The Syndicate

MovingPictures07 wrote:

FZ. wrote:Guess so. Sorry.

Now I just have to decide if I'd rather vote for llama or Daisy. What do you think about llama?

His suspicion of Tiny is weak. Could be forced. I believe he's out of town, but that doesn't excuse the fact that his two votes suck, just like Daisy's.

I think both of them seem mafia; however, there's reason for me to doubt a vote for either of them, due to the fact that their play could be considered sloppy if mafia.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I did already state it. My D1 behavior is the sketchiest of anyone here.

So what are you saying, you want us to vote for you?

What I am saying is the following:

1) I fully expected to die yesterday. The fact that I only received one vote surprised me.
2) The Scotty lynch yesterday STUNK like a bunch of skunks having sex, just like they always did in my uncle's backyard when I was a kid. (that's my attempt to be like Scotty because he has the most amazing analogies, but failing miserably).
3) Daisy is scaring me this game. Her behavior is very illogical. I have a hard time believing she would be a sloppy mafia member, though, which is what gives me pause.
4) However, Boomslang's recent noncommittal post regarding Daisy's behavior is noteworthy if Daisy were to flip mafia, especially if Daisy's been too busy to check into BTSC and plan with her team.
5) I have a reason to believe literally every player this game's behavior during D1 was less sketchy than my own, hence why I voted myself.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

FZ. wrote: So who do you find the most suspicious? I can see myself voting for either Daisy or llama who have votes. But I'm still hesitant

On further review, I think I find llama most suspicious. He was among the Scotty voters without much justification, and he seems to have deliberately misread the role blocking of last night to justify a vote for tinybubbles. I don't know what to make of Daisy's vote yet, and the possibility that MP is the bomb makes me pause before voting for him again. So I'll go ahead and *vote llama*

Boomslang and Daisy, piggy teammate buddies.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I did already state it. My D1 behavior is the sketchiest of anyone here.

LoRab wrote:Of course they woulnd't put all their powers in one place. But do we know that anything other than the kill and the taking someone off he poll didn't go through? I feel like I'm missing something, or have jumped a few thoughts ahead of conclusions.

We know the kill didn't succeed.

We know there was no one taken off the poll.

Do we know anything else about the baddie powers?

If not, why not assume that a block could have happened to the player that had both of those (as opposed to the kill and another power that the baddies hold)?

Do baddie kills work differently here tha what I'm used to? Who usually holds the kills?

Boomslang wrote:

LoRab wrote:Hmmm....I've never known Llama to not pay attention. So, that doesn't hold true to me. But he's not screaming out evil to me either. Gah. I don't like votes early in the game.

Also, I don't think it's obvious that it was the eagle. There are enough factors that it could have been any number of things that caused there to be no kill and no one off the poll.

I've gotta agree with boo's analysis here; the Eagle seems to be the most likely option.

Sockface's continued self-voting is just completely out of character. But at least it's a pattern. Daisy's unexplained vote for Made is just weird. Finally, llama's seeming failure to recognize the global roleblock last night is unlike him and was used to justify a tinybubbles vote. So much weirdness in this game.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:By typical Syndicate standards, I feel like we're all off to shoddy starts in this game.

After thinking about it, probability says it is more likely that the Bald Eagle was around to block the piggies last night (assuming he did) than it is for all four piggies to miss their night action. In my mind, it is also logical for the Bald Eagle to use his power early. The piggies would have had all of their powers to use last night in addition to the extra power they picked up from the bluebird. Later in the game, as piggies are lynched, the team roleblock becomes less and less effective (but still mighty powerful). So perhaps he did use the power last night.

No one was removed from the poll either, so that would be at least 2 night actions that the piggies missed if they were not all roleblocked.

I'm voting for llama. I don't like his persistence for consistency between games.

boo wrote:

FZ. wrote:I need to go to sleep. It's after 1 am here, so I'm going to have to make a choice, based on almost nothing.

One options is Boo, and the other is Splints for saying she didn't like MM's vote for Russ. Though I'm not too fond of it myself, I don't find MM very suspicious for it. It seems like a really stupid way to vote if you're a baddie. This again seems like an easy bandwagon.

Going to give it another minute or so, and if no one comes back by then, I'll make up my mind

Why FS and not Made, who made the original point, that FS just agreed with?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Made wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Made wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I'm going to have to vote in a couple of hours, and I intend to vote Scotty. No solid reason, just pure hunch. I don't feel good about him.

Discuss.

Scotty seems to enjoy extrapolating which either means he's bad and want to seem present or he enjoy extrapolating, something ice bear enjoys from time to time. Ice bear would much rather advocate a Marmot lynch at this point.

I cannot support this course of action. That would result in the votes being spread (potentially).

WHy is this a bad thing?

It's a bad thing because I would be lynched.

I actually do prefer votes to not be concentrated on one player, and my vote was intended to get a reaction from Russ.

boo wrote:I don't think you can bring up meta-game in general, and then ignore meta-game specific to me. We've played together before, and you're making (questionable) generalities that don't apply.

boo wrote:

FZ. wrote:The only person that is ruffling my feathers at the moment, is Boo. He's taking the "logic" stance too seriously. I feel like he wants to seem contributive as well as a little confrontational, like he has nothing to lose, but it seems empty.

Or, you know, it's just that Russti was wrong because he did no-fact checking. Then he continued to be wrong multiple times, but also decided he should tell me to get off my high horse, when he was wrong.That, plus he acted as if he would be bringing logic to the table and then completely failed to do so. He talked about a game where apparently spreading the vote cost people the game. He then laid out a plan that just would have spread out the vote. He's also avoided questions (already). Specifically:

boo wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:So you guys are aware, Recruitment is inTENSE. So I will probably try to be pretty relaxed in this game.

Linki: llama, as I pointed out by citing MOTU, it might very well matter a lot.

boo and Spacedaisy: I chose those three because 1) I know I am civ. 2) Scotty seems like a fine upstanding citizen of this thread and 3) Boomslang has 2 votes already and is cool. So boo, one of them has 2 votes. Please dismount your high horse.

1) Knowing your a civ (if you're a civ) doesn't help other people, because they don't know you're a civ. Obviously everyone is going to act like they're a civ, so it follows that everyone would naturally throw in their own name. Not helpful.

2) Why. How does he seem like more than a fine upstanding citizen of this thread than the three people who already (and actually) have 2 votes?

3) Boomslang voted for himself. That isn't allowed. That vote doesn't count. Boomslang has 1 vote.

He hasn't answered for 2.

I'm also not really sure how I'm taking logic to seriously. I think it's reasonable to expect a person to remain logically consistent. Russti failed to do that, all within a single post, where he 1) Stressed the importance of not spreading the vote (citing a game I didn't play and have no interest in reading, and that no one else has discussed with him), 2) Offering up names for people who he thought we should vote for, even though those 3 people would have just further spread the vote, 3) Proceeded to act offended when people called him out on it, avoiding giving a single helpful answer. 4) Continued to be wrong, a failure of basic-fact checking, which for a person who claims to want to bring logic to the table is, for me at least, is problematic.

But hey, you find people actually thinking and openly discussing those thoughts to seem 'empty', so that's very helpful, and doesn't at all suggest 'you want to seem contributive as well as a little confrontational, like you have nothing to lose'.