The Syndicate

Matt F wrote: Linki - I have been convinced Bullz is no longer Juliets teammate, however, I don't think it would be stupid. You get cleared of being on a certain team if you go with that strategy. If you get cleared of a certain team, a lot less likely you will be lynched. How would that be stupid?

You obviously don't get cleared, because Ol' Tunnely Matt will decide to suspect you because he wants to think you're always bad. It's stupid because you (1) don't kill anyone, thereby sacrificing the ability to rid yourself of someone who may be a threat, and (2) basically say "I don't want to survive the next attempt on my life. I have this survival that could save me at a crucial point but I'm just going to throw it out because I'm a rebel".

Matt F wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Matt F wrote:Mac - Do you believe Bullzeye to be civvie, is that why you are sighing at a possible tunnel of him? Or is it because it's me?

You're a bona fide wind tunnel.

The urban dictionary describes wind tunnel as...

Wait, this is a family friendly site. I'll let you all look it up if you want to.

Not very nice MM!

Linki - Golden, c'mon peeps are accusing Wilgy of killing himself on a day they knew he wouldn't die. Are you saying it's outside the realm of possibility that Bullzeye has a protect and the team decided to "target" him when he wouldn't die?

Now that you bring it up, though...

Prolly not that likely. Dang. I thought I had Bullz there.

I wouldn't let my team waste a kill like that. I hate it when kills fail. Nor would I want to lose a protection of myself in such a way, and I'd hope my hypothetical teammates would respect me enough to not go against my wishes in such an event. I also think that particular Wilgy suggestion is a bit of a stretch, FWIW.

Golden wrote:Bullz had an attempted NK from juliets team. Why would they do that if they were a team?

Why indeed. I still need revenge for that one.

Matt F wrote:Hmmm

On the day the lynch poll was separated into groups, here is Bullzeye's opinion of Luke and juliets...

Bullzeye wrote:

Luke11646

Slightly more talkative than his fellow new players (not too surprising given one is dead), I will extend the same invitation to Luke that I did to Bugla earlier in this post: If you're struggling, ask people questions. He has been doing that a little and his posts feel reasonable. I'd say Luke looks more civ than Bug does. He comes off as someone who is genuinely alone in the game and trying to find his feet IMO.

Bullzeye wrote:

Juliets

I like what I'm seeing from JC. She comes across very sincere and is making genuine attempts to find suspects. Her Banana vote is also one of the more reasonable. Her Sig vote on day 2 is also well put together and thought out. I think she's civ.

At one point he says he doesn't understand the JC case properly, and when he does vote for her he says "It seems like the thing to do!"

I understand Floyd will most likely be getting lynched, but I think Bullzeye needs to be watched. Let's remember he was also a Prog voter.

Linki - Lol Bullz. Okay fair enough. Bullz, at one point juliets responds to you and says she agrees with almost everything you've said. Do you think that is her buddying up to you or is it because you're teamies?

All prog voters aren't inherently evil and if I were a baddie with info there's absolutely no chance in hell I'd ever even let the notion enter my mind of making it obvious. What would I gain from doing that? If I had info and wasn't a baddie, and didn't care if anyone knew I had info, then perhaps I'd make it obvious. But I didn't have info regardless so this is irrelevant. It was a day zero poll and I had no reason to take it seriously so I didn't do that. Life is boring if you take it seriously.

I thought JC seemed decent, and I thought Luke would've been better coached than he apparently was. I wasn't even around for his lynch. Perhaps I'd have considered voting for him if I had been here at the time. JC was probably buddying up to me, or perhaps she did just agree with the things I was saying. Sometimes I do say things that are good. The Sig case was a really good case and really easy for low fliers and blendy baddies to jump onto. I have said as much before now.

Matt F wrote: Bullzeye also seems to be employing the same strategy as he did as a baddie in Talking Heads, but being loads busy and not being able to catch up. BIG HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Was it actually a strategy that I employed in order to try to win or was I genuinely busy and finding it impossible to keep up with 10000000000000 posts per minute? One of those two is the correct answer, the other is a ridiculous suggestion. I'm super busy here too and don't care if that's a problem for anyone. I'm still trying. This game isn't as stupidly active as Talking Heads so it's not so bad.

South-West England contains some of my favourite places, so torn between South and West I picked South!

Sorry for not being around, like, at all lately... That probably isn't going to change for a while unfortunately *Voting Juliets* because at this point it just seems like the thing to do! She's avoided the lynch twice when she seemingly shouldn't have so hopefully it's third time lucky here.

Voted for the only one I've never been to. B4 is probably my least favourite square in the known universe and I can't imagine why anyone would like it, but the other two are both pretty cool

What's a Fall? :P I will vote for Winter since my actual favourite season, autumn is not listed.

I think there are some decent arguments flying around. The timmer case is something I'd rather keep an eye on and allow to develop, since it's not really much to go on at present. Floyd's claim to not know what an NK is seems false to me and that gives me cause for concern. Haven't decided how I feel about JC yet and I'm too tired to do a proper read on anyone tonight. I will be *Voting Mac* because his attitude has been giving me weird vibes for a while now and I think he's trying too hard to look like he's playing the "zany, unconventional civ" card.

Matt F wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Tranq wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Tranq, why do you think you were brought back so quickly?

The Island wasn't done with me yet.

Floyd, why did you NK me?

???

What does this mean Floyd? That you don't know why you killed Tranq?

No, I just have no clue what NK means.

Mac, Bullz, Wilgy - You were bad with Floyd in Talking Heads. Did nobody in your btsc explain to Floyd what NK means?

I feel like it must have come up at some point. I for one regularly use "NK" instead of kill so I'm sure it must have been brought up around Floyd at least a couple of times.

Golden wrote:

timmer wrote:But you can realize that your assumptions about last night are NOt entirely accurate.

I do realise my conclusions are based on 'how likely do I think it is that timmer is bad' not that 'timmer IS bad'.

My assumptions could be accurate. Or they could be not accurate.

As I said, we know there is a role that leaves behind items that may not be what they seem, so your explanation is plausible. It might be true, it might be a lie. It's a tough call.

linki - mac has his rabbis confused?

This sums up how I feel about your Timmer argument right now. It's a decent bit of circumstantial evidence, but you could be mistaken altogether. He could be telling the truth about his item, or he could be making the easiest excuse in the book. It's all very complex and I think there would need to be more than just this backing up a proper case against him.

MacDougall wrote:I need to get to the bottom of why LoRab thinks I am bad.

Out with it you lot. Who else thinks I am bad. Sheepishly raise your hands if you think I am a bad guy!?

*Sheepishly raises hand*

I think you could be. You just remind me of your attitude from last game, it's mostly a vibe thing but something I'd considered looking into when I get 5 minutes.

Long Con wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Long Con wrote:The Story So Far...

Day 0 - Reborn
A new reality is created. A wager is made.

Is George R. R. Martin writing this story?

Hmm, yeah, I've been meaning to get around to that for a while.

LC = GRRM confirmed.

I am going to *Vote Canuck* based on the things I said about her in earlier posts. I think her indy claim is suspicious at best.

MacDougall wrote:I am heaps pro civ.

You're a what?

Matt F wrote:What do you think of Canuckle, Bullz?

Well I already had a fairly solid suspicion of her based on her blendiness and dodgy voting. A lot of her posts since coming under serious fire have only made me feel worse about her. I particularly find the sudden claim of being indy a little convenient. Especially worded in such a way that I think would be difficult to lie detect and verify in any way. I don't believe it and think it comes off as a weak attempt at getting people to simply drop all suspicion because hey, she outright admitted to her alignment right? No way a baddie would ever lie about that. I will probably vote Canuck today.

Matt F wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Matt F wrote:Lol

Dang Bullz came outta nowhere to defend. What's up Bullz, besides sig, who you lookin' at

Linki - MM, gotcha. What are your feelings on Turnip Head?

Am I still looking at Sig?

Avoiding my question? Between Juliets and Floyd, G2H, who would you lynch? I'd lynch Floyd, personally.

Not avoiding your question, checking if you're actually paying attention to things I've said. Not to mention, you avoided my question first. Do I have to lynch one of them? I'll say Floyd because I don't remember seeing anything in particular from him and I'm not sure if I understand the JC case properly. I probably won't be voting for either of them anyway.

Matt F wrote:Lol

Dang Bullz came outta nowhere to defend. What's up Bullz, besides sig, who you lookin' at

Linki - MM, gotcha. What are your feelings on Turnip Head?

Am I still looking at Sig?

Playing Fallout 4 all day has been my main priority today. Mafia has had to take a back seat!

Matt F wrote:DF - No I wasn't comfortable lynching two new players within the first four days, but we caught a baddie so it's all good.

I continue to look at Bullz and Metalmarsh for their Progressive votes, and other things (Bullz' response to my questioning of him surviving is iffy, and map stuff concerning MM). Turnip looks like he placed a vote on MM, but now seems to be looking at other candidates. Turnip do you think your vote will remain on MM, I might put a vote there.

What's iffy about my response? You quoted the night post and asked what happened, I still don't know what exactly you expected me to say. The baddies tried to kill me and they failed. There's nothing more to it.

LoRab wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Wilgy I came to your bonfire party you have to come to mine now. We sacrificing some juliets to the god of maphia.

You think juliets is worse than LoRab? I'm not sure how serious you were with your LoRab suspicion

If he was serious about me, it would be nice if he actually said why he was suspicious.

I think he was just another random name he decided out of nowhere to suspect in the final hours of the lynch (as he seems wont to do).

I am always serious. You are a baddie

I was invited to a bonfire though, why should I turn down this bonding moment between friends? You aren't on the pyre anymore would you like to join us?

I'm not a baddie.

And I'd consider joining a bonfire--but how do I know you aren't going to throw me onto it?

linkitis: The way you phrase that is a bit suspect, Bullz. Being suspicious of another player isn't doing YOU any favors? So, you're backing away because it's bad for you? Also, maybe the baddies are actually killing his accusors, because it will seem like a setup (you know, wifom).

Shouldn't I think of myself? What I mean is voting him every day and not really focusing on much else doesn't help me to find other baddies or have opinions on other topics. I don't think it's beneficial to my ability to play when all I'm doing is going after the same person and repeating the same things over and over again with no real effect on anything.

I have decided to abandon the Sig thing for now. I feel like it's not doing me any favours in this game to just be tunneling after one person and on reflection, I think the baddies are definitely trying to get something going against him by killing Zebra and failing at getting me.

Just got home. Toured the Harry Potter studios in Watford yesterday, got to see all the actual stuff from the films and drank a glass of Butterbeer... Not what I'd been expecting! Fun weekend all in all Gonna catch up later today or perhaps tomorrow as I'm feeling quite exhausted from travelling all day today. I will vote against having an all-low poster lynch because I don't see the value of only being able to lynch a quiet player.

I have to leave shortly, I'll be on trains and in cars most of today but will possibly check in later if time permits. Don't expect to see me much, if at all, until Sunday evening. Going to *Vote Sig* at least for the time being as he continues to be my top suspect. If I do get the chance to check in over the weekend, and feel like someone else deserves my vote at the time, then I may change it.

DrWilgy wrote:It's unfortunate that Baddie McBadinstien is a doctor. Making us loom bad!!

Fortunately you still have The Doctor to even out the score and make you all look good! Plus I thought you were most definitely not a doctor anyway?

Long Con wrote:
The creature snorted, glaring at Bullzeye with pulsing red and yellow eyes. It took one more big bite of Bullzeye before launching itself once again into the night sky.

Now that's just rude. I mean biting people, really? Who does that. Mean baddies! Unfortunately for you I survived to keep hunting you all down.

Matt F wrote:What happened there Bullz?

What are you asking here Matt? I don't know what happened. I was just minding my own business when some big ugly douche dropped out of the sky and tried to eat me!

Thinking about it, none of these options cancel each other out... I wonder if we might see all of the above happen regardless of what we vote for! Maybe that's what the extra cruel option refers to?

Epignosis wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:@HOSTS: If there is a double lynch tomorrow, will we get to vote for two people?

I would imagine that, given that 2 votes is a choice, we would only have one vote apiece but that the leader and the runner up both get lynched. That's not a bad deal. The way I see it, such unfamiliar logistics would make distancing and saving a teammate a little more uncomfortable.

I suspect you're right. Disappointing as if we're having a double lynch I'd also like a double vote. Still, the opportunity to kill two baddies with one stone isn't something I want to pass up. Gonna vote double lynch.

@HOSTS: If there is a double lynch tomorrow, will we get to vote for two people?

Epignosis wrote:So...

the option is on the table to effectively have two Day phases instead of one (as lynches are the civilians' greatest weapon)...

...and people seriously find unchangeable votes the most preferable option?

I like this point. The only thing better than lynching a baddie is lynching TWO baddies

Still considering my vote though, but a double lynch could be very helpful.

I think a lot of the poll options look quite interesting. I like the one where you can't be lynched if the first letter of your name matches the square you're on, but something tells me more than half the players in the game won't like that at all! A double lynch could also be an interesting way to shake things up. I also like the idea of unchangeable votes but I don't think I'm keen on having people's vote power be determined by their square number - that could be really complicated to figure out and easy for baddies to manipulate.

Golden wrote:@Bullz - because I was focussed on sig's posts when considering whether he was bad. The whole case fell down from the start. To me, the details after that point become irrelevant. I didn't need to get bogged down in the detail of understanding every aspect of the case. I understood enough - you thought sig was on the team responsible for timmer's death and I do not.

I don't think it could be any more plain that that. I haven't gone back to read the case again or think through it at all because I do not need to. It's like if someone makes a case on me - I know I am civ, so I know the case is wrong. I don't have to understand the case to know it is wrong. In this case, I am sure your case is wrong, even though I think it is sincere, and it may also be really good.

It also doesn't help that in reading HB I was much more focussed on the stuff I was interested in, which was his position in relation to people I actually think could be on the team that killed timmer.

I've been way more defensive of sig than I should have, and I do recognise that you could be right that he is bad and I could be wrong. But I do not think he was responsible for killing Timmer, so can you see how it is hard for me to see the need to understand the fine detail of your case?

@epi - if anyone can dig his own grave, sig can dig two. That is truth. Poor sig ties himself up in knots, but I think his sincerity is the most reliable aspect.

You claim you 'know' but you don't have any reason to know. Even if he roleclaimed in map btsc with you he could've lied and roles aren't explicitly attached to alignments in this game anyway. Can you see why I don't think you're qualified to comment on the Sig case at all when you blatantly haven't even read it?

HamburgerBoy wrote:
I'm not going to take it personally if someone glosses over my case; in absence of anything else, had golden claimed to defend sig solely that on its own wouldn't really bother me. It's possible for him to overlook another person's case. I'd disagree that I spent that much time defending sig anyways; I defended nutella a fair bit as well, and have had suspicions in/arguments with at least a handful of other players, including Mac and Epi prior to my defense of sig. The biggest thing that's pinging me of all about golden is that the first statement he made on me, was in this post:

I counted last night and I think you made something like 13 posts defending Sig? Granted you have nearly 100 so that's not a large portion of your overall contribution but you still put a lot more effort into those 13 posts than I think Golden has into his however many.

sig wrote: Know quickly looked at Bulls list everyone who voted for me is deemed as civvie and anyone that defended me is scummy? I would also like to hear DFaraday reasons for voting for me since I can't remember any. She/He voted for me very early yesterday and never came back and has done the same today.

This is blatantly false. Of your voters, I've said I feel good about LoRab and JC. I took issue with Splints' blendy-looking vote for you and questioned her on it. I found Nutella's vote for you very suspicious and called her out on it - I also said I'd vote for her today if she were in Group 2. Luke and DF I'm not sure about. DF did have a decent explanation for his day 2 vote on you though as I recall. As for anyone defending you being scummy - if HB had't put so much effort into it, and Golden was coming out with solid arguments rather than unreasonably expecting me to just trust him, perhaps I'd think differently of them. I actually think HB is beginning to look better than Golden does to me as well.

MacDougall wrote:Does anyone know if there is an easier way to use Chatzy on Android than just a browser app? Does it have it's own app or something? Is there a trick I am not privy to?

Replace the "www." with "m.". That's what I always do. The mobile Chatzy isn't ideal though, I don't like to post from it unless I have to.

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

This doesn't make any sense, Bullz. >_>

Does to me If Sig flips civ, Golden looks good for defending him. I can't think of a civ reason for him to claim that he was the only person defending Sig when most of HB's day 2 posts are doing just that.

I haven't read back on HB, but you keep making out over and over like I didn't address this.

I did not, and still do not, have any recollection of any posts in which HB defended sig. I took his word for it the moment he said it happened, and never claimed to be the only person defending sig thereafter.

I haven't intended to make out that you didn't address it tbf. I know that you said you don't recall HB defending him, but honestly that just makes me question how qualified you are to comment on the Sig case at all given that a big part of it for me is HB's constant defenses. I don't see how you can have read the pages of this thread where the Sig case was developed and failed to notice HB defending him and me (as well as Zebra, LoRab, and possibly others) pointing this out as suspicious. So if anything you saying you don't remember it at all makes even less sense to me.

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

This doesn't make any sense, Bullz. >_>

Does to me If Sig flips civ, Golden looks good for defending him. I can't think of a civ reason for him to claim that he was the only person defending Sig when most of HB's day 2 posts are doing just that.

If Golden is bad how does he know that Sig isn't on the other team?

I have already addressed this point. He either hopes, or genuinely believes, that Sig is a civ in this scenario. I've also admitted it's not the best theory in the world and it's only something I'd consider in light of a Sig lynch. For the time being though, it still makes me wary of Golden. I can't see how he can honestly have not noticed HB defending Sig and yet understand the Sig case well enough to criticise it so heavily.

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

This doesn't make any sense, Bullz. >_>

Does to me If Sig flips civ, Golden looks good for defending him. I can't think of a civ reason for him to claim that he was the only person defending Sig when most of HB's day 2 posts are doing just that.

Also chucking my group two vote onto *Bubbles* for previously explained reasons.

Turnip Head wrote: My point is why would sig even say that? It doesn't benefit him to say that. It makes no sense. That makes me think he was just speculating and worded his speculation poorly.

So why not just say that instead of immediately NO Uing everyone who dared to question his intentions?

Okay here are a handful of opinions on the people in group one. I have exempted those who missed the night poll and fell into both groups. If you can't live without reading my perspective on Elo, Rey, Bubbles, or TH, then feel free to check the group 2 post I made earlier (probably like 9 hours ago by the time this is done).


Civviest of the civs. Very attractive, very intelligent, very awesome. Not much more needs to be said.


Always a quiet one... His vote for Sig is actually supported by his own views, which goes a good way toward making him not look like he's trying to be blendy IMO. It would've been easy for him to just sneak onto that bandwagon. I also don't see anything wrong with his two votes today. Neutral read for now, not enough content to make me lean strongly one way or the other but I do think his attempts to not be blendy look good for him.


I disagree with his suspicion of Dom but I think he's genuine in his pursuit of it. I find him generally good, if a bit nitpicky about language (but when isn't Epi?). He does make a good point against an otherwise relatively decent seeming SVS here:

Epignosis wrote: "I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs." Full post here.

Look carefully. The first sentence talks about new people. After that, she only talks about low posters.

Not the same class of people.

S~V~S does not like lynching new people Day 1. Yet she lynched a new person Day 1.

That warrants discussion.

I think Epi comes off as his usual civ self here. Not seen anything crazy to make me think bad.


I've already made some of my views on Golden known. I have a slight suspicion of him based on his defenses of Sig - namely that he mischaracterises the case against him and claims to have been Sig's only defender despite HB's ton of posts arguing in Sig's favour. I'm actually surprised HB didn't make a bigger deal out of that. If I'd put in a lot of effort to do something and then someone else showed up trying to take all the credit, I'd have a few things to say to them. HB also actually put in real effort to defend Sig while Golden's defense adds up to "I say don't do it". I think HB's defenses are more real than Golden's.

Anyway... forgetting all of that, his points about Bubbles are good. As I've already said, I don't think not claiming to be civ is a thing to be suspicious of, but he is right to suspect her for pointing out her track record as evidence of her civ-ness. I don't have much else to say about him really. I lean towards distrust.


I like what I'm seeing from JC. She comes across very sincere and is making genuine attempts to find suspects. Her Banana vote is also one of the more reasonable. Her Sig vote on day 2 is also well put together and thought out. I think she's civ.


Y'know, I'm surprised to see LoRab only has 37 posts so far. I thought I'd seen loads from her. I think her day one suspicion of Mac comes from an honest position and she did raise some reasonable points against him that could be worth keeping in mind. Has supported me a fair bit on the Sig case and overall hasn't said anything I disagree with. I don't think she's bad, leaning towards a civ read.


He has too many posts, let's lynch him. On a serious note, as above, I do think LoRab was justified in suspecting Mac on day one. His whole thing against Matt is not a civ-friendly thing to do and he doesn't come off well in his discussion with LoRab IMO. Of course, his vote didn't end day one with Matt. He voted Dom in deference to Epi, which is not something I associate with civ-friendly behaviour as he puts all the accountability for his vote onto Epi. Bounced his vote around a ton on day 2, which makes it hard for me to figure out who he actually suspects and whether at any point he intended to leave his vote on a person only to change his mind or if he always meant for it to end up on JC. Overall, I don't think I want to trust him at this stage. Neutral/bad read.


Standard Reasonable (as opposed to Crazy) Matt here. I never really know what to think of him. I don't have reason to suspect him yet though.


Meh, I dunno. He doesn't seem bad but he doesn't seem all that great either. I'm finding it hard to form an opinion either way based on all he's said so far. Neutral read for now.


I had some suspicion of her on day one for similar reasons as Epi suspected Dom - I felt like she was trying to look involved by getting out non-controversial opinions on topics she wouldn't have to commit to. I was her number 1 suspect until it became possible to vote for me, for instance. She also has defended Canuck more than Canuck has defended herself. She said she was wary of the Sig bandwagon but then voted him anyway. Interestingly, hers was the 7th vote for Sig and she had four (out of an eventual five) herself at the time, yet implies her Sig vote was motivated by self-preservation. Not sure how much I buy that. Comments on Sig's survival that it's 'interesting' but doesn't tell us anything - we already knew that so this just looks like an attempt to be blendy IMO. If she were in Group 2 I'd probably vote her today.


Do you even have to ask? My number 1 suspect.


Was a civ, and since he's replaced back in he clearly hasn't had the chance to say anything. So I'm leaving him out of this since there's no point analysing what doesn't exist.


TH makes a good point that most of Tranq's posts only focus on Floyd, Bugla, and Luke. It's really easy to focus on low-posting newbies (and I still consider Floyd a new player - especially if he's civ in this game it'll be his first time alone). He's since shifted to look at Bubbles and mentioned Nutella as well so I'll see how that progresses but for now I don't feel great about Tranq.


A few suspects here. In order, I'd say I find the following people suspicious:

Sig
Nutella
Golden
Mac
Tranq (very distantly, probably more accurate to say I think he's the least not-suspicious of Group 1)

Obviously this omits those who are in Group 2, as well as my suspects from that Group. I suppose in order of most-least, my suspicion list would look something like this:

Sig
HB
Bubbles
Nutella
Golden
Canuck
Mac
Tranq
Splints

Tranq and Splints are fairly close to being off that list altogether, while Mac is also someone I could easily be talked away from.

Turnip Head wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote: I know him being on the team that killed timmer is the basis of your original suspicion. It's also the basis for me saying the case doesn't stack up. Because I am all but certain sig is not on the team that killed timmer. That is why I'm so strong on defending him.

Like I say, I could be otherwise wrong that sig is not on the other bad team or not indy, but I know that case (that he is on team circle of decay) is bad. That's why I'm defending him so hard.

But WHY are you so sure? You've given me nothing to work with. If you're right then I want to be convinced by you. I have a lot of respect for you as a player and value your opinion if you're civ but you are not helping me at all here. All you're saying is Sig isn't bad and you know it. HB put more effort into defending Sig than you have tbh and yet you've claimed to be Sig's only defender, which does not sit well with me. What exactly is so bad about the case? Don't say it's because of the word 'currently' either. I've already said that if you remove the word from the sentence it still implies knowledge of the baddies' motives. Besides, it's Sig's (over)reactions to the suspicion that are why I suspect him. That and HB's continuous defenses.

Per the underlined, what does sig gain from sharing knowledge of the baddies' motives to the thread if he's bad? I don't think it makes any sense for sig to make that post if he has inside info, because there's nothing to be gained from posting it in the first place.

Per the bolded, you are the poster boy for overreacting to suspicion.

I don't think he intentionally shared info. He said the baddies are killing low posters as if it was a sure thing that we all understood to be the case in this game. How could he know that? As to your other point I'm not sure what exactly you expect me to say to that.

sig wrote:If I'm on the team that didn't kill Timmer then we killed Zebra tonight? That makes no sense it might have removed someone who would vote for me but it increases mychances of getting lynched.
Know I think your on the team that killed Zebra, in an attempt to get me lynched.
Obviously team 2 is trying to get me lynched Zebra had only many gone after me and this further puts me in the hot seat.

I wouldn't have killed Zebra because she was agreeing with me a lot. I don't kill people I think will stick by my side. WIFOM, but ask anyone I've been bad with. I like to have friends in the thread when I'm a baddie. Killing Zebra works in your favour because now I'm the only person arguing you should be lynched, while three people (You, HB, Golden) are arguing against me. You'll also get a lot of people wavering with the typical "surely he wouldn't have done something so obvious" WIFOM.

Golden wrote:Perhaps we could lynch bubbles and it might give you some insight into, at least, whether or not my ideas as to who killed timmer can be trusted

I've given you everything I can, bullz. I've made it clear that the problem with my case is that I do not believe sig killed timmer, and I will never believe that. It's not the word 'currently', although I do think the entire case revolves around that because it's sigs responses to the conversation which make him look bad to you, but just like normal civ sig digging his own grave to me.

But primarily it's because for sig to have insight he would have to be on the team that killed timmer, and I do not believe he is.

I can't say I mind lynching Bubbles, but that won't tell me an awful lot about you given that she is a generally suspicious person this game. As for Sig, it's entirely possible to me he's on the team that didn't kill Timmer and just overreacted to people discussing suspicions of him and saying that there was a decent case to be made. I've already explained why I don't think it's unreasonable for his team to have killed Zebra.

Linki Sig - I don't know what you'll flip but strongly suspect it will be mafia. I'm not prematurely defending myself. I haven't twisted anyone's words (and have proven, with dictionary definitions, that it wasn't wrong of me to replace 'shocked' with 'surprised') and I'm quite within my rights to suspect people who defend people I suspect. That is a reasonable and logical thing for a person to do.

Golden wrote: I know him being on the team that killed timmer is the basis of your original suspicion. It's also the basis for me saying the case doesn't stack up. Because I am all but certain sig is not on the team that killed timmer. That is why I'm so strong on defending him.

Like I say, I could be otherwise wrong that sig is not on the other bad team or not indy, but I know that case (that he is on team circle of decay) is bad. That's why I'm defending him so hard.

But WHY are you so sure? You've given me nothing to work with. If you're right then I want to be convinced by you. I have a lot of respect for you as a player and value your opinion if you're civ but you are not helping me at all here. All you're saying is Sig isn't bad and you know it. HB put more effort into defending Sig than you have tbh and yet you've claimed to be Sig's only defender, which does not sit well with me. What exactly is so bad about the case? Don't say it's because of the word 'currently' either. I've already said that if you remove the word from the sentence it still implies knowledge of the baddies' motives. Besides, it's Sig's (over)reactions to the suspicion that are why I suspect him. That and HB's continuous defenses.

Yes your vote was silly Canuck, but it was also a silly vote smack in the middle of a civ bandwagon and you must admit that looks suspicious.

juliets wrote:Nice analysis Bullz. I agree with you on almost everything. I'm currently looking at sig for my group 1 vote and not sure for group two. I did put some questions out to Tiny Bubbles and Canuck though because I need to get a little bit better read on both of them. They are both considerations for my vote in the group 2 category.

I saw your questions to Bubbles in the linki, JC, and the phrase 'great minds think alike' came to mind :P I'm torn between deciding who looks worse of those two (though it is possible to vote both since Bubbles missed the night vote) and am hoping for them both to post today so I too can get a better read on the pair. I don't honestly know which I'd vote for right now if there were only 10 minutes left on the poll.

Going to make a start on Group 1 as well now - Since that last post took 2 hours and 20 minutes at least, I might end up cutting it short and carry on in the morning.

Here are a handful of opinions on the various members of group two. I will get around to doing group one as well either later tonight (depending on how long this takes) or tomorrow).


Almost nothing at all to go on. Would like to see more content from him which is actually useful. I know he's new, but I feel like if he were bad he'd be being coached a lot better than this. Bugla, if you do need help understanding the game feel free to ask questions in the thread no matter how stupid you think they might be. None of us are total dicks who will laugh at a newbie trying to get into the game. Your current lack of content makes it difficult to get a read on you and eventually many of us will be forced to assume that's deliberate.


Fewer posts than Bugla but more content. Interestingly, her day 1 bandwagon vote for Banana (who was already leading the lynch with 2 votes against a random selection of 1s) had possibly the weakest reason to vote for a newbie on day 1:

Canucklehead wrote:

Golden wrote:I'm looking through ISOs to try and find some pings to actually work off and I'm getting a really clear picture.... so many people are not giving much, it's no wonder there is little to go on.

So, I'm going to ask some specific people some specific questions, and I really want these people to answer these questions. It's time to start generating content.

Bubbles, Canuck, dfaraday, Timmer, splints, rey?

Where are you guys? Are you civilian-aligned? Do you have any opinions on people you think are town? Do you have any opinions on who you think are bad?

I'm here on my couch with my dog, about to leave for curling in about 10 minutes. I support the civ cause. I do not. I do not.

I'm voting banana for having an obnoxious username.

This is then her only defense after the lynch:

Canucklehead wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:nutella, explain to me what you mean by "pseudo-random" and then tell me why she shouldn't be my number one suspect. I have played with her before and granted, it's been a while, but I am familiar enough with her meta to understand how lightheartedly she plays, which is why I made clear that if her throwaway vote was on a throwaway candidate, or even herself, I could understand. But Banana, after two votes at that point? Hell no. That is inexcusable.

I don't actually think we've ever played together....
I also can't fathom why in the world you'd think I needed my vote to be "excusable".

Odd post, this.

I can't fathom why in the world she'd think she didn't need to excuse her incredibly flimsy bandwagon vote. This doesn't look good for Canuck, IMO.


Yay, somebody with content to read! I don't think I agree with Epi that Dom's day 1 posts are full of bet-hedging. I think he went about asking a reasonable set of questions for someone trying to find something to sink his teeth into the way Dom does. Some of his later day 1 posts come off as annoyed, but understandably so IMO. Self-preservation vote on the Bananawagon is forgivable - everyone would've done the same. It also didn't make any difference since he was last to vote and Banana was already 1 ahead, so I don't think it means much at all. I don't think this post makes much sense though:

Dom wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:What are your top, say, three or four scum reads Epi? This question is open to SVS as well. And Floyd. And anyone.

Dom, S~V~S, and nutella.

So anyone who disagrees with you?


TBH, Epig, your suspicion of me boils down to the fact that you like to suspect people and you needed someone to latch onto-- and it hasn't been me for awhile. I'm not bad and you STILL haven't told me if you are or not.

Llama would be rolling in his grave (as should you).

Why would Epi tell you if he was bad? It makes me think of the urban legend that undercover cops have to be honest if asked whether or not they're a cop. It's not a damning point against Epi that he hasn't (at that point) denied being bad.

As far as the stuff between him and Mac goes, I'm not sure exactly how I feel yet. If someone told me one of them was definitely bad I'd lean towards Mac just based on Dom's content. I don't think I've ever seen a baddie Dom but what I'm seeing here isn't wildly different from his attitude in many of the games I've played with him as a civ. Ultimately though, I'm not 100% sold either way. Going with neutral for the time being.


All I can really say about her based on her 8 posts is that her vote for Banana seems pretty well justified. It was because of his actual behaviour (ie his vote) and not his name or out of self-preservation. Need more content before anything more can be said of her, but then that's not too unexpected of a civ Elo.


Anyone want a good example of why low poster =/= low content? 10 posts here but a decent amount to look at. She's clearly putting in some effort and that alone makes me think well of Splints here. Fairly blendy though, especially with regard to the Sig case which she apparently "sees" despite there being a couple of different perspectives. What do you like/dislike about the case?

This:

fingersplints wrote:I'm not sure "no one is sticking up for him" is the great indicator of civvieness that Golden is making it out to be. Baddies bus each other all the time. Especially early and when a potential slip is involved.

Is a good point but Golden wasn't telling the truth anyway and anyone familiar enough with the Sig case should've known that since one of the major points is HB's constant defenses. She does read a little blendy but also like she's trying to get involved and have her voice heard, if that makes sense. I'm not too sure how to feel about her.


Okay so I should admit I'm coming into this one already biased since I suspect HB is a Sig teammate. These defenses actually started on Day 1, where he criticised my practically-a-throwaway Sig vote and eyed Epi for questioning him. If Sig does flip bad, I'll be voting HB next.

When he talks about things that don't involve the Sig case, he actually comes off fairly genuine. However, I really don't trust him and any analysis of his posts is going to be affected by that, so I will leave him for others to read over and make their own choices. I will say that I do think he's onto something with Golden though. More on that in a later post, but the gist is I also think Golden is potentially bad just not on the same team as Sig and/or HB.

As HB is only a suspect of mine depending on Sig's alignment, I don't think I'll be voting him today.


Slightly more talkative than his fellow new players (not too surprising given one is dead), I will extend the same invitation to Luke that I did to Bugla earlier in this post: If you're struggling, ask people questions. He has been doing that a little and his posts feel reasonable. I'd say Luke looks more civ than Bug does. He comes off as someone who is genuinely alone in the game and trying to find his feet IMO.


3 posts. No content, nothing to form an opinion on. I seem to recall LC saying he was getting replaced? Kind of a shame, I like playing with Rey


I always want to trust SVS. I don't understand her day 1 vote though. For someone who dislikes voting newbies on day 1, it seems a fairly weak reason to break this tradition. Not to mention, I'm not seeing how Banana's vote was "opportunistic" in any way given that it was the very first vote of the game. Her vote also broke the three-way tie between Banana, Bugla, and Dom. Could be significant later on if either of the other two turn out to be bad - I could see a baddie SVS voting a newbie and hating having done it just to save her own teammate's neck. This is all completely hypothetical though and I don't currently suspect either of the other two. That's also the only point I really see against SVS here, otherwise she looks relatively clean IMO. Not the best looking in the group, not the worst either.


Having seen Floyd's baddie play at work, I don't think I'm seeing that here. It was no lie that he was lost in TH. Here he seems to have a better grasp on things, and looks more confident in his position. I don't think I'm seeing his baddie game here, but I would like to see more content from Floyd in general.


I do think it's suspicious that she seems to imply she isn't bad in this game because she has yet to be a baddie in other games. Not saying "I'm not a baddie" is not an inherently suspicious thing - nobody is going to honestly say the opposite so it's a meaningless gesture really. But to say that she's a civ because she always is isn't right at all. I'm 99% sure LC didn't think while assigning the roles that he'd best give Bubbles a civ one as is tradition.

I also find it suspicious that she NO U's Golden saying that he of all people should be able to tell she's not mafia. Why should he? This makes no sense and does not make Bubbles look good.


He has a fair amount of posts but I don't have an awful lot to say about him. He seems legit enough to me, I don't think he's bad.


Not seeing a lot to make me suspicious of Typh here. His Bugla vote on day 1 feels weird to me even with the explanation but I don't think that means much.


Overall this hasn't really achieved much. Most of the people here are neutral to civ reads for me atm. I think the people who look most suspicious in group 2 are:

HB (mostly for reasons related to my Sig suspicion)
Bubbles (for implying we shouldn't suspect her because she's never been bad before)
Canuck (terrible reasoning for her day 1 vote, refusal to explain)

Splints would be a very distant fourth because she does slightly come across as blendy. I think she's significantly less suspicious than the other three though. Everyone else I'm either neutral or leaning civ. I will vote for Bubbles or Canuck as my group 2 vote since my suspicion of HB depends on my being right about Sig.

2 hours of linki - mostly with myself!

It's not a solid theory, I'll grant you. But you could be hoping he's civ, you could even be completely genuine in your belief he's civ and still be defending him to gain credit. If he's independent (and not blatantly civ-unfriendly) then I'll still be sorry to have gone after him because indies aren't baddies and I'm in the business of lynching baddies.

Linki - I don't see why he couldn't be on the team that killed Timmer. In fact that was the basis of my initial ping which he overreacted to. I also don't see why he wouldn't have killed Zebra - arguably she was pursuing him more aggressively than I was. It takes away some of the heat and now there's only one voice arguing for his death and three arguing against it. Perhaps they did want to kill me and I just wasn't in range for any of them to get me. Either way he benefits from her death and nobody wants to get into the WIFOM pit of would he or wouldn't he kill someone who suspected him.

I'm not setting you up and I don't think I'm tunneling. I have a suspicion and I'm sticking with it because I haven't seen any reason not to. You yourself admit I'm sincere. All you've given me in Sig's defense is "don't lynch him because I say so" and misrepresentations of why I suspect him in the first place as well as obviously false statements about being the only person to defend him.

As far as Nutella and Bubbles are concerned, I vaguely suspect Nutella (for possibly outdated reasons so I'll be returning to her later/tomorrow) and haven't got up to Bubbles in my read yet.

Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

Golden, please explain to me in your own words the main points in the case against Sig. I genuinely believe you don't either properly understand it or have deliberately misrepresented it in the past.

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Awesome. In that case: *Voting Sig* now and gonna go look at the group 2 members to decide which one of them I also want to lynch.

Are you really just going to tunnel down this road?

If so, then I'm really just going to tunnel down the road of trying to prevent sigs lynch, again.

Tell me why I shouldn't.

Because you are incorrect, even though I believe you are sincere.

But that isn't a real explanation. I've already pointed out the flaws in your argument against Sig's lynch and to be honest, your claim to be the only one defending him (when probably a third of HB's posts are doing the same) makes me wonder about your intentions.