The Syndicate

Esther wrote:

Rachel wrote:I think that might be true. I feel so bad for how horrifically wrong I was.

Me too :/ So Rachel, then do you think Uzz is bad, or do you think both he and Job could be civ?

Lot wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:Balaam is so bad.

Yes, he is.

You are both so bad.

If you lynch a man who is - I LITERALLY have no doubt - civilian, I will chase you to the ends of the earth. There will be no peace for you.

Not that I intend there to be anyway. I will make sure you are lynched tomorrow. How people continue to follow you is beyond me. You lead them down the path of snakes over and over again.

I'm so ready to kill you I can't even bother to use the word lot in all my posts.

Mordecai wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:but if I vote Job, I won't break "my trend", as Mordecai put it.

For the record, at the moment there is no negative connotation with that. Just a consistency I spotted.

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.

Jephthah wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Jephthah wrote:If there's anyone who hasn't voted yet, how about we vote Samuel?

How has this gone with Cain and Mary Mageline?

Jephthah wrote:I'm almost tempted to think Samuel voted with that awful reasoning in an attempt to save Balaam. If he was so suspicious of Absalom, why not vote for him? Job only had 4 votes and Balaam 3 when Samuel voted. And notice how Balaam never talks about Samuel

A lot of people haven't talked about Samuel because Samuel hasn't been relevant for days.

Nicodemus wrote:If Job flips civ, it will be worth considering a possible save of Balaam was in effect.

True.

This is not the same as Mary and Cain, and I didn't even vote for Cain. This is different because there was almost a tie, and it was just 3 to 4. Absalom had one vote already at that time. Samuel could have easily voted for Absalom if he distrusts him so much. Yet he voted for Job. You think Job is bad, so you're blinded by that

Jephthah wrote:If there's anyone who hasn't voted yet, how about we vote Samuel?

Jephthah wrote:I'm almost tempted to think Samuel voted with that awful reasoning in an attempt to save Balaam. If he was so suspicious of Absalom, why not vote for him? Job only had 4 votes and Balaam 3 when Samuel voted. And notice how Balaam never talks about Samuel

Nicodemus wrote:If Job flips civ, it will be worth considering a possible save of Balaam was in effect.

Balaam wrote:
HEY BABY RUTH! Answer my f**king question finally, would you?

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

Can you explain what this means? Were you silenced and simply did not vote because you weren't caught up, or were you not allowed to vote Day 2? You've ducked my question twice now. Ignoring it this time is a bad idea.

Stephen wrote:Or should I say it like this?

hey rachel want to be best buds

Channeling my inner Paul. FTW!

Samuel wrote:Well I am going with my gut here... Frankly, I don't trust Absalom. I would like to vote there but I think that would be throwing my vote away, so instead I am voting for the other option getting votes that Absalom did not vote for. I don't wish to vote the same way as him.

Voting Job.

Nicodemus wrote: Point #2 I'll concede could have been lost in translation. #3 I stand by. A civvie so concerned with a near-Heathen win would fight tooth and nail if they were being suspected.

Jephthah wrote: Agree on all.
Do you have any other suspects other than Job right now, because where Job is concerned, I agree that his suspicions are too easy and that he's been tunnel visioned to one player. But I'm not sure it makes him bad. It could make him a not so good civvie, or even a good one since we don't know Uzziah's role. I get a genuine vibe from him

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.

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

Balaam wrote:.

And yet, one could argue that Job is Rachel's Uzziah, could they not? For all the complaining some have made about one or two topics dominating the day, no one but Job seems to call Rachel out on her fixation. Granted, her suspicion is based on much more concrete evidence but she's almost got tunnel vision on the matter just like Job does.

Balaam wrote:

Rachel wrote:Here's my problem. The is the THIRD time I've resummarized the case. Third time. People either don't care or don't remember. Job is probably laying low enough that people just forget. I'm getting annoyed because I am trying to garner discussion on someone I think is bad and everyone else seems more concerned with voting out "weird" players like Mary Magdeline and Pilate.

If you want my original words, go through the posts yourself. There's a handy page for that at the front of the thread.

Rachel wrote:

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

I can resummarize it.


Job perseverated on the fact that Paul was not posting on Day 2. This read to me as a baddie who really wanted to draw attention to their work. However, in retrospect, I think Job may have been trying to seem civvie by being completely irrelevant in this post. He also has not let go of the extremely weak Uzzaiah suspicion based on zany Day 1 Antics. He repeats he does not have tunnel vision, but has done literally nothing but discuss Uzzaiah. I can pull Paul's case too, if you'd like.

Personally, this is the weakest part of your argument against Job. Job was only the second person to comment on Paul's absence. Job's post came a few hours after Jeph's comment (the first one regarding Paul). I understand that you were suspicious of Job Day 1, but you never satisfactorily explained to me why Job's "Where's Paul?" post is any more suspicious than Jonathan's "Where's Paul?" post that came just 15 or so minutes after Job's post. If it's just because you already suspected Job, then I think you've got blinders on regarding the "Where's Paul" post issue. Look at them again and isolate those posts against any prior suspicions. Does that series of "Where's Paul?" posts look intrinsically suspicious at all? Which ones and why?

Otherwise, your argument against Job's tunnel vision and unwillingness to help is totally legit. My problem is that I have a theory on how Job might be civvie. Granted, I also have a theory that Job and Uzziah could be baddie teammates and they successfully manufactured chasm-like distance between each other. Seriously- if we plan to stone one of the two and the first one comes up baddie, how likely are we to follow up with stoning the second one?

Job wrote:Here's my thoughts on Rachel's post.

#1. I didn't try and convince you to stop suspecting me at all by trying to equate our situations. If that is genuinely what you think happened, it is because you really are convinced I am trying to manipulate you. I have better things to do with my time. I'm not out to manipulate anyone because I'm not bad. If I wanted you to stop suspecting me, I would have been present in the thread arguing with you days ago. But lets face it, when I have a choice between logging into this website to banter with you and do something at home with my family, I'm going to choose my family. I actually loathe playing this game because I'm tired of listening to you. RE: why I didn't even bother catching up after my vacation.

Job wrote:#2. If Uzziah is bad like I believe, you are the most likely teammate. End of story. You have subtly defended him all game and it hasn't gone unnoticed. Ok - you did not vote for Cain. But you still voted for a civvies that day. Sorry sister.

Job wrote:#3. If I had time to do research, I would have used it on researching Uzziah. Sorry if I didn't get my facts straight, but I'm not sure what you were trying to prove. That I have a poor memory? That I didn't catch up last weekend?

Job wrote:#4. Sharing my thoughts on anyone besides the person I suspect is pointless. No one is listening to me about the person I'm most confident about, so I don't see what good speculating on another non-lynch candidate will do.

Job wrote:Though you are starting to convince me to break my oath to only vote Uzziah. I may vote for you instead. Congratulations!

Nicodemus wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:
Scummy post.

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

Pointless, elaborate, massive speculatory distraction, check.

Hollow, drop-of-a-dime suspicion on Laz, checkarino.

Cavalier attitude in the face of suspicion, waiter, check please.

Esther wrote:Maybe those of you that said it are right about Pilate just being lazy, not bad. But I don't think his posts can be compared to Mary as someone said. Mary was more non-existent. Pilates post are decidedly odd. Also, every player is different. Mary's lynch may not have turned out like we wanted, but that doesn't mean a quiet, odd Pilate is positively civ. It could still go either way.

Samuel wrote:Hey everyone. I'm so sorry, life has been kicking my tail. However, I have a very important question regarding the last lynch. Did anyone change anything up at vote wise at the last minute of the day period?

I'm not going to try to do a read through of everything I missed, basically if I try to consider it, I will become too discouraged and never play again. Instead I want to use what little I do know to suss out information. So again, can anyone tell me if someone changed things up at the end of the day period kind of out of left field?

Ruth wrote:

Stephen wrote:Burning questions on my mind:
- Is Job bad? If so, it might clear Uzziah and Rachel. If Job is good, then those two look possibly worse.
- What happened to Job? Why is he posting less? Why less attempts to solve the game?
- What happened to Lot? Same question.
- Paul brought up something interesting, which I noticed again when Rachel quoted his posts... Many players expressed suspicion of Ruth early in the game, even declaring intentions to vote her, yet that has disappeared COMPLETELY. Meanwhile, Ruth has hardly participated. Why is no one talking about her now?

Literally, what is the deal with about half of the players right now? It's like no one is trying to win this game.

You're right; I have hardly participated. Neither have several others; I noted at least 2 or 3 posts between this one of yours, and this one I am posting from others saying "life=busy".

And in my case, yeah. I had every intention to be more active after I last posted, then life kinda bit me in the ass. I look forward to a nice quiet non-dramatic weekend to catch up here.

What specifically about what Paul said would you like to discuss?

What are your thoughts on Job/Uzziah? I am coming down pro-Job.

Jonah wrote:

Stephen wrote:Which players does everyone want to talk about?

Having skimmed the thread and since some players are hardly participating (again, including myself), I'm still a bit fuzzy on most players, so is anyone here right now that can discuss the game in real time?

I'm here brother! I want to talk about Jep's post. I also remember suspecting Rahab yesterday but I'm trying to decide if I'm still feeling it.

Stephen wrote:Literally, what is the deal with about half of the players right now? It's like no one is trying to win this game.

Easy my good man let he who is blameless cast the first stone. Im part of the problem myself but you're right if we dont talk we are handing this game to the heathens. We are making it too easy for them to pick us off like flies on their unrepentant backs.
I dont want to talk about Job and Uzziah much if you must know. because I have an idea about what might be going on between them. From some things that happened to me I get the feeling their feud with each other is not of their own making. they could have been turned upon one another by other forces
I take issue with the logic that their feud means one of them must be bad, that logic doesnt fly in this game or any mafia game. they could both be wrong about each other it happens all the time even if there feud is legit. you have to give a reason to suspect someone because it cant just be that they suspect each other. I cant remember who said this but i dont agree with it.
other than that Im afraid I dont have much to talk about, we need more chatter and we can draw out the unrepentant

Jonah wrote:I miss Paul
Paul for Prez 2016

Job wrote: Let's see... You complain about me hounding on no one but uzziah. But then all you've been talking about for days is me. Then you express the same frustration I am facing, that literally no one is listening and will vote someone else in the end because no one is invested or cares. But yet you don't understand what you're experiencing is exactly what I am facing.

Wisdom about other players? I think Rachel is bad. I think it is ridiculous the ruse she is fronting. But honestly she's right, I just don't care enough. I fought my heart out for a solid day to convince people to vote uzziah and you numbskulls lynch a silenced person.

am fronting". Bull.
Now Job says he really doesn't care because on the day HE wanted to lynch Uzziah (for reasons that are so superficial and banal they don't even deserve mention) "we" lynched Cain. Many people did not vote Cain-- I did not. I voted for Job.


So, please, Job, if you're going to make a post against me, do some basic research because that was a load of malarkey.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE:

Job wrote:

Rachel wrote:I think at least Job is bad and I have a neutral read on Uzz.

Why have you changed your opinion on him? Why, if you previously thought him to be bad, have you continually found reason not to vote him?

Jephthah wrote:Sorry for coming in late. And RIP Gideon and Hagar.

Rachel, if I were a baddie, I'd make sure to post enough to not be considered laying low, so Job not being here yet, means nothing. He can come in at any minute.
That said, can you state again the reasons you think Job is bad, other then the fact he's focusing on Uzziah? Uzziah is only focusing on Job, how is that different?


I'm still pinged by Lazarus' vote for Absalom last day.
Also, what are people's thoughts on Deborah. Just went to look at her reasons for voting Cain (twice) and Mary. Enough to not look bandwagoning, but something feels off to me there.

Rachel wrote:

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

I can resummarize it.


Job perseverated on the fact that Paul was not posting on Day 2. This read to me as a baddie who really wanted to draw attention to their work. However, in retrospect, I think Job may have been trying to seem civvie by being completely irrelevant in this post. He also has not let go of the extremely weak Uzzaiah suspicion based on zany Day 1 Antics. He repeats he does not have tunnel vision, but has done literally nothing but discuss Uzzaiah. I can pull Paul's case too, if you'd like.

Rachel wrote:

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

Job wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Job wrote:Catch up is tl,dr.

Great job everyone, can we lynch Uzziah now?

What about all your other suspects?

Indeed. My note-taking fell apart Day 2, but on Day 1, you expressed the following:

Suspicious of:
Belshazzar
Ruth
Lot
Nicodemus
Martha
Uzziah

Trusting of:
Paul
Jonah

Where do you stand on them now?

Who cares? Uzziah is bad.

Balaam wrote:

Rachel wrote:Belaam, a few days ago you said the following about Job:

"JOB: The Uzziah obsession is a bit annoying and it was intriguing to see Paul turn on him after they were pretty tight Day 1. I'm not ready to vote for him yet. I have a theory about him but I can't elaborate just yet because I don't want to feed him any ideas to fake."

Do you have any further thoughts on him? I think the cases that both Paul and I lined up are quite good and I'm not sure why they haven't garnered the discussion they ought to. Day 3 was ripe with discussion of anything but Job.

I still have a theory on Job. I have a theory on Uzziah as well. Catching a baddie could prove my theory wrong about either one of them and make me willing to stone that person. I think discussion of Job died off yesterday because Job kept his trap shut considerably more than any other point in the game. He hasn't shown up yet today but neither have a bunch of other people. At this point I am still agonizing over the bottom half of the post count for everyone left in the game. It's proving difficult to determine who is simply noncommittal to the game and who are lying low enough to be forgotten about for a while.

Absalom wrote:Well, it looks like Modkills are in play. That may not bode well for us. RIP Gideon, RIP Hagar.

Pilate is frustrating in his unwillingness to actually do anything constructive.

You guys, I can't help it, I am all pinged out over Balaam. I just don't trust the guy. I know I'm alone on this, but it's how I feel.

Pilate wrote:I was MIA for a bit, and Rachel was my last suspicion. If I miss another vote, then I'll probably take a Participation Score hit, so I'm playing it safe this time because I have let myself down in the past.

Has the suspicion of Rachel been disproven somehow?

Pilate wrote:

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.

What does it tell you specifically?

Pilate wrote:

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.

Belshazzar, I really think you could be on to something here. I am now most likely to vote for Rachel.

Pilate wrote:Voting Rachel now because I left it too long and forgot last time.

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

Absalom wrote:

Rachel wrote:^I think that logic is sound despite my suspicion of you.

Thank you, Rachel. I always appreciate clear thinking, even when it comes from people who want me dead.

Absalom wrote:

Balaam wrote: You know, you've almost convinced me to test my theory on you. Stoning another civvie would all but guarantee the Heathens or Horsemen win though.

This kind of fatalism pings me, especially since it isn't true. Assuming a night kill tonight, a civvie lynch tomorrow, and then another night kill, there would still be 26 players left, only five of which would be Heathens. That's a guaranteed heathen victory? Like fun it is!

Job wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Job wrote:Catch up is tl,dr.

Great job everyone, can we lynch Uzziah now?

What about all your other suspects?

Indeed. My note-taking fell apart Day 2, but on Day 1, you expressed the following:

Suspicious of:
Belshazzar
Ruth
Lot
Nicodemus
Martha
Uzziah

Trusting of:
Paul
Jonah

Where do you stand on them now?

Who cares? Uzziah is bad.

Stephen wrote:I'm utterly appalled that no one inquired about my house problem.

My house exploded, people. Fucking exploded. And here I am, ready to play mafia with all of you. Is that not miraculous?

Balaam wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Job wrote:Catch up is tl,dr.

Great job everyone, can we lynch Uzziah now?

What about all your other suspects?

Indeed. My note-taking fell apart Day 2, but on Day 1, you expressed the following:

Suspicious of:
Belshazzar
Ruth
Lot
Nicodemus
Martha
Uzziah

Trusting of:
Paul
Jonah

Where do you stand on them now?

Job wrote:Catch up is tl,dr.

Great job everyone, can we lynch Uzziah now?

Lot wrote:I didn't do 'pages of analysis' on Absalom.... actually, what accounted for most of my post was a single post he made too, which tipped me over the edge. However, my confusion about who was who between you, Rebecca, and Ruth certainly made me realise the need to go back and read all three of you, which I duly did.

Interesting that you chose to characterise my one post as 'pages of analysis', however.

You and Absalom - both of you seem more likely to be on the side of bad, to me. My vote for you was because I think your 'one misguided comment' was incredibly misguided indeed. Or, to put it another way, I think it is evidence that your suspicions are not entirely genuine.

Balaam wrote:

Jonathan wrote:RIP Mary -

No. No no no no no! Frankly, Mary can BIH because she did jack $#!^ all game and didn't even bother defending herself. This should serve as a wake up call to all the quiet civvies out there. Get your asses in here and play! Tomorrow I am going to go after the chuckleheads who have posted the least and missed votes. Shame on you guys! Shame! Shame! Shame! A curse on both your houses and all that. Six players who are still alive have missed at least two votes. Noah, please don't let Barnabas, Bathsheba, Hagar, Judah, Pilate, or Samuel in the ark. I want to see one of them die for their sins of being noncommittal to this game. I demand expiation!

Ruth wrote:I caught up some today, but don't totally get the Mary suspish. I am going to try to figure out the case there, but will likely vote for Uzziah; can someone give me the Mary Mag cliff notes? I am having problems getting past his Day One antics, tbh.