote:I'm quite surprised at how much heat I'm taking today with very little clear justification. I make one post about balaam, and I'm 'going after him'? By the way gideon, what is it about balaam that makes you so sure he is good?

I have nothing to say about that.

Fair enough. I'll take it under advisement. I have no intention of voting Balaam today, but it does bother me that he seems to imply we should lynch Paul if Paul is wrong about his suspicions, and I'd like him to clarify that. And he is welcome to make a lot more ass jokes.

I'm quite surprised at how much heat I'm taking today with very little clear justification. I make one post about balaam, and I'm 'going after him'? By the way gideon, what is it about balaam that makes you so sure he is good?

I'm just posting what pings me - any time something pings me. I'm still a lot more suspicious of Jephthah's actions than anything else I've seen today. Also just did a reread of Uzziah and I'm not impressed. And where is Pilate?

Mordecai wrote:The only productive thing that came of Paul running off at the mouth this whole time is that Samson followed his vote, and never explained it. While I felt like Paul had reasons that werent worht lynching somebody over, he at least had a reason. Samson on the otherhand just did it and has dodged the question since, and that really ticks me.

I agree, Samson's vote also pinged me a lot. I don't necessarily thing it's the only productive thing Paul achieved - actually, I completely understand Paul's tactic of getting people talking, and he really has done that, I just don't think casting a vote is a sensible part of that.

Balaam wrote:I bear no grudge against Paul at the moment, but the ruthless, unfeeling player in me thinks the best way to deal with an aggressive fisher like Paul is to put him to the test. Let's take him up on his three suspects and lynch one of them. He seems fairly confident that they are bad (though he threw up a smoke screen about not being 100% on anything). We can always call his bluff. If we lynch one of his top three and they're not bad, either Paul will cool it with the gunslinger rhetoric or the rest of us will know to take his words with a grain of salt.

Boy did this ping me...

I mean, it sounds like a bad strategy to me anyway out of self-interest... but lets say you did take this tactic and the person you lynched came back as civilian (be it me or someone else)... would you have us lynch Paul next? We already know to take Paul's words with a lot of salt. There hasn't been any opportunity for Paul to be sure - he is quite clearly just expressing his opinion in a certain-sounding way. But being wrong doesn't necessarily make you heathen, either.

I don't like it when people imply that being wrong = being bad...

@jephthah - don't play dumb. Belshazzar made a post, and then I made a post where I quoted literally nearly everything you had said up to that point. I don't need to repeat that post, but I do strongly encourage people to read it. I'm still very surprised at how little attention it has gotten. You did a complete and utter about face without any apparent explanation.

Absalom wrote:

Job wrote:

Paul wrote:

Lot wrote:I could see Paul getting a lot of votes... I'd consider voting that way. So far not much has stood out for me. Paul has, very much, with posts and practices which seem designed to set himself apart. So has Ruth - what with the apparent fishing for finding out where people are from and then waving it off as a joke.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone felt that their vote in the poll yesterday turned out to be worthwhile. I, for one, do not - at least I have no reason to believe it was for now.

this post essentially says I could see a wagon on Paul so I'm not gonna commit to voting him but gonna leave the possibility here for later b/c I am scum and need to find a reason to vote someone

I agree this post of Lots was odd. Why state your intent to vote someone simply because they have the potential to get a lot of votes? Vote for who you find suspicious, don't vote someone just because all the cool kids are doing it.

This is what I find suspicious about Lot too. His first post of the game was a similar comment, voting for The Law because everyone else was. How is that a good reason?

See above. I've used the 'a lot' reason a lot, because I'm trying to have fun with the sock. My real reason for voting the law was because I did not think voting for the apocalypse was a good idea, and the two of them were about equally in the lead when I came in.

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.

Job wrote:

Paul wrote:

Lot wrote:I could see Paul getting a lot of votes... I'd consider voting that way. So far not much has stood out for me. Paul has, very much, with posts and practices which seem designed to set himself apart. So has Ruth - what with the apparent fishing for finding out where people are from and then waving it off as a joke.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone felt that their vote in the poll yesterday turned out to be worthwhile. I, for one, do not - at least I have no reason to believe it was for now.

this post essentially says I could see a wagon on Paul so I'm not gonna commit to voting him but gonna leave the possibility here for later b/c I am scum and need to find a reason to vote someone

I agree this post of Lots was odd. Why state your intent to vote someone simply because they have the potential to get a lot of votes? Vote for who you find suspicious, don't vote someone just because all the cool kids are doing it.

I thought it was obvious, but I've been using the word LOT in all of my posts - or at least trying to. A fair warning I gave in the sign ups I have no intent of voting anyone on the basis that others would.

Paul's recent responses have me seeing him in a different light. It seems more genuine now. And Paul, I do agree with you that getting people to talk and stirring stuff up is a good idea. It wasn't your actions that pinged me, it was the words behind them.

@job - sorry, what I wrote was misleading. I meant Paul for what seemed to me to be almost 'claiming' an identity for himself, and ruth for trying to uncover others.

So, I went and read Jephthah, as Belshazzar made an interesting assertion that he had flip flopped a bit on Paul. I also recommend it. I think it's worth doing. There isn't a lot of posts, only ten. But...

Posts 2, 3, 4 and 5... in consecutive order, agrees with Paul about Samuel (hard to tell if serious), defends Paul for voting Samuel, defends Paul from my initial suspicion, defends Paul from further suspicion (defends might be too strong, but it certainly could be read that way).

Jephthah wrote:

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

Agreed. Let's lynch him

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?

Jephthah wrote:

Lot wrote:I could see Paul getting a lot of votes... I'd consider voting that way. So far not much has stood out for me. Paul has, very much, with posts and practices which seem designed to set himself apart. So has Ruth - what with the apparent fishing for finding out where people are from and then waving it off as a joke.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone felt that their vote in the poll yesterday turned out to be worthwhile. I, for one, do not - at least I have no reason to believe it was for now.

No, but I got a good laugh out of it.

So pepole trying to set themselves apart = scum?

Jephthah wrote:

Lot wrote:I'm just getting a vibe from Paul I don't like... It's not only because he sets himself apart, it's the way he is doing it... like, my practices are so different from yours, how could you possibly lynch me until you've gotten to know me... I don't easily buy that he has an actual suspicion of Samuel... the vote feels like a tactic.

I agree with Balaam. A very early vote is a wasted vote, because 48 hours is a lot of time for something real to happen.

While the vote feels like a tactic to me too, it can easily be a valid tactic. Samuels' post seemed scummy to me too, especially the ridiculous question in the end, but the first part felt like him trying to convey: "I'm cool, I have nothing to hide". One way to try to push Samuel is by voting him and doing it fast. Nothing like pushing someone to the corner to get him talking. Worst case, Samuel comes in, eases his mind and he wasted a vote which has a high probability of being wasted anyway.

We'll see.

And then, look at this with posts 6, 7 and 8 - seems like a complete turn around as he questions Paul... goes from saying he probably would have wasted the vote anyway to calling it a wasted vote...

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?

Jephthah wrote:

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?

Jephthah wrote:

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?

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.[/quote]

It is a big turn around with no explanation provided for it.

Job wrote:I won't cry over a dead horseman either, but to be fair, they will only unleash plagues upon heathens because the sovereign are raptured before their coming.

I don't have a good impression of Lot, I think he is trying to intimidate Paul and squash discussion. As well as find out people's identities, let people be.

I still don't like belshazar in particular for that reason and to a lesser extent Ruth.

Far from it - I think exactly the opposite about finding out people's identities. I don't like that Paul is going to such pains to seem like he isn't from this site. And Paul and Ruth were my two original suspicions precisely because they seemed to be the two going to such pains to find out people's identities.

Plus, what part of what I've said has squashed discussion? I think I've hopefully added to it? I don't think I have really shut down anyone's angle on anything - just provided my own opinions. If anything, I've been a little surprised by how many people have tried to squash discussion of Paul - where they could be saying 'I don't suspect Paul' they instead try and make it out to be unkind and suggest we leave him be... I find that much more discussion squashing.

The point on Jephthah was interesting, I think I need to go back and read his posts again.

And I agree that the horsemen are a threat. I don't know that I share Job's faith that the faithful would be spared their wrath.

It's my gut feel about you. Am I reading in to your posts? A lot! There ain't any other way to catch a heathen on day 1.

It seems to me that you are one to remove the speck from others eyes while having a log in your own. You did twist words.

And I have to admit, it doesn't help to see you say incorrect things as facts like 'lot is scum' on day one. Let's stick to what you and I both know is the truth here - you THINK I'm scum, not 'lot is scum'.

If you are genuinely new here, welcome and I hope you are ok with a baptism of fire (is that a biblical reference?) I'm just not buying it right now - I have a couple of people in mind for who you might be and I think you are trying to play a game with the thread.

Not a specific response... and not necessarily from you, either.

But a specific kind of response? Yes. A twisty one, a weasely one. It happened to be you, who I was already looking at.

So I say you are twisting words, and your response? No u. You get a little suspicion, and you want to lynch your accuser.

And no, I'm not going to commit to voting for you two days before the lynch, because unlike you I'm actually trying to vote for the person I think is most likely to be heathen today, instead of just voting whoever I feel like and passing it off as a grand plan. I think you did it because you thought it would make you seem more foreign to the site and lessen your chance of getting votes. I don't think you did it as a grand plan. I also don't think you are foreign to this site at all.

I particularly like the irony of this post:

Paul wrote:

Lot wrote:I'm just getting a vibe from Paul I don't like... It's not only because he sets himself apart, it's the way he is doing it... like, my practices are so different from yours, how could you possibly lynch me until you've gotten to know me... I don't easily buy that he has an actual suspicion of Samuel... the vote feels like a tactic.

I agree with Balaam. A very early vote is a wasted vote, because 48 hours is a lot of time for something real to happen.

then there's this post

basically saying I am getting a vibe from Paul I don't like and putting a bunch of words in my mouth that I did not say

you don't use word scum? fine

you don't rvs on d1? fine

I never said it wasn't fine

this is how I play and how I catch scum

You certainly just put a whole lot of words in my mouth - for the second time (your twisty reason for why people apparently suspected you being the first). Don't try to pass off voting 48 hours early as 'rvs'. You can 'rvs' 48 hours later if you still don't have a genuine suspicion. I have never said what word I use, never whether I would vote randomly on day one, and neither of those things have any impact on why I find you suspicious. The reason I find you suspicious is because it looks to me like you are trying to hide in a defence you know is coming... this one:

Absalom wrote:Isn't the whole point of being scum trying not to be noticed?

Paul wrote:so b/c you agree or disagree with me or my vote that makes me town or scum? interesting

This is the kind of response I was looking for.

Don't twist the reason there is suspicion on you - noone said you were suspicious because they disagreed with you. A lot of other reasons were given, none of them were that.

I'm just getting a vibe from Paul I don't like... It's not only because he sets himself apart, it's the way he is doing it... like, my practices are so different from yours, how could you possibly lynch me until you've gotten to know me... I don't easily buy that he has an actual suspicion of Samuel... the vote feels like a tactic.

I agree with Balaam. A very early vote is a wasted vote, because 48 hours is a lot of time for something real to happen.

I could see Paul getting a lot of votes... I'd consider voting that way. So far not much has stood out for me. Paul has, very much, with posts and practices which seem designed to set himself apart. So has Ruth - what with the apparent fishing for finding out where people are from and then waving it off as a joke.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone felt that their vote in the poll yesterday turned out to be worthwhile. I, for one, do not - at least I have no reason to believe it was for now.

Cain wrote:

Ruth wrote:So what do you call them?

I do not like how you are trying to figure out who everyone is. Defeats the whole purpose of a sock game. Pray stop it or you will earn my vote day 1.

I completely agree, in a game where it has been commanded that identities are not to be shared, even in btsc. At least, I don't mind people trying to figure out who others are... I dare say there will be a lot of that going on. But it bothers me that someone would try to get others to outwardly incriminate themselves in the thread.

Ruth wrote:This is a test:

a) Mafia
b) Baddies
c) Scum
d) Wolves

I choose e) none of the above.

Your four are a lot of different words for something I don't like.

Epignosis wrote:

Lot wrote:

Deborah wrote:Im suspicious of Lot, for missing the obvious LAW-T joke when he voted for The Law.

I may make a lot of puns, but I'm trying to stick to one per post. Put the tent peg away.

Deborah is not the one with the tent peg. She is the little old woman depicted in the piece. The tent peg-wielder is none other than Jael, who drove it into the Canaanite warlord Sisera's head while he was asleep. Barak, who defeated the opposing army but lost out on the honor for slaying the captain, is the man in the background.

Man, my strategy here was to pose as someone who knew the bible, and you dun killed it! Thanks a LOT!

Now I'll have to pose as something else. Erm... what is BTSC? I am new to mafia and also from another site where they have different jargon. Yes.

No meta is interesting, but the down side is I can't remember who said anything. Everyone blends into one.

Deborah wrote:Im suspicious of Lot, for missing the obvious LAW-T joke when he voted for The Law.

I may make a lot of puns, but I'm trying to stick to one per post. Put the tent peg away.

Mordecai wrote:The Apocalypse(Genesis I think?) because there are some wicked stories in there. Stuff about prostitutes being skinned alive and stuff like that.

I already like this person who confuses the beginning with the end.

It made me laugh a lot...

Checking in.

I voted for the law, because a LOT of other people had.