The Syndicate

AceofSpaces wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Ace what do you think of Made? Do you still suspect him?

Did I ever say I suspected Made? I think I brought up a shady quote he made on day 1 or day 0. I'm not sure I ever committed to a full on suspicion. That being said, yes. Yes I do find Made suspicious. Mostly for the whole "Hey, how about we work together so the Kira Sympathizers can win too." thing.

DharmaHelper wrote:Caught up. Goddamn those secrets are a doozey and a half aint they?

Ricochet wrote:RIP BWT.

And LC, jesus...

Matahari wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:I've only got 10 minutes left to vote. I had to skip pages 36-46. I'm starting to wonder if Llama is holding so tenaciously to his Snowman theory in an effort to save himself - I see that they are neck and neck. I don't see a good case against Snowman. I do see that Llama voted early and I'm wondering if he just jumped the gun before thinking the vote through. He says that he wanted to vote early to get the conversation going - but that isn't really very detective like and not something that a seasoned player would do if he were hunting baddies (rather than just hunting). I like Boo's idea of voting for low posters but I see a situation where my vote would be "wasted" if I voted for anyone other than Snowman or Llama. Between the two - I'm gonna have to vote Llama. You took a chance and it backfired.

so much linki

What do you mean by " You took a chance and it backfired."?

He voted early with a weak case and tried to drum up support. I just don't think that it ended the way he wanted it to.

So do you think the other people who voted snowman gave weak reason to vote him?

I do. even tho you were not asking me :P

linki, I really think epig and llama have something going on, game-wise I mean. I think someone doesn't want llama's identity revealed

Zomberella12 wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:I've only got 10 minutes left to vote. I had to skip pages 36-46. I'm starting to wonder if Llama is holding so tenaciously to his Snowman theory in an effort to save himself - I see that they are neck and neck. I don't see a good case against Snowman. I do see that Llama voted early and I'm wondering if he just jumped the gun before thinking the vote through. He says that he wanted to vote early to get the conversation going - but that isn't really very detective like and not something that a seasoned player would do if he were hunting baddies (rather than just hunting). I like Boo's idea of voting for low posters but I see a situation where my vote would be "wasted" if I voted for anyone other than Snowman or Llama. Between the two - I'm gonna have to vote Llama. You took a chance and it backfired.

so much linki

What do you mean by " You took a chance and it backfired."?

He voted early with a weak case and tried to drum up support. I just don't think that it ended the way he wanted it to.

Zomberella12 wrote:I've only got 10 minutes left to vote. I had to skip pages 36-46. I'm starting to wonder if Llama is holding so tenaciously to his Snowman theory in an effort to save himself - I see that they are neck and neck. I don't see a good case against Snowman. I do see that Llama voted early and I'm wondering if he just jumped the gun before thinking the vote through. He says that he wanted to vote early to get the conversation going - but that isn't really very detective like and not something that a seasoned player would do if he were hunting baddies (rather than just hunting). I like Boo's idea of voting for low posters but I see a situation where my vote would be "wasted" if I voted for anyone other than Snowman or Llama. Between the two - I'm gonna have to vote Llama. You took a chance and it backfired.

so much linki

thellama73 wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote: This makes me nervous because we all know your track recored with people you made a case on flipping bad. lol

That's actually the best point anyone has made all day, lol.

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote: You still haven't answered why of all people, it was Snowman that you felt the need to bring to the table that much that you went and voted for him the first chance you had. Why not just keep saying, I think Snowman is bad because a,b, and c, and then again and again? Why just vote? Why not let him defend himself? It's not like were were in a rush? If the votes were changeable, I'd get it, but I don't now


linki: So you think Boo is a hypocrite or a baddie?

A hypocrite, not necessarily a baddie. I have never accused boo of being bad.

I have answered that question. I wanted to be dramatic. When you just say something, it gets ignored. When you vote, it gets noticed. I was and am very confident that Snowman is bad, so I saw no reason to wait and every reason to get discussion going.

Why not let him defend himself? He has had many chances to defend himself and has not taken them.

How come TH gets a free pass for his early vote? I have given many ore reasons for mine than he has for his, and he did it two days in a row.

boo wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I understand lynching people who just aren't playing but where do you draw the line. I mean it almost sounds like even if you are a low poster you might have to worry about people wanting to lynch you for not being as active as them.

I think low posters should be just as worried about being lynched as medium and high posters. Because I believe in equality for all. I don't think in the early game that that is ever the case, its rarely before D3-D4 where a low poster really needs to be concerned about getting lynched. But that comes with the trade-off of being more likely to get NKed (usually), so it kind of balances out.

My ranting is about actual non-participants.

I would like more from low-posters, and for people who that's just their playstyle, I don't get the appeal of the game, and I don't like the mentality of granting them immunity (almost always) in the first couple of lynches no matter how suspicious they may be just because there is less quantity to find suspicious. But it isn't the same thing.

And for your point of a low poster needing to be more worried about a high poster lynching them, I'd argue they should be. Who are the people most likely to jump onto a bandwagon? Low posters. Who is most likely to get bandwagoned? A high poster. There is a reason yesterday when llama took a third (accidental) vote from BR he became worried he could actually be lynched. I'm pretty confident when I say it wasn't the high-posters llama was worried about coming in and lynching him.

thellama73 wrote:I think the FZ case is interesting. She stated she was thinking about voting for me and I hit her back hard. After that, she immediately backed off, which is not what I expected her to do. She's definitely someone I want to look at more going into Day 2.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:So given all that, why the hell would a baddie vote for L/Light lynches? That's a stupid move for them and the exact opposite of laying low. It makes much more sense to look at the people voting for normal lynches and/or the people tossing their votes away on options that clearly wont win.

Because WIFOM.

Today's discussion has been enjoyable, but I think that behavior after the gameplay has been decided will prove more useful.