The Syndicate

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Well, I've got one... seems almost everyone does. I haven't been participating in most of the contests though so I have no idea what else is floating out there.

What was your prize for being the first to get to 10

It was a good'un, and might help us civvies get back in this thing... no good if I'm dead of course. In any case, I have no interest in telling you just yet

Well, I've got one... seems almost everyone does. I haven't been participating in most of the contests though so I have no idea what else is floating out there.

Dom wrote:*wouldn't mind a Canuck lynch right about now*

Maybe you shouldn't have been so trigger happy with your vote then? Or maybe these are just empty words. Don't know. Don't know that it matters.

Turnip out.

Canucklehead wrote:My current baddie breakdown is TH as te last Hack, and Made and Rico (?) as the two remaining bros. this is based purely on gut.

So why aren't you voting for someone on the team you think is stronger? If I'm the last Hack like you think, lynching me would only give the Bros more of a handle on this game by giving them a nightly kill. I think that's what you're hoping for though

Guess I'll vote LC to give myself a fighting chance and get Vomp closer to his beloved early lynchpost. I'd prefer to vote Dom or Canuck, I think they're the ringleaders. But it is what it is.

No, it means I see three players voting together without waiting for discussions, when it's do or die time, and I assume it means they are close to winning. Besides, even if I am a baddie Hack, that's not the team we need to try to take out today. The Brotherhoodlums are likely stronger than the Hacks numbers-wise and are probably close to taking over the game.

So yeah, if you want the game to end and the Brotherhood to win, by all means vote for poor and alone civvie TH.

Long Con wrote:Unloess the baddies have done some excellent killing of each other, we're getting to the point where the game will just end if TH is Civ.

Worst reasoning ever tbqh

TurnipHead 2.0
3
Dom (6), Long Con (7), Canucklehead (8) 38%

Ladies and gentlemen, The Brotherhood? They seem awfully quick to get this over with. Maybe they're about to win. Oh well. I don't care anymore. Get me outta here.

Mongoose's answer was worded a little funky, maybe that's what is confusing LC. Can we get it one more time please Mongoose, just so there's no mistaking the answer:

If John Waters targets a player on Night 1, will that player be blocked on Night 1 or on Night 2?

No worries Canuck, and thanks

Also, while we're talking about the kosherness of dead players subbing back in, while I agree it can be problematic, I think I was very careful to use things that TH1.0 said and did in the thread only. I don't think I used anything that only TH1.0 would have known in private.

Clearly.

Dom wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Mongoose wrote:@ TurnipHead - Target the subsequent night.

oh

Hence why I felt my "..." post was on-topic. :P

Canucklehead wrote:This is a seriously odd/problematic situation. Are you suggesting that TH 1.0 didn't know how his own role worked? An never asked, even when the hubbub you quoted was going on?
I guess you can't really answer this, since you're not TH 1.0 anymore.....but you DO actually know the answer to this, which makes this a messy situation, and is one of the reasons that I'm not a fan of dead players subbing back into a game. [/otish] Even though you were killed as a civvie, you still have knowledge from your former role that others aren't privvy to, and that is affecting things right now. TH 1.0 could've been honestly confused, or TH 2.0 could be trying to be manipulative/sow confusion....and it's very thorny b/c you can't unknow what you knew as Waters, but you also can't publcly own that knowledge.
It's immaterial here, I suppose, since your suspicion didn't pan out....but it's something worth considering for future games, I think. Dead players replacing in just doesn't seem particularly kosher to me....

But I digress.

My question is: why didn't you bring this point about me up earlier?! Honestly, if you believed it to be true its kinda a big deal, and not something I would expect any civ to keep to themselves. Were you just waitin for a moment when the thread seemed more succeptible to ring lead into a lynch of me?

I didn't bring it up all game Canuck, even in my previous iteration, because I knew it was flimsy and circumstancial. I kept my eye on you, but I was hoping to gather further evidence against you by lynching baddies and making connections to you. But we haven't lynched any baddies from the team I thought you might be on, so no connections can be made.

I know it's problematic, and you're right that I can't talk about TH1.0's involvement much... but he simply must have made an assumption that was wrong. He asked a question in the thread about his own role and didn't receive an answer, and I was certain he must have also asked for clarification from the host behind the scenes regarding his own role... but after much searching, I don't think he ever got the clarification on his own role that he was seeking, and he must have been forced to make some assumptions that were wrong.

Dom, here's where I mentioned my suspicions of Roxy, I'll also quote the relevant part below:

Turnip Head wrote:I have to admit I'm a little perturbed at how Roxy handled this past lynch. She should have been lynched and obviously wasn't, and I think a good chunk of us have an idea as to why, but I still find it odd that Roxy basically had no reaction to that lynch. It makes me think that her reaction played out behind the scenes rather than in the thread. I also don't agree with SVS's opinion that a baddie Roxy would have voted to lynch Vomps, because wasn't Roxy defending Vomp? So why would she vote for him, civ or scum?

And here's another one:

Turnip Head wrote:I don't suspect Roxy for defending Vomp, Rico. Hell I defended Vomps myself. SVS said that Roxy doesn't bother defending players when she's bad, and I disagree with that notion.

I remember Roxy's response to MM, but I still feel like we're missing a more complete reaction from her. Frankly I expected her to get on my case a bit for putting the final vote on her, or even ask me WHY I voted for her, but we didn't get much. Not even a "rip blooper but DAMN I'm lucky to be alive". It just made me think that her reaction was reserved for BTSC conversations.

Mongoose answered a question I had that related to my case, a question I was 99% positive I was going to get a different answer to, because I thought I knew something, and I was somehow wrong. It basically invalidated my entire case on her and also made me look like a big idiot in the process.

10

I'm almost positive I mentioned the BTSC reaction thing, but I may have kept the analysis of her list post to myself while I gathered more evidence on her. I'll go back and see if I can pull the quotes.

9

I know it is too. Mongoose just confirmed it. I feel like an idiot. Sorry Canuck

You could still be bad though

I just have no idea anymore.

8

No, I was suspicious of Roxy because I thought it was odd how little she reacted to the fact that she was should have been lynched on that day where she had more votes than ninju. I thought maybe she had expressed her reaction in BTSC, or else knew more than she was letting on. I was also suspicious of some of her early posts where she listed out her suspects with careful consideration. I feel like Roxy only makes those list-type posts as a baddie and plays more freeform as a civvie, which I guess isn't true.

7

I was suspicious of Roxy until I became her, so I guess I'd have to say yes. I'm a civvie though. Trying and failing.

6 (again)

...

6

What do you think of my case on Canucklehead, LC?

5

EBWOP: 4.

No Dom, it is not.

I've been sitting on this for a while, mulling over it. And with the way the game has gone, I think it's time to seriously consider it. There's only 7 players left and up to 5 of them could be bad guys. Time to go big or go home. Without further adieu, let me take you on a journey. Please read carefully.

• On Night 1, there was a failed kill. After Day 2, it became clear that Canuck had been silenced that Day. A few players questioned her on it, but it was Llama that was able to get her to respond:

  Canucklehead wrote:

  thellama73 wrote:
  Canuck, two people have asked if you were silenced yesterday. I'll be the thrd. It really makes a difference so we would like to know.

  (The Boy is being a butt and doing work in the middle of Saturday, so I will be around the thread until he decides to stop being a stick in the mud and enjoy our fucking day. )
  
  I definitely saw both questions, and think silencing is one of many perfectly mausoleum reasons why I wasn't super chatty yesterday. I dont agree that it makes a difference, though, because I have a very different interpretation of how the silencing/blocking role works than most people in the thread.

• Interesting, if vague. BWT comes in with his perspective, and TH follows up looking for clarification:

  Turnip Head wrote:

  birdwithteeth11 wrote:2) I don't know if this is still a thing, but I read the John Waters thing as him silencing someone during a day period and blocking them the FOLLOWING night. So in regards to Canuck, I don't think there is anything indicative of her being bad.

  Hostest: Is this the way that Waters works?

• Curiously, Turnip Head 1.0's question was never answered by the host, perhaps the question was missed.
• As we all know, TH1.0 eventually met his maker as a result of some misguided sleuthing by BWT. TH1.0 didn't fight his lynch too much, perhaps accepting the inevitable. But before he croaked, he gave us one last little nugget to ponder:

  Turnip Head wrote:I think Canuck may have purposely misinterpreted a role at the beginning of the game, just conjecture on my part. Keep your eye on her, civvies! Maybe with the inactives being replaced, we still have a chance!
  
  Well not me. I'm dead soon

• And then there's TH1.0's role reveal:

  Mongoose wrote:Day 6: Even Rocky Had a Montage
  
  Turnip Head has died. He was John Waters.
  
  You have 20 hours to send in your night actions.

What I gather from this is that TH1.0 did not think that the Waters role worked like Canuck said it did. Considering TH1.0 was John Waters, I am inclined to take his word for this. I don't think TH1.0 would have asked these questions unless he felt there was some misinterpretation going on. But as this is a lynchpin in my argument here, perhaps it's important to finally get clarification from the host. Mongoose: Is Waters' target blocked the night before they're muted, or the night after?

Now, if TH1.0 was right, and that the John Waters role didn't work like Canuck said it did, I see some problems here. First, there should not have been any ambiguity as far as Canuck is concerned. She should have had a pretty good idea of whether the block on her took effect during Night 2 like she "assumed", or if it happened on Night 1. If it took effect on Night 1, Canuck could be a suspect in the failed kill from Night 1. If it took effect on Night 2 like Canuck believed, then of course she could not be.

It seems TH1.0 believed that Canuck was deliberately feeding false information into the thread about what happened to her. If the question had ever been answered by the host, Canuck would still look innocent for simply misunderstanding. And I think TH1.0 was concerned that she was fully aware of her actions here.

In conclusion, I believe Canuck may have intentionally played dumb here to avoid suspicion, and if that's the case, then I believe she is on the baddie team that was blocked on Night 1.

Dom wrote:TH-- who would you like to lynch


3

I've got one idea, it's gonna take me a minute to put it all together.

(not counting this as it doesn't feel on topic enough)

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Why would it be a no kill? Everyone had like 72 hours to send their PM's in. It must have failed somehow. Although most of the roles that can stop a baddie kill are baddie roles themselves...

linki: I don't think we have any inactives unless you count Vompatti, who I'm not suspicious of. Do you guys really think the baddies would intentionally waste a kill this late in the game?

+1

Perhaps they want to seem inactive, IDK?


2

I just don't know what they would gain from that, or who it would be meant to make us look at. Everybody's decently active it seems.

Ricochet wrote:ALso, contrary to sabie, the night post didn't specify who was targeted this time.

This seems important but I'm not clear on the specifics. Was sabie targeted for a kill and survived, and the post was written as such?

3

Who are you looking at for today's vote, Rico?

2

Why would it be a no kill? Everyone had like 72 hours to send their PM's in. It must have failed somehow. Although most of the roles that can stop a baddie kill are baddie roles themselves...

linki: I don't think we have any inactives unless you count Vompatti, who I'm not suspicious of. Do you guys really think the baddies would intentionally waste a kill this late in the game?

+1

Dom wrote:I'm not asking you to defend it-- I'm asking you to prove otherwise. They are entirely different tasks. Show me a viable lynch candidate, then. Find me a baddie. If you're not bad, who is?

I'm trying to do this, I've been trying ever since I rejoined the game. Although, with two teams still around, finding a single baddie proves no one's innocence anyway. Right now I'm as lost as ever, and find myself trusting too many people. But I have the same question for you. I'm not bad, so who could be?

Dom wrote:How the hell am I misleading anyone?

Because you keep accusing me of intentionally misleading, when that's not at all my objective and I think that's evident in the way I've approached this discussion. All I wanted to know was why you were suspicious of me. I now see that your suspicion of me is based on Bass' read of Roxy and because you think Roxy would not have allowed the SVS kill but she was replaced so you flipped the other way on it. Okay. I have no idea how to defend against any of that because it predates my time in this role, it seems none of your suspicions pertain to me specifically but rather my predecessor, but that's your prerogative and at least I know where you stand.

How can I be intentionally misleading anyone if I'm specifically asking for you to clarify your thoughts on me? You're the one putting spin on this situation, not me.

I'm not "refusing" to see anything. I'm asking you to show me. I look forward to the quotes in any case because I want to know what you see in me.

Mongoose said we could pick up to 10, so I voted for the 10 that weren't Mockingjay.

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:tbh th ur bad i think

You have said nothing to back this up. Didn't you think I was doing the same to you (I wasn't), and you thought it was suspicious?

Dom wrote:tbh Turnip Head, maybe I'd take your suspicion of me seriously if you had a single reason to back it up so I can actually say something about it. But I think that's what you're going for.

Where did I say that made it more suspicious?

Pray tell.

You said "But I think that's what you were going for", implying I had ulterior motives for suspecting you. If that wasn't your intention, please clarify.

Also, please point out where you have stated your reasons for thinking I'm bad, because I can't find it.

Dom wrote:tbh th ur bad i think

You have said nothing to back this up. Didn't you think I was doing the same to you (I wasn't), and you thought it was suspicious?

Dom wrote:tbh Turnip Head, maybe I'd take your suspicion of me seriously if you had a single reason to back it up so I can actually say something about it. But I think that's what you're going for.

Why do you think it would be logical to vote for Canuck or myself, Sir Vomps-a-lot?

So... are we boned? Honestly, 24/24 doesn't sound like a good idea to me since we're sucking so hard at this. More time to discuss is probably a good thing. Unless the intention is to put us out of our misery quicker.

Rest in peace AP I wonder why he didn't use his power to confirm the existence of another civ role... Damn.

I voted for AP as well.

Uh, no?

Dom wrote:TH, if it were between me and AP who would you pick? Why should I vote for AP over you?

I'm leaning towards voting AP. Made's recent posts made me feel better about his vote yesterday, which raises AP's vote to the top of my suspicions. I think LC made some good observations about him and I pointed out some things that concern me about AP as well, notably that he pulled the "Baddies want to lynch low posters" card as soon as he possibly could. So, you should vote for AP over me if you think there's any merit to that case.

Dom wrote: I think Bass has good insight into his mom's play. I think he brought some good points up. I don't think TH has done anything to dispel this suspicion.

How would I even go about dispelling your suspicion of Roxy? The only way would be playing my own game and giving you things to consider about TH2.0 as a player, but we're running out of time and I can see I'm not going to get the benefit of the doubt here, so... I guess it is what it is.

Made wrote:

Turnip Head wrote: Made, can you explain the thought process behind your vote for Canuck yesterday? I'm still a bit confused about what you were trying to convey there.

Ok context. The reason I felt I had to commit to a Canuck vote is because this(from misfits): http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 214#p77214 Canuck( as well as svs, bloops, and dh) are players who i've been grossly wrong about, so i'm hesitant to release a theory i have just because their pathos is on point.

Thanks for the context. I read a little bit of that game thread and I understand your perspective a bit more. I haven't played a game with Canuck in a looooooooong ass time, so maybe I'm getting fooled by her charm here too. (Though in the game you linked, I can't help but notice that you were the only one who was fooled by her :P )

But the MM connection feels too obvious to me. You rarely ever see baddies openly defending each other in the thread anymore, it's just not considered a smart tactic. The minute one of you gets lynched, the other becomes Prime Suspect #1. Which means that when it DOES happen it's somewhat of a blind spot for me. For example, Lent completely fooled me in Recruitment Mafia because she defended her super suspicious teammate Aapje, and I thought there was no way in hell she would ever do that, so I defended her, and I was wrong. So it happens.

But one thing I want to point out is how the MM lynch went down. Canuck was the last person to vote before the thread lockdown, and she voted for MM's opposition. So... what's the exit strategy there? If Canuck was with MM, she should have either voted for him or waited for the lockdown so she wouldn't have to vote, right? The way it went down, I don't see the benefit. So I'm more inclined to believe the theory that MM's teammates just weren't very active, or maybe intentionally missed the vote, or they were able to sneak their votes onto MM before the lockdown.

That's a good point about Vomps/Daisy.

A Person wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Also, AP, kindly address this. Or anything.

Hi. I don't think I am trying to fly under the radar, I've just not been posting. If you want my thoughts on the game, I think I'll vote Long Con today. Normally I'm too scared to take risks because I so often end up killing civs, but we're in peril of losing so there is not much to lose at this point. LC was the one to start the recent crusade against low posters, and I think it's because we're easy targets at this point. If they kill off a couple low posting civs, they win.

This is an extremely cognizant post from AP, in my opinion. I tend to agree with him that baddies like to start targeting low posters for lynches as they inch closer to endgame. But this is also a very reactionary post. He throws the suspicion back at LC for suspecting him, which puts LC in a tough spot if his suspicion of AP is genuine. AP's playstyle already makes it hard to make any sort of case against him, but now he has the built-in defense of "Baddies like to target low posters".

I can understand AP's thought process here, but I wonder if it's genuine.

Made wrote:Ok this might be stupid, but i think i'm right (also, I thought i had another hour to think about it...) Canuck seems incredibly genuine to me, so i'm going to vote there. The biggest memory I have of canuck as a cornered baddie playing hard to sympathy card, and i fell for it. Hard.

I really hope i right....

This was his vote post. I asked him about it earlier but I don't think he's posted since then. It just seems like a really weird reason to vote for someone, but Made is weird, so :P I still want to hear from him.

Dom and Made are my top two. I tried building a case that explains my concerns about Dom... but tbh, my suspicion of him is mostly gut, followed by a hunch that I think he killed Llama due to their back-and-forth right before Llama's death. So, pretty circumstantial. And I'm not sure I should trust my gut re: Dom, as I don't have a stellar track record of reading Dom or anything, so I dunno.

Made's vote from yesterday stands out as the shadiest to me and I still haven't heard an explanation for it. I'm leaning toward voting this way for now, unless he says something that makes me reconsider.

To the people who suspect AP... what makes him stand out above Vompatti to you? They are basically the same to me at this point. I think there's at least one baddie that isn't playing a high profile game, but I would have no idea how to pick out which one it is without some voting records to back it up. And we haven't lynched many baddies, so voting records don't really show anything. It feels like a shot in the dark.

Thanks for answering Dom. Your reply is pretty apologetic, maybe that's what you thought I wanted to hear, idk I had a feeling you wouldn't remember why you voted for me, which is why I worded my question the way I did, but I've got to consider your answer a bit.

Made, can you explain the thought process behind your vote for Canuck yesterday? I'm still a bit confused about what you were trying to convey there. Who's got your eye for today?

Dom, could you explain what specifically prompted you to vote for me when I got lynched as 1.0? I'm not looking for a link or a quote, just in your own present-day words, what you were feeling/thinking when you cast the vote?