The Syndicate

Canuck, I really don't think you should p in the air.

Boogs, have you pressed the lynch of a silenced person two days in a row? I voted Hedgeowl when you asked to get some reactions, since we can change votes. This is suddenly more interesting to
me.

How do you feel about Hedgeowl then, Bullzeye?

Boogs wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Boogs wrote:...might have pushed Mongoose innocently, however Hedge seemed to go along with that and then now you. I think they are opposite teams if both bad, but I think statistically we need to vote Hedge with a higher chance of being bad. I hope that there aren't 4 baddies left and just 2 or we are in a heap of trouble. I think I may be next tonight but I've only been spared because I've drawn attention and not been as talkative until recently. But we gotta start getting these lynches right.
there's the quote I was speaking of. Sorry for the abrupt cut-off at the beginning, phone editing is hard.
H

Quite alright. So do you think you too can support a Hedge vote today?

How could I say no to a sweet li'l kitty cat like you?

Boogs wrote:...might have pushed Mongoose innocently, however Hedge seemed to go along with that and then now you. I think they are opposite teams if both bad, but I think statistically we need to vote Hedge with a higher chance of being bad. I hope that there aren't 4 baddies left and just 2 or we are in a heap of trouble. I think I may be next tonight but I've only been spared because I've drawn attention and not been as talkative until recently. But we gotta start getting these lynches right.

there's the quote I was speaking of. Sorry for the abrupt cut-off at the beginning, phone editing is hard.

No, my bad, that is most likely what you said. I was mixed up, Hedgeowl is still alive, I meant Mongoose. Damn bird names.

Replace names, repeat question.

Hey all, sorry I haven't been around much, it's a combination of busy times and computer with hard drive sickness. Posting from my phone since forever, I have been keeping up, but I admit to possibly skimming some of the larger posts.

A recent thing caught my attention, Boogs, you mentioned Bullzeye might have voted Hedgeowl "innocently"... Does that implying you're now willing to consider him a Civvie, or did you just mean it as he didn't truly know what Hedgeowl was?

Just seemed like a vast departure from your previous stance on him.

I'll try to post more later, and respond to certain allegations.

Ok, looks like a Mongoose lynch. I advocate this with a vote.

bea wrote:
Long Con wrote:I also haven't changed my feelings on Mongoose. I will likely be voting for her or Bullzeye today. I find Bullzeye's arguments for Boogs' baddieness little thin. Just because we haven't seen a "curse" before, it doesn't mean it's fake. I've seen plenty of curse roles that can invent the way they curse... every single one I ever do, for instance. Not that I cursed Boogs. Not my style of curse.

I just think that there was something that made Boogs come after Bullz, and that Bullz' reaction was a bit over-the-top. I have to read the MM thing over again, that seemed interesting.
The idea of you with a cursing role frightens me almost as much as when SVS has the cursing role.

I've had hosts agree to a curse that requires the victim to only tell the truth.

Suckas.

I also haven't changed my feelings on Mongoose. I will likely be voting for her or Bullzeye today. I find Bullzeye's arguments for Boogs' baddieness little thin. Just because we haven't seen a "curse" before, it doesn't mean it's fake. I've seen plenty of curse roles that can invent the way they curse... every single one I ever do, for instance. Not that I cursed Boogs. Not my style of curse.

I just think that there was something that made Boogs come after Bullz, and that Bullz' reaction was a bit over-the-top. I have to read the MM thing over again, that seemed interesting.

Nooooo! Splintsy! Really sorry to see you go, I really felt like you brought an honest and direct angle to a lot of the discussions, in a way that really kept it real.

So she was the mysterious Herbert.

Good point about Keterman, Splints. That's the kind of basic Mafia detective work that sometimes gets ignored when there's a spicy tête-à-tête du jour.

fingersplints wrote:
Roxy wrote:llama has been lynched he was Dennis' Mom - a Civvie

It is now night 7

Are you saying this is not llama's role/alignment?

No, I'm saying that Dennis' Mom isn't revealed in the page 1 roles yet.

Canuck, I think you've got the right idea. I was waiting till Mafia Dawn to talk about it, but I can't bypass such succinctness.

If this so-called infodump is real, then I suspect that Boogs won't survive the night. Maybe we'll be able to assess his role and alignment by morning. Not that we have Llama's yet. I think. I'll check page 1.

Mongoose wrote:Llama was good.

He thought I was good.

Therefore, I must be good.

There are literally no holes in that logic.

Let's wait for his role to come up on the first page and see what we can ascertain from that.

Sorry, Llama, looks like you were a Civvie after all. LORB, why didst thou direct us to kill this innocent Llama?

Interesting Boogs/Bullz back and forth. Bullzeye is reading like Vince Vaughn to me here. It's pretty good.

Hedgeowl wrote:However, I am going to vote LC this go round. I think he could have done more if he were so convinced SVS was god than just let her be lynched and claim he knew afterwards...

I think you could have done more than pretend you didn't see the possibility, at least I said something. And by the way, I brought it up well before the lynch. Everyone pretended not to notice, and now I'm the bad guy because of it?

The Civs believe in God more than they believe in you. Not that we've heard from Her in a while.

fingersplints wrote:Juliets - yes I would think he is forced or would be punished. It's all a bit weird though. As bullz pointed out, why would someone curse a player who is barely posting? Let alone twice in a row? That is assuming there are two cursers (I'm operating under the assumption double targeting isn't allowed here.) I haven't been cursed at all, nor have a bunch of the alive players, so it really seems weird one of the quieter ones would continuously be targeted. It doesn't add up.

I'm beginning to feel like this is like the SVS vs Made lynch but worse for me. LC and llama have both been compelling, but I feel like I trust LC more. All of this reminds me of a civvie LC. (Actually it reminds me specifically of a game, I can't remember which, where a baddie splints thought it would be fun to try and instigate a quieter LC, and instantly regretted it haha)
Unfortunately for llama, my opinion on several other players depends on me finding out his affiliation.

I will always remember that game.

Boogs is talking funny. Boogs is being forced to say these things. I can't wait to kill the curse-maker, or whatever it is.

Sorry, Boogs, but if you want to convince me of Bullzeye's guilt, make a case on him on Day 8 please. For now, my vote goes to Llama. Voting now... I normally don't vote so early, but the ability to change votes makes it more comfortable.

So Boogs, you want us to not lynch Llama today?

juliets wrote:Should i know who Herbert is?

And RIP Keterman, nice to play with you.

He's the prince that just wants... to SING!

I searched back a bunch of pages (ten on 100 posts/page) and found no result for "more than a fe"... thought I might find a clue from Herbert, but nothing came up. RIP Keterman!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Long Con wrote:MM, I think Lorab being concerned about you voting for her would happen if she were Civvie of baddie. You know?
I don't understand what you're saying here.

Maybe I read too much into your "maybe that's what you're worried about" post. I thought you were saying that worried means baddie , but on reread you may not have been implying that.

MM, I think Lorab being concerned about you voting for her would happen if she were Civvie of baddie. You know?

Mongoose wrote:The stuff I've said makes sense to me in a microcosm way. Like if you have 10 mins to scroll through posts and do the best they can, they make sense. For you who have been around more and can think of the more recent posts in better context, they might not make as much sense

This is what I meant , Mongoose. If I have ten minutes, scroll through which posts? I've been "around more", what context do you mean?

I will try again, Mongoose. Any particular starting point you can give me?

juliets wrote:I have to vote tonight and i am the most worried about Mongoose. I believe her comment about Canuck being a red herring was meant for baddie bts and she posted it here by mistake. That is further supported by her replies to long con...

interesting theory. I haven't heard anything that makes any sense at all regarding Mongoose's weirdness other than Splints' explanation, and, well, it's a short list of players today. I can't see anyone else in that list that I'll find more suspicious than Mongoose. And if someone else has a sudden major slip-up, hey, votes are changeable!

Mongoose wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Hedgeowl wrote:
Long Con wrote:Now Mongoose voted Canuck... Such weird!
Except the opposite because Canuck's not on the poll.

I haven't been getting the civviest feelings from Mongoose's posts, but my real problem is llama. I have been pretty sure he is civ, but reevaluating if I am super off. People said Mongooses defense of him was strange and possibly forced, but I haven't seen a forced defense before. I do remember in Supernatural being forced to do the opposite and make a case on Tranq. Juliets were you the trickster role in that game? Have others seen roles with forced defense before?
Maybe some people just know my play style better than others.
Ture, and you know I'm Mayor Civ, right? Let's all consider someone else today!

Blatant "Look Over There!" tactic is blatant.

I am still having trouble understanding you.

Oops, yeah, Canuck voted Mongoose. Sorry for the error.

Now Mongoose voted Canuck... Such weird!

For Llama, you did an extra-creative, A-plus effort post in his defense. For Canuck, I've been trying for the last twelve hours to get what you're saying, and you've responded several times, and I still don't have a clue what you mean.

Who is setting Canuck up? Why do you believe she's Civvie? When did this setup happen? Do you suspect certain people for setting her up? Why are you avoiding any sort of elaboration?

This disconnect between your defense of Llama and your defense of Canuck is strange, what are you up to? It's making me feel suspicious, Goose.

I'm having trouble understanding still, are you saying she's a Civvie set up as a baddie?

Mongoose wrote:
juliets wrote:As I pointed out earlier, bwt was talking about ninjajellobabies and Canuck right before he died. His suspicion of Canuck seemed stronger. I personally believe she is a civ. I do agree that everyone should read it for themselves.
Canuck has got to be a red herring.

In what way?

As I recall, it was the way you said it. What Canuck said was not as suspicious to me, when I get back on a computer I'll try and go back, look, and explain why.

I think Canuck is Civ this game. I could be wrong, just think her posts are genuine.

fingersplints wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
thellama73 wrote: I have to admit, as suspicious as I find you. I am fairly tempted to go after a quiet person this time, because I feel like the baddies are letting the noisy people kill each other while they stay silent. After Made and SVS, I am nervous about lynching another very active, high posting player.
Seems like a reasonable plan. Based on today's poll I think I'm going to revisit my suspicions of JC and MM and probably vote for one of them unless something else comes up.
I knew someone had brought up juliets before and I couldn't remember if it was you or bwt, but I was trying to find it again last lynch to revisit those points on her. I'm undecided on MM. Sometimes I think he is making a lot of sense. Other times I feel he is being blendy and is reminding me of how he played in the Hobbit. I too want to look closer at him.

I had Juliets as a suspicion earlier, and I let it go for a bit because she made a good defense. I did not drop it, I just didn't pursue it for a bit. I'll have to recall what the suspicion was based on... More of a hassle at the moment though, because my computer is out of commission for now, and I'm permaphone guy.

Also, I was at work during the competition, sorry I couldn't help out, team.

thellama73 wrote:
fingersplints wrote:RIP bwt ;(

I don't like the limited poll options, but I wasn't around to help with the competition anyways so I guess I can't complain too much about being on the losing side.
Given the way the conversation has been going, I find them quite a relief, actually.

Yes, very timely! Congrats on the win.

Protip: Dennis doesn't know any more than the rest of us.

No change, my theory comes from the idea that he's got blind devotion to the idea he's a Civvie, and yet God insists very strongly that he is bad. Recruit makes sense.

I should just qualify that unprompted. Some people insist Llama is a Civvie, but God is adamant that he is bad. Maybe those people who are so steadfastly insistent he is Civvie should consider that Llama has turned bad, and their read on him, or info, is not reliable any more.

He's pretty much the most likely to be recruited, since he's had the most people say he's Civvie in the game.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Long Con wrote: Is S~V~S God? Is God likely to be a Civvie role?
Well, maybe you all shouldn't have ignored my post.

RIP, S~V~S, sorry I was after you for most of the game, I did back off when it was obvious you were God. I'm assuming the secret part of your role is something that led you to believe that Llama is bad. I promise to try again to lynch him in your holy name.
We should have lynched you instead.

If you enjoy lynching Civvies! Try Llama instead. He's most likely a recruit.

Long Con wrote: Is S~V~S God? Is God likely to be a Civvie role?

Well, maybe you all shouldn't have ignored my post.

RIP, S~V~S, sorry I was after you for most of the game, I did back off when it was obvious you were God. I'm assuming the secret part of your role is something that led you to believe that Llama is bad. I promise to try again to lynch him in your holy name.

Weird, Mongoose.

Just to touch on the concept of "baddie behaviour" , there certainly is such a thing. Baddies have to do things that Civvies do not, things related to deception. It's just the natureof the game. Some are better at covering it than others.

When I see someone accuse another player, and that accusation doesn't hold up when the light of logic is shone upon it, then there must be another intention. Maybe Llama is a rolechecker who checked Canuck and found her bad last night, but I don't get that vibe from him. I strongly believe that he's a baddie.

And I am amused at the idea S~V~S and I are teammates. I'm sure she will be as well.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
nijuukyugou wrote: 2) I think LC's sudden turn on llama for a comment I thought was rather innocuous to be...odd. I've seen other people accuse players of only being on when it's convenient and possibly being in a chat, so...not really understanding why THAT happened to be the comment that set him off. Is there more to the case than "That's what a baddie would say!" LC? I'm curious
There is more than that, bloop, that's like, the last thing I said to him. I suspected him back in the early game when he claimed not to know the meaning of the phrase "you would know", and the accusation of Canuck having btsc because of Llama's analysis of her posting frequency, which I think is not a realistic thing to say, and therefore must have other motives driving it.

How does Llama know how Canuck does btsc enough to even attempt to.make that call? Is she a back-and-forth kind of player, jumping between chat and thread? Is the the type that leaves the forums altogether to engage in btsc? How much time is a reasonable estimate between posts to indicate baddie btsc? Is there a formula? How did Llama come to this conclusion? Does it really sound like a genuine suspicion, or a contrived one to serve a purpose?
I know you suspected him earlier in the game, but to me, it really seemed like you were willing to drop your suspicions of llama because either the two of you had a common enemy in SVS or you were more suspicious of her. So to me, it does feel like you made a very quick turnaround. Especially to go from not really mentioning being suspicious of llama for awhile to "Oh, I'm voting him now because he's Baddie McBadikins."

Yes, and I did mention during the night phase that Llama was cool in my books and I had no intention of turning on him. And yet I did. Sometimes it's not smart to tell your true intentions to the world, especially at night. I'd rather watch a guy like Llama and buddy up to him if I think he's bad, than go after him on thin suspicions like "you would know". I prefer to wait for something more obvious, and it came.

You can do what you like, but tagging along with someone else's suspicion, accusing someone based on false evidence, backpedaling, and playing the "no u" card are all baddie behaviour.

"her posting pattern alone indicates" she's often in a Chatzy. The "alone" implies that that's just one reason out of multiple... What were the other reasons then? Do they exist, or were you just pushing her as a suspect because you were hoping people would listen to you and ask no questions?

So now you don't think she's bad, yet in this recent quote you said you've been increasingly suspicious of her.

So which is it?
Sorry for the weirdness, posting from phone and accidentally submitted early.

So now you

thellama73 wrote:I missed your thoughts on Canuck, Keterman. Now that I go back and look at them, they are astonishingly astute. I've been increasingly suspicious of Canuck this game as well. Her posting pattern alone indicates someone who spends most of their time in a chatzy and occasionally pops in to contribute when needed.

thellama73 wrote:Why would I make a case on someone I don't necessarily think is bad and am not planning to vote for?

But if people had just gone along with your accusation then it would be a different story. They didn't, so now you're trying to back out.

Votes can change. Your refusal to make a case at all speaks volumes. If the rest of the thread still can't see what I see at this point, then you've got them right where you want them.

Not yet, I'll be happier when you give us the sample of posts you used to come to your conclusion. Take us through your logic, show us the case instead of mudslinging.

Search found 233 matches