The Syndicate

fingersplints wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:That analysis made me more suspicious of MovingPictures07 than fingersplints.

I don't get why. I also think Splints was very likely Hunger last round, and I do wonder if she's lying about it now.

I think his points about her are opportunistic and weak, actually. I'd be surprised if fingersplints turned out to be Epig's teammate, I don't get that read at all from going over her posts. It looks more like MP07 is cleverly trying to put together various far-fetched points into a cobbled case.

Well, I think that from a process of elimination, it is likely that she was a baddie, and if she still has the same role, I don't get why that would change. I didn't see her related to anyone last day.
Do you think she's good, or is it more that you think MP is bad?

I think you have made some incorrect eliminations. I have the same civvie role I had before.

There's only one person who could have been Hunger, and that's Russ. Since it appeared like he had some people defending him, it left only you

Roxy, is it possible for civvie roles to become bad?

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:That analysis made me more suspicious of MovingPictures07 than fingersplints.

I don't get why. I also think Splints was very likely Hunger last round, and I do wonder if she's lying about it now.

I think his points about her are opportunistic and weak, actually. I'd be surprised if fingersplints turned out to be Epig's teammate, I don't get that read at all from going over her posts. It looks more like MP07 is cleverly trying to put together various far-fetched points into a cobbled case.

Well, I think that from a process of elimination, it is likely that she was a baddie, and if she still has the same role, I don't get why that would change. I didn't see her related to anyone last day.
Do you think she's good, or is it more that you think MP is bad?

Long Con wrote:That analysis made me more suspicious of MovingPictures07 than fingersplints.

I don't get why. I also think Splints was very likely Hunger last round, and I do wonder if she's lying about it now.

Can you say who you were?

fingersplints wrote:Are you happy with it FZ?

Yeah, I'm good.

Roxy, you said we can talk about who we were, right? Splints, were you Hunger last day?

fingersplints wrote:That's pretty standard posting for all the people you mentioned.

Splints, how please are you with the new rotation outcome?
Same question to Rico

Went with an O. I have no idea what the heck it means

Woohoo
I hope for the baddies sake, that they all rotated.

Russtifinko wrote:Also, a signaling mechanism is a brilliant way to reveal info without info dumping. Bravo, if that's what happened. Although it is a major pain that llama was taken out as a result.

No signalling, just doing a middle school logic puzzle

Can we talk about the rotation mechanism?

Also, if a person is rezzed, is he rezzed in their previous role?

fingersplints wrote:when did I say I was considering voting trice?

Sorry, I checked and you said Bass or Ty, not Trice or Ty. I still think you're bad.

Is there something I'm missing? I don't get all the votes on LC. I really don't.
Good night

@linki: I don't buy it Splints. I think you and Trice are on the same team, and it's not a good team

Okay, I'm out for tonight. Going to bed. I'd suggest changing your votes, but why listen to me?

@linki: SVS, I get why you're upset, but doing that will just cause us another civ, and if we change roles, we might really need that role later on. There is still one kill in his arsenal.

@linki: Splints, what's the point in voting another person who has no votes? You just said you were considering voting Trice (who has 2 votes) as well, yet chose Ty who has no votes. Scummy much? Why don't you give your vote to Trice?

Ricochet wrote:

FZ. wrote:How about you both move it, LC and Rico?

I said earlier LC's dodgy manners probably wouldn't change my D1 vote for him. So I'm fine.

Clearly, you're not going to listen to those defending him

fingersplints wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:Could LC just be a jester? Or is he acting like that to make us think he is, so we don't lynch him?

No one wants to lynch a jester! But no, I'm just a regular Civvie dude, I don't know who's bad or anything. I'll try to find a new place for my vote now.

No, but I don't find him suspicious for now, and I think the votes are spread enough. What do you think about Russ? Zomb and Splints were considering him as well, so we can all vote there

that is not true

What isn't? You weren't considering voting Russ?

thellama73 wrote:Does my vote still count?

How about you both move it, LC and Rico?

Let's all decide on one person, so LC and Rico don't get lynched

Black Rock wrote:I changed my vote to Ty right now.

LOL, I just switched to Trice. Thought it better to lynch a veteran and give the newbie a chance to get more experience

I just went over the list of players and over who people are defending. It seems like it's impossible to not hint in this game. The minute you say you think someone is okay, it makes people assume you're on their team. And if I'm getting it right, and LC and BR are legit, then it makes Russ legit as well.
This leaves me with Trice, TY, Blooper and Splints. Am I missing anyone? I think the baddies are laying low until we lynch someone. They can't defend anyone and are just hoping to skate by until they change roles

linki: would you consider voting for Russ?

linki: Splints, what do you think about my theory? :P

Black Rock wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:I'm thinking that Rico just killed Llama, or someone else did it to frame him. If Rico did it, he is a bad civvie. Does that exist?

No, but civvies make mistakes all the time.

So, a civvie was just killed and the vote is split between two likely civvies (imo).

I'm voting for Bass as well, unless someone can tell me why I shouldn't.

I don't get the Bass votes instead of Russ. What exactly has Bass said that was considered suspicious by anyone so far? This is coming out of the blue, when Russ is only telling us why what we think isn't right, and has not given anything other than that.

I would consider voting for Ty

Long Con wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Yeah, I think I'll switch to LC now.

You scum, you should have killed me and voted Llama, at least.

And I call you scum in only the friendliest way, not in any personal way. I call my two-year-old "scum" on a daily basis. True story.

Linki: I think voting Russ makes no sense, I have gotten a Civvie vibe from him this round. And if you suspect Ty, why not vote Ty?

I don't know. Russ just seems like he's not helpful at all (no offence). As for Ty, I don't know. I think he's a baddie, but no one seems to say anything about it, so I'm not pushing it because...I don't know why actually.

How has Russ seemed Civvie to you?

I think that seals the deal for me on voting Russ. Anyone care to join me? I think Ty was Epig's partner

Hey, don't the Donners have a rezz? Or was it someone else? They can rezz llama

@linki: yeah, but we don't know if it was on purpose

RIP llama. I really had a hard time reading that story

I wonder if that was on purpose to signal us that he's not Epi's partner but Levina

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:Could LC just be a jester? Or is he acting like that to make us think he is, so we don't lynch him?

No one wants to lynch a jester! But no, I'm just a regular Civvie dude, I don't know who's bad or anything. I'll try to find a new place for my vote now.

No, but I don't find him suspicious for now, and I think the votes are spread enough. What do you think about Russ? Zomb and Splints were considering him as well, so we can all vote there

Could LC just be a jester? Or is he acting like that to make us think he is, so we don't lynch him?

Ricochet wrote:I counted two actually, but unfortunately that does not get me off the hook.

I'd expect people who know a civ is getting lynched to try harder than that

I have to be honest and say that if I vote for Rico, it's only because I don't see anyone really trying hard to defend him....And if you want to talk about unfair, I'm thinking this is it, and not because of info dumping, but because of game mechanics.

So I'm wondering if I'd rather vote for Russ, whose line from the first day regarding how he'd be okay with voting civvies as well, is still pinging me. The more I think of it, I can see it as a way of trying to make the civvies just go against each other.

@linki: Ilama, I don't think you can call that without info

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

S~V~S wrote:You did not see all the posts asking if it were a tie or not, etc?

And if there were not role changes I might agree with you, but there are role changes. And I believe Rox clarified "in your wagon train" to mean within your group but it is possible I misremember.

Questions with questions, again. Please. Specify.

You do misremember, that was about George Donner's protection powers.

I can pull quotes tonight after work . But can you answer that, plz? You don't remember the discussion about whether or not it was a tie?

And FZ, baddies use polls to frame people all the time.

Still doesn't explain why he admitted to having it only to not give it to us.

thellama73 wrote:Although, the fact that FZ seems so pissed off about this is starting to make me hesitate...

Nah, just wanting to be sure.
I'm pissed about the info dumping stuff, not this

The thing that's making me hesitate is the fact that he did indeed defend Epi more than once, which maybe in this game is different, but usually baddies don't defend each other strongly, and the fact I don't see any reason for him to admit as a baddie that he had the screenshot and then not give it.

By the way, llama, what do you think of SVS?

Let me ask you a question SVS:

Why would Rico snapshot the poll in the first place, if he's just a baddie? Why would he then say he has the results and not share them? If he intentionally thought to hide them, wouldn't it be better just to lie about it and say he doesn't have it?
If this is what tipped your decision, it's making me think question your intentions.

I am starting to feel like Rico isn't Epig's partner.

I also think that TySlayer's way of playing so far can easily fit a newbie baddie that doesn't know how to act and what might raise suspicion. I think we've gotten so used to experienced baddies, that we can't recognize an inexperienced one when we see it. He first just votes for me, without any reason, and then he comes in and says he has no idea who to vote for and would love some ideas. Could it be that now that his partner is gone, he doesn't care who we lynch? Would really like to know what people think about that.

Also, while Russ doesn't care whether he lynches his team, has he said anything that seems like baddie hunting? All I see from him is talking about the info dumping. If he did, I'm sorry. I just don't recall any.

One more thing, sorry.

I have no idea how to play this game.
We can't base our votes on common sense, or at least we can't talk about common sense because it's info dumping. If I'm info dumping, be sure it's not on purpose.
The reason I like being a civ more than a baddie is because I use analysis and common sense as a civ (with very low levels of manipulation), where as a baddie, it's the opposite. I mostly have to manipulate people.
Building a case on thin air instead of explaining common sense, thereby having to manipulate people to go with my direction seems so twisted

To add to that, we can't build a case based on voting patterns, because one vote means nothing, and by next day, roles change. So it's not like I can even build a "case" on anyone

If this is just going to be a random voting game, I'd like to be replaced as well.

I'm getting annoyed by the info dumping discussion.

1. The info dumping started with Elizabeth's message. It ruled out one team with 4 roles. Anyone with brains, would have done a process of elimination. I voted for him not because LC said he's not on his team. For all you know, LC and I could have been on the other baddie team together. But what matters is, like I told Epi, I felt he wasn't genuinely baddie hunting, and with the addition of Donner's message, I felt that's where my vote had to go.

2. The nature of this game is very different from a mafia game. It requires different strategies. You want to call it middle school logic puzzle, so be it. I guess not everyone is as intelligent. I'd much rather solve a middle school puzzle than just gamble and throw a dice to off someone every round. Let's just see who's the most popular and can get everyone to join him in lynching whoever.

3. That said, I will refrain from saying who's not on my team, since I can agree that if someone chooses to believe me, it narrows things down. But, if I feel bad for Epi, it's because of Elizabeth's message, not anything that's happened after that.

And just a note to all those accusing us of info dumping. You talking about it, instead of shutting up about it or going to the host so she'll punish us, is what made some people think he really didn't have any defenders.

In any case, I am apologizing again (after taking it back) for making it not fun for some here, but I really have no idea how to play this.

I'm going to bed. Will be back tomorrow at some point

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:Okay, thanks for clarifying, Roxy. This means we're back to looking for baddies.

I have three questions:

1. What do people make of the fact that two people "defended" Rico? Do you think it's just their assumptions or does it look like he could be legit? Since they defended him before we knew the roles will be switched at the end of the day, defending someone on your baddie team would be very dangerous. So if their defence seems real, I'd trust that he's a civ. If it just their opinion, then Rico could be Epi's team mate.

2. Any theories on why LC self voted too?

3. Since it's the other team's turn to kill the next night, will it make any change if we lynch one of them in terms of the kill?

1. They could just be people who don't think he's bad without being on his team. I still think the case on Rico is as good as any I have ever seen on Day 2 and I don't intend to move my vote.

2. I don't understand why anyone self votes, ever. Never have, never will.

3. Both teams kill every night. If Rico is Hunger, as I theorize, then one of the teams will be eliminated, and we will have less to worry about.

Thanks for the answers. Regarding #2, you don't think it had anything to do with his role? When asked why he's self voting, he said he had his reasons. I'm trying to think what he had to gain from it. It's not like any of the self voting we know, which are usually because people "are not caught up" and all that BS.
Also, has anyone defended LC in the last day? Could LC and Epi have worked together? I know LC said Epi wasn't on his team either. Is that something you see him lying about? Or is my theory just ridiculous? I need to go back and see if anyone defended LC, because I can't recall anyone doing it. But if people did, then that would shoot down my theory somewhat

Okay, thanks for clarifying, Roxy. This means we're back to looking for baddies.

I have three questions:

1. What do people make of the fact that two people "defended" Rico? Do you think it's just their assumptions or does it look like he could be legit? Since they defended him before we knew the roles will be switched at the end of the day, defending someone on your baddie team would be very dangerous. So if their defence seems real, I'd trust that he's a civ. If it just their opinion, then Rico could be Epi's team mate.

2. Any theories on why LC self voted too?

3. Since it's the other team's turn to kill the next night, will it make any change if we lynch one of them in terms of the kill?

S~V~S wrote:Well, though, doesn't the role die if we lynch the person bearing it?

If he switches from a baddie to a civ before the deadline, it won't. I have no idea how this is going to go. Roxy has a devilish twisted mind :P


@linki: that

Roxy wrote:A rotation has begun. You will have everything you need or need to know by the end of Day 2.

Thanks for answering, though I doubt I'm more knowledgable after your answer
And by the end of day 2...Does this mean we should just randomly vote this day, because someone who starts the day as a civ could end it as a baddie?

Roxy, can you please clear this up? I see no point in pursuing the people we were suspicious of in the previous day if they might have switched roles.

Did anyone change their roles?
Rico, did you?

S~V~S wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Ricochet wrote:@LC: Because I don't understand what's on topic about it. TH is not even in this game.

Damn... picked a random player there. How chumpy of me.

I'm not irrelevant. Any conversation that's not about elephants is irrelephant. I'm playing on gut because it's the new cool. If we lynch S~V~S, we can get a baddie.

Nah.

Linki~ have roles changed? As far as I know mine has not. I did not get a PM from the host, in any case.

Mine didn't either, but I lost the BTSC. I hope we're allowed to say that.

Roxy, you said we can share our role but not the powers. So if someone was a Donner he can say that but not which Donner? Or they can say which and then if there's a secret as well, they can't share that?
Also, can you say who was on your BTSC before? I assume you can, since if we can all say our roles, we can know who was with us. okay, stupid question. But I want to make sure I understood

linki: I thought that if the chat room was cleared, it means at least some of the people in it, changed roles.

Hey, Epi was indeed a baddie! Nice . RIP MM. I hope Epi is not too upset about this. I really was looking forward to playing with him. It was definitely too short .
So if at least some roles have changed, does it even matter if Rico was Epi's partner? What am I missing here?

Roxy wrote:

fingersplints wrote:Has it been discussed yet if we can talk about past roles we had once they changed?
I think I played the game on the piano too, so I wish I could help, but I can't think of anything useful atm

Let me think about this.

FZ. wrote:Roxy, are there more secret to the roles that we are in the dark about, or are the roles exactly as described in the thread?

Funny you should ask, every game I have ever hosted had some roles with secret - secrets. Some may be unknown to the player with the role until a certain chain of events takes place. That is all I will say.

Hmm, well, that kills the last crumbs of logic I was trying to use to understand anything in this game

Epignosis wrote:

FZ. wrote:How could he know that?

I can read k

Apparently, I can't, because I can't find anything that makes sense. The only way you could know you wouldn't be killed from reading the roles description is if you're a Donner and knew you could be saved. That would make what you said to Elizabeth Donner really weird in my eyes, because if you're a part of that team, why bother doing all that hoopla and making us believe you're not on the same team? Also, if that's what you are, and llama's on your team, why'd you break the tie with LC instead of voting LC. He obviously was not on your team?

How could he know that?

Any suggestions on why Epi would vote himself and prevent the tie?
One option is that they are on the same team and he could survive the lynch when LC couldn't. But LC said they're not on the same team. LC also voted himself. So not likely.


Roxy, are there more secret to the roles that we are in the dark about, or are the roles exactly as described in the thread?

S~V~S wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:Okay - then here's what I THINK:

1) MP and Epi are not Donners.
2) Llama or SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner.
3) The lunch was stopped by a tie (can someone give me a tally of the ending votes?) or by Jacob Donner (I don't have a theory for why unless LC is Jacob Donner).
4) Epi somehow predicted that the lunch would be stopped (he is a Reed and they planned a tie vote? or is he a Donner?), either way, I don't think Epi is bad - for now
5) Maybe Epi guessed that SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner (or not) either way, SVS seemed to think that he did, so I don't think that SVS is bad either - for now.
6) If SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner then Llama might be bad. LC might also be bad, based on my initial gut reaction to his posts (non-info dumping related - based on his lack of analysis and "latching on" on).
7) I suspect that Snowman might be bad but SVS defended him so he might also be a Donner.

That is all.

Llama was taken off the poll. I believe that is a Donner only function. Interesting deductions; I don't agree with all of them, but I can totally see why you think what you think.

The problem here is that this is all likely to change tomorrow.

Missed that part. I guess llama's off the hook

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....

If you say you THINK someone is bad and why, that's totally acceptable.

If you say you know someone is bad, that is unacceptable.

Which would put what I and LC said as acceptable. I was either saying I think Epi is likely a baddie because of something, or was lying about it. Either way, I didn't know he was a baddie. Hence I think llama's vote was a baddie's excuse for voting like that, or an overreaction at best.

I was trying to stop something I saw happening, which is the following: Suppose everyone in the thread had followed your and LC's example. Suppose everyone in the thread said "A, B, and C are my BTSC partners." How long do you think the game would last and how fun would it be? I don't think what you did crossed the line, I think LC came closer (and I also thought he might be lying) but if that line of posting had continued, I think it would have ruined the game.

That is my opinion, and you are free to disagree. But if you think the case on LC was trumped up, recall that I am far from the only person who voted for him, and I gave a better reason than many.

Okay, fair enough. I get where you're going with this. I still think there's a big difference between saying who is on your team, and naming one person who isn't.
By the way, remember the small game (I don't remember who hosted it) where there were 4 investigators (naive, always wrong, always right and always gets "guilty") and one killer, and TH suggested the strategy? I was the killer and I thought the strategy was unfair, but had he come up with that idea one day later (as was initially supposed to happen), it would have been okay in my mind. The timing was everything. Here too, I think it's about balancing. Saying one person is okay, because you can lie about it, bug giving everyone on your team is not, because that would just out everyone and kill the game.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....

If you say you THINK someone is bad and why, that's totally acceptable.

If you say you know someone is bad, that is unacceptable.

Which would put what I and LC said as acceptable. I was either saying I think Epi is likely a baddie because of something, or was lying about it. Either way, I didn't know he was a baddie. Hence I think llama's vote was a baddie's excuse for voting like that, or an overreaction at best.

What I'm trying to say is, info dumping is a general term and in my opinion should only be prohibited if it can not be interpreted in more than one way