The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I'm staying at a friend's house tonight and then leaving early in the morning to go to the Florida Keys. There will be lots of drank, lots of shmoke and lots of fishing, but very little battery life. I'll be back on Sunday and my participation will be sporadic until then.
I'm staying at my house tonight and then leaving early in the morning to go to a shitty job. There will be lots of blame-shifting, lots of ass-covering, and lots of disingenuous behavior, but very little competence. I'll be back on tomorrow and my participation will be the same as it ever was.

Thanks for letting us know.

I'm staying at a friend's house tonight and then leaving early in the morning to go to the Florida Keys. There will be lots of drank, lots of shmoke and lots of fishing, but very little battery life. I'll be back on Sunday and my participation will be sporadic until then.

If juliets is bad I think Bass and Wilgy's votes look the worst out of the bunch.

S~V~S wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Canuck
Why are you making it sound like she was a civvie? She had booby traps that she scattered about the map. I ran into one, and chose not to set it off. The description I got of it sounded pretty scary, tbh.

I would have liked it better if she were a full fledged baddie, but I am OK with that role being gone.

I know she's not a civvie but I'm sad to see her go all the same, especially over someone like juliets who I think is bad.

And if she had the decency to give you the choice of whether or not to set off her booby traps, she couldn't have been all that bad right?

Long Con wrote:The Story So Far...

Day 0 - Reborn
A new reality is created. A wager is made.

Is George R. R. Martin writing this story?

Also, the link to DrWilgy's posts goes to Elohcin in the opening post.

Rest in peace Canuck

Golden wrote:I would guess it is not something dictated by any particular faction, but more likely something map related.

Or maybe they have to catch bugs.

If there is some sort of tribunal judging this tie... it is unlike juliets to pop in at the last minute, leave a vote and peace out. She would want to speak on her own behalf. She would want to explain that she hadn't read the thread or explain why she hadn't been around for the second half of the phase. Something's up.

Canucklehead wrote:Am I supposed to be doing something in this tie-breaker?

Pray to whatever god you believe in.

My favorite fake claim was claiming Spike in Angel mafia and making up all sorts of shit about having BTSC with DD, who was dead. But I only had to do that because a baddie on the other team was about to be lynched, so he outted himself and revealed he had info on me being bad, which I think is not chill.

My favorite real claim was when I outted myself as a baddie in The 4400 Mafia in order to broker a deal with the civvies against an independent, and then I turned on them all and won.

And then there's all the times that civvies claim a role just because they're lazy.

It depends.

juliets

Where is juliets

LoRab wrote:I only saw that happen once. Actually, the Dom equivalent was the one who carried out the kill...on himself. But it was for good strategic reason (and almost saved his team). I believe that was the exact moment that DD became the original FEB. And I'm blanking on what the theme was. I'm sure BR would remember (unless she's blocked the game out, since she was on that team). Ah, memories.

Holy shit, I remember this. LOTR Mafia on TP. He would have gotten away with it too, except I LD'd him that night and knew he was a baddie, and then the baddies killed him. I was like

DD: The OG FEB

The thing I think is odd is that juliets hasn't been around today to defend herself. She posted quite a bit yesterday but not at all today. She usually lets us know when she's not going to be around. I wonder where she is.

Typh, I have read through juliets' post history in that game, and I didn't find many major discernible differences between her play there and her play here. I see lots of questions for others, a lot of consideration and indecision. I also see that she went after Vomps quite a bit in that game, who we know around these parts to be sort of an easy target. None of her teammates were lynched in that game either, so we can't compare that to how she would have behaved re: Luke here.

The differences I did spot is that she sort of went overboard defending herself against the points raised against her in that game, and at a certain point (around the Day 7 mark) she made a few summaries of cases against a few specific players, which isn't something she's done here. But that game was also played two years ago.

Typhoony wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Typhoony wrote:I would actually urge everyone who is still waffling to read juliets' post in the Champions game, because they are genuinely different from her posts in this game.

link to her posts in the Champions game
If I wanted your opinion about juliets, I would have asked.
You should actually read her posts in the Champions game and see if you consider them the same.

Then, I will be the one to ask you about YOUR opinion on juliets

I'm going to.

Typhoony wrote:I would actually urge everyone who is still waffling to read juliets' post in the Champions game, because they are genuinely different from her posts in this game.

link to her posts in the Champions game

If I wanted your opinion about juliets, I would have asked.

Well I've certainly been put in my place. Next time I'll know better.

That makes no sense. Are you incapable of having a discussion about it unless I word it as a question?

Typhoony wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Typhoony wrote:You then say this:

nub wrote:There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.
These are observations. There is no accusation. There is no question. Hell, later on you even say that your opinion of me is reliant upon juliets.

Which points (plural, please. You said points, give me multiple things) in your case against me would you like me to respond to TH? Come on, let's have some fun here.
The underlined is specifically what I wanted you to comment on. Which you have just now done.
That's not a point raised against me.

If you say so... does that mean it's not worth responding to?

Typhoony wrote:You then say this:

nub wrote:There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.
These are observations. There is no accusation. There is no question. Hell, later on you even say that your opinion of me is reliant upon juliets.

Which points (plural, please. You said points, give me multiple things) in your case against me would you like me to respond to TH? Come on, let's have some fun here.

The underlined is specifically what I wanted you to comment on. Which you have just now done.

MacDougall wrote:I am heaps pro civ.

Sounds like an STD

Golden wrote:Got any theories as to the identity of Dr Dre, TH?

None that I'm willing to pursue at this time, but I have my eye on a few peeps.

Sorsha wrote:TH do you... Or anyone else think that Tranq was Drezenstein and the reason TH is back is because Tranq died? Or was I the only one getting that vibe from the night post?

I was told as soon as I was "killed" that I would be brought back at the end of the Day, so if Tranq was Drezenstein, it's just a coincidence. It's possible that Drezenstein obtained a benefit from his experiment on me, but nothing changed for me other than I was taken out of the game for a Day and now have to deal with the subsequent doubt about it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Matt F wrote:Lol

Dang Bullz came outta nowhere to defend. What's up Bullz, besides sig, who you lookin' at

Linki - MM, gotcha. What are your feelings on Turnip Head?
He was a dead man, but he's no longer a dead man.

I feel neutral about him. He's a proactive Turnip, but I'm wary because he was killed by Dr Von Dreszenstein and rezzed pretty suddenly.

I was never really dead. Drezenstein ripped out my heart and experimented on me, then put me back together just the way I was.

Matt F wrote:The Day 0 poll, I believe, asked us to pick our fave music. Afterwards, Long Con told us that one civ, one baddie, and one indy were told that a possible outcome of the poll would be to have your name removed from the Day 1 poll if you vote progressive.

Oh. Duh.

Matt F wrote:I can see MM being indy. Why do you think you'll move your vote from him?

I'd rather see juliets or Typh lynched at this point. I'm probing MM because he hasn't participated until now.

Matt F wrote:DF - No I wasn't comfortable lynching two new players within the first four days, but we caught a baddie so it's all good.

I continue to look at Bullz and Metalmarsh for their Progressive votes, and other things (Bullz' response to my questioning of him surviving is iffy, and map stuff concerning MM). Turnip looks like he placed a vote on MM, but now seems to be looking at other candidates. Turnip do you think your vote will remain on MM, I might put a vote there.

I might end up moving it.

What do you mean by Progressive votes?

Speaking of completely ignoring the points raised against you...

Typhoony wrote:There is a case on me? All I see is a bunch of my posts quoted with a "You're weirding me out".

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Spoiler: show
Canucklehead wrote:I'd be willing to switch my vote to Juliets for sure. Forgot that she had been the top (and only) name on my suspect list.:.
Day 4: Says she would switch to juliets for being her only suspect. Bad look. Why would she not vote her originally, how could she forget her one and only suspect, and what made her suddenly not interested in lynching Luke anymore?
It's a bit disingenuous to say that I avoided those questions, MM. The grammar of your post (addressing the questions in the third person rather than the second) casts them as rhetorical questions for you audience to consider, not actual questions for me to answer. Had you wanted answers from me, specifically, why did you not address the questions to me, specifically?
This looks like some opportunistic ret-conning on your part, MM. Trying to make me look badder than I already look by suggesting I am avoiding questioning. I am not avoiding questions, I just don't consider rhetorical questions to be ones that are looking in good faith for answers. Those questions, as posed, don't care about answers; they are concerned only with planting seeds of doubt in the readers mind, because the answer already implied in the question is "because Canuck is a baddie".
That's not a question, that's sophistry.
Now that I've pointed them out to you as questions directed at you, will you answer them?

Right?

Typhoony wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Why is Typh voting for Canuck? His post history reveals nothing. lol all his posts are about juliets
When I went to vote MarshMellow, I realized that I would rather not vote for someone that I don't remember receiving a vote yet. So I voted for Canuck, who did receive a vote yesterday and who did ping me as I said when I went over the case on Juliets. You even quoted the damn post.
Next time, please actually read my post history before claiming something is or is not in it.

Sorry, I was talking about your posts toDay, specifically looking for a post where you mentioned voting for her. It's why I asked.

Why would you rather not vote someone who doesn't have a vote?

S~V~S wrote:When I was reading Canucks posts, I counted you as one of the people who had expressed suspicion of her, based mainly on this post:

Turnip Head wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:
Epignosis wrote:[snip]
This is a fantastic post, and articulates exactly what it is about Juliets posting that has been off.
Did you already think that juliets' posting had been off before Epi's post? This makes it seem like you've been playing closer attention than you've given yourself credit for
In this post you are actually saying something fairly close to what MM was saying in his read on Canuck. Has your opinion changed? Has returning from the dead given you a different take on other things, or just on Canuck?

Her posts since then seem genuine to me. I thought it was a good observation, I'm just not putting much stock in it because I've felt good about her later posts.

fingersplints wrote:I agree with SVS that canuck seems to be playing up the uninterested card to a suspicious degree. I'm going to place my vote there for now.
I don't get most of this MM vs TH thing. Why can't MM suspect canuck for low posting? canuck herself was suspecting low posters, so it seems fair game to me. TH feels completely different from his last version.

I'm pointing out how hypocritical he's being himself. I'm just trying to engage with him. Re: the last bit, you disagreed with me about my Dom suspicion in the early going as well. What feels "completely different"?

I think it's a reach to call that a suggestion to look at her posts :P You were the one teasing Dom about Canuck's post count instead of summarizing the case.

How about doing the same thing for juliets' posts? Interested to see what conclusion you draw there.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:It also felt like you went out of your way to paint each of Canuck's posts in a bad light.
Do you disagree with my points, or are you just saying this because because?

I guess I'm treating Canuck's lack of involvement more sincerely than you are

I think it's easy to make her look bad for her contributions. I think the same is true of you, so I'm confused why you seem so quick to harp on her for it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:It's a lose-lose situation when you get a late start in a mafia game.
Only when you criticize others for the same thing you've been doing

It also felt like you went out of your way to paint each of Canuck's posts in a bad light.
Did you read the whole thing?

You're right, I missed the one line where you said it looked good for her.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:You've been doing a lot of feeling and thinking today, TH.

I'm an emotional and reflective turnip.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:It's a lose-lose situation when you get a late start in a mafia game.

Only when you criticize others for the same thing you've been doing

It also felt like you went out of your way to paint each of Canuck's posts in a bad light.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:But Canucklehead better get on the baddie-hunting horse at least if she wants to turn some heads. Otherwise, she should be lynched.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Day 5: Defends playing the "uninvolved civvie card". Canucklehead has spent a lot of time defending herself this game. She could certainly put some of that effort into hunting for baddies. The fact that she hasn't is telling.

Metalmarsh89

Metalmarsh89 wrote:TH, you already did, so I don't have to worry about it. :P

I wouldn't want you to worry about having to contribute.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:She only has 25 posts to read. :P

I bet you couldn't summarize it, Mr. I'm So Far Behind

Dom wrote:can someone explain the canuck case then?

SVS thinks she's "playing the lame uninvolved card" and that her Luke vote lacks reason. Golden thinks Canuck's vote for Luke makes her look like Luke's teammate.

Why is Typh voting for Canuck? His post history reveals nothing. lol all his posts are about juliets

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:EWBOP: Typhoony, not TH.
I think my opinion of him is reliant upon juliets, but he's acting sketchy.

What do you think of juliets?
No idea.

As for Typhoony, I don't like this post. For someone who has talked so much about juliets (as you pointed out), his opinion of her ended up being very on-the-fence.

That's exactly my point about him.

DrWilgy wrote:Who has flipped already and what was thier role and alignment?

They're on the front page.

DrWilgy wrote:TH were you ded bro?

I got better.

Canucklehead wrote:
Draconus wrote:Putting my vote on Canuck. Really right now my only suspicion of her is because of her Luke vote. It reeked of indifferent baddie bandwagon voting...ness. But seriously, though, her vote post did strike me as that of a mafia member throwing her vote on the tail end of a bandwagon to attempt to blend in with the rest.

Linki: I think it's worth noting that my vote here has nothing to do with Typhoony's defense post of Juliets. I still am unsure of how to feel about her myself.
I was like the second or third vote on him? Lol.

FWIW I think your voting record looks much cleaner than juliets', especially re: Luke. And I doubt you and juliets are teammates based on your interactions.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:EWBOP: Typhoony, not TH.

I think my opinion of him is reliant upon juliets, but he's acting sketchy.

What do you think of juliets?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:You talking smack about me TH?
I dunno, are you reading the thread?
I've kept up with the important events.

Would you join me in a vote of TH?

I would not

Metalmarsh89 wrote:You talking smack about me TH?

I dunno, are you reading the thread?

Matt F wrote:Turnip Head, what are your feelings on Metalmarsh? W/b btw

I think he's paying closer attention to the game than he's letting on

Consider the entirety of MM's Day 3 contributions:

November 3, 1:25am EST:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Zebra
Metalmarsh89 wrote:More officially, Turnip Head, Turnip Head.

It's a placeholder. It's a placeholder.

November 3, 10:26am EST:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Zebra
Metalmarsh89 wrote:More officially, Turnip Head, Turnip Head.

It's a placeholder. It's a placeholder.
Why do you need a placeholder vote? So if you conveniently forget to vote, you have a built in excuse if TH gets lynched?

Time to reread Zebra.
It is my duty to check if votes in polls are changeable. I had no reason to vote Turnip Head twice, other than his name being on the poll twice.

I have no qualm with you.

Reinforcing that his vote is a placeholder, implying that he will be changing it eventually.

November 3, 4:37pm EST:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Welcome Bass!

Welcoming Bass. Bass was announced to be subbing in 2 minutes before this post was made.

November 4, 10:43pm EST:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:The marmot rolls out the red carpet for the doctor's entrance. This doctor is most definitely a doctor, and has come to cure us all from our previously fatal diseases.

The pinto bean man will replace in next. He and the doctor will dance together in the fields, and have many good times.

Welcoming Wilgy. Wilgy was announced to be subbing in 3 minutes before this post was made.

November 4, 10:46pm EST:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I hope the last option in the poll wasn't a Host-specific option.

Jokes about the nightpoll.

November 5, 1:40pm EST:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Zebra
Metalmarsh89 wrote:More officially, Turnip Head, Turnip Head.

It's a placeholder. It's a placeholder.
Eh? Eh?
Sorry. Sorry.

I find myself terribly behind this game.

Says he's behind.

I understand being behind in the game, but MM commented in real-time when Bass and Wilgy replaced into the game, meaning he was at the very least following along the current posts. Yet there are no game related posts from him, all the same.

full post

Typhoony wrote:- Juliets: She always asks a lot of questions like this, but I found it interesting that she popped up immediately when attention was brought onto her. I know she can be a lurker, but I hope she too can get a bit more involved instead of staying on the sidelines.

full post

Typhoony wrote:Juliets reads like she been in panic mode for most of today, but I do not know if that means a baddie juliets or a civvie juliets.
You say you think she may be trying to make herself look better by hopping off the sigwagon. Do you think she suspects sig is not bad and voted him in the beginning despite that, or do you think as the day passed on she realized this?

full post

Typhoony wrote:
Turnip Head wrote: I don't know what juliets thinks about sig tbh. I think she had her heart set on voting sig coming into the lynch, maybe to appear consistent with her vote yesterday. She caught flak for it and moved off of it. I think what's interesting is that she didn't stick to her guns by owning up to her vote, but she also didn't noticeably change her stance on sig either. She just sort of moved to other targets.
You said you thought she was possibly trying to make herself look better. I don't think her switching her vote (especially in the way you described) makes her look better, it makes her look flaky and unsure of what she's doing, ie panic mode. Is panic mode indicative of baddie juliets?

full post

Typhoony wrote:I'm gonna try and see if I can understand the case against juliets, cause I don't right now. (With some linki's now, for your pleasure. )

I'm gonna quote that last post in a spoiler tag, because the entire post is Typh interacting with other players' cases on juliets.

Spoiler: show

Typhoony wrote:I'm gonna try and see if I can understand the case against juliets, cause I don't right now. (With some linki's now, for your pleasure. )
As always ,let me know if I missed something or if you disagree with how I said something.

It started with Epi's post where he said that comparing sigs sincerity to LCs was disingenuous. When Juliets asks why, Epi responds that " judging sig based on facts you didn't name because you got burned by Long Con stinks."
Juliets responds by saying she doesn't know anything about Sig and that sincerity does not equal civvieness. To which Epi responds that sig cannot sound sincere.
To conlude this saga:
Later Epi lists juliets as his suspect, when Juliets asks why, Epig responds.
He thinks that juliets' vote for sig is disingenuous. He expects a civ juliets to engage sig directly with questions instead of talk about him.

My opinion:
- I do not see a problem here. Juliets does not know sig => How would she know if he is able to sound genuine?
- Her posts read a bit like she is in panic mode to me. Last game I remember juliets being bad was Recruitment ... 2? When she was Erlatz. I don't remember her posting like she was in panic mode then, but truth be told, I don't remember how she was posting then at all. Does anyone have a link to a game where Juliets was bad? Thank you

-------------------------------------------------------

TH has a post where he points out that juliets got lynched (or almost) for similar reasons as sig did here.
She responds by saying that she acknowledges the case is not that good, but that it is the best one out there for peeps in group 1.

My opinion:
She voted for a shitcase... As you have probably many times TH. We already talked about this a bit but I don't see what would make her bad here? What would be her baddie reason to vote for a shitcase?

-------------------------------------------------------

Canuck made a post where she says juliets makes a concerted effort to misunderstand/ignore othe people's posts. Juliets says she has no idea what Canuck is talking about basically.

My opinion:
I have no idea what Canuck means either. I think Juliets has responded to everything people have thrown at her (hell, too eager and flimsy at times, ie panic mode). Combine that with the fact that Canuck ignores juliets post where juliets ask which posts she ignored, a point made by Canuck, is lolworthy and makes Canuck look worse than juliets imo.

----------------------------------------------------
Back to Epignosis:
His post this time is about juliets D1 vote for Banana. He does not believe a civ juliets would leave a pressure vote on low hanging fruit like Banana.
Juliets responds by saying she made more posts about Banana and that she left her vote there because Banana did not respond and she continued to be suspicious

My opinion:
Seems meta based, and I don't think this is uncivvie like for juliets. A link to a baddie game for juliets would help though

----------------------------------------------------

And last but not least, HamburgerBoys post about juliets. He says that:
- Juliets was the last one on the Luke train and this is a really bad look.
- She was pressured by Epi to change her vote from Luke to nutella.

My opinion:
Ok?
- How does this make her look bad Hboy? Juliets was indeed the last one on the Luke train, she had also said multiple times that she was away and wouldn't know for sure when she would be back.
- She already said her vote for Luke was provisional.

------------------------------

Overall:
What exactly in this is baddie behavior for juliets?
Her behavior overal has been iffy, asking lots of questions, changing opinions a lot, but is that baddie behavior? More specifically, is it baddie behavior for juliets?

Linki:

Here you go, MarshMellow. Enjoy.
Provisional vote on your spiky ass as well.

full post

Typhoony wrote:Epi, I see you were juliets' teammate in the Champions game in which she was bad. I don't have the time to go through all her posts in that game atm, I'll do that tomorrow.

Is she acting the same in this game as she was in this game? And if so, how does that differentiate from her civvie game?

There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.

Search found 319 matches