The Syndicate

He trains my hands for war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.

Balaam wrote:Not sure how to cast my vote but I need to do it soon. If you stone me today don't be surprised when a LOT of people are mad at Absalom and Nicodemus tomorrow.

To my quieter and lurking peers, I implore you- don't do what we've done every day and run with the latest theory to come up that same day. I ask all of ye, how successful has that been for us thus far? Nay, get thine asses in here discuss things before you vote. Feel-think-do. That is the righteous path.

PS- Nic, I love your scripture quotes. Is it because you voted for Proverbs in the Preface stage?

Lot wrote:OK. Well hopefully at minimum you can understand from reading that back why I read it to mean what I did and see that there was no intentional misrepresentation. For me, scrambling just means posting a lot in your own defence when you feel you could be lynched.

Lot wrote:And, having read back the whole thing...

Absalom, you actually didn't really seem to push Balaam, it's true. After voting for him, you hardly mentioned him (just a couple of not overly pushy posts, agreeing with Nicodemus, etc).

Nicodemus:

Nicodemus wrote:A civvie so concerned with a near-Heathen win would fight tooth and nail if they were being suspected.

For someone saying I misrepresented your point by calling it scrambling, I don't know how I'm supposed to have taken 'fight tooth and nail'.

Lot wrote:Nicodemus, your entire response to me coming out swinging today does make me feel reasonably good about you. Your responses all feel genuine to me, and like you are defending views you genuinely held.

How does self-preservation mesh with 'being content with your lynch'? I mean, I guess I just don't understand what it is you thought you should see from Balaam, if not scrambling. What does your idea of skin in the game look like? And my point on Job is this - he WAS a civilian, and he did literally nothing. No skin in the game, no scrambling, no self-preservation, nothing. So if one civilian can, how can you reasonably disagree with me that you can't judge affiliation by that behaviour?

And what else is standing up for yourself if not voting for Job? And given your own assessment of what a civvie would do, how does that mesh with Job's own vote for Rachel?

Lot wrote:"He would have stood up for himself" is exactly the same as scrambling.

And what else is standing up for yourself if not voting for Job? And given your own assessment of what a civvie would do, how does that mesh with Job's own vote for Rachel?

I haven't fundamentally misunderstood your point. Balaam has had a ton of skin in the game, and he put a ton of skin into the game responding to Absalom as well. You picked out a single post as not standing up for himself, after he had done all the rest.

The simple truth is this: Your statement 'if he was a civ, he would have,,,,' is simply untrue, from the point of all the evidence of all history of playing mafia.

PS, only your first fact is a fact. The second is your opinion.

Lot wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:

Lot wrote:Argue it, then.

You've called my suspicion of Balaam "ridiculous" and "bollocks". You've also fundamentally misconstrued my whole point.

1) It wasn't a suspicion of me, so it's not a defence. Completely different thing.
2) The idea that civilians scramble is bollocks and ridiculous - that doesn't mean you are lying about it (no, he definitely didn't scramble, you were truthful) or the fact you take that view is laughable (no, sometimes people don't think logic through). It just means the statement was utterly factually incorrect.
3) How exactly did I fundamentally misconstrue your point?

@Rachel - perhaps it looks like they change quick because I've been virtually unable to talk for so much of the last week.

FWIW, if you read me back, you'll notice my eye has been on both Jephthah and Absalom for a good while.

Lot wrote:Argue it, then.

Lot wrote:But nice to see you have started falling in to the baddie tropes...

Calling my suspicion laughable...
Saying I'm making up lies...
Misrepresenting what I say...

Yeah, I recognise these things. The defence of the baddie.

Lot wrote:Nicodemus - what you said is bollocks, and absolutely does not match the empirical evidence from past games.

Baddies will fight to the end even when they have a team and could relax.
Civilians will take votes against them calmly and hope people see the truth of their words.

And the opposite is true. How hard you fight is not, nor has ever been, a good indicator of who is bad.

In fact, none of your case on Balaam was sound to me in the slightest. And your vote was opportunistic.

I admit, though, that of the three I named, you are the one I believe most likely to be good.

Jephthah's snaky indecision was, for me, the greatest sin. His words were the words of a man who knew neither were heathen.
Absalom's sin is a close second, because he keeps trying to lead lynches, and for some reason people keep following him.

Lot wrote:I don't understand who Jude is... unless it's Judas Iscariot. I take it from Rachel's reactions he is civilian

As for the attacks on Balaam, a man who is certainly civilian, may God come down on those who pushed this lynch with a fury like what has not been seen since the days of Sodom.

If ever I had doubt Absalom was bad, him trying to lead Balaam's lynch has erased all doubt in my mind.

As for Jephthah - the man who kept flipping to make sure he was in the minority - saying you thought Balaam was civ, but then flipping because of the vote of Samuel - woe to you. That seems like the conduct of a man who knew both men were civs, and wanted to set up the 'save' idea for the day after to me.

Finally Nicodemus - a man who says Balaam would have scrambled. How does no-one question the ridiculousness of that statement. Baddies scramble. Civvies scrabmle. Baddies stay calm. Civvies stay calm. And scrambling takes time, the likes of which RL has to allow for.

May God judge one or all three of you, for most certainly amongst you is at least one that is bad, and it would not surprised me to see there is more. I hope the community helps me in judging you, for you are all foul in the eyes of God.

Seriously though - I mean, I would have voted Job to save Balaam's ass, but Absalom is the man I wanted to vote, if I could have. Samuel's vote is one of the few that makes sense to me, because he spoke the words that I would have.

In other news - being allowed to get in exactly one post between two consecutive days is not my idea of fun.

And Stephen 2.0, huh? Welcome back, Paul!

Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

Jephthah wrote:

Job wrote:I can't believe I'm being lynched before Uzziah but I hope you'll finally lynch that bastard and his scum buddy Rachel the next two days.

I voted for Rachel.

You know you're good, and should have no idea what Balaam is, yet you're voting Rachel who has very little chance of getting lynched? What the hell?

I'm done. I have no idea what people here are doing. Whatever. If Job doesn't care that he's lynched, then I don't either.


linki: Definitely bad form. I said he was rude. Based on his vote, maybe he's even bad, and I' have no idea what I'm talking about

Rachel wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:Rachel, here let me elaborate:

Pointless, elaborate, massive speculatory distraction, check. - The big posts of Balaam that really don't say much (the Horsemen speculation, for example) that make it look as though he's actively contributing, helping, etc. Wall-of-text posts are easy to hide behind.

Hollow, drop-of-a-dime suspicion on Laz, checkarino. - I don't believe for a second he "forgot" about his Lazarus suspicion. If it were genuine, he wouldn't "forget" it. If he were concerned about finding mafia, he would not "forget" to address a suspect, especially if he genuinely felt that the game was in as much jeopardy as he was saying.

Cavalier attitude in the face of suspicion, waiter, check please. - His response to Absalam has read as "Oh yeah I guess you suspect me that's fine dude." Which I don't associate with a civvie who is interested in preventing a town loss.

I can get with point 1. I've said it before too. I think #2 is reaching given someone asked him for his opinion on the matter. #3? Eh. Not so sure. I mean, if he freaked out, we'd be just as suspicious, right?

Mordecai wrote:I just spent the better part of an hour tearing apart the voting results, and I have no noteworthy patterns to use in determining who could be a heathen. Normally there is something noticeable, like 2 or more people ALWAYS voting together, but I have nothing. The only things that stand out are players making consecutive votes on the same player day after day such as Lazarus voting for Absalom 3 straight days, the results of Job vs Uzziah voting for one another without fail, and that Belshazzar still hasnt broken the trend I initially thought of him being on the popular vote choice every single poll since preface.

I'm going to really start digging into the people who havent been posting practically at all. Especially if today's lynch turns up a civ. We've been looking at the people who are talking, and 3 days of that has gotten us nothing but mislynches.

For now though, due to lack of a better alternative, I am going to stick with my opinion from yesterday and vote for Lazarus once more. He still seems bad to me, though I find myself second guessing that decision somewhat.

Work schedule is still kinda nuts. Havent been able to monitor the game 24/7 like I usually try to

Can you explain to me how lynching CAIN and SAMSON were lynching players that were talking?
Or lynching Mary Mageline, for that matter?
You say you don't think we should continue looking at people who are talking, but here's the thing: we haven't lynched ANYONE who's talking.

Balaam wrote:

Job wrote:Linki w/ Balaam - dude, you're reading too far into it. Cupid didn't shoot an anti-arrow at me. Uzziah is scummy and I want to lynch him. Ever heard of occams razor? Cute theory but not what is happening.

That's why I said it's a lot of if's but intriguing nonetheless.

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

Yeah, that's a much more sensible interpretation of it. I was letting my imagination run a little too wild I think.

Jephthah wrote:I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on Lazarus like you promised Balaam.

Oh crap! I forgot about that since yesterday. Gimme an hour or so- need to get some work done at work today. :P

Absalom wrote:So no one else is with me on Balaam, huh? Well I don't care. He's my top suspect and I'm voting him, despite his heroic efforts to talk me out of it.

Okay. To each his own.

Absalom wrote:

Jephthah wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Judah wrote:I apologize my friends for not being available the past few days. I'm going to read some posts by those that have votes and come back with some thoughts, if I have any. If someone wants to give me a quick recap, that would suffice too. lol

Recap:
Job and Uzziah hate each other. Rachel thinks Job is bad for having tunnel vision, although some people have suggested that the feud may be an act of War rather than organic. I think Balaam is bad because of his faux-helpful lists and pessimism about the civvies' chances, and Nicodemus agrees for reasons unclear.

Lazarus thinks I'm bad because reasons.

Everyone is busy and not posting.

Wow, you could have saved me so much time...

What do you think of Nicodemus?

Early on I was reading him as very civvie. Now I am not sure. As much as I appreciate his support for my Balaam vote, the suddenness of it and lack of explanation is sort of weird.

Jonathan wrote:Nicodermus, what happened to your suspicion of Uzziah?

Jonathan wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:
Scummy post.

I don't understand what you see scummy about it.

Balaam wrote:

Job wrote:Linki w/ Balaam - dude, you're reading too far into it. Cupid didn't shoot an anti-arrow at me. Uzziah is scummy and I want to lynch him. Ever heard of occams razor? Cute theory but not what is happening.

That's why I said it's a lot of if's but intriguing nonetheless.

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

Yeah, that's a much more sensible interpretation of it. I was letting my imagination run a little too wild I think.

Jephthah wrote:I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on Lazarus like you promised Balaam.

Oh crap! I forgot about that since yesterday. Gimme an hour or so- need to get some work done at work today. :P

Absalom wrote:So no one else is with me on Balaam, huh? Well I don't care. He's my top suspect and I'm voting him, despite his heroic efforts to talk me out of it.

Okay. To each his own.

The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat.

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

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

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

Belshazzar wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:

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

I would prefer not to lynch a civ.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. :P

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

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

Balaam wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:

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

I would prefer not to lynch a civ.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. :P

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

Whose hatred is covered by deceit, his wickedness shall be shewed before the whole congregation.

Balaam wrote:Now then, on to other matters and curiosities. Here are some points to ponder as we close in on the next stoning:

A whopping 13 players have not posted during Day 2. That's 13 out of 32 living players, or 40.625%. Here's who has been playing hooky, how they've voted, and who they've commented +/- on:

BARNABAS- Apocalypse; Missed D1 vote (sus of Jacob, Martha, Samuel; pro Paul)

BATHSHEBA- Law; Missed D1 vote

BELSHAZZAR- Law; Samson (sus of Samson, Jephthah, Uzziah)

CAIN- Law; Absalom

GIDEON- Law; Lot (mysteriously vouched for me)

HAGAR- Law; Gideon

JUDAH- Epistles; Missed D1 vote

PAUL- Apocalypse; Samuel (sus of Samuel, Lot, Samson, Nicodemus, Balaam, Martha; flipflopped on Samuel & Lot later in D1)

RAHAB- Gospels; Uzziah

REBECCA- Apocalypse; Jephthah (sus of Jephthah)

RUTH- Law; Cain (sus of Paul)

SAMUEL- Poetry; Samson (sus of Ruth)

STEPHEN- History; Barnabas


Here is another list- players who made fewer than 5 posts (totally arbitrary number, I know) on Day 1:
Bathsheba
Esther
Hagar
Isaac
Judah (has actually not posted since Preface stage)
Lazarus
Mary Mag
Pilate
Stephen

And for good measure, those who missed the D1 vote:
Barnabas
Bathsheba
Esther
Judas
Lazarus

Anyone see anything to infer from this data?

Uzziah wrote:If Job was good, he would have backed down on pursuing me.

But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.

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.

Rachel wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Rachel wrote:I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

I'm liking the way you think.

Nicodemus wrote:

Balaam wrote:And only three people have pondered Paul's silence or mentioned wanting to hear his thoughts: Jephthah, Job, & Jonathan.

Is it the number 3 that bothers you or their proximity to each other in the thread?

Nicodemus wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Rachel wrote:I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

Is there not a 4th possibility?

4) If Paul wasn't kidnapped, and is pretending, some of the "Where's Paul" posts could be Heathens drawing attention (and cred) to that?

Ooh. I like how you think. But how would the Heathens draw credibility by exposing Paul for faking, if he is in fact faking? Because it makes it look like he's dishonest or trying to hide something?

Not what I meant. I meant that by drawing attention to the fact that Paul was silenced, it makes it less likely that Paul is a Heathen. Or at least, less likely that he will be considered one. Since why would the Heathens silence one of their own,

OR they want to point out someone who might be silenced, isn't (and they know it) and they look not bad because of it.

Really, most scenarios paint them baldy. I will be keeping my eye on Job, specifically.

Balaam wrote:And only three people have pondered Paul's silence or mentioned wanting to hear his thoughts: Jephthah, Job, & Jonathan.

Is it the number 3 that bothers you or their proximity to each other in the thread?

Nicodemus wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Rachel wrote:I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

Is there not a 4th possibility?

4) If Paul wasn't kidnapped, and is pretending, some of the "Where's Paul" posts could be Heathens drawing attention (and cred) to that?

Ooh. I like how you think. But how would the Heathens draw credibility by exposing Paul for faking, if he is in fact faking? Because it makes it look like he's dishonest or trying to hide something?

Balaam wrote:

Rachel wrote:I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.