Return to “The Syndicate 2014 Game of Champions [ENDGAME]”
Yeah. "He's scummy." "He's a baddie". "He's totally evil"zeek wrote:On some other site I think "scum" is synonymous with "mafia."Snow Dog wrote:it's you get when you call me scummy.Roxy wrote:Voted. nothing will change my mind. His reply to me only served to prove he is bad. Now I am a bitch - well thanks Snow! I think you are quite peachy! <3
You've had fun with me, haven't you?DharmaHelper wrote:Honestly whatever. I'm fine with getting lynched in this game. My Hedge thing was not an attempt to get any attention anywhere.
If anything recent days just proves what I already thought. Mafia is no longer fun for me.
Yes, I do agree. DH first for sure, and the Snow Dog case is very good as well. I have a couple of other names to bring up when DH finally gets around to flipping bad, but I don't want to lose focus on the sure thing.zeek wrote:Sorry, yes. Isn't. Do you agree?Long Con wrote:"Isn't", maybe?zeek wrote:I think voting off any of the people not playing is helpful right now.
"Isn't", maybe?zeek wrote:I think voting off any of the people not playing is helpful right now.
Thanks for clarifying.juliets wrote:Long Con or whoever asked, yes i was talking about this game not another. The mad hatter cursed me on the night I got cursed twice. I figured this out when zeek referenced a "book" in connection with the hatter (I had to think a few minutes before I realized he was talking Alice in Wonderland). So I googled AIW for the words in the message I got and there it was, straight from the book. There was also another statement in the message that now in retrospect told me it was the Mad Hatter. So I think what MP was saying is my cursings happened at a time when INH couldn't have done them, maybe because he was dead. (Even though I said "them" there is only one curse from the Hatter. The other had to be from someone else).
Also, I'm not saying I believe SVS is bad but I don't see anyone else addressing that Lily Potter disappeared after one day. Is there a way to explain that that doesn't involve SVS? Generally when I discover something like this I'm all wrong in my thinking or missed something important in the discussion. Such as Snapes potions or horcruxes also disappear after one day. I don't know the books or remember the game well enough to remember that.
Thanks.MovingPictures07 wrote:Linki w/ LC: That is the best argument I've ever heard.
Was juliets talking about an Alice In Wonderland game, or this one?MovingPictures07 wrote:Woah, so if juliets's curse was the Hatter, then INH couldn't have been the Hatter after all.
You're not even accusing me of mudslinging.DharmaHelper wrote:Long Con wrote:I'll fix that:Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, my friend.DharmaHelper wrote:You did twist my words. Never did I say Made was the sole target of the Day 1 trick. He was one of the people I was watching, and that he reacted to it the way he did pointed me into thinking he was bad. But he was not the main target, or the sole target. That is just false.Long Con wrote:There's nothing indicting or even accurate about this "rebuttal" First, I didn't twist DH's words. He said "One man should have seen through my facade, and did not. I suspect due to his own baddieness. So, my vote will go to Made." How am I supposed to read that and not think there was one target? That's not word-twisting.DharmaHelper wrote:Speaking of word twisting. You really can't help yourself can you?
"Stop twisting my words DH!" *Twists DH words*
"Nice way to cover your ass if Dom flips bad DH!" *covers his own ass in the Made lynch*
"ACTING A LITTLE DEFENSIVE EY REY?" *DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFEEEEEEEEEEEEENSE*
Made was not the *sole* target of the trick. He was the one I felt reacted the most suspiciously. I explained this all ages ago as well. Selective memory?
And there was nothing I said during the Made thing that was remotely ass-covering, I already went over that, and it wasn't hard to prove.
If you can't see DH's obvious over-the-top antics that are covering false accusations, then try reading his posts again.
And you did cover your ass during the Made thing. Although I guess you called it a "clarification post"Some Motherfucker wrote:Smart players, when mudslinging, will have a way out of it if it comes back on them.
You think that people are being silenced in an extended way because they're at the Mad Hatter's tea party? That would be incredibly cruel of Epig.DharmaHelper wrote:Hold on, mind-blowing theory time.
We know there are a crazy amount of MIA people. We also know that at least two of them (Made and Rey) vanished after either posting oddly or in Mades case outright being targeted by the Hatter.
What if *some* of these players are not inactive at all? What if they are otherwise engaged? At a tea party perhaps?
But that leaves one question, who could be the Mad Hatter?
The one person to have absolutely zero contact in-thread (and therefore the longest time spent at the Tea Party)
Patient Zero, Mad Hatter. Hedgeowl.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, my friend.DharmaHelper wrote:You did twist my words. Never did I say Made was the sole target of the Day 1 trick. He was one of the people I was watching, and that he reacted to it the way he did pointed me into thinking he was bad. But he was not the main target, or the sole target. That is just false.Long Con wrote:There's nothing indicting or even accurate about this "rebuttal" First, I didn't twist DH's words. He said "One man should have seen through my facade, and did not. I suspect due to his own baddieness. So, my vote will go to Made." How am I supposed to read that and not think there was one target? That's not word-twisting.DharmaHelper wrote:Speaking of word twisting. You really can't help yourself can you?
"Stop twisting my words DH!" *Twists DH words*
"Nice way to cover your ass if Dom flips bad DH!" *covers his own ass in the Made lynch*
"ACTING A LITTLE DEFENSIVE EY REY?" *DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFEEEEEEEEEEEEENSE*
Made was not the *sole* target of the trick. He was the one I felt reacted the most suspiciously. I explained this all ages ago as well. Selective memory?
And there was nothing I said during the Made thing that was remotely ass-covering, I already went over that, and it wasn't hard to prove.
If you can't see DH's obvious over-the-top antics that are covering false accusations, then try reading his posts again.
And you did cover your ass during the Made thing. Although I guess you called it a "clarification post"
DharmaHelper wrote:Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, my friend.Long Con wrote:There's nothing indicting or even accurate about this "rebuttal" First, I didn't twist DH's words. He said "One man should have seen through my facade, and did not. I suspect due to his own baddieness. So, my vote will go to Made." How am I supposed to read that and not think there was one target? That's not word-twisting.DharmaHelper wrote:Speaking of word twisting. You really can't help yourself can you?
"Stop twisting my words DH!" *Twists DH words*
"Nice way to cover your ass if Dom flips bad DH!" *covers his own ass in the Made lynch*
"ACTING A LITTLE DEFENSIVE EY REY?" *DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFEEEEEEEEEEEEENSE*
Made was not the *sole* target of the trick. He was the one I felt reacted the most suspiciously. I explained this all ages ago as well. Selective memory?
And there was nothing I said during the Made thing that was remotely ass-covering, I already went over that, and it wasn't hard to prove.
If you can't see DH's obvious over-the-top antics that are covering false accusations, then try reading his posts again.
You did twist my words. Never did I say Made was the sole target of the Day 1 trick. He was one of the people I was watching, and that he reacted to it the way he did pointed me into thinking he was bad. But he was not the main target, or the sole target. That is just false.
And you did cover your ass during the Made thing. Although I guess you called it a "clarification post"
There's nothing indicting or even accurate about this "rebuttal" First, I didn't twist DH's words. He said "One man should have seen through my facade, and did not. I suspect due to his own baddieness. So, my vote will go to Made." How am I supposed to read that and not think there was one target? That's not word-twisting.DharmaHelper wrote:Speaking of word twisting. You really can't help yourself can you?
"Stop twisting my words DH!" *Twists DH words*
"Nice way to cover your ass if Dom flips bad DH!" *covers his own ass in the Made lynch*
"ACTING A LITTLE DEFENSIVE EY REY?" *DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFEEEEEEEEEEEEENSE*
Made was not the *sole* target of the trick. He was the one I felt reacted the most suspiciously. I explained this all ages ago as well. Selective memory?
I strikes me as pretty ridiculous. DH decides to play a direct contrast to his Misfits game as a ploy to expose the "one man" who should have "seen through his facade", Made? Who here thinks that's a reasonable thing to expect? This is 100% BS in my opinion, and I'd like to know who agrees or disagrees with me.DharmaHelper wrote:Close to 90% of my Day 1 antics were a ploy. I was concerned at first that I would be caught out, and the facade ruined (particularly with INH's post, and several posts pointing out how strange and/or funny I had been acting). Yes, a ploy. Built carefully with one goal in mind: The careful observation of the reactions to my plot. One in particular caught my eye. I hinted only once at this falsehood, when I mentioned the sweet irony of the similarity of this game to Misfits mafia.
This being a Championship game, and an opportunity to reflect on our past victories, I decided to play this game (for at least day one) in as much of a contrast to my Misfits game as possible. Where in Misfits I was the rational, careful and plucky manipulator, I decided here to abandon that strategy and go balls out.
One man should have seen through my facade, and did not. I suspect due to his own baddieness. So, my vote will go to Made.
What's with theDharmaHelper wrote:
? You said thanks to me saying that's a good idea in this same post. 
I never said a single thing about Bass' badness NOT warranting looking into Made. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying here? If that quote stood alone, sure. But that quote came some time after the original mudslinging, something about "twice in one game is funky" as I recall? So, complete thoughts or not, there's no "double standard" because the situations are not similar.You know what else is one complete thought? "I find it odd that this phrase which I hadn't heard before was used twice in one game in such a short time but its nothing I would put a vote behind." That is the double standard I have described.
I have to be honest here, I don't understand. That first sentence is a doozy to read, and even when I do it slowly, I don't fully grasp what you're really saying. I'd be fine with dropping the irony thing if it's not important to you, because I don't want to get bogged down in semantics or whatever. However, if it's a big part of your "case", then by all means, please explain again.You were all up in my joint about my posts RE: Dom and my posts insisting that I wasn't making a case based on my Misfits comment or my comments to Rey/SVS. And then you go and make the same type of comments. You don't see the irony there?
Agreed, I'm not down with the Silent Ride-Alongs. Perhaps we could lobby to institute a system where each game has an assumed rule about non-posting and modkills for it. Furthermore, a system of logging how many no-shows or low-shows a player has, so a host can be wary of giving those people important roles? Maybe that's going too far. Maybe flags can be given which go away when the player participates normally.DharmaHelper wrote:I can take being lynched. I can take being set up to be lynched. What I can't take (every time it happens) is being lynched before people who are barely here. Its a large reason why I have become disinterested in mafia :Pzeek wrote:bea, my wand vote doesn't look good, you're right, but that was only in reaction to the unwarranted and unexplained trust MP was receiving for it. I believe I initially voted LC maybe, don't quote me on it, but Dom had a vote more so I switched hoping somebody would turn up or swap over. I was just worried about MP getting it.
Snow Dog, I really hope you reconsider. Maybe take a break and see how you feel?
I'm a bit annoyed today thinking about all the players who've simply not shown up this game. Likelihood is they're all disinterested civs who are missing a great game and making it seriously hard for the rest of us.
DharmaHelper wrote:First thing that pops out at me is Long Con's stance during the Made suspicion. He felt strongly enough about it to quit the contest, and aside from that drop his bullheaded suspicion of me for a day.
If we find out Made is bad, then it would still be a good idea to look at those people. I thought it then and I think it now, thanks for reminding me of that. You're really going all out here, you're a very eloquent word-twister.He even brought up the idea that people steering the convo away from Made might be Made's teammates. And as I'm typing this, I'm remembering that Bass was in fact one of the Made defenders, and turned out to be a suit. So in addition to pointing out what I originally wanted to point out, which was that Long Con's shift from "Made is looking more bad than DH and its possible he might have teammates here defending him." to "Nothing I plan on pursuing unless Made flips bad" again illustrates his double standard suspicion of me.
Now you make me have to disprove what you said.That's actually a pretty good point. Worth looking into.Since there were A LOT of people on my junk about the llama voters and how they couldn't see Made being bad unless he/someone who defended him flipped bad, what are our thoughts now that Bass has indeed flipped bad? Does this, combined with Mades absence, thrust him back into discussion? I think it's certainly a point against him.
Why indeed. WIFOM? Yet another ironic thing for you to say given your umbrage with my posts/concerns of being misrepresented.Long Con wrote:Where your logic is backwards: You said "A Civ LC would be worried about Made getting framed", and that's exactly what happened. I was worried that could be, and so I posted a clarification post before I left for work, so that anyone who was inclined could get more information. The baddie move would have been to not post anything, and let the original supposition stand. If I didn't post that out of concern that Made was being framed... then why else would I post it?
[/quote]I certainly don't envy your situation right now. It reminds me of that early-game "If SVS is killed, it was Llama" thing. I commented on the situation then, as I do now... it's something totally out of your control, and you don't even know if you're The Narrator or not. If you get killed at night, we'll know if you are The Narrator, but not your alignment. At least you should be somewhat safe from nightkill, because the baddies are pretty likely to let the suspicion of you remain until we have to lynch you.Spacedaisy wrote:I'm sorry guys, I started a new job yesterday, I've been kind of busy, thus the lack of posting here recently. I've skimmed the past couple pages and I can't say I am happy...
You are absolutely wrong about my alignment. I am civ. I don't know if Alex chose me as the narrator but I would be really surprised if he did. He is a smart player, he would make a careful choice here.he would want someone he thought had the best chance to make it to the end. I am not that player, and we all know it. I would not even think he would recruit me this early in the game, maybe later, I don't know.timmer wrote:Exactly, Alex is trying to cast himself as this big savior but he was just trying to get out in front of a situation that was already starting to unfold. He's very carefully playing the woe is me card to control the narrative. It makes me feel that I'm right about SD being bad SND her being the narrator.
Lynching me will only help the baddies. don't do it.
That said, this stupid narrator accusation has made me a mark, I will likely get NKed at some point, I woud rather get lynched. At least that way the civs will get some information from my death.
Now, I want to say I think either SVS or Bea are bad. I don't know which I a suspect more right now, and it's far from being certain. I could be wrong, but I tend to subscribe to the idea that the simplest explanation is the likeliest and right now that points in my mind to either Bea or SVS being bad. That is my two cents on that. I Still don't trust DH or TH either frankly. For all the reasons we've been over a million times.
I like the concept, but there's no fall for me here. If you lynch me, I die, and I'm not a baddie. That's a game loss, but at least I'll be proven not a baddie. If you kill me, I lose, and that's just how it goes. My pride remains intact either way. Ideally, it will remain intact with me surviving as well.It's something, ain't it?DharmaHelper wrote:Your arrogance is staggering.
If you do a search of my past games, you'll probably find it peaks when I'm really sure I'm right.I love the way you keep pushing a legitimate Day 1 vote to try and paint me up as a baddie. Spoiler Alert: It was just a Day One vote on a Day One suspicion. It was real, and it wasn't a scheme of any sort.timmer wrote:I tend to get blinded by DH being DH. Basically, I look at the now epic-length back and forth between him and Long Con, and I feel like LC is the one who started out in the wrong, all the way back to his Day 1 vote for rey, which I believe DH called him on. And that's where the tie to SD started as well. Since then, DH has been fairly consistent in his posting about LC, and so since I feel like there is a good chance LC is bad, I feel that it makes a bigger chance DH isn't.
That said, I could definitely see an indy DH here. I'm just not seeing a baddie DH, but like I said at the start, I'm not very good at reading through his game.
DFaraday wrote:I also am wary of DH, but I've never been able to read him.
You said it's wrong. I assumed you didn't touch on it because you have nothing else to say against it.DharmaHelper wrote:Note that I said I wasn't finished, and also note that, I've addressed the DF thing in several other posts.Long Con wrote:If Daisy is a Suit, then DH is her teammate. Note that in all DH's grand interesting colourful post, he didn't touch on what I consider to be the most damning baddie indicator, the DFaraday connection.zeek wrote:I believe the last two Suits are either her, DH or Snowy. Your point about her suspecting LC (in theory a teammate) a little but not too hard, works if DH is her teammate as well, as he was in her Top 3 Suspects but saying she's just unsure about him.
Note that Long Con seems to have ignored both of those notes
Noted.
It was also the way that DF was distancing himself from DH.bea wrote:timmer wrote:For this reason, no one should be listening to MP's thoughts on anything, imo. He'll paint his narrator to be a civ, no matter what. And if his narrator is a baddie then MP is essentially a baddie, too.Long Con wrote: You also bring up a good point I hadn't thought of - if MP chose a baddie as The Narrator, then he would have more than his own whims to consider when deciding which side to support.
Timmer -those are all really good points. I think it's pretty safe to rule SD out as being a sorcerer - but yea. Everything else is pretty unknown. You make a good case though that she could be a suit. One definately worth keeping in mind.
linki - that's a fair point as well LC. Just to refresh my memory - was the connection that DH didn't want to vote DF during that lynch? What was the bones of it again. I know you laid it out before, just need my memory refreshed.
If Daisy is a Suit, then DH is her teammate. Note that in all DH's grand interesting colourful post, he didn't touch on what I consider to be the most damning baddie indicator, the DFaraday connection.zeek wrote:I believe the last two Suits are either her, DH or Snowy. Your point about her suspecting LC (in theory a teammate) a little but not too hard, works if DH is her teammate as well, as he was in her Top 3 Suspects but saying she's just unsure about him.
I think that goes a bit far - even if MP is siding with the Suits, it's still in his best interests to try and lynch a Sorcerer. Instead of not listening to him, we should consider that his posts may be tainted with Suit-friendly intentions... but still analyze for ourselves if things he says make sense. I'd hate to throw out a good case against a baddie just because MP said it.timmer wrote:For this reason, no one should be listening to MP's thoughts on anything, imo. He'll paint his narrator to be a civ, no matter what. And if his narrator is a baddie then MP is essentially a baddie, too.Long Con wrote: You also bring up a good point I hadn't thought of - if MP chose a baddie as The Narrator, then he would have more than his own whims to consider when deciding which side to support.
I think you meant the player with the least posts, right?bea wrote:I was the ONLY player to go back and read Bass and attempt to actually try to figure out who could be bad. Sure, I picked the player on the poll with the least votes.
I guess the greater number of posts that Dom had was more intimidating to comb through? What lazy players! Oh, that makes sense for the MP-SpaceDaisy connection. If we believe in that, then we can be reasonably sure that she's not on the Sorcerers' team, or it would have been against MP's interests to go after him.zeek wrote:My thoughts on LC are all over the place, can't get a decent read on him. He seems genuine and civ one post, then tetchy and insincere in the next. Did he ever say which team he was silenced by?
S~V~S I tend to believe is Snape. Obviously it's possible she's also Voldemort but he can't summon a patronus (like that in Lily's avatar). Unless I've read the situation incorrectly and she isn't likely responsible for Lily. Someone correct me if that is the case.
MP's 99% claim makes me think he chose her as the Narrator and, thus, knows her role.timmer wrote:As to SpaceDaisy. MP, I would like you to go into DETAIL about why you are thinking civ here. Obviously you have an agenda, and the fact that you are outed and playing an ostensibly pro-civ game doesn't change that. You DO have an agenda to see your recruits survive. So when I see you defend someone as civ at this point in the game, if you want me to listen to you, you will need to DEMONSTRATE your reasons. I don't think anyone, outside of your recruits, will just simply trust you. At least, they shouldn't. So I'm willing to listen, how is SD civ?
But if you're tying us to MP (as in, the Fight Club recruits perhaps join him more than the role indicates?) then the Day One connection doesn't really support that aspect.timmer wrote:She was weirdly supportive of your rey vote on Day 1, for starters.
Interesting... and she also was the main other Dom accuser during the Bass lynch.timmer wrote:She was weirdly supportive of your rey vote on Day 1, for starters.
That is definitely a great start.Snow Dog wrote:I will be sure to try and get a suit or a sorcerer soon.
Regarding MP. I am happy not to lynch him.
Well, I can't argue an eloquent case like that!DharmaHelper wrote:Am verr slheepy sory for lame pos but I will lbeeo looking at LC tofay to vote. Byt I habe r dash ry so I'll vote ;ater
S~V~S wrote:...that whole "if you were a civvie, you would make a case on another civvie to survive" thing was ludicrous. Dom was bad, but not for the reasons Daisy & LC were pushing.
Ludicrous? That is an awfully strange way to look at the situation. I can't recall another time that I called out a player as being bad for the way they were acting, being right, and then had someone say that he was bad, but not for the reasons I was saying. 
dun dun dunnnnnCan you elaborate?Roxy wrote:I have the sickness fyi
I am become death
The Cards thing didn't happen past the first phase, making it very likely that Black Rock was the Card Czar. Also, was everyone on the Day 3 poll? That would indicate that the Card Czar didn't even choose one winner.Elohcin wrote:Didn't we already say we thought FZ was The Card Czar?MovingPictures07 wrote:I suggested it could either be INH or FZ.Long Con wrote:I haven't felt any Hatter effects, I think you may be right. Maybe it was FZ.? Does that line up? I think someone suggested that a little ways back.
The only reason I think INH is more likely is that only two players felt the wrath of the Hatter that we know of: Made and zeek.
INH died N2 and FZ. died N3 and powers still go through the night the user dies (this is typical; nonetheless, I'm pretty sure someone asked that earlier, but correct me if I'm wrong). If FZ. was the Hatter, that means she missed her PM the night she died, something I can't see her doing.
Linki: I've considered that too, LC, and it's also possible Hatter has had the opportunity to switch up his forcings and make it seem less obvious, since the effect will have been lost after Made and zeek.
Any chance it's the Hatter, in your opinion?Snow Dog wrote:It's a hex rather than a curse if that helps.MovingPictures07 wrote:As far as I see, the question mark curses can ONLY be coming from Snape, Voldemort, Hatter, and Gollum.
Some of those seem more likely than others.
