The Syndicate

Quin wrote:I do not know why the doctor was not on Elohcin last night.

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:FYI: I earned a lynch immunity on the canine carrier express. We are allowed to discuss prizes. It is active today and only today. Do not waste your votes on me. I'll be back later.

You're lying. You didn't activate the lynch immunity last night. You get more value from it by making us believe it's active now, then you activate it in the future without saying anything.

Now you reply with false bravado and invite us to try and lynch you.

I'd like to lynch you. I hear you've got some new cool things that are going to convince everyone I'm bad first though.

Quin wrote:Might make cheese toast. What's in store for everyone else's day?

Quin wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I think Quin and jj could both be bad so I could put my vote on either of them.

Put it on 3J and maybe I won't kill you tonight.

Quin wrote:I feel like I should elaborate on my Boomslang read.

He's come across as disingenuous twice in his cases against me.

The first time, he jumped on LC's theory that I was being insistent by pushing my argument against 3J. This was after I discussed it with LC and even he moved on from that specific element of his argument. He still assures me that he read the dialogue to the end, which clearly isn't true.

The second time, he accused me of backtracking in my theory as to why he survived, even though nobody had expressed suspicion at me for it at the time. Backtracking isn't a thing in that context.

He's not voting me either. He wants to bring attention to 3J, so he's not voting me. Even though he's suspected me more than anybody else in this game. Nah.



I'd call a baddie team of llama, 3J and Boomslang.

Epignosis wrote:DDL didn't comment on Quin's post either, so what the hell?

Quin wrote:When I said I'd break the tie, I expected llama to at least acknowledge it, since he was one of the two I'd be voting to lynch. I think he was complacent enough to give it a pass based on my earlier posts about him.

I also think the contradiction people suspect DDL for isn't of value. That's who he is, I know that much. I also think he'd have a new energy here if he was bad, considering he often complains about how he never rolls bad here.

Quin wrote:I might just break that tie.

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Quin, why did you vote llama Day 1? That's something I haven't worked out.

Pretty sure I've talked about this.

I'm pretty sure you have too, but I'm not interested in wading back through all of that nonsense to find out. So a straightforward response here would be appreciated.

Sorsha wrote:I have the worst feels for the following people:

MM- he's been present and posting but not saying much game relevant. I know that's typical Marmot, especially day one but I think there has been comment worthy material here that I'd expect him to weigh in on.

Scotty- I don't like how he so easily jumped on llamas case on me. It was still day zero and he was already prepping to jump on a Sorsha lynch-train. Very unlike Scotty who is normally a low/no poster voter, especially day one.

DDL- maybe he's just busy but he was a big poster early in ASOUE as a civ and hasn't been yet here. He's been here but like Epi pointed out, hasn't said much.

A Person, blooper, Eloh- no content but have posted

thellama73 wrote:How many lines does it take you to make a case, Sorsha? I haven't heard one from you yet.

Scotty wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I have the worst feels for the following people:

MM- he's been present and posting but not saying much game relevant. I know that's typical Marmot, especially day one but I think there has been comment worthy material here that I'd expect him to weigh in on.

Scotty- I don't like how he so easily jumped on llamas case on me. It was still day zero and he was already prepping to jump on a Sorsha lynch-train. Very unlike Scotty who is normally a low/no poster voter, especially day one.

DDL- maybe he's just busy but he was a big poster early in ASOUE as a civ and hasn't been yet here. He's been here but like Epi pointed out, hasn't said much.

A Person, blooper, Eloh- no content but have posted

Ok, well. You're sounding pretty defensive for nothing. I haven't voted yet.

What makes you think llama is civ, even though he's the only one with a vote on you?

Scotty wrote:Ok now I'm really off to do a show. Let's lynch made or MP.

If not them, I support an MM lynch I guess.

insertnamehere wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

insertnamehere wrote: Back in game-land, I do find it odd that people aren't agreeing with my case, but failing to raise any real points against it, or suggesting a practical alternative.

It's a well thought out case but what it comes down to for me is: If llama is bad why would he go after me like that? He would know I'm civ and what good would going balls to the wall and lynching a civ like that on day one do?

He didn't expect it to work, and he didn't expect you to be lynched. Most people won't blindly follow a guy who says "LYNCH THIS DUDE" for no reason, and Llama had to know that. "Balls to the wall" seems like an exaggeration.

It's just doing stuff in order to make it look like he's doing stuff.

insertnamehere wrote: Back in game-land, I do find it odd that people aren't agreeing with my case, but failing to raise any real points against it, or suggesting a practical alternative.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Llama jumped on my check in post literally two minutes after I posted it. My initial gut reaction was that it was a joke because I don't see how anything I said in that post could be found to be suspicious. So I responded with a joke. In hind sight, sure I should have made sure that he was actually serious about it but being jumped on like that right out of the gate isn't something I'm accustomed to.

I can understand. It's jarring for anyone to be facing an accusation so quickly after a game begins. His accusation came two minutes after your post, as you said, and then your joke response to that came 11 minutes after that. To me that looks a player who is briefly frozen by unexpected pressure searching for a way to approach it.

How about a player who is playing while at work and isn't actually sitting here staring at the game thread waiting on a reply?

I wasn't going to mention the timestamps until you brought them up first.

One question, Sorsha:

What is your read on llama?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Llama jumped on my check in post literally two minutes after I posted it. My initial gut reaction was that it was a joke because I don't see how anything I said in that post could be found to be suspicious. So I responded with a joke. In hind sight, sure I should have made sure that he was actually serious about it but being jumped on like that right out of the gate isn't something I'm accustomed to.

I can understand. It's jarring for anyone to be facing an accusation so quickly after a game begins. His accusation came two minutes after your post, as you said, and then your joke response to that came 11 minutes after that. To me that looks a player who is briefly frozen by unexpected pressure searching for a way to approach it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Sorsha wrote:All for one line and an emoticon? Seriously? How am I supposed to respond to that?

In terms of defense, you're probably not supposed to respond to that. Some accusations don't facilitate defense. It isn't ideal, but a civilian must still render them when they apply. Instead of a defense, I would anticipate a more exploratory response to llama than the one you provided -- even if you believed it was a joke.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Here, have some thoughts. I thought these thoughts up.

thellama73 wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Space station sounds like the best place to me!

You're bad.

Sorsha wrote:I didn't hear you call dibs on the space station llama

I don't know how serious llama was about his initial accusation, but I do think Sorsha's response to it is suspicious. In the earliest stages of a game, it can be genuinely difficult for a baddie to respond to an assertive accusation, even when the baddie knows the accusation can't possibly be informed by anything substantial. There's still the matter of forcing out a response of some kind and trying to look legitimate in the process. Sometimes when I have found myself in that position, my response has been to offer a jokey retort to my accuser rather like Sorsha's here. The purpose is that it alleviates the pressure of the accusation by adding levity and humor to the exchange, and generally other players aren't going to be pinged by that. The problem is that it evidences a desire to respond without an accompanying desire to explore. Sorsha does not seem interested in why llama threw poop at her. I just typed a whole paragraph about that post you guys!

thellama73 wrote: It's not about your vote. It's about your phony, trying-too-hard enthusiasm and emoticon use. I don't buy it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Seems legit. She responded to your accusation with a pressure-relieving tongue-in-cheek bit and another [negatively] enthusiastic emoticon.

Sorsha, are you wearing jeans of questionable style?

thellama73 wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I didn't hear you call dibs on the space station llama

It's not about your vote. It's about your phony, trying-too-hard enthusiasm and emoticon use. I don't buy it.