The Syndicate

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?

Because I didn't think of it again until I was posting about your post a couple of hours ago.

why are you so threatened by one vote?

You didn't think of it "again"? As in, you had thought on Day 0 that my stance was nefarious, but you pocketed that thought until now?

I'm not threatened by your vote, I just want to understand it.

Because currently I think you were just looking for any reason to vote for me.

If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:The "naughty" statement was relevant to the discussion that was being had at the time IIRC. That's exactly what that post was, an attempt to have a discussion.

Why are you voting for me on Day 3 for something I said on Day 0?

Because you posted day 3 with a post that seemed to be diametrically opposed to that post. Also, games are cumulative. And something that does not necessarily seem especially suspicious early on can become suspicious later.

It is cumulative. That's why I think it's relevant that I later said I was wrong about all teams being equal.

The "naughty" statement was relevant to the discussion that was being had at the time IIRC. That's exactly what that post was, an attempt to have a discussion.

Why are you voting for me on Day 3 for something I said on Day 0?

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

This does not seem like asking a question. This seems like making a statement.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Vote: TH

It's literally a question, one that was answered by multiple people, and I then stated I was proven wrong about all teams being equal.

I don't understand how any of this equates to you voting for me.

LoRab wrote:@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

thellama73 wrote:

LoRab wrote: Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

This.

As someone else already pointed out, lynching neutrals only helps the baddies.

A quite unneutral thing for LoRab to say

(Wait, did I just agree with something that llama said in a mafia game? )

linki: Will contemplate.

Scotty wrote:ALSO A REMINDER TO EVERYONE!!!

Uzbekistan can lock the thread today, which I'm assuming means for the entirety of the day phase, so if you have something you want to say, it may be a good idea to get it out sooner rather than later.

Oh shit son, good point.

I'll place my vote on reywaS for now.

Scotty wrote:As a matter of fact, the more we look at lynching neutrals, the longer the bad recruiters have chances of recruiting more people.

Now you're speaking my language.

I'm not surprised that aapje is annoyed by the nonparticipants. He wants to win but not with/against sleepwalkers. I thought it was an adequately neutral stance to have.

That said it is a pretty easy vote, and his dialogue with me lacked teeth, like you pointed out. Did he comment at all on Bass/Golden/etc. ?

(That was directed at the thread discussion in general, before it got caught in a couple unrelated linki.)

For my part - and I can only speak for my interactions with him, because I haven't looked at full thread context - it feels like Scotty is willfully exaggerating events in order to further his viewpoint. Maybe that's just how Scotty baddie-hunts, but it's a thing I noticed.

Scotty wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I will not be voting for aapje today. Thank you for this blast from the past

Rest in peace G-Man. Whoever's doing the killing so far doesn't like fun.

Are you not voting him today because he's pushed your nostalgia button or something else? If it's the former, then that's a pretty weak reason not to vote for aapje.

Are you the murderer? Because it feels like you hate fun right now.

My post re: aapje probably should have been in tongue-in-cheek teal.

aapje wrote:

Scotty wrote:

aapje wrote:So what's a rainbow post? Other than the thing DH posted

Some would say they are posts that are outwardly supportive of Gay rights.

Do you have any rainbow posts you would like to share with the class, aapje?

Oooh I know just the thing! I'm sure some people will appreciate this classic:

I will not be voting for aapje today. Thank you for this blast from the past

Rest in peace G-Man. Whoever's doing the killing so far doesn't like fun.

Ricochet wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I voted like 5 minutes before the poll ended, when Bass already had a majority. A vote anywhere else would have been wasted, or worse it would have led to shenanigans. I don't see what the problem is. I had to vote somewhere.

Bandwagoning.
Flip-flopping.
Voting in contradiction your last read/viewpoint on the player you voted for.
Also: I didn't notice before Scotty bringing this up as well, and I agree with him that you also made some stronger remarks about rey only to never pick it up again, come vote time.

These would be the problems I can enumerate off the top of my head right now.

Why is bandwagonning a problem? If I had voted elsewhere, I'm sure someone would cite me "wasting my vote" as a problem, too.

Why is flip-flopping a problem? Is it a baddie thing to do?

I don't feel like my vote is in contradiction to my viewpoint. Yes Bass sounded sincere to me in his final moments, as players often do. I'm sorry that I wasn't sure about him. I said I wasn't feeling a Golden vote, and he was the only other realistic option at that point.

I brought rey up for the first time about 20 minutes before Day 2 ended. It's not even Day 3 yet.

Scotty wrote:"I voted like 5 minutes before the poll ended, when Bass already had a majority. A vote anywhere else would have been wasted, or worse it would have led to shenanigans. I don't see what the problem is. I had to vote somewhere."
So your vote was useless at that point, you're saying, and it could have gone anywhere, but you didn't want to just vote anywhere so as to raise suspicions? Well too bad. You raised suspicions from me for not explaining your vote or your intentions.

Your summary of what I said is nothing like what I said.

Ricochet wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Turnip Head, what are your thoughts?

I was thinking Bass was bad but his last few posts feel genuine to me. Not really feeling a Golden vote either. Idk.

[no Bass posts or posts on Bass (from anyone, that is) in between]

Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Bass.

Please explain.

I voted like 5 minutes before the poll ended, when Bass already had a majority. A vote anywhere else would have been wasted, or worse it would have led to shenanigans. I don't see what the problem is. I had to vote somewhere.

Ricochet wrote:

Dom wrote:]
Bass was playing a bad/chaos-aligned neutral game... interesting...
What is Golden playing?

Why do you treat Bass' play as bad/chaos-aligned? Are therefore all Sorcerers bad for you or are they redeemable by recruitement?

He's paraphrasing MP.

unfurl wrote:Also Bye Bass
I think this is become an elitist game tbqh, where the people who arenot hard core player will going to be lynched, my prediction, less see in an a fortune teller

Who are these elitist hardcore players you speak of, and do you think they should be lynched?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Turnip Head. How does it feel to be alive?

Just peachy thanks for asking

Scotty wrote:TurnipHead- [snip]
You just said you didn't know who to vote for, and actually also said that you couldn't decide between Bass or Golden.

I never said that. And even if I did, what's your point?

Scotty wrote:You're literally all over the place on your reads, and don't back them up. What's up with that, bro?

No I'm not. And even if I was, what's your point?

Bummer. See you in the next game Bass.

reywaS wrote:Facts: Golden expressed sincere desire to see Epignosis killed. Epignosis is killed on night 1 by Azura.

How Golden and his new cheerleader MovingPictures come off to me:

"Hey, guys, look I know that I/Golden am/is responsible for Azura (A confirmed baddie) killing Epignosis when literally the only person going after Epig was Golden, but he's getting a bad rap and I think everyone just needs to trust the guy. I promise he's not bad. You're crazy for going after him. Actually, you read as bad to me because you aren't giving Golden a free pass."


It's insanity. lol

I think you did it.

I voted for Bass.

Reading Rey's last few posts directed at Golden, I'm wondering if Rey is on the team that killed Epi.

Assuming Golden himself didn't do it.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Turnip Head, what are your thoughts?

I was thinking Bass was bad but his last few posts feel genuine to me. Not really feeling a Golden vote either. Idk.

I might have to vote Canuck for the lame joke, I expect so much better from her

I can definitely see how you (or anyone) would view Golden as a threat at this point. He basically stopped short of calling the Epignosis kill "a demonstration".

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Just kidding.

VOTE DRWILGY

Still creeping around dropping votes in an active game thread. Get in here.

*Paging Dr Wilgy, Dr Wilgy to the thread please*

G-Man wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I still have nightmares of that game, between G-Man masquerading as The Joker and Golden the super secret most bad of all the baddies, lurking in the shadows.

What was wrong with my Joker posts? I loved making those.

Never change, G-Man. Never change.

S~V~S wrote:I never said he is playing like a baddie. I said he is not playing like civ-centric Golden. What if he decides I am incompatible with him? Or you? I am flabbergasted that anyone is actually defending this.

I believe that he killed Epi and is going for the WIFOM. And if Bass does not flip bad, I will wonder about the hard push for him at this point.

I agree he's not playing a civ-centric game, but I don't think he's playing a baddie game either. So in my mind that leaves neutral :P

He hasn't gone for the WIFOM though. He's playing the "I baited the NK" card, not the WIFOM card. I don't know... that would be ballsy as fuck if he killed Epi. And his attitude towards the whole thing has been truly bizarre. If he had the NK, I think Golden would have shut up a long time ago.

I suddenly feel like I should be paying more attention to Jay

TinyBubbles wrote:it's ironically kind of a disadvantage, he has to work at convincing people of his civ ness more than most, i remember reading some time ago he should be lynched early just to be safe, which isn't fair.

That was me! I was joking.

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:S~V~S, to elaborate, I suppose I just feel as though you're putting Golden up to an expectation that is unreasonable, considering he has been quite open about playing a neutral game, and that Epi was a serious threat to Golden's immediate livelihood. I think it's key to note how emotionally-charged Golden's play has been this game, due to being under constant defense for his well being, and from Epi for a while at that.

I feel his behavior in this game is contrary to his non-baddie meta as I know it.

Do you better understand it put like that?

I feel like Golden is playing similar to how he started out in HSK actually, sparring with Epignosis and all. He just took it... a little further this time. I've only seen Golden bad in one game, when he subbed back into Economics, and he played nothing like he is here. He was calm and collected and attracted no attention.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I just am trying to help her see it from another perspective, since Golden's posts have just been oozing sincerity to me, and I feel he is being over scrutinized over other players.

Who do you think should be scrutinized?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:[snip]
Linki @ Golden~ but everyone else who expressed an opinion DID think he was a civ. And you disregarded us totally.

You and these others seriously thought Epignosis was a civilian recruiter or the first recruited?

I want to see substantiation for this because I do not remember this conversation.

I didn't think Epig was a civ, though SVS saying I thought that makes me think maybe I should think that... I thought he was neutral.

(linki: I'll agree that Epi vs. Golden felt like neut on neut.)

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:Hey all i've been reeeeeally busy and just havent had time to read all posts,sorry. i'm willing to change my vote from turniphead to either golden or bass since that's where things seem to be headed.. golden hasn't seemed totally his upfront self like from previous games, it's giving me goosebumps. what's the case against bass though?

Bubbles, what do you think about Bass, right now, before being presented with any case?

neutral

Would you rather lynch Turnip Head than Golden or Bass?

I'm interested in the answer to this as well.

Canucklehead wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Lynching Bubbles for her ninja vote seems weak to me. Is ninja-voting a strategy that a baddie has ever successfully employed? Has lynching a ninja-voter ever caught a baddie?

I thought you were playing this as a neutral, bubba. Why do you suddenly care about good baddie catching strategy? Or are you just firing off stock responses to other people's posts?

(and for the record, I don't have any idea if Tiny is a baddie, and I don't recall ever intimating anything different. )

Hey I mean, if you wanna lynch her for a bum reason, be my guest Given the reasoning behind the votes for her, I think it will likely be a wasted lynch that leads to no information whatsoever. I think Bubbles is likely neutral at this point, and the neutrals are my homies.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Lynching Bubbles for her ninja vote seems weak to me. Is ninja-voting a strategy that a baddie has ever successfully employed? Has lynching a ninja-voter ever caught a baddie?

Maybe she's silenced? I don't remember her posting at all during Day 2.

Looks like she posted once this phase.

TinyBubbles wrote:I did not expect to see Epi go so soon, RIP, and Typhoony too

Lynching Bubbles for her ninja vote seems weak to me. Is ninja-voting a strategy that a baddie has ever successfully employed? Has lynching a ninja-voter ever caught a baddie?

aapje wrote:

Golden wrote:I agree entirely. I'm not really sure why TH has votes, to me it is pretty much on the same place on the curve as random. Although someone like G-Man is not basing it solely on the Speaker.

I can see why people could be suspicious of TH.

Turnip Head wrote:I don't want to be recruited. Y'all better leave me alone.

Could it be he doesn't want people to try and recruit him because he's already on a team?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Doesn't sound very civvie minded either.

All in all not a whole lot to go on but I can see why people would consider voting for him.

I had to manually create linkbacks for this post like some kind of peasant

You're right, it wasn't a very civvie minded thing to say. It was a neutral thing to say.

And I don't want to be recruited yet because I like keeping my options open. I played RM I and III, and this is the first time I've made it past Night 0 without a team. It's quite liberating. Team Neutral 4 Life yo.

I can confirm that lynching me is a waste of everyone's time, and if that's the barometer we're using for whether or not the Speaker of Serenity can be trusted, then the answer is that s/he can not.

Rest in peace Epi and Typh. Not surprised to see Epi go early, that seems to always happen to him. Typh is a shocker though, sad to see them both go.

I still think BWT is fishy, specifically his "Go civs!" post before his non-lynch, but I'm backburnering that because I agree with the suspicion on Bass. I'm seeing a few things that I associate with his baddie game, there was one post in particular where he answered some suspicion on him and then turned it around into a question for (I think) Golden. I think that sort of pivot play is straight out of Bass' baddie repertoire.

Don't find MP suspicious, don't understand the votes for him.

Serenity doesn't know what she's talkin' 'bout.

I'll be around until deadline.

DharmaHelper wrote:To satisfy JJJ, I will be paying attention to and contributing to the discussion after this post.

I want you to know I've got my eye on you bub.

aapje wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I disagree entirely. Carlos should not use her pardon today; that way if someone survives a lynch we'll know it's the baddie recruiter who is immune in Position 1.

I like her new nickname

You can thank autocorrect for that one :P

I voted for BWT because I can't shake the gut feeling I have about him. Voting DFaraday for not being involved on Day 1 when the majority of players have no win condition yet is... I won't call it unfair, just lazy.

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I disagree entirely. Carlos should not use her pardon today; that way if someone survives a lynch we'll know it's the baddie recruiter who is immune in Position 1.

timmer wrote:Skimming at work. Before I vote, aapje, could you explain your vote for DH? Scotty's post does seem to smell like bullshit?

The monkey said he would vote for the next person to change their vote.

DrWilgy wrote:Just wondering.

Is there anything wrong with me wanting friends? Nothing more nothing less. Unfurl, I want to be friends with you due to me voting for you so quickly. I'm sorry about that. Players have vouched for you and I may have made a mistake. MM86 and I have played together already, and I can see us becoming good friends as well. That's why I chose them!

When did you realize that you could change your vote?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.

Does anyone out there think Bass shouldn't be lynched as soon as humanly possible for this post? When it is considered in the context of his tiny post history with no follow-up, it bears the appearance of TMI at worst or manipulative filler at best -- and it's partially built upon stated agreement with MP for a point MP never actually made.

I definitely see what you're saying re: TMI, but Bass could just as easily be a civvie recruiter who tried to recruit MP and/or Llama and failed, so he thinks they're already baddie-aligned.

I'm not sure I agree. What you propose adds another element to the equation for Bass (being a recuiter and having tried to recruit those specific players) which would make it inherently less probable.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you think happened then.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ok so I have a crazy theory. I think MP or llama could be recruiters. I think they have made good points about low posters not getting recruited and then are left unaffiliated and therefor there is no reason to lynch the low posters. It also makes sense that the recruiters would want to take heat away from the more vocal players because they want to recruit those players. I also dont think BR or LC would give an important role like a recruiter to a super low posters or someone who flakes during games. This might sound crazy but I think its possible.

Does anyone out there think Bass shouldn't be lynched as soon as humanly possible for this post? When it is considered in the context of his tiny post history with no follow-up, it bears the appearance of TMI at worst or manipulative filler at best -- and it's partially built upon stated agreement with MP for a point MP never actually made.

I definitely see what you're saying re: TMI, but Bass could just as easily be a civvie recruiter who tried to recruit MP and/or Llama and failed, so he thinks they're already baddie-aligned.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:I am rethinking my bwt vote at the moment, leaning towards one of these people who keep billing this as a no civ game when it has been made clear by the hosts in multiple ways that there are civ aligned recruiters.

Not a bad place to put your vote. What do you think of this post from TH?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

What do you think of that post?

I think you're inaccurate in stating that all recruiters are equally bad. I don't think there's ever been a RM with recruiters who are not one way or the other in terms of baddieness.

Okay you think I'm wrong. Technically I've been proven to be wrong. Obviously Daisy thinks I'm wrong too because she's already said that. What else do you want Daisy to say about my post? Do you think I'm "not a bad place" for Daisy to put her vote because I'm wrong?