The Syndicate

Belshazzar wrote:One more thing that stuck out to me was how Rachel criticised Absalom this Day for criticising Balaam's list-making, with an intention of voting him for that

Absalom wrote:

Pilate wrote:I am not a pirate. Absalom seems especially negative today. I wonder what boils his blood?

No, it's not boils. I wish it were. Anything else would be preferable to this. I hate it. Bah.

Also, I want to lodge a complaint about Balaam's long, irrelevant lists. They make me want to vote for him, frankly.

Rachel wrote:Absalom, wanna elaborate on how that might make him bad? Or are you going to continue to act irrationally and condemn others for doing the same.

although she herself criticised Balaam's list-making on Day 2, with an intention of voting him for that

Rachel wrote:

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:

<sorry, snipping the actual list>

Anyone see anything to infer from this data?

I might vote for you just because you are trying so so hard to be helpful without doing anything helpful.

Paul wrote:

Job wrote:Belshazar also suss for that reason, lean scum on him and Ruth. Townreading paul

you said this right before d1 but you have made no real effort to pursue either of these suspects

speaking of Ruth tons of people found her suspicious early on but she fell off everyone's radar what's with that

Paul wrote:

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.

oh look another person you said is bad but haven't pursued

Paul wrote:

Job wrote:

Paul wrote:

Balaam wrote:Holy early vote! Got any proof there Paul?

you should read his posts there are only two

the first post is like how cute everyone else is look how awesome and tough I am bitches I am totally scum

This one is pointing out how totally fluff and void of any real content Samuels first two points are. I'm not convinced like Paul seemed to be that he's scum but it was an OK observation.

you seem like you're buddying up to me here just to be buddying since i was not being serious in my initial suspicion of Samuel

Paul wrote:

Job wrote:If I had to vote now it would be for belshazar.

I lean scum on Ruth, Martha and Lot. I've felt a little better about Lot recently though.

Townreading Paul and Jonah.

you never voted any of these four people

instead, you jump on uzziah here

Job wrote:

Uzziah wrote:

Rahab wrote:

Uzziah wrote:I'm rooting for the scum.

Oh yeah?

Yeah.

Wifom. No one knows your meta so there's no reason to do it. Which means you have something to hide. I wouldn't mind lynching uzziah. Plus, as someone pointed out, maybe the horsemen voted apocalypse. Uzziah voted that way and I wouldn't be sad to see one leave if that were the case.

which I don't disagree with but you have pursued it over and over and over and over while not really pursuing the suspects you say you suspect

Paul wrote:

Job wrote:I saw uzziah worshiping the devil and associating with heathens, so I'm voting there.

Linki, the wifom is the statement he's rooting for the heathens to win.

see? how is this actually scum hunting

Paul wrote:then all throughout d2 you did almost nothing but pursue uzziah aggressively

while uzziah is really f***ing annoying i agree he is not helping solve the game at all, you seem like you are overly concerned with solving the game but you are not actually pulling the trigger on any of your suspects

its a lot like mr. capps in the champions game for any of you who have followed the current game, but i wont say more than that since it hasn't ended

Isaac wrote:Can you quote it for me? Idk if I'm allowed to say this but I'm technically Isaac2.0

Isaac wrote:

Rachel wrote:I'm still highly suspicious of JOB. No one else seems interested in discussing anything at all-- anything relevant anyway.

Would you like to build a case? I was feeling quite suspicious of him during my quick read through. Which took forever thanks to you long posters!
But anywho, right now it's just a gut feeling. But Job is the one I would vote for today. I saw nothing wrong Uzi's posts.

Rahab wrote:This is probably the quietest full game I've ever played. It's great for catching up on RL busy days, but terrible for finding things to catch mafia on. Or for much conversation, really.

Balaam, you keep posting all of these lists, but you say nothing to go along with them except labeling them. Are you planning on analyzing and commenting on this "data" later on? Do you suspect people on them? I am curious.

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

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

Job wrote:

Uzziah wrote:Yay!

I'm voting you until one of us is dead.

Paul wrote:and as much as i hate to say it b/c job is one of the players most trying to solve this game, but i am starting to think job may be scum

Job wrote:

Paul wrote:like i said i hate actually suspecting you b/c you have been one of the most fun and game-solving players so far, but it is odd to me that you did not attempt to start discussion on anything yesterday despite heavily suspecting many players since even before d1

I did attempt to start discussion. People were nervous that the only case was on Uzziah. I suggested people actually discuss other options then. I wasn't going to do the legwork, I had other matters to attend near the end. But I thought and still do think Uzziah is the best lynch option. Though people here seem to be deaf, so I'm not sure that discussing him any further will be productive whatsoever

Absalom wrote:

Rachel wrote: "Don't defend themselves"
Weren't able to defend themselves. There's a difference.

I have no way of knowing whether someone is silenced or pretending to be silenced.

Malchus wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Ruth wrote:Yes, I did. Thats why in my first post back, I knew he was silenced.

Did you have a bad day?

I was talking about Cain. Lots of people talked about it but no one seemed to care when it came to the vote.

Absalom wrote:

Lazarus wrote:Sorry for low participation but it hard for me to get into sock games. Anyways I will be voting Absalom because its uncivvie to vote and push a case on a silenced player.

I'm sorry, I just disagree with you. I think it's uncivvie to give suspicious people a pass because they don't defend themselves.

I'm pretty bummed about the result though. Sorry, Cain. I'll try to do better tomorrow.

"Don't defend themselves"
Weren't able to defend themselves. There's a difference.

How do you defend day 2 suspicion away?

Besides I assumed someone was faking being silenced.

Ruth wrote:Yes, I did. Thats why in my first post back, I knew he was silenced.

Did you have a bad day?

Absalom wrote:

Lazarus wrote:Sorry for low participation but it hard for me to get into sock games. Anyways I will be voting Absalom because its uncivvie to vote and push a case on a silenced player.

I'm sorry, I just disagree with you. I think it's uncivvie to give suspicious people a pass because they don't defend themselves.

I'm pretty bummed about the result though. Sorry, Cain. I'll try to do better tomorrow.

Ruth wrote:I don't believe you guys lynched a silenced person. Didn't anyone notice him lurking in the thread? That was weak.

Had I been able to vote, I probably would have voted Uzziah.

I skimmed along a bit, but still need to finish catching up. RIP Cain

And I'm not sure I think Paul was also silenced; this is his last post. It was made on Sunday, before Day 1 even ended. He did not post Night One, either. Plus how many silencers are there??

Paul wrote:i have already made my vote today it will be interesting to see how everyone talks and votes

i know i talk a lot (lol) but i try not to unless i have a reason to so you know i really do not think i have anything else to add atm

d2 will be more fun

wake me when d2

Linki; You were silenced, too?

Job wrote:At Rachel, saying I've dismissed your points is not a good reason to stop talking about them. I may disagree with you, but you shouldn't stop pursuing shit because of me. I am not the boss, so don't use me as an excuse.

Balaam wrote:Rachel- just to help me out, are you referring to posts you made during Day 2 or all game?

Balaam wrote:Okay, Rachel, I'm assuming you're talking about your Day 2 posts. Hopefully my assumption is correct, otherwise, well- you know what happens when you assume...

Your first three posts were regarding Paul's absence and those who were calling attention to it. In your 3rd post you say you like my breakdown of Paul's lack of participation Day 2 and what that could mean for him and those who raise awareness of his silence. You state that you will keep an eye on Job specifically. Jephthah was the first person to actually refer to Paul's silence. Job reiterated this about two hours later. About 17 minutes later, Jonathan states that he would like to hear from Paul today. I asked you...

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?

...but you never replied. Why do you single out Job from that group? If anything, Jonathan's post could be interpreted as the shadiest because he actually says he wants to hear from Paul before making up his mind. He commented on the suspicion over Uzziah and hasn't been back since.

In a later post you accuse me of ignoring discussion of other people. Have I made up for that yet or are there other names you want to talk about?

Next thing you say is that you might vote for me over my big long posts that are rich in data but light on suspicion-pushing because you think it makes me look like I'm trying hard to look helpful without being helpful. Then you vote for Job instead because he tries to bring up the Paul/Absalom possibility over Martha's death.

And that's it. Am I missing something or do you want me to talk about the suspicions other people were tossing about?

Or do you want us to go back to Day 1's talking points?

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

What was the theory on Mary Mag again?

Balaam wrote:I see Cain lurking but no posts. There's quirky behavior and then there's behavior that gets you killed. If you've been kidnapped, silenced, plagued, or whatever else'd by something secret, I feel bad for you. It sucks to get taken out when you can't speak. But the timing of all those votes after you became tied with Samson, Samuel, and Uzziah is too hard for me to ignore. Yesterday I voted for you because I wanted to keep the vote close. Today I'm genuinely curious to know who you are. I hope you're bad. If you are, it gives us a few things to talk about come Day 3.

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?

Nicodemus wrote:
Of the players with 5 or fewer votes, 4 of them also missed the D1 lynch vote (Bathsheba, Esther, Judah, Lazarus). I think this points to those four having a genuinely low participation, and not trying to intentionally "lay low". Pilate, Mary, Stephen, Isaac and Hagar on the other hand, meet your 5 or less posts criteria and yet had time to submit a vote. This could indicate an intentional "laying low" strategy. Flying under the radar early on, hoping not to arouse suspicion.

Job wrote:

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

I don't have tunnel vision as your friend Lot is trying to make everyone believe. I was absolutely open minded, but absolutely nothing you have said in this game has made me feel better about your alignment whatsoever. You voted the sketchiest option d0, you have the sketchiest post of the game, you pulled a no u on my suspicion of you, you replied to me snark I'll and refused to post thoughts on other players upon my request, the list goes on and on. If you had done 3 of those gazillion things and made some progress towards doing something remotely town, perhaps I could look the other way. But combined with your scumminess, others are voucher for you and it only makes me more suspicious.

I will be voting Uzziah now and I hope others will follow.

Lot wrote: 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.

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..

Balaam wrote: For Rachel: Are you saying my post is half good and half bad or Deborah's post is half good and half bad?

Balaam wrote:Also for Deborah:
As for the discussion of Paul's absence, I'm really only commenting on it because it's the most noticeable aspect of Day 2 so far. Paul is a double-edged sword. I have nothing against his tactics, just the sheer amount of posts he creates. With him around, there is a lot of reading to do and a lot of salt to take. Without him, there's a whole lot of nothing. If we want to talk about something else, let's go there. As someone who is not much of a tone reader, it's hard for me to engage in the suspicions being floated about because I don't have much of an opinion on people yet.

Job wrote:

Rachel wrote:I don't think it matters.

I think JOB is bad and this is just a reason why.

This is ridiculous and you know it. Calling attention to Paul's silence is like saying "OMG guys the sun is shining in the sky". I didn't have to say it to bring attention to it. Anyone who can read noticed, because a lot of people were complaining how much he was talking on Day 1. I'd be willing to bet he's easily within the top three posters as of the time he left day 1.

Deborah wrote:

Balaam wrote:Not going to lie, the number of people pulling the "aw shucks, trying is too hard for Day 1- randoms! " irks me. Vote spreading is to be expected but so is some level of participation. I've got my eye on all of you.

In the interest of keeping things interesting, I'm going to vote for Cain. Don't try to play five games at once and think it's okay to give us sass about why you're ignoring one of them. You're probably a civvie but oh well. So it Samson I bet. Nice bandwagon set up there btw.

Okay, I do not like this post at all. Balaam, you actually managed to scold people for throwing away their votes in the same post where you threw away yours! That's incredible. You tell me, please, how voting for someone who says they are overstretched but who is "probably a civvie" is any better? And since then, all you have done is discuss how Paul is not around. I read you as someone who is trying to sound like they are participating in the game but who really isn't very invested in finding baddies.

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.

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,

Balaam wrote:

Rachel wrote:Everyone seems to want to hear from Paul. :hmm:

I'm don't necessarily want to hear from him but you have to admit- the silence is almost deafening.

Deborah wrote:

Rachel wrote: You just happened to pick the most recent event Deborah?

I'll tell you what. Prove to me Cain is civvie and I'll admit to being misguided. If you cannot, then why isn't looking at him just as good as anyone else? I seem to have ruffled some feathers by voting him. Interesting, and telling.

Deborah wrote:I am not going to have the time to properly catch up. I decided to look at the players who have gotten votes so far, and those who have voted already.

I get a fairly solid read from Absalom, but I do not like Cain. I get no sense of civvieness in his few posts, and I think he misconstrued Absalom's position.

It is all I have the time for, so voting Cain. I promise to be more active soon.

Job wrote:I think if Rachel had actually considered a vote for me she would have noticed and mentioned it.

Deborah wrote:I am not going to have the time to properly catch up. I decided to look at the players who have gotten votes so far, and those who have voted already.

I get a fairly solid read from Absalom, but I do not like Cain. I get no sense of civvieness in his few posts, and I think he misconstrued Absalom's position.

It is all I have the time for, so voting Cain. I promise to be more active soon.

Jonah wrote:

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

Carry on.

Exactly my brother this is so typical. People vote for what they do not understand. That is not the ways of our Lord

Job wrote:I saw uzziah worshiping the devil and associating with heathens, so I'm voting there.

Linki, the wifom is the statement he's rooting for the heathens to win.

Paul wrote:also on nicodemus he makes no effort to scum hunt and all he has said is over and over that he does not trust me

that on its own is fine but it is weird since i obv could have been an easy target today

Job wrote:

Uzziah wrote:

Rahab wrote:

Uzziah wrote:I'm rooting for the scum.

Oh yeah?

Yeah.

Wifom. No one knows your meta so there's no reason to do it. Which means you have something to hide. I wouldn't mind lynching uzziah. Plus, as someone pointed out, maybe the horsemen voted apocalypse. Uzziah voted that way and I wouldn't be sad to see one leave if that were the case.

Absalom wrote:

Martha wrote:Absalom how am I backing down from it? I was clarifying a post. I'm still me darling whether is makes people annoyed or not hunny.

You totally broke character, which is not something I would have expected from someone who seemed to be committed to playing a sock role.

Jacob wrote:Wow, this Bible has quite a lot of text and names. It's hard to keep track of it all. I'm not really sure what my thoughts are on most people since I can't keep track of who's who and who's saying what about whom. I will hopefully have a chance to read more closely later and decide who I think is most suspicious.

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?

Balaam wrote: As an aside, I have been curious about the Day 0 poll. I can't help but wonder if one of the Horsemen voted for Apocalypse because that is their purpose in the Bible. Normally, one would suggest that the Horsemen would steer clear of voting Apocalypse because it would be to obvious- aka WIFOM. But over time, WIFOM gets so played out that players do the very thing they shouldn't do because it would otherwise seem to obvious. I'm not sure how sock logic plays into the circular logic of WIFOM but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Horsemen is among the eight who voted Apocalypse. If we come to understand them to be a threat, we can look there.

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.

Job wrote:Sure, but the only one that seems to apply is your post where you point out his hypocrisy by putting words in others mouths. I'll be happy to comment on that, but I think your other questions directed toward him are odd, did you want my input on something in particular?

Paul wrote:Rachel yeah but in doing so scum have to give terrible reasons for a vote

when I say wagon I assume a conscious effort by the thread, otherwise its not as effective

Rebecca wrote:

Rachel wrote:Rebecca, so you think Jephthah might be bad for defending Paul? Wouldn't the link to go after, in that case, be Paul?

Please refer to the first sentence I posted.

But if I believe both to be co-conspirators and they both have 0 votes against them, what would the difference be anyways?


I have doubts about Paul's sincerity Re: noobiness too. But I do have reservations about the potential of lynching a new player asap, be they good or bad. If he's bad and we can catch a teammate first, that's just as solid, in my opinion.

Paul wrote:wagons pressure scum to make a choice

you are a possible good wagon b/c you have been posting but all you have said is you don't trust me

you say I'm flooding the thread but you choose to drown instead of swimming

scum are caught by forcing them to lie and give opinions and talk so if you think this has no meat then I would love to hear what you are doing to catch scum today my friend

Job wrote:I agree not lynching someone based on being new is weird. Seems like a ploy to avoid suspicion. If someone is scum, lynch them. If you were new to the forum, tough luck.

Paul wrote:

Rachel wrote:Paul, what, to you, is "doing something"?

catching scum man

Paul wrote:maybe people should stop focusing on me being new and actual focus on what I am saying and on catching scum

do you see how many people have been forced to show their hands already by issuing opinions on me let alone others? if so why aren't more of you talking? I don't mean this as condescending or
Anything but it's a genuine question

woah hi Ruth I see your post

hey don't worry about it I'm just playing the game and trying to do my best I think that's all any of us can do

I'm not trying to draw attention to newness but I don't understand how I am expected to know all the customs here

Jephthah wrote:[quote="Rachel

Paul wrote:

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

@Host, will it be relevant to the game to figure out who the other players are?

scum post if there ever was one

Why?

Jephthah wrote:

Balaam wrote:Holy early vote! Got any proof there Paul?

Are you seriously asking this? What exactly do you expect Paul to say?

An analysis of the posts that Paul finds so suspicious?

Deborah wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Paul wrote:who actually thinks Ruth is scum right now show of hands

The only people who know are the Heathens.

There are two sets of baddies in the game (unless you think The Four Horsemen are civ?). I find it interesting that instead of saying "only the baddies know" you said "the Heathens". Is that because you are a Horseman and thus you without realizing it subtracted your group from your comment? Or maybe you are both Heathens and only said the one baddie group for that reason?

The Lord is watching, Rachel.

Belshazzar wrote:I don't disapprove of meta in sock games, but I hardly expect great results from it either. It is indeed far-fetched to think that players can fully and precisely out themselves in such circumstances or that, instead, a full and precise profiling of a player can be achieved - and I myself am not pursuing any of this. However, if meta crumbs or trails surface, I will make note of them. That being said, I also think Ruth is pushing it a bit.

Rachel wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:

Job wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:
Linki @ Job: why do you ask for confirmation? are you also new to the site?

Irrelevant. Why does it matter?

First evasive answer of the game.

Does it matter?

If he is new or local? No.

If he answers "Doesn't matter. Why does it matter" to a question? Maybe.

Paul wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Paul wrote:who actually thinks Ruth is scum right now show of hands

The only people who know are the Heathens.

That's not what I was asking

I was asking how many people think Ruth is scum

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

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?

Mordecai wrote:I'm in a bit of middle ground on this. Samuel's "I'll call some bears on you" (Elisha reference) was very odd. But not enough for me to call him guaranteed scum yet like Paul has.

On that note, Pauls willingness to do that right out of the gate rubs me the wrong way as well. A lot of jumping the gun going on here. That method of pressuring him with a vote is pointless at the moment, seeing as it's the only vote on Samuel for the time being. One vote does nothing in a game this size unless there is a tie, and I question that technique being employed at the very beginning of day one.

Paul wrote:who actually thinks Ruth is scum right now show of hands

Ruth wrote:

Job wrote:

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.

This

But I wasn't

Twas a joke since Paul was being so obvious about supposedly not being a local. I don't expect anyone to answer.

Job wrote:Yes, she definitely seduced king David away from his wife, shady business

Belshazzar wrote:I'd study The Law to compare it with Babylon's own.

Not a fan of Daniel's book.

Intrigued by Barnabas' color & BTSC question and Paul's use of the term scum. Are you new to the site, brothers?

Paul wrote:since no one knows who is using an account no one relies on meta?

Belshazzar wrote:

Job wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:

Paul wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:

Paul wrote:

Job wrote:Rvs = random vote stage.

yea this

I thought every mafia community used rvs i don't understand how does d1 happen

What do you mean? When does Day 1 start or what do we do on Day 1 in terms of voting?

In terms of voting

d1 starts at end of this phase?

Almost every time Day 1 follows after Day 0. We've had Night 0s before, but that is totally exceptional and up to the Host.

Voting on day 1 falls under regular mafia tactics, i.e. voting for the player you think is scum (bad). You will be able to vote only once in the poll (meaning votes aren't changeable). To sort of meet you halfway, I can tell you we do not collectively use the rvs tactic - we do our best to find a player we think might be scum (bad), based on the D0 interaction.

Linki @ Job: why do you ask for confirmation? are you also new to the site?

Irrelevant. Why does it matter?

First evasive answer of the game.

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.

Epignosis wrote:

Rachel wrote:Mr. Epig Sir-- when talking about the Apocalypse, do you mean the genre as a whole? For example, the book of Daniel is an excellent example of apocalyptic literature, but it not in the actual Apocalypse as depicted in the New Testament.

Daniel contains eschatological content, including an apocalypse, although his book is generally categorized in the "major prophets."

An "apocalypse" is synonymous with the word "revelation." The word refers to uncovering something, or making something that was hidden known. The word itself has nothing to do with the end of the world, although it has long since gained that connotation. It's interesting to me how words adopt meanings they did not have at one time.

Ruth wrote:Epignosis, will we discover the results of this poll?

"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad." Luke 8:17

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.