The Syndicate

Oh I see. Spamalot.

Canucklehead wrote:Ok. I just read this whole fucking thread, which is 99.9% centered on Made/llama/MP/Enrique with a dash of MP/SVS thrown in for good measure.

It's posts like these that make me think people don't read what I have to say.

Canucklehead wrote:However, given the single mindedness of the thread so far, I'm much more inclined to believe that the baddies are using this insane Made-centric firestorm to stay out of the way and out of memory. This is like a Day 1 from heaven for them. For that reason, I think I will probably be spending some time looking at (and waiting to hear from) people who are conspicuously staying out of the Made debate, or (even more suspiciously) subtly egging it on while being sure to stay on the fringes. Before anyone gets their panties in a knot, no, I'm not advocating voting for low posters, and yes I recognize that this was a HUGE amount to catch up on and that is a likely reason why some people haven't been too involved (that is in fact my own rationale). BUT I'm hoping that when I do a re-read of the last few pages I will be able to spot some people that are doing some quiet fire feeding while staying out of the limelight, thus keeping the heat of them while providing excellent distractionary fodder for pages and pages and pages......

Okay, so you're not going to touch the Made debate, but rather you'll look around at the others who are doing the same thing you are to find a baddie?

Linki: lol, what???

Epignosis wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.
I don't know if I'd call that suspicious. Extraneous, maybe, but it doesn't ping me one bit.

What I do find a little suspish about Epi has been his lack of participation. I know he was on and off during the competition cooking dinner, but he's still been doing a lot of lurking (he's online now) and only a little of posting.

Oh, and he gave me a middle finger.
You may notice that I stay logged in all day. If keeping up with the thread in sips at work so I don't have 15 pages to guzzle when I am at home is the same thing as "lurking," so be it. If naming my top suspect and stating why I find him suspicious is a "lack of participation," I don't know what to say.
Gotcha. I'm still used to aggressive Rob, not off-topic one, which is what I've seen from you this game. Outside of pointing a finger at MP, your posts have not been contributing.
I made a few off-topic posts on Day 0. I made (at most) one off-topic post Day 1. If that makes me "off-topic Rob," very well. If remaining focused on my suspect rather than commenting on everything means my "posts have not been contributing," then my middle finger remains raised in your general direction.

I have no response.

Epignosis wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:And of course MP finds my suspicion of him "odd."
There's an OMGUS if I ever saw one.
It is?

In my mafia experience, an OMGUS can range anywhere from a retaliatory vote to an inexplicable accusation.

Enrique wrote:You know what the best part is?

None of this means Made has BTSC.

Sure, sure...

So who are you gonna vote for then?

Epignosis wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.
I don't know if I'd call that suspicious. Extraneous, maybe, but it doesn't ping me one bit.

What I do find a little suspish about Epi has been his lack of participation. I know he was on and off during the competition cooking dinner, but he's still been doing a lot of lurking (he's online now) and only a little of posting.

Oh, and he gave me a middle finger.
You may notice that I stay logged in all day. If keeping up with the thread in sips at work so I don't have 15 pages to guzzle when I am at home is the same thing as "lurking," so be it. If naming my top suspect and stating why I find him suspicious is a "lack of participation," I don't know what to say.

Gotcha. I'm still used to aggressive Rob, not off-topic one, which is what I've seen from you this game. Outside of pointing a finger at MP, your posts have not been contributing.

Epignosis wrote:And of course MP finds my suspicion of him "odd."

There's an OMGUS if I ever saw one.

thellama73 wrote:
Made wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Made wrote:Good morning all!

If llama found my "I doubt the other team has this" commentweird, why wouldn't he mention it during chat.
As a matter of fact, I did mention it in the chat. I said something along the lines of "Do you know that because your teammates told you?" after you had finished all the posts we previously talked about. I saw no point in dwelling on it there, though, since I was trying to win a contest.

Gusbfjebfuwhfuvuwjfisbwhcjebg BUT YOU DENIED THAT EARLIER WHAT?????? YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID YOU DIDNT REMEMBER SOMEONE SAYING THAT I WAS PUT ON THE DEFENSIVE/ ANYONE QUESTIONED ME ABOUT IT BEFORE I DENIED BTSC.
WHAT???
*Flounders*
That's not at all true. I never denied that I said something to you. What I denied was your claim that you only made excuses AFTER someone said "you would know."

This is the order of events:
1. You made an assumption about the other team.
2. You hastily retracted your statement with a bunch of hemming and hawing about how you didn't know.
3. I asked you if you got your information from your teammates.

Your claim transposes events 2 and 3. That's what I was arguing against.

In regards to llama's accusations of Made, and this post here.

I did a reread of llama's accusations of Made from the beginning of the day. There are no inconsistencies between then and now; everything seems to stack up. Here is llama's first post with a transcription of what happened.

thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote: Interesting. I was only in the chatroom for like less than a minute, lol, so I can't say I know what you're talking about, but that's intriguing. I presume you don't want to elaborate on it just yet or else you would have in that post anyway?
I'll elaborate. I'm not scared. Made said something along the lines of "I doubt the other team will be doing what we're doing" referring to our strategy. He immediately followed this up with a bunch of posts saying things like "not that I would know. Actually I have no idea what they're up to." and so on. Not exact wording as we're not allowed to paste from the chats and I don't remember the exact words anyway.

To me, this looked like a slip, indicating that he knew what the other team was up to, followed by an attempt to cover it up.

Bonus, if we lynch Made and I am right, we can narrow down his teammate to one of the six or seven people active in the Winker chat.

thellama73 wrote:
Made wrote: few things wrong with that.

1. someone said something to the tune of "you would know" right after I said that, which is why i said I wouldn't actually know.
My memory is that all your posts came rapidly in a row with no one else talking in between. But memory is fallible.

2. from what i understand, implying i do know what the other team was doing probably would be considered BTSC.

3.You're assuming their are only Mafia Teams.
I'm not assuming that, which is why I said it looked like you had BTSC, not it looks like you are mafia. Still, if you're going to take that route, what evidence can we ever use to lynch somebody? It is a more reasonable assumption to make that "X has BTSC, so is probably mafia" than "X has BTSC, but we don't know anything about the mafia this game, so let's leave him alone." In a game with so little information, we have to make a few reasonable assumptions.

So these first two posts pretty much stack up with llama's most recent one. I'm not saying that llama's story is 100% accurate (because it's still subjective), but he's stuck to it this whole time. Made on the other hand has not exactly done that. Between being untruthful and avoiding questions, he's looked far more guilty than llama has up to this point.

Also to note, juliets and SVS have made statements that support llama's story, not Made's.

juliets wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
juliets wrote:As for llama, I think he's sincere in what he's reporting and in what his feelings are about it. I don't know where that leaves me in terms of a vote, I'll have to figure it out over the next day and a half.
But if you think he is sincere, why would you vote for him? Sincerity is usually a sign of a civvie, to a reasonable extent.
I wouldnt. Thats what I was saying - I don't lean toward voting llama or made.

Disregard, I did not notice the NOT before that statement in your post.

Enrique wrote:Sincere is the last thing I would call llama right now tbh.

Please don't think that is my statement. I (briefly) explained my thoughts on llama on the previous pagehere, which don't correlate with that.

A Person wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.
I don't know if I'd call that suspicious. Extraneous, maybe, but it doesn't ping me one bit.

What I do find a little suspish about Epi has been his lack of participation. I know he was on and off during the competition cooking dinner, but he's still been doing a lot of lurking (he's online now) and only a little of posting.

Oh, and he gave me a middle finger.
School started again so that is why, I suspect.

I'm bored. We don't start school until September 29th.

juliets wrote:As for llama, I think he's sincere in what he's reporting and in what his feelings are about it. I don't know where that leaves me in terms of a vote, I'll have to figure it out over the next day and a half.

But if you think he is sincere, why would you vote for him? Sincerity is usually a sign of a civvie, to a reasonable extent.

MovingPictures07 wrote:One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.

I don't know if I'd call that suspicious. Extraneous, maybe, but it doesn't ping me one bit.

What I do find a little suspish about Epi has been his lack of participation. I know he was on and off during the competition cooking dinner, but he's still been doing a lot of lurking (he's online now) and only a little of posting.

Oh, and he gave me a middle finger.

Black Rock wrote:Also I want to make a clarification here since Llama and Epig both took my meaning the wrong way. There is trying hard to catch a baddie and trying to hard because you are a possible baddie. I agree civvies should try hard to catch baddies. That's not what I said Llama was doing and I won't be dismissed that way.

You should always clarify that around those two. Another mistake like that could prove fatal.

thellama73 wrote:1. He made an assumption about the other team in chat and immediately tried to cover it up, making me think he has BTSC. And no, he didn't specifically reference the script, that came after, so this has not been "proven wrong."

So now there is mention of a script being the reason? Why are clues still being gradually leaked out?

Tbh, I'm probably going to vote Made anyway because I don't have a damn clue what ACTUALLY happened and there's a whole lot of 'he said' 'she said'. But through all of this, his reactions have been the flimsiest. Someone stated at some point that Made is an unorthodox player (civvie they said I think), so I will continue to keep that in mind. llama, I'm going to have to do a reread of you, because it also seems to me like you are twisting words around today. I don't recall Enrique actually calling you bad, but you've stated that he did.

Still reading though, but I'll be all caught up shortly.

thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote: Your domain is mathematics. Mine is language.
What's my domain?
Communism.

Every communist regime needs a benevolent dictator.

Epignosis wrote:You apparently did not see the middle finger extended from said hand.

Would I have reacted differently?

Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Enrique wrote:
Well considering the whole case against Made is that he has BTSC, and it's pretty far-fetched already, I just don't really see a reason for him to be in the spotlight.
What, couldn't bother reading a couple words further?
What, couldn't bother to notice a comma and a conjunction? You wrote them, you should be able to see them. That signifies two separate thoughts, the first being that the case is based only on BTSC, of which you seem dismissive.

So I'll ask you a fourth time: What is a good thing to base a case on?
*Raises hand*

Is it "Not answering the question?"

Who gave you permission to speak?

But yes, you are correct. Now please sit down.

thellama73 wrote:Twice you went out of your way to emphasize the phrase "whole case," which to me signifies that you think suspected BTSC is a minor thing to base a case on. I'll ask you a third time, what is a good thing to bake a cake on?

Fixed.

Enrique wrote:linki @ metalmarsh: No no you're not reading me right. I have no idea what's up with Made. I'm not convinced by any of the arguments that he has BTSC or is bad. That is all. Innocent till proven guilty and all, right?

Well I've got to vote someone today, and if that person isn't obviously guilty, I'll make sure it's the least innocent person I see.

Enrique wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Enrique wrote: Well considering the whole case against Made is that he has BTSC, and it's pretty far-fetched already, I just don't really see a reason for him to be in the spotlight.
I think it's weird you think an indication of BTSC is not a good foundation for a case. What do you base your cases on, then? What sort of behavior should we be looking for, if not collusion?
I don't know if he has BTSC! I don't know anything! I'm not convinced he does, either. I don't feel strongly about anything. I just know from Misfits that Made walks like he's slipping. The whole thing about BTSC on the chatroom was probably just being playful.

Also lol @ Made "not allowed to ask that." The hosts haven't specified but they can only censor us so much. I think we're allowed to speculate on who's bad, for starters

Here's the other thing to. As far as I'm concerned, even if you know something, you're not allowed to reveal it in thread, or even hint at it, so I'm not sure what you would do even if you knew one way or the other. That is how things are here, I don't know about places you play elsewhere though.

Epignosis wrote:
Mongoose wrote:I feel like MP is probably staying UTR because he's died early in a lot of games recently (well like always on TS, unfortunately) and playing safe can be a smart move if you tend to draw a lot of fire early. Not that I would at all understand this plight at all. Ahem.
Exsqueeze me? Baking powder? (That's surely a Monty Python reference)

How is 33 posts by Day 1 staying under the radar?

MP died early in a game (The Hobbit) because I lead a Day 1 lynch against him and he was bad. Other than that, he WON Are You Being Served? Mafia and he WON Occultism Mafia. He has not died early in anything this year other than The Hobbit, when he was an evil smelly necrophiliac goblin.

He only won Occultism because I ressurected him.

Made wrote:
Mongoose wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Any opinion on Made, Mongoose? And you disapprove of Llamas aggression?
See I'm just so leery because I'm always wrong on TS newcomers. I was wrong about MR when he was new (to TS) and the wrong votes always haunt me. I know you dislike when I give evasive non-answers, so let's say that if I had to vote tonight, I'd definitely be inclined to vote that way, but there's still a long time to make up our minds. I plan on a through review of the entire thread Thursday afternoon.

It's not that I disapprove of his aggression per se, but it makes me a bit anxious that a) new people will think he is a hateful melon and b) it might distract and c) it makes people overly defensive where someone that is innocent might look guilty.
1. if you have the time read some of the misfits game. It still has a gag order on it, but it might help you understand some of the reads on each other.

2. The case against me will pretty much fall if/when juliet says that there was a post between when i said "we probably have an advantage" and when i said, " I wouldn't know"

Does juliet have BTSC with you too? I mean not the nudge-nudge kind?

thellama73 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Mongoose wrote:It's not that I disapprove of his aggression per se, but it makes me a bit anxious that a) new people will think he is a hateful melon and b) it might distract and c) it makes people overly defensive where someone that is innocent might look guilty.
a) That's what I thought when I was new.
Awww, but I was always so nice to you.

I apologize if it seems like I'm trolling you llama. I think it's a bad habit I've developed.

Linki: And the ladies will continue to talk about melons...

Mongoose wrote:It's not that I disapprove of his aggression per se, but it makes me a bit anxious that a) new people will think he is a hateful melon and b) it might distract and c) it makes people overly defensive where someone that is innocent might look guilty.

a) That's what I thought when I was new.

b) It's only distraction if he's bad, right?

c) But I'm sure llama does it because it also has a chance of causing a slip from a baddie.

Mongoose wrote:In response to some posts above:

I've voted no or low participants on Day 1 before, but I think it would be insanely ludicrous to do so in this game - way too much has happened. There's suspish a'plenty for those willing to comb through it.

Holy linki x7

I've heard nothing from you regarding suspicions. Who else is suspish?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:10. What did God tell Arthur was so depressing?

The Psalms

@Enrique I would like 'active' to be defined then. He was active enough to know what was going on and answer the final question.

But I do realize that SVS was on her phone, making it difficult to follow. I guess that's why MP (or was it llama) is waiting to hear something from juliets.

Linki: You've got my input MP. My eyes are turned in that direction while I await juliets response. Also to note, we are allowed to change votes in this game, according to the Porcupine.

S~V~S wrote:
Made wrote:Roxy cleared the room 8 seconds ago, so i can't check exactly who asked if i knew something...
She cleared it about 40 minutes ago, I checked when i got home. I just looked in there now to see if you had been in there since she cleared it, and you had not.

I am going to go BOTD right now. TBH, you caught my eye with the "joke" about lynching a no show Nudger. Then you third point implying you had civ BTSC right after your other points struck me s rather flailish. Plus this, but why would you lie about such a thing?

Okay, there is this from SVS, another inconsistency.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'd like to hear from juliets and see what she's thinking right now.

Linki with MM: This is Llama's original post on the matter; does it help?

thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote: Why aren't you in favor of it?
Not feeling it today. I don't think we are any more likely to fnd a baddie in a non-participant than anywhere else, and I would rather go by actual pings if we have them. There has been a lot more posting than on most Day 0s even if most of it has been off topic, so we have little excuse for randomizing or going after low posters in my opinion.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Interesting. I was only in the chatroom for like less than a minute, lol, so I can't say I know what you're talking about, but that's intriguing. I presume you don't want to elaborate on it just yet or else you would have in that post anyway?
I'll elaborate. I'm not scared. Made said something along the lines of "I doubt the other team will be doing what we're doing" referring to our strategy. He immediately followed this up with a bunch of posts saying things like "not that I would know. Actually I have no idea what they're up to." and so on. Not exact wording as we're not allowed to paste from the chats and I don't remember the exact words anyway.

To me, this looked like a slip, indicating that he knew what the other team was up to, followed by an attempt to cover it up.

Bonus, if we lynch Made and I am right, we can narrow down his teammate to one of the six or seven people active in the Winker chat.
Also, I never said I am voting for Made. I just thought he made an intriguing and possibly plausible observation, though I did provide a counterargument.

Thank you. I did read Made's response to it, which doesn't completely gel with llama's. I do think this is worth looking into, even if it did only happen in the chatroom on Day 0. If I recall, juliets, BWT, and SVS were some of the other active players in your chatroom. Any input from them would be helpful.

@llama, if I'm allowed, I will make a list of active players from our chatroom, though I'm sure you can come up with some of them yourself.

Linki: Be careful when llama is cranky.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Seems like the nudgers chatroom was a bit more exciting than the winkers chatroom if you know what I mean.

Maybe I'll just make the reasonable assumption that llama and MP are throwing Made under the bus right now.
Uh, what?

So let me get this straight:

- You must think Made is bad if you think he is being thrown under the bus.
- You must think both llama and I are his teammates for saying such a statement.

Was that supposed to be in sarcastic orange or are you going to contribute by making sweeping statements without backing them up at all? I don't understand.

Linki

I don't know what happened in your chatroom. I'm trying to figure out from your statements, but it is not clear to me, or I missed the point somewhere. Would you mind cluing us in on where the heck this all came from? Nothing Made has said has given me an indication that he has BTSC.

So, to add to my previous statement, I've got nothing. You are correct.

Seems like the nudgers chatroom was a bit more exciting than the winkers chatroom if you know what I mean.

Maybe I'll just make the reasonable assumption that llama and MP are throwing Made under the bus right now.

I posted nothing on topic on Day 0, the OT day. We should lynch me just for that...

Linki: lol, meta talk already

Enrique wrote:@Hosts: Are the chatrooms there to stay? Do Winkers and Nudgers have BTSC, or is this over?

Also, Made. Voting the non-participants is what we used to do back in the glory days of LP Survivor hosted by my dear friend Bullzeye. Of course it's not the same here given that there's probably specific roles we should be trying to lynch, but, our info is limited enough that lynching inactive users may not be a terrible idea. It's a silly game after all, we're all running blind

It's not a common thing here, in fact it's almost frowned upon. Players that suggest voting non-posters are often put on the chopping block themselves, typically when it happens later in the game.

Enrique wrote:Buuut there's definitely space for suspicious behavior in chatrooms. So, I don't know, I'll hear you guys out if you think anybody deserves death more than others or if there was some rolehinting going on or whatever. I have no problem going with the flow on this one.

Is there something you had in mind already?

Linki: Agreed. I was given none of the resources my teammates were since I arrived right at the start of the competition; I just googled Holy Grail script and everything was right there. No need for youtube.

Most gracious co-host, may we change our votes after placing them in this game?

Made wrote:GG wink winks

Good game nudgies.

I still feel like a newt.

10. What did God tell Arthur was so depressing?

Psalms

7. What does the French Guard of the Castle of Guy de Loimbard say that Arthur is afraid of?

A duck

Who is DP's favourite character?

The Black Knight

I am a happy newt.

bea wrote:Will you.get.better?

What do you mean? I am the best.

Mister Rearranger wrote:Got my spreadsheet ready! Prepare for another game with me looking for random correlations where none exist!

I'm a newt, k

Epignosis wrote:
Made wrote:"The Current Job #2"....oh no.....
That's a good thing. Trust us.

What?

Epignosis wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Roxy is not a witch. She is a torso.
You are a nincompoop.
I am a milfman.

Quoting this before you edit it. We'll have you burned yet.

I am the muff muffin man.

Epignosis wrote:Roxy is not a witch. She is a torso.

You are a nincompoop.

Roxy wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:How to make my presence felt in this game...

Roxy's a witch! Burn her!!!

Thou art this until I tire of it

The player list does not reflect this change.

But my tail hath fallen off.

A neeeewt? Thou speaketh in riddles. For what is thy meaning?

How to make my presence felt in this game...

Roxy's a witch! Burn her!!!

thellama73 wrote:I voted nudge-nudge because I like it better than wink-wink.

I voted wink-wink because I don't want to nudge-nudge a llama.

Search found 247 matches