The Syndicate

Kermit, indeed. Ribbit.

I really hope you change your mind, Keropi--I mean Lot.

Pilate wrote:That's actually a really nice theory, Rahab. You forgot the last part where the baddies use that nice theory to "scapegoat" me as a baddie when the time comes.

Either you are Judas, or this game is already lost to the Civs. That's all I've got. And I don't think Lot and Bathsheba are bad, just because they are really putting in the effort to find different connections here... it would be all too easy for a baddie to sit back and let Rahab or Pilate get lynched. So it has to be you.

Lost "to" the civs? That's a weird way to put it. Wouldn't it be "lost for," Kermit?

Okay. Here I am. Busy morning and I'm still a little peeved about my post disappearing last night. Anyway. You guys have chosen to look at me in a bad light and are "leaning" towards me, so hope for myself is failing, but like I said, I'll fight it to the end. Honestly, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, or I'm like that dude in the cartoon that keeps seeing the dancing frog and no one else does: no one else sees what I see simply because I know I'm not bad, but I'm being screwed by the baddies and will probably die for it. Here's how.

Lot wrote:For Esther and Pilate to be bad means that they had to have planned a long time in advance that this is how it would look if one of them came back bad. Which would be a really clever move well played. But Esther's defence here of Rahab also looks a bit like she is teamies with Rahab.

Lot, as crazy as it sounds, this is exactly what I believe has happened here, or something like it. I'll defend myself in the two ways I know I can: my play, and explaining what I believe how the baddies have used Pilate as "insurance."

Lot, you said yourself you'd bet money (or something like it) that you know who I am behind the sock. If you're right, then you know that I am not a clumsy baddie. At all. My asset to my team when bad is to stay as inconspicuous and unnoticed as possible without being absent. Voting the way I have for what look like obvious "baddie saves" is far from inconspicuous - it's so obvious it hurts. As I've mentioned before, I vote for what I personally see as bad, and sometimes that's not what's popular in the thread, and this means I may miss the baddie du jour at one point or another. Here as a civ, you're damned if you hop on a bandwagon, you're damned if you start a civ lynch, and you're damned if you go off and vote your own thing without support. Voting the way I have away from others also draws attention to me, something I work my damnest not to do when working with a baddie team. But that's if you know who I am. Enough about me - let's do some roleplay with part II of my defense.

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of this baddie team from the beginning. They did quite well at the start, allowing 10 people to die before Uzziah, who blatantly stated he was "rooting for the baddies" in the thread. Looking good. But then Ruth is lynched the day after, and by Day IX, although several non-heathens have died in the wake, 3 out of a team of 5 baddies are stoned out of the their minds, leaving a trail to catch who's left hiding in the thread.

Enter Judas, killing in Chapter X. From a behavior and voting standpoint, this is the logical place where Pilate was recruited, and at a great time - his voting record beforehand is pretty good for a civ, votes for both Uzziah and Mordecai. As I mentioned before, his posts changed largely from uninvolved and strangely unlogical enough to garner attention:
Chapter IV:

Pilate wrote:I'm shocked that I don't have more suspicion by now. So this is the life of an unforgivably low poster.

Chapter VI:

Pilate wrote:What happened to the night? We lynched Uzziah, and went straight into another lynch?

(Read the tone in his posts pre-Judas for yourselves. A pattern of not paying much attention to the happenings, coasting on others' suspicions, and suspecting himself)

To suddenly a lot less conspicuous and a lot more involved and informed:
Chapter II (Second Mafioso)

Pilate wrote:

Lot wrote:

Pilate wrote:

Lazarus wrote:Voting LOT

Agreed.

Sorry Isaac.

So, now that we know Isaac is good, you are going to lynch the person who you claimed was HIS baddie teammate...

Also the person doing the examining of potential vote trains to try to save Ruth and Mordecai while lynching Isaac...

What sense do you even think this makes on any planet?

Why are you going after me, Pilate? Because before I thought you were just someone who wasn't reading the thread, but now I'm really wondering what's going on.

I am reading, and I believe I commented before on my suspicion of you. Your posts and your "rationalizations" only make me suspect you more... for instance, you're trying to gain cred by referencing your support of Isaac. It's only the baddies who would know 100% that Isaac was not bad, and you sound like someone who expected credit for being right about him. Like it was your plan to bask in a little more trust because you knew who's a Civvie and who's a baddie.

*voting Lot*

Since you're "really wondering what's going on", that's what's going on. I am voting for you to be lynched.

He also repeatedly refers to Absalom's "impeachable" comment and his previous vote record to garner support for himself (a bit jokingly, but it does its job by planting the thought). My point about his behavior is this: at first, I saw his weirdness and proclivity to point out his own weirdness as baddie behavior, but I changed my mind upon looking at his vote record. After Judas, he drops pointing out his oddities from the beginning and seems to get a lot more involved by reading the thread and serious about playing, something that would indicate that he now has a new team to play for and pay attention for. His vote record becomes a hell of a lot less nice, until Esther. Hold that thought.

Back to Chapter X. Ruth is also resurrected at this point with some confusion for us as to whether or not she was actually "Ruth" at the time, so it buys the baddies some time to sort things out and gives them a great voting record with their newest member. But there are major issues. Ruth is pretty much dead on arrival due to being confirmed baddie. Deborah had been taking heat for ages for being a drive-by player with a horrid voting record and is likely to be voted out soon (and is), and Esther had built what appeared to be a strong "case" on Pilate Chapter VII, but now he's on their team AND he has that voting record. So what does a dying devious baddie team do with Pilate? Uses him as "insurance."

Esther never lets up on her "suspicion" of Pilate, since it's her one big case she's actually posted. Sure, she lets it drop off a bit in conversation for a few rounds, but never lets it go completely and always has a "strong suspicion" of him. She had already planted the seeds in the thread before getting her teammate, but now it's about building either credit or insurance, depending on who's caught. Other people nibble at her bait in Chapter VII, but only one person actually bites and votes - me, because I genuinely saw his behavior pre-Chapter X as strange enough to warrant being a baddie. After that, I'm the only non-baddie who votes for Pilate (only Mordecai and Esther have voted him for the whole game). Fabulous distancing. Really impressive. And now, that can be used to the team's advantage. Can we say "scapegoat?"

Esther's only mentions of me in the thread were either non-committal or buddy-buddy: she agrees with my half-assed, half-baked car idea of Bathsheba's not being a replacement but just being a baddie lying low, and starts saying that I'm being "quiet but helpful" in the thread with nothing for her to worry about. Yeah, real helpful. Real helpful to her team. Because at this point, when we're down to the wire and only two baddies are left, the baddies now have a win-win, and a losing situation for me (and the civs) in any case:

1) Pilate and Esther are up against each other. Pilate is lynched; Esther looks fabulous and coasts to endgame. Rahab and the other civs lose.
2) Pilate and Esther are up against each other. Esther is lynched; Pilate looks fabulous, Rahab looks horrible for not going after his teammate harder, Pilate coasts to endgame. Rahab and the other civs lose.
3) Pilate and Rahab are up against each other. Rahab is lynched and flips civ; Esther continues to rally for Pilate, one is lynched, the other coasts.

You get the picture.

I understand how I look. I look horrible. The baddies have played me like a fucking fiddle and used me in their game, and they're playing the rest of you until the very end. I don't know what else to say other that good God, I am good and I want to win this game. I hope what I wrote above makes sense (I think it was a lot more eloquent and clear last night since I'm a night person, but I did my best to remember it). You guys point out things other confirmed (and essentially confirmed) civs have said regarding suspicions of Pilate. Go with that feeling, because he voted to get those people out. I won't be played by his team anymore. Voting Pilate. Hope you will, too.

I will be traveling and paying a visit to some very special people for the next few hours, but I shall return for this madness in due time.

Pilate wrote:That's a relief, great job on the Esther lynch!

I don't know if we need to kill Judas in order to win, but I'm not him. If tomorrow's lynch is between Rahab and me, then it's no secret who I'll be voting for. Let's hope everyone has their top game on tomorrow - even you, Rahab, I hope you will post eloquently and concisely in the face of possible doom.

And to you, sir. :necessaryduelhandshakesmiley:

Well, I dunno about you guys, but I'm looking pretty FABULOUS right now. Pretty. Damn. Fabulous. Good catch, Lot. RIP Lazarus.

Well played, Esther and Pilate. Well played. Can't find his partner, my ass. Rahab out for now.

Well, I know where I would prefer to vote, but Esther's the next best thing. Hope it's right.

Pilate wrote:That's a nice case, Rahab, but the first part just feels to me like baddie-style talk. Calling Lot a flip-flopper just because he's actually thinking and re-thinking as he goes. So, what, we have to all tunnel-vision our suspects? That just caught my eye in your post and pinged me.

You can count on me to vote for Rahab or Esther. I won't choose now, but I will not split the vote between those two when I do vote... just mentioning it so that someone else can be confident in casting the first vote.

I didn't discredit him, if you noticed, and at no point did I advocate for tunnel vision. Both re-thinking AND consistency are necessary for baddie hunting. Yes, I commented on Lot's flip-flopping - he has completely changed his views several times and that makes his thought process hard to follow and, therefore, difficult to agree with completely. I pointed out what I agreed and disagreed with and I think you look worse based on my read. Am I not allowed to have consistency?

I see it's going towards Esther, which I'm not surprised about (I have less charisma than Lot). Like I mentioned in my response to Lot, his case against her is good, and I can see her as a Judas possibility, but I still think Pilate is bad, bad news (and more likely Judas). But I repeat myself, whether or not anyone's listening.

Partial agree, partial disagree. I don't know where to follow your thinking, Lot. I see that you're looking at your options, but you have flip-flopped way too much in the past few days on who is a "definite" lynch candidate, and even in the past few hours or so, so it gets confusing. First it's Pilate for days, then me "more than Pilate," and then you move to Esther which, given your analysis, looks like a decent candidate if we were to look at her as Judas (I know you just said you don't think she's Judas anymore based on Balaam's dream words, but based on the first half of her voting record, it is unlikely she was bad at least at the beginning), and then to Esther with a side of Pilate (or a side of me, but you know my thoughts on that). However, I did my own thinking and wanted to re-think Pilate and see if he wasn't everything I thought he was based on your changing your mind about him. I had more details last night, but the damned post disappeared and I got frustrated and went to bed (a pattern in this game, no?) My look changed what I thought about him in the beginning, but not what I think we should do with him now:

First half of the game (up until Chapter X): Pilate is relatively disengaged, and self-proclaimed "un-civ" behavior (criticizes Uzziah for calling him "good" and subsequently votes him for it). This behavior was what first caught my attention and made me suspicious. He goes after Absalom, but then he voted Mordecai later on. So hey, perhaps just disengaged (but lucky!) civ who doesn't care about his behavior. At this point, my thoughts changed (I previously saw his baddiness in this "strange" behavior). But then it gets good.

Chapter X and Judas kills that night. Pilate misses the Ruth vote, but criticizes both others not voting Ruth and goes after Lot for "going after" those who voted the way Lot suggested. This actually does have merit (argument-wise), but it also marks a change in behavior - from disengaged civ to paying a hell of a lot of attention to the game (suddenly has to watch out for teammates, perhaps?). Starts drawing attention to Lot since Day 11 (Mafioso 2.1), coming out to vote him Day 12 with plenty of time to say that he's been "suspicious of him" and has good reason to vote him, versus voting Deborah. And he's still been subtly pushing for suspicion on Lot, although not as strongly. In general, since Judas had his first kill, Pilate has become a lot more engaged and involved, sometimes aggressively so.

I don't understand why you've become more confident in Pilate's civviness since reading him in the thread - I have become much less so. I am more confident that Pilate is Judas than seeing Esther as Judas (which is the only way I could see her being bad with the information presented). Both Pilate's and Esther's records make them candidates for Judas; however, I think Pilate's behavior in combination with the record make him the more viable candidate. I said I didn't want to ignore what I saw as blatantly baddie behavior anymore, and I want to get this one right so badly. I know you're trying to create an option that's not Pilate vs. Rahab to prevent splitting of votes (because I'm sure as hell not voting myself), but I really think Pilate is the way to go today. But I will be good and hold out to see what others have to say.

Now, I should probably get outta this site on the work network before they find me

Job wrote:

Uzziah wrote:Yay!

I'm voting you until one of us is dead.

Job and Uzziah were voting each other like Lazarus and Lot are now, although I think it blended in better (especially since, y'know, Uzziah was actually bad and Job had good reasoning). Anyway, I laughed at this statement as a joke when Job said it, but I'm thinking that's how the curse actually works - whoever is pitted against the other will continue to do so until one of them actually dies. So yeah, long time

Dammit. Dammit dammit dammit Rebecca.

Stephen wrote:Wow, WTF. It must be Rahab and Pilate. I can't believe it.

Must be?? You know nothing. I am not bad. If you want to hand the game over to the baddies, then voting me would be the way to do it. But I know what I am and I'm not going down without a fight.

Also, let's make this quick - 24 hours, please!

Linki - I assume only if she had actually been around to use it during the lynch itself. Epi likes a little creative flair with his lynch posts.

Rebecca it is.

Voting Rachelites, because it's there and not voted for yet. And yay for getting Deborah! I am never, ever disregarding what look like obvious baddie behaviors ever again during and after this game. Now to talk about one of my favorite subjects: Me. Just kidding I'm not that conceited but I figured I should address the issue

Stephen wrote:Regarding Rahab, yes, she is the most helpful seeming and seems least likely in that regard of the three, since Rebecca and Pilate are outright wolfy, but Rahab's voting record is what sinks her. In addition, her vote this past lynch was a suspicious noncommittal "throw off" vote, with her reasoning appearing more fabricated than yours. She also looks worse than you in terms of overall voting record this game and in terms of subtle manipulation of the thread.

I am on board with Pilate and Rebecca, especially Rebecca after this last lynch. Her votes have been awful and her participation worse. My vote? I feel like that I'm put in a position where my vote yesterday would look bad regardless because people have chosen to see me in a bad light. My major options:

1) Vote for Lot when I believe he is good, despite sentiments in the thread against him. Obviously I didn't do that and I don't even need to explain why that would be terrible, unless someone actually needs an explanation.
2) Vote Deborah at the time that I did, with three votes on her (mine would make four) and two votes on Lot. Instead of being the "clincher," you (and that's the general you of those seeing me as bad) likely would've called me out for hopping on what was now hopeless for Deborah (given the track record of missing votes in this game) to paint me in a bad light.
3) Vote for Pilate, which I did, and is apparently a "throw off" vote. People talked about Pilate coming in guns a-blazin' against Lot and, as I said before, saying that Deborah looked bad because she trusted him when he was obviously not trusted by the rest of the thread. I voted him because he looked worse than Deborah, and I explained myself. I was surprised later, honestly, that no one else went after him. Glad to see that the suspicion hasn't died after this lynch.
4) Vote for anyone else. See "throw off vote."

I feel like I've been fairly helpful in discussion (albeit quiet, but not nonexistent in the thread). My voting record has its ups and downs, but so does everyone's (and some with many more downs than others, including mine). I am used to voting what I see personally as bad rather than what is necessarily popular in the thread, especially in large games when bandwagons and thread manipulation are so much easier for baddies to accomplish in a crowd. But I can see where at this point in the game, we've gotta be all in with no outliers if possible (especially with Lot/Lazarus going at it), so I understand the suspicion. Am I making sense or babbling?

Dammit, this game keeps me awake far too long.

Okay. So obviously Lot and Lazarus are forced to vote each other, which makes me wary to vote either (not that I ever strongly wanted to vote Lot, but Lazarus, sure. Not today though). I see the case on Deborah (in and out, voting record bad, trusting Pilate), but I find what looks like Pilate's power play against Lot (who I don't see as bad, logically or gut-wise) as superbad. Also, if one of the selling points against Deborah is her "trust" in Pilate, then why not go straight for the source? Either one could go but I feel worse about Pilate, especially the vibes in this last cycle.

Ahhh sleep now.

Stephen wrote: Now look at Pilate's post and vote. Is this a power play by the remaining mafia or War or what the sodding hell is going on?

My thoughts exactly, and with Lazarus. In fact, so much so that I'd like to repeat it in another fashion: what the actual fuck is going on?

Morning. Ugh. Won't miss vote. Obviously I'm okay with voting Isaac.

need now...

Absalom wrote:I agree that Samuel seems genuinely pissed off, Rahab. But I'm not at all convinced that a civ would be more likely to be pissed off than a Heathen. In fact, in Samuel's case, I think it's the other way around.

Why would a civilian who has, frankly, not been that involved, and has a terrible voting record, be so upset about a little suspicion? Especially when we have done a reasonably good job of ferreting out baddies?

On the other hand, a Heathen who has watched his teammates get correctly identified and picked off one after another, despite his attempts to save them, would have lots of reasons to be pissed off that we found him so easily. That's how I'm reading it, anyway.

True. Baddies get pissed, too.

I had a lot of this written earlier and meant to post last night, but I definitely fell asleep. So, here I am with some added stuff. It might be a bit long.

Where the hell did Rebecca come from? Voted second for Isaac, but hasn't posted in the thread since Day 7. Shady as fuck.

There are a lot of people that seem to be lying low and missing votes, and the missing voters this time surprised me. Well, except Malchus. Dunno where that guy's been. But Pilate and Lazarus missing the vote was weird as hell. Lazarus kinda fell on the back burner for me in the wake of my suspicions for Pilate, then Isaac (and the speculation of Lazarus' being Simon) but the missed vote and what I saw as shady before is coming back to mind. Why is/was he so adamant about lynching Lot? And where was he? He never explains himself.

And as for Samuel, I'm torn. On the one hand, there's this:

Samuel wrote:I understand why my vote looks bad, but the truth is I came in thinking I may have missed the vote, saw I had literally one minute and voted in a panic. If I were a heathen, it would have been really fucking stupid to out myself in such a way to save a confirmed teammate. And I am not sure that I would have voted any differently if I had not cast a panic vote at the last minute. I don't trust a Rez by a dead role with a win con I don't know, but that I know wasn't on my team. So I stand by my vote.

It would be a helluva risk for a baddie to perform this feat of tying up the vote not once, but twice in a game. But then again, we had Uzziah who openly rooted for the baddies, so it's not out of the question. I'm also often a sucker for emotional appeals, and Samuel seems genuinely pissed at the suspicion being thrown his way and has attempted to explain himself. However, there aren't any votes on him yet, just speculation, and emotional appeals have been used to manipulate civs, so...one can be very convincing in writing. Like others, I also would like to know what this Jonah speculation is, and don't really like the way Samuel said we'd "find out when he's lynched." So there's all that to consider.

Weird poll ending time. Technically I'm awake for it, but I'm a mean-spirited zombie in the morning so I'll be voting sometime later tonight before I go out most likely. Need more time to think. And food.

Bathsheba wrote:Rahab, just a little more on my subbing in. Epi had intended to keep subs a secret - I mean how would you know since its the real name is behind a sockpuppet. We talked about my case and he agreed that it would be too odd for me to suddenly pop in "after 7 days of saying nothing and not voting" (it may have been more than 7). So, he agreed I could tell everyone i was a sub. There is someone else who is a sub and it was discovered because his style was different than the first iteration (I think it was Isaac but not certain). Epi didn't announce that sub either, you guys just figured it out on your own.

Fair enough. Thanks for addressing it - the idea just popped in my head and I wanted to get it out.

All right. Lots of indecisive people and I definitely can't stay up for the end of the poll. I would like to see Ruth gone, but I, unlike Stephen, am creeped out by the unknown (especially at the idea of the voters of Ruth themselves possibly having dire consequences put upon them). I also want Isaac gone. Nothing has changed my view on his baddiness. I've been mulling over it for ages and I'm gonna flip-flop from my first reaction and go where I'm more comfortable. Voting Isaac, again.

Thoughts:

My gut reaction to the rezz was Absalom's: Lynch Ruth. Duh. Obviously. This is the simplest course of action. I am still leaning this way because I like simple. But.

There have been shenanigans with death in this game. There are zombie voters who appear to have clout in lynches. I am legit creeped out by this and what "Ruth" might be (actual evil Ruth? Zombie clone with consequences? Other vile trick being performed by Death?) since I started thinking about it. Lot has been convincing before (hell, he drew me to see the baddiness in Isaac, which I'm still not shaking), and hey, anything's possible in an Epi game. And through the almighty power of the Lord, of course. I suppose it's a course of whether I want to take a risk of other crazy death shit and vote the (most likely) baddie, or take a risk the other way and possibly lynch a civ in speculation. I also suppose I've just repeated exactly the sentiments of this thread now. Go me.

Also, not that I feel particularly strongly about it, but I was thinking about it on the way home from work: Bathsheba has had an unusual "replacement" situation if she was indeed replaced. She's still up on the poll, and there was no host announcement of her replacement, which is generally the norm. I thought it was weird when Esther asked her where she'd been when Bathsheba had just explained it, but then I considered that slim possibility that Bathsheba 2.0 could be Bathsheba 1.0 sneaking her way back into the game. However, her writing voice and demeanor seem to have changed fairly dramatically from Bathsheba 1.0, so I'm probably overspeculating and freaking myself out with conspiracy theories. Just something I was thinking about, I guess, since I had kinda thrown my weird feelings about Samson's creepy zombie vote aside and it actually turned into something (beneficial, but unusual nonetheless) Regardless, I dig the more talkative and speculative Bathsheba, so welcome!

Epignosis wrote:

Rahab wrote:(I think the grammar's right on that?)

I spotted two errors.

Absalom wrote:Okay, question for all the Belshazzar apologists. Why do you think he is so civvie, specifically?

I get the nervousness about a bandwagon, but what has he done to make you think he is good? I am really really confused by Esther's posts and vote. Has she not been reading at all?

I see your case, Absalom, and you've been pretty excellent at finding people based on voting records. Personally I'm more hesitant about lynching Belsh because he's been pretty helpful with analyses throughout the game (especially lately within the fab four of posting) and because his recent defense of himself, which Jacob and others see as a "sure baddie defense," reads genuine to me. He really does seem stuck no matter what from the last lynch results and the logic of it is sound. I know that being "helpful" doesn't necessarily make you good, nor do defenses, but it's the logic of it that he put forth that gets me. Does that make sense? Also, these thoughts almost precisely:

Stephen wrote:I'm starting to think that perhaps we've been played by Isaac, that the case against him being a Heathen was well-constructed, but his self-vote ploy was a nefarious one, rather than a genuine one, as I was inclined to believe.

It also makes D9 make way more sense, if Isaac and Mordecai are teammates.

So... I'm voting Isaac.

Nothing about Isaac's "defense" or whatever you call it of his actions has made me think otherwise about him (in fact the defense of his self-vote makes him look worse under the circumstances), and honestly I'm surprised that less votes that are not for Belsh right now are not on him, as he was a frontrunner yesterday (I think the grammar's right on that?)

I think I asked this the first time I expressed concern over it, but has anyone ever seen/experienced a role or power of zombie voting? Samson's vote, despite helping us get an excellent outcome last lynch, is creeping me out, and apparently confuses others, too. Just wanna see more what others think if they have thoughts. I've never seen it before.

Isaac wrote: Before anyone asks, I suspect Mordecai didn't vote for me because 1. he may have been the Heathen distancing vote. 2. there were 6 players who didn't vote, so maybe he was hoping more would pile onto me.

Distancing from whom? You? Himself? What's your logic here?

Lot wrote:Balaam, definitely don't friend Rahab on facebook. Don't you know how that would look? Is that really the reputation you want?

Absalom wrote:Guys, if we don't lynch Absalom with all the evidence against him, and it turns out he is bad, think about what idiots you will feel like for allowing him to trick you.

I am 100% sure that he is bad. Nothing will convince me otherwise. Th evidence is much too strong to ignore.

I'm still laughing out loud for real.

More thoughts/commentary tomorrow when I'm a bit less tired and not just amused/confused by random thread posts. Damned weeknights and their early bedtimes.

I've gotta make dinner and get ready to go out with friends afterwards, so I'm gonna go ahead and put my vote on Isaac.

Ah, and of course I missed two things I wanted to mention before as well. That's what I get for writing a novel:

Balaam and Ruth voting timing/pattern: Interesting catch, Absalom. I wouldn't throw anything out, and I'm all for suspecting just about anything no matter how ballsy, but Balaam's read pretty civ to me this game and his defense (or rather, claiming it as coincidence) reads genuine. Weird coincidence, though. Funny more than anything. Funny ha-ha.

Since Mordecai's got some of the eyeball and some votes - he does have a rather bad record, kinda like Isaac and Jacob. Their behavior (especially Isaac's in the last couple of periods), however, combined with that, look worse to me today, although Mordecai seems rather angry in his posts (frustrated civ? Tactical baddie? Angry player?). I feel more wishy-washy with him than I do with my top suspects, but I'd be interested to see what he has to say.

Belshazzar wrote:Oh, wow, sorry about slipping you in the notes on Rebecca. I think I was correcting typos before submitting the entire post and got you two mixed up for no reason. That is indeed Rebecca I'm referring to.

As for what I meant, it was that the only way I can see (or, better yet, anticipate) Rebecca defending her Day 6 vote post claim (i.e. that both Jeph and Uzz were up for sacrifice) is due to her belief, at that time, that Jeph was a Heathen. But if she's a Heathen and thus knew very well that Jeph isn't, she could have easily seeded such wrong information to the thread. Does it make more sense now? Here's the post, just in case.

Yes, thank you! For some reason the original wording was throwing me off something awful.

There is a lot to process in this thread, but I think I can handle it. I think. I'll respond to what I remember I wanted to respond to and go from there.

I see why you're (and I'm referring to any and all saying this) calling Pilate "unimpeachable." His votes for Uzziah would be quite a distancing tactic. He's unlikely in that light, yes, but certainly not unimpeachable. People do crazy shit all the time as mafia to see if they can get away with it, and I wouldn't put it past some people to play the way he's been playing. So I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree that he's "unimpeachable," especially in light of Esther's analysis of him and my general feels for him, but I do see that he's less likely.

Isaac's whole deal with the "vanilla" slip got me looking in his direction. It bothered me that once he started taking heat, he comes out with that "slip" and tries to wiggle his way out of scrutiny/death from both the heathens and civilians. Lot analyzed this well and I actually kinda gasped excitedly reading it because it put a finger on what had bothered me about that whole conversation last Night, besides role-hinting in general. Really I dig the whole case. I also don't appreciate his self-vote, which, along with role-hinting, I've seen is a baddie tactic to get people to lay off you.

Since I never can hold more than a few players at a time in my head especially in large games, I hadn't thought about Rebecca, but Belsh's analysis of her as baddie is interesting and worth a look. I am a little confused at one part of it:

Belshazzar wrote: Defensive vote for Jeph Day 7. Defends what I just said about her Day 6 awful looking stance as misinterpreting and that in fact she saw "Ruth on Day 5 pushing for a choice between Jeph and Uzz", under the logic that both of them are bad and threatened to go down. Otherwise, it's a really bad angle and still doesn't connect well with suspecting and voting Rachel. She [Rahab] would only have her belief that Jeph is bad in her defense, but if she's actually Heathen, such a belief can clearly have been manufactured.

So yeah, it looks pretty bad. If Rebecca is Heathen, her vote record isn't even tough or out-of-the-box to interpret as such. (Sorry we didn't listen to you, Jeph)

Part of me is confused why my name is in there (did you mean Rebecca?) and part of me just wants to know what you mean in other words. Otherwise, I think you make very good points about Rebecca and her behavior.

Jacob wrote:Rahab, why does the hint make you more suspicious? Again, my role is known to be alive, so I can't be fake-claiming. Anyway, I've already defended my admittedly poor voting record. Eye me all you want, but lynching me would just slow down the baddie hunting.

I despise role-hinting like I despise self-voting. I find it a cheap tactic to gain civ cred and sympathy. And if we're talking "ballsy" it might be a risk to take one of the more inactive player's roles as claiming. But honestly I think I'm going out of the realm of logic/reality thinking in that light. I need to think about this.

I think I've addressed what I wanted to. My top three suspects, since apparently we're doing that:
1) Isaac, in light of Lot's analysis and my own heebie-jeebie feelings
2) Pilate (don't care that others think he's "unimpeachable," he is still suspicious)
3) Rebecca/Jacob. I'd like clarification for that part of Rebecca suspicion, and I feel I might need to rethink Jacob, so he's fallen down a few pegs, but not off the suspicion ladder.

I'm back!

Lot wrote:A reread of Rahab. First, after this reread I have a very strong suspicion that I know who is manning this sock. I might even lodge my guess with the host

I'll be interested to see if you're right

Why is Pilate "unimpeachable"? I feel like I've caught up reasonably and this is quite a bold claim. I didn't see a major analysis of him or anything that would make him able to take this title, but perhaps I missed something? His behavior still suggests otherwise to me, but has something new come to light? The only thing I see in Absalom's analysis is that his Day 1 vote for Uzziah was "ballsy" for mafia, but that wouldn't make him "unimpeachable." I'm up for being enlightened.

Also, I don't know what's up with the danged role-hinting, role-claiming, slip-up nonsense that's been happening here lately. What is Isaac going for? Maybe nothing. Maybe it's a real civ slip-up. But he takes some heat, and suddenly he "accidentally" says he has a vanilla role? I don't like it at all.

Linki - That's all I saw with Jacob, too, but I still don't like the fact that it's being used as a defense.

Hey, got a few free moments and some wifi! I'll go ahead and vote now since I'm not sure if I'll be back again closer to the poll end. The cases on Jacob and Jonathan look extremely similar to me, except Jonathan missed more votes, yet people aren't as apt to vote Jacob today because he sounds "genuine" and convinced people otherwise. I still don't see what's so convincing with him besides the role hinting, and I already went on my mini-tirade regarding that. While the cases look similar in my read-through, I've got Jacob on the mind more strongly and I think I'll go in that direction today.

Linki - Ah, agreement! Except that the hint makes the case even stronger for me.

Mmmmk well I need to get to bed and looks like my vote would make more sense for Pilate today given my suspicions and the poll so far. Here's hoping for a turkey! (that's three baddies in a row) 'Night.

Rebecca wrote:Sick burnz in dis thread right now

Indeed

Reading through the thread and current suspicions and cases, my suspicions are strongest on Jacob and Pilate. Pilate for continual votes without explanation and behavior a la Uzziah. Jacob for his damning vote record repeated several times in the thread that, in the wake of catching Ruth via vote record, should not be ignored. Also, I despise role-hinting for any reason that it's used. I don't know why people are so keen to use that as a reason NOT to suspect him. I've always found role-hinting suspicious because it's a cheap way to try to give yourself civ cred, genuine or not. I know there are several more names that are being suspected and thrown around with some good points, but these are the ones that stand out to me in the conversation today.

And just as a comment, I find Belsh's "Lazarus gambit" intriguing, after several times of reading it I THINK I get it now...maybe. I find it complicated, almost too complicated for it to be plausible, but I find that just about anything's possible in mafia. But I just like the thought process, too, and if I find the time I might look into it and apply it and see if it makes more sense to me. Anyway, I don't really know where I was going with that, but I figured I'd say something about it since it was on my mind. What do others think?

Well done! The thread has exploded since last night, so I'm both catching up and processing what's going on and what people think. I'll make more commentary tomorrow, but I figured I'd check in and give myself a placeholder post in case I have pages to read when I get in again :P

I will need to go to bed soon (stupid early morning), so I'll go ahead and vote.

I don't feel strongly about either Rachel or Ruth. I think the more compelling case is Ruth but I agree with Jacob that it is more likely she actually was against Uzziah, given the circumstances of being against him beforehand, so I'll give her the BOTD today. That being said, and because I'd like to finally shut off my computer for today, I think I'll go again the weirdo route.

Jacob wrote:Lazarus and Pilate both think Absalom is bad. What is the reasoning behind that?

Also, Laz has been voting Absalom for several days, to the extent that he's not contributing to the lynches at all. I find this post incredibly suspicious:

Lazarus wrote:So I'm catching up now. I really want to keep voting absalom till he is lynched but the list could also be a big help finding out who was on uzziah's team.

He's not at all enthusiastic about hunting for Uzz's teammates, he has this tunnel vision about Absalom. Meanwhile, Pilate insists that Absalom is in fact Uzziah's teammate. What to make of all this? I have sort of low-key trusted Absalom for most of the game, but if someone has evidence against him I will listen; otherwise I think Lazarus and maybe Pilate as well are full of BS.

While I don't entirely trust Absalom, I agree that Lazarus has been going after him like crazy without explanation (I know, I'm repeating myself, but it bugs the crap outta me), and Pilate's just been straight up weird with votes and behavior (also said before). This same thing happened with Uzziah and leaving him alone and it took us until Day 5 to catch him standing right in front of us. I feel more strongly about either of these two, mostly because I've been able to brood about it for longer, and since Pilate's already got a vote, I'll go ahead and put mine there.

And with that, goodnight, good people.

Jonathan wrote:Sorry I haven't participated today. Tbh, my mind is in a tailspin. There has been so much analysis - all of it good - that i can't keep straight what is being said by whom. My other issue is even with the nice lists of who voted when for whom I have to keep looking back at the original vote copy epi takes from the thread. I can just read it better that way. All this means I am very slow today in determining who I think is the most suspicious. If I had to do a quick vote right now I think I would go with Jacob but that may change before the end of the day. Right now I'm correlating the lists to see how much agreement there really is between raters and how it compares to my view of the person. I know that may seem like a convoluted process but its the only way I think I'll come away with a vote I feel good about.

balaam I can say I liked your list and agree with most of what is there. It's the lists that came afterwards that I'm having trouble assimilating. Again, sorry I have not posted today, i just don't feel like I would have added much except possible confusion.

This. Almost all of this precisely. I've been attempting to keep up, but there are so many lists, analyses, and weird colors that I was (and still am) having trouble sifting through it all interpreting graphs and large amounts of data have never been my strong suit...I prefer puzzle-y math TBH I read the thread last night intending to check in with a post but got flustered and shut the laptop (this was also factored with being tired, but). I appreciate the thought behind lists and attempted analyses, but it's more confusing than anything and makes hell for reading.

People seem to be turning on Rachel. Not enough for a vote today, it seems, but perhaps pushing towards her for future lynches. Why? I don't see it, but I could be missing something?

People keep saying "we should look at Samuel" but don't seem to be doing so. So I will. 19 posts are fairly easy to go through, and his voting record has been posted, but just for my sake and ease of reading:
Day 1: Samson (last)
Day 2: No vote
Day 3: No vote
Day 4: Job (5th to vote out of 9)
Day 5: Jephthah (3rd to vote out of 5)

Besides missing the vote twice in a row but still posting, the post that raised my eyebrow was the following:

Samuel wrote:Balaam, show me where I said that I was voting Absalom because I think you are good. I have no opinion on you. I voted Job because I believe Absalom is bad. If given a choice between two options and Absalom has voted already, I'm not going to vote the same way he does because I believe he is bad. Which is what I said. I would have rathered vote Absalom, but it was clear the votes were already falling on job and Balaam and I do not wish to waste my vote.

Now, later he admits that he "misread" Balaam's post, but that's not what gets me. Perhaps it has been pointed out before, but Samuel voted fairly early when there was not only enough time to possibly keep Job safe, but to actually vote for Absalom (Lazarus had already voted before him), the person he was supposedly trying to thwart and believed was bad. It's similar logic that Jeph used for his Balaam vote, but Jeph waited for quite a while. Samuel went "gut" with plenty of time. Thoughts?

Lazarus and Pilate still give me the willies. Behavior proved to be an effective factor in catching Uzziah, so they're certainly candidates.

Okay. I know there's a lot more going on today than that, esp. regarding Ruth with all the votes on her so far, but that's all the analysis I can handle right now (like I said, data's not my favorite thing to work with), so I need a break and some food. I'll come back in a few.

I'm down with this. Voting Uzziah.

Lot wrote:I'm also going to look sideways at anyone who thinks Lazarus is shady, tbqh. That means you, right now, Deborah.

Not that Lazarus must be good. But he certainly looks better after Job's death.

Like others, I'd also like clarification on this. Lazarus refuses to give explanation on his votes. Outright refuses. This is not helpful behavior. Why would a suspicion of him be so damning after Job's lynch?

Deborah, your read of Malchus is interesting, and he gives me the same sort of feeling Lazarus does. However, he hasn't spoken or voted since Day 3 so I dunno if I should take that as inactive or hiding, but it seems too long of a hide to me. I'd like to hear more from him.

Pilate's posts and behavior remind me of Uzziah's, until maybe the last couple of posts when he decides to get serious with some strange reasoning. I second the thought that defending yourself as civ by calling yourself out on un-civ behavior and voting for someone calling you a civ is...a very strange way to make yourself look good. I am seriously not understanding this tactic. Both look bad in this light.

I think I understand Jephthah's vote in the last lynch, although it was a very strange way to go about attempting to get at Samuel. There has definitely been pressure in this game (and really every game) to vote "where it counts" rather than where you believe it will. Jeph tried to garner Samuel votes without success several times. He voted for what he saw as the lesser of the two evils for voting, but by doing so apparently made his earlier comment regarding Balaam look like a flub. Could be a flub. I could be getting hookwinked. I often am in mafia. But I see why he did what he did and I don't see myself voting him today.

Going with Perizzites. Their Wikipedia description is a bit sad to me for some reason (they just seem so...conquered, and that's kinda it. And poor). They need some love. Also I like Z's.

Screw it. I'm voting Lazarus. I don't feel strongly enough for the top vote-getters, and there are still several votes missing which will probably come in last minute. I'm not waiting around because I have other things to take care of like buying delicious candy and playing video games.

Interesting theories on Job and Uzziah regarding their back and forth, although my qualm is that it's been going on for days, since the beginning or very nearly the beginning, rather than a short period when curses usually happen. But then again, there are secrets all over the game and Epi is the kind of host to pull some crazy shit like opposite cupids.

Things I don't like:
1) Absalom's tunnel vision on Balaam and claiming his attempt to defend himself via questioning is further proof of baddie behavior. While you may be right about Balaam (I don't really see it, but hey), this makes it impossible for anyone to escape the suspicion spotlight once you put it on him/her, and this is what's been happening throughout your conversations with Balaam. Great for catching the few baddies among us, but bad for the majority civs who are already too scared/quiet to voice suspicions or defend ANYTHING.
2) Job's attitude towards Rachel, and his claim that no one is following him on his Uzziah suspicion. Like Rachel said, several people have followed you several times. I don't really know what else to say about that.
3) Lazarus coming out of nowhere and voting Absalom, claiming that his opinions haven't changed and he's been "shady" the whole game, but looking through Lazarus' posts, he has not once elaborated to any extent on what that shady behavior or those suspicions might be. It doesn't have to be a huge encyclopedic breakdown of your suspect, but a little something more than "he looks shady." Show, don't tell.
4) This (the facts, not the post itself):

Belshazzar wrote:Where is Barnabas, since Day 1?
Where is Bathsheba, since Day 2?
Where is Malchus, since Day 3?
Where is Rebecca, since Day 3?

These are the only candidates for today for being silenced and/or imprisoned, as far as I can tell.

Seriously, where are these people? Perhaps those under Day 3 are silenced, but the other two? It's such low posting that you wonder if even baddies would be so bold, but I wouldn't throw it out, either.

I realize some of those points contradict each other in terms of suspicions, but even writing that out just now organized my thoughts better, contradictory though they may be. As far as votes go today, I could go for Lazarus or Uzziah (see Job, haven't forgotten). I wanna keep an eye on Absalom (because it really could just be aggressive baddie hunting, but I just don't like how it's going about), and Job's worthy of some of the eye as well for his recent posts and tone.

GOD DANGIT SO MANY POSTS BEFORE ME I'M POSTING NOW ANYWAY

RIP Gideon and Hagar.

Sorry you've had to repeat yourself so many times Rachel - I know how annoying that can be. I think you (and looks like Paul) make some good points about Job. I'm a little biased since I tend to agree with Job about Uzziah but maybe that's my inclination to look at the "weirder," stand out players as bad. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the back and forth between them? One bad? Both bad? Something else?

Stephen, I also hope you find a non-exploding house. That would be preferable.

Jonathan wrote:After giving more though to a Uzziah vote again today I have decided to wait and give that another day or two to develop. He has been silent today (at least I didn't see anything from him) but I don't know if he is laying low or legitimately silenced. I have chosen to go with Lazarus today for the reasons that Mordecai and Balaam brought up today. One thing that does concern me is that maybe he has been silenced but I'm going to take the risk in his case.

Uzziah is not silenced. He commented on his vote two (real-time) days ago in response to Job's voting for him in Uzziah's same jokey manner. He hasn't spoken since. I'm gonna go ahead and vote for him for reasons previously stated.

Jonah wrote:Rahab I noticed ye corrected the problems I had in your last post but in the process you didn't acknowledge my direct post to you about it. makes me think youre trying to humour me without talking directly to me. too smooth much heathen

Nah, I just make general posts in response to lots of things since I'm so often reading what's been said throughout the day in the evening. But thanks for voting for me. It makes me feel loved and noticed

Jonah wrote:

Rahab wrote:This is probably the quietest full game I've ever played. It's great for catching up on RL busy days, but terrible for finding things to catch mafia on. Or for much conversation, really.

Makes it harder for mafia to latch onto other peoples wrong thoughts too now doesnt it
Something about this post Rahab. Something about this post. makes me think you want people talking for all the wrong reasons. since you complain about no one talking but dont bring up any talking points except to ask balaam about his lists or whatever. you want us to do the dirty work so you can help us stone one of our Lord's chosen
Got my eye on ye Rahab

Ah and I see why I didn't respond to this now. You're trying to bait me (hehe get it? Baiting? Jonah?...ah forget it) with the obvious. Yes, you are right that a quieter game means mafia has less to latch onto as well as civs having less to build cases on. Was there something in particular you wanted me to address beyond that?

Hey guys sorry for the lack of posts/discussion/elaboration/etc. I had a pet emergency yesterday evening that didn't resolve itself until about 2:30 this morning. Happy Fur Mother's Day to me

I have mixed feelings about what Absalom is saying and his posts. I definitely agree that his tone and the bahs are a curse of some sort, since they're in almost every single one (there was one post recently that didn't have it) so I'm sure that would throw off my read of him. However I don't dig the player value comment. While I agree and have stated that yes, there are a lot of low posters in this game that make hunting difficult both ways (finding mafia and discussing finding mafia), it doesn't mean that high posters are not mafia, or vice versa, and even a low-playing civ is still a civ on the team. I suppose I'm just reiterating what others have said in response to this, but it's a conversation we seem to have in every game. In the end, it's the comment/idea itself that irks me, not Absalom.

I've been flip-flopping about Uzziah since the beginning, but if he's who I think he is under that sock I always feel this way about him one way or the other. There's no way to tell, so my gut about this behavior along with someone's mention of how conversation about him and his own commentary have fallen off today make me want to look his way again. (To be honest I also laughed out loud at his and Job's exchange about voting until one of them is dead. I love this game.) Also, I read Bathsheba's posts after much mentioning of her (and maybe this is completely off topic but I've seen a few references to her as a "him," which threw me off :P ), and some of her participation reminds me of Uzziah's (especially laughing at being called "the blendiest blender" with no other defense except she "noticed" who made the comment), while the rest of it just looks like blendy play, as she was criticized for. At this point I will likely be voting one of them today.

Ah! I almost forgot but I remembered - it's been said a few times but Balaam's most recent list post is the kind of list that's more easily understood that raw data, even if what one wants to understand is merely what the poster thinks about all of the players. Kudos to you for going through everyone like that and thanks for answering my question from before.

Ah and now Uzziah is back in the conversation (being talked about that is). I have some work to do but I'll be back in a bit for the vote and perhaps conversation, real time.

This is probably the quietest full game I've ever played. It's great for catching up on RL busy days, but terrible for finding things to catch mafia on. Or for much conversation, really.

Balaam, you keep posting all of these lists, but you say nothing to go along with them except labeling them. Are you planning on analyzing and commenting on this "data" later on? Do you suspect people on them? I am curious.

RIP Paul and belated for Cain (it took me some time to figure out the host post on that one )

Absalom wrote:

Rachel wrote:Who do you think did so, Absalom, son of David.

Some idiot. The pattern seems to be killing people who are annoying, which is a foolish strategy for the baddies. I hate them. Bah.

They sure do seem to be getting their giggles in, don't they?

Thoughts as I go:

Firstly I am surprised so few people are concerned with Samson's vote. This was one of the first things I noticed on the poll and I had to double back and make sure he was actually lynched day 1 because I was so thrown off. Possibly a mistake but weird nonetheless. I've never seen a deadie vote in a poll mistakenly. Not that it's much of a concern at this very moment but it's still weird and I think it's worth mentioning.

Secondly in my read-through I found it weird that several people kept mentioning Paul's silence in a row. Regardless of the reason why he's quiet (most likely silencing) I agree with others that it was weird to point it out, and THEN speculate so many other reasons when the obvious WOULD be silencing. Now TBH I'm curious as to how he's placed a vote if he's silenced but that's not unheard of for a silenced role.

I voted Uzziah Day 1 because I thought his behavior was weird. Not much of a sound reason, and since then he's been more on topic. I see the reasoning of others that because he said "I'm rooting for the scum" (which I took it to mean "I'm cheering for the scum") he might want to brag about it post-game if he IS actually scum for shits and giggles, but I think it's more likely he was just making a joke. Too much WIFOM for my taste right now, so I won't go that way again today.

Speaking of jokes, something tells me that whoever's mafia is getting their giggles in by killing Martha for her "hunnies," and for no other reason (except, of course, the obvious of y'know, killing those not mafia). That's just my gut talking.

The one who stands out in this huge crowd right now is Cain. I like Absalom's case on him, and I am also suspicious of quieter players this game. It also follows my suspicion that mafia mostly spread the vote Day 1, and he voted for Absalom, someone with only 2 votes (if that makes sense). So, gonna vote there.

I am almost caught up. Sorry for the lack of posts today - busy week.

RIP Samson. There's certainly the possibility that one or two mafia was on that lynch, but I also think with such a large game that they easily spread themselves around Day 1. More research tomorrow. Bed now. And for the record, this game makes bible study actually sound almost appealing. Suppose I just need a good teacher