The Syndicate

Ricochet wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:Did anyone take a snapshot of the poll before it closed?

Yes.

Long Con wrote:S~V~S is sketchy to me. I think Rico is a fine fellow. *votes S~V~S*

S~V~S wrote: I did not vote before, but I am going to do so now. The whole "not my responsibility" is possibly one of the least civvie like statements I have ever seen in a Mafia game.

S~V~S wrote: Linki@ Zomba~ any opinion on Ninjajujube?

Ricochet wrote:Fine, vote for me then. I'm not defending myself as a cornered Hunger, I am defending myself as a civ mortified that everything I have done in D1 is now blowing up in my face simply because I did not respond to Epig's agressive and rousy banter and gameplay and such. Llama's points are indeed excellent for an easy hunt and lynch. They'll also highly circumstantial and blinding.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Yes, true, but if everyone from each civilian group comes in and says "Epi isn't on my team!", then it means Epi has to be bad, or someone has to be lying.

What you and LC said isn't role outing, but it's info dumping, which can be a bit of a grey area.

To be entirely fair, literally anybody regardless of actual alignment could just say "I'm civvie so don't lynch me." Baddies do it all the time.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Yes, true, but if everyone from each civilian group comes in and says "Epi isn't on my team!", then it means Epi has to be bad, or someone has to be lying.

What you and LC said isn't role outing, but it's info dumping, which can be a bit of a grey area.

To be entirely fair, literally anybody regardless of actual alignment could just say "I'm civvie so don't lynch me." Baddies do it all the time.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, the first player that comes to mind that defending Epi was Trice.

I'd also like to add that I said I would gladly eat my words.

Did we reach a solid conclusion on why epig didn't get lunched? Was anybody around to save the poll results? Last I saw it, epignosis was up by 2 votes so do we know that LC and him tied in the poll?

Hunger's power doesn't sound like it could protect Weather from lynch, only from nk (I could be wrong, but it does specify "on even nights")

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Rezz please.

Snowman wrote:Voting for Ricochet for lunch. A quick glance over the forums, and I'm convinced he's complicit with Epi. C'mon guys, vote early!

S~V~S wrote:

FZ. wrote:Can we lunch SVS?

By the way Russ, if your BTSC buddies are civvies at this point, then lynching them means we lose a civ role in the count. But now that I think about it, it's interesting. Are you saying that you're bad right now and if you change roles anyway, there's no point in trying to help the baddies, I'm all for it. We can lynch you.

I do not wish to be lunched, I am a vegetarian and no threat to anyone

And yeah, Russ wanting to lunch his presumably civ teammates makes me wonder if they are indeed not civs.

Ricochet wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:By making a strong, credible case against someone you think is bad. Isn't that the essence of this game?

Right now, I have no information about anyone bad; only information about people who are good.

That's not the best orientation (for reason already stated), that's all I can say. You can freely read into what people are posting, perhaps even read it in a both civ/bad way, but usually at the end of the day we come with reason to lynch people, for believing they are bad.

Ricochet wrote:By making a strong, credible case against someone you think is bad. Isn't that the essence of this game?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, the first player that comes to mind that defending Epi was Trice.

Zomberella12 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:You can, Zomb, some people just think it's not good to go around and say "so and so is probably this civ and here's why!" and stuff like that. Llama and others will argue that the baddies can figure it out for themselves, so it depends on your perspective.

You're allowed to say you think whatever you want for whatever reason, you just have to be mindful that information you dump in the thread is readable by civilians and baddies.

If Llama were to come under heat, you could say you believe he is civilian and fabricate a reason -- that his voting record has been good, that you agree with him, he appears genuine, etc. etc., whatever you want. That's typically a better way to defend a BTSCmate or someone you believe to be a certain role than saying "I don't think we should lynch Llama because he is such and such role."

Does that make sense?

Yes it does. In a normal game. In this game though, since the baddies have BTSC, they know who almost all of the civies are anyway. Plus, it seems like everyone is getting really hung up on accusations and defenses without explanations. How do I accuse/defend with an explanation and without one (especially if the my explanation is based on facts re. the character roles)?

Baddies very typically always have BTSC. Civilians do not.

Also, there are two baddie teams, so they don't know who each other are, but yes that's true. But they may not know who "Elizabeth Donner" is or any specific civilian; they just know all the players on their team are likely civilians.

What do you mean by your question here? I'm not sure I follow.

Roxy wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Linki~ Rox may not have put Splints on the poll since she is a replacement. Sometimes hosts do that.

Fixed! Thanks guys!

S~V~S wrote:Zomba, I was not trying to discourage you. I was just saying that in general discussing who is what civvie role is not done. For the most part, yeah, the baddies can figure it out. But more than once when i was bad something someone said in thread got was a "Eureka" moment about who to NK.

It was advice, not a criticism

MovingPictures07 wrote:You can, Zomb, some people just think it's not good to go around and say "so and so is probably this civ and here's why!" and stuff like that. Llama and others will argue that the baddies can figure it out for themselves, so it depends on your perspective.

You're allowed to say you think whatever you want for whatever reason, you just have to be mindful that information you dump in the thread is readable by civilians and baddies.

If Llama were to come under heat, you could say you believe he is civilian and fabricate a reason -- that his voting record has been good, that you agree with him, he appears genuine, etc. etc., whatever you want. That's typically a better way to defend a BTSCmate or someone you believe to be a certain role than saying "I don't think we should lynch Llama because he is such and such role."

Does that make sense?

thellama73 wrote:I approve of all those "let's not lynch llama" statements, and hope you will continue saying them.

Zomberella12 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:RIP MM. BIH Epi.

So my Weather/Hunger lunch stop theory was right??? ..... Cool!

What was your weather/hunger lunch stop theory?
I think that weather killed tamsen and hunger tried to kill someone who cannot be NK'd instead of protecting weather. Also, Levina used one of her three kills to get Epig.

I thought Epi didn't care about getting lynched because Weather/Hunger had a secret (not stated) lunch stop. It appears that might have actually been true.

Or Jacob Donner did a lunch stop to protect Elizabeth Donner (who I think might be Llama).

Just an FYI, it is considered bad form to identify who you think to be a civvie role in the thread.

Confusion changed to frustration. I don't understand what I'm supposed to say on the thread if I can't say who I think is who. Can I say, "Let's don't lynch Llama"? Without giving an explanation? If I give one, is it infodumping? i.e. "Let's don't lynch Llama because I think he's good"? Can I say why I think he's good? i.e. "Let's don't lynch Llama because I think he's good because I think he wrote the Eliz Donner letter"?


Wait, what?! MP told me it was fine as long as I say that it is what I think. So confused.

S~V~S wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:RIP MM. BIH Epi.

So my Weather/Hunger lunch stop theory was right??? ..... Cool!

What was your weather/hunger lunch stop theory?
I think that weather killed tamsen and hunger tried to kill someone who cannot be NK'd instead of protecting weather. Also, Levina used one of her three kills to get Epig.

I thought Epi didn't care about getting lynched because Weather/Hunger had a secret (not stated) lunch stop. It appears that might have actually been true.

Or Jacob Donner did a lunch stop to protect Elizabeth Donner (who I think might be Llama).

Just an FYI, it is considered bad form to identify who you think to be a civvie role in the thread.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:RIP MM. BIH Epi.

So my Weather/Hunger lunch stop theory was right??? ..... Cool!

What was your weather/hunger lunch stop theory?
I think that weather killed tamsen and hunger tried to kill someone who cannot be NK'd instead of protecting weather. Also, Levina used one of her three kills to get Epig.

I thought Epi didn't care about getting lynched because Weather/Hunger had a secret (not stated) lunch stop. It appears that might have actually been true.

thellama73 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:RIP MM. BIH Epi.

So my Weather/Hunger lunch stop theory was right??? ..... Cool!

What was your weather/hunger lunch stop theory?
I think that weather killed tamsen and hunger tried to kill someone who cannot be NK'd instead of protecting weather. Also, Levina used one of her three kills to get Epig.

Wasatch is supposed to kill nightly, so he could have killed Epi instead of Levina. Otherwise, we may have an inactive baddie.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:RIP MM. BIH Epi.

So my Weather/Hunger lunch stop theory was right??? ..... Cool!

What was your weather/hunger lunch stop theory?
I think that weather killed tamsen and hunger tried to kill someone who cannot be NK'd instead of protecting weather. Also, Levina used one of her three kills to get Epig.

I thought Epi didn't care about getting lynched because Weather/Hunger had a secret (not stated) lunch stop. It appears that might have actually been true.

MovingPictures07 wrote:RIP MM. BIH Epi.

So my Weather/Hunger lunch stop theory was right??? ..... Cool!

S~V~S wrote:Roxy eats logic crumbs for breakfast. No logic crumbs for you.

FZ. wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

FZ. wrote:How could he know that?

I can read k

Apparently, I can't, because I can't find anything that makes sense. The only way you could know you wouldn't be killed from reading the roles description is if you're a Donner and knew you could be saved. That would make what you said to Elizabeth Donner really weird in my eyes, because if you're a part of that team, why bother doing all that hoopla and making us believe you're not on the same team? Also, if that's what you are, and llama's on your team, why'd you break the tie with LC instead of voting LC. He obviously was not on your team?

thellama73 wrote:I'm still scratching my head about the non-lynch, but based on whta Epi said, I expect more information will be forthcoming to some of us soon.

FZ. wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:Okay - then here's what I THINK:

1) MP and Epi are not Donners.
2) Llama or SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner.
3) The lunch was stopped by a tie (can someone give me a tally of the ending votes?) or by Jacob Donner (I don't have a theory for why unless LC is Jacob Donner).
4) Epi somehow predicted that the lunch would be stopped (he is a Reed and they planned a tie vote? or is he a Donner?), either way, I don't think Epi is bad - for now
5) Maybe Epi guessed that SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner (or not) either way, SVS seemed to think that he did, so I don't think that SVS is bad either - for now.
6) If SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner then Llama might be bad. LC might also be bad, based on my initial gut reaction to his posts (non-info dumping related - based on his lack of analysis and "latching on" on).
7) I suspect that Snowman might be bad but SVS defended him so he might also be a Donner.

That is all.

Llama was taken off the poll. I believe that is a Donner only function. Interesting deductions; I don't agree with all of them, but I can totally see why you think what you think.

The problem here is that this is all likely to change tomorrow.

Missed that part. I guess llama's off the hook

S~V~S wrote:Llama was taken off the poll. I believe that is a Donner only function. Interesting deductions; I don't agree with all of them, but I can totally see why you think what you think.

The problem here is that this is all likely to change tomorrow.

Zomberella12 wrote:6) If SVS wrote the message from Mrs. Donner then Llama might be bad. LC might also be bad, based on my initial gut reaction to his posts (non-info dumping related - based on his lack of analysis and "latching on" on).
That is all.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

I'm trying to connect this game to Werewolf games IRL. In those games you are allowed to say what you think about different players, who you think they are, and why. The BTSC makes this game tricky because we might be telling the truth or we might be lying. If I say I think A is a Donner, B is a Breen, and C is a baddie, do I have to say why? It's a catch 22. If I say why, I get jumped for being an "infodumper" and if I don't then I get jumped for being an "infodumper". I don't really understand how to play....

If you say you THINK someone is bad and why, that's totally acceptable.

If you say you know someone is bad, that is unacceptable.

FZ. wrote:

Long Con wrote:I think that kind of role is not subject to infodumping rules.

So Elizabeth Donner could have said "A, B, C and D are Donners" and that would not be regarded as info dumping?

Ricochet wrote:

Dom wrote:wat

Motto of this game, everyone. And i'm starting to think Dom was smart enough to get out of here in time.

Anyway, either Roxy is messing with us or perhaps Margret Reed's double-vote brought it to a tie. I don't really get the Weather/Hunger theory, they can protect each other during nights only.

S~V~S wrote:4 is a LOST number.

Epignosis wrote:(welcome by the way)

Epignosis wrote:I've changed by vote to S~V~S for now.

In the interest of self-interest and in the preservation of self-preservation:

Epignosis
5
Snowman (3), MovingPictures07 (7), FZ. (8), Russtifinko (9), Black Rock (11)
38%

Your champion "baddie hunters."

Epignosis wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Epignosis wrote: Russ, who voted for me because I apparently don't mind but he would rather lynch info-dumpers but won't vote for one of them either.

I still may vote an infodumper. It seems there was some confusion about what constituted info dumping in this game, so I may give BOTD. And there's this, which MP is entirely right about:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
You voted for yourself and continuously refused to mention a better option for our vote. I therefore voted for you. You have said you are fine with your situation.

Now if you had handled the situation differently, and actually fought instead of giving up, I surely wouldn't be accusing you of not baddie hunting. And of course there are others who haven't baddie hunted either.

I also said I could move my vote, so if I'm convinced it makes more sense elsewhere, I'll change it, but I don't believe that's the case at the moment.

Long Con wrote:I am not really considering an Epignosis vote today, but I may vote one of the sudden bandwagoners.

Why? And who would you count as a bandwagoner, anyone who's voted for him?

Epignosis wrote:Metalmarsh89 votes for himself to "see" if votes are changeable. That strikes me as a way of avoiding Day 1 altogether. You say nothing about that. BTSC I assume. Fine.

I vote for myself (which I never do) and it's because I'm not "baddie hunting." Oh come now. Your interpretation of what I'm doing is that I've given up?

MM has never not self-voted on Day 1 that I remember. And personally, I think your behavior is either your typical "vote for me cuz I act bad but then I'll start acting good and flip it on the weakest bandwagon voter" Day 1 shtick, or you're acting like it is and you really are bad. Right now I'm leaning the second. Convince me otherwise.

Nah.

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Why is everyone voting already? Why did Epi self vote?

I have to catch up to the film thread, but will bbl to read back.

Two reasons. I've never self-voted before, but votes are changeable, so what the hell. It's amusing that a bandwagon begins on me with nearly 24 hours left to go. One of my voters has accused me of "not baddie hunting." This is a criticism MP raises against me every game when he wants to vote for me. I never do enough for him. So it's amusing to me that he didn't look at MM, who self-voted, or Black Rock, who couldn't be bothered to look at the date on the poll but she's not changing her mind, or Russ, who voted for me because I apparently don't mind but he would rather lynch info-dumpers but won't vote for one of them either.

Impressive "baddie hunting" all around, I must say.

You voted for yourself and continuously refused to mention a better option for our vote. I therefore voted for you. You have said you are fine with your situation.

Now if you had handled the situation differently, and actually fought instead of giving up, I surely wouldn't be accusing you of not baddie hunting. And of course there are others who haven't baddie hunted either.

I also said I could move my vote, so if I'm convinced it makes more sense elsewhere, I'll change it, but I don't believe that's the case at the moment.

Mmm hmm.

Metalmarsh89 votes for himself to "see" if votes are changeable. That strikes me as a way of avoiding Day 1 altogether. You say nothing about that. BTSC I assume. Fine.

I vote for myself (which I never do) and it's because I'm not "baddie hunting." Oh come now. Your interpretation of what I'm doing is that I've given up?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:
I know right? Why isn't he defending himself? It's suspicious. Kind of like not responding will make us all forget the accusation? But if voting for a new person on D1 is a no go, then that's fine. There are other baddies out there for me to nom on.

Do you still suspect LC?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I am going to vote now since we can change. Voting for Zomberella; I was not a fan of her assessment of Snowmans. I know she knows him irl, but i thought she was putting the most sinister twist possible on his thoughts.

Took me longer than I wanted, but I found a post I was looking for. From elsewhere:

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

Thats the old school way. You don't vote for nubs on Day One. They never come back if you do, lol. And being right in one game is trumped by getting a new cultist...um, player in the long term. Yeah. Plus it's just polite. It's one of those things like not voting for the silenced or insanified.

Hey yeah! What Epi...uh...what SVS said. If SVS votes for me I'm never coming back. And now, I guess, I'm not voting for Snowman.

Also, why? Shouldn't you vote for the player you believe most to be bad?

Of course, you have another day or so to decide, but I find it interesting that Snowman did not address your thoughts about him.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I am going to vote now since we can change. Voting for Zomberella; I was not a fan of her assessment of Snowmans. I know she knows him irl, but i thought she was putting the most sinister twist possible on his thoughts.

Took me longer than I wanted, but I found a post I was looking for. From elsewhere:

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

Thats the old school way. You don't vote for nubs on Day One. They never come back if you do, lol. And being right in one game is trumped by getting a new cultist...um, player in the long term. Yeah. Plus it's just polite. It's one of those things like not voting for the silenced or insanified.

S~V~S wrote:I am going to vote now since we can change. Voting for Zomberella; I was not a fan of her assessment of Snowmans. I know she knows him irl, but i thought she was putting the most sinister twist possible on his thoughts.

Epignosis wrote:Two reasons. I've never self-voted before, but votes are changeable, so what the hell. It's amusing that a bandwagon begins on me with nearly 24 hours left to go. One of my voters has accused me of "not baddie hunting." This is a criticism MP raises against me every game when he wants to vote for me. I never do enough for him. So it's amusing to me that he didn't look at MM, who self-voted, or Black Rock, who couldn't be bothered to look at the date on the poll but she's not changing her mind, or Russ, who voted for me because I apparently don't mind but he would rather lynch info-dumpers but won't vote for one of them either.

Impressive "baddie hunting" all around, I must say.

Epignosis wrote:Oh, I don't mind my situation at all.

After Night 0, some of the mechanics became clear to me. Not all of them, mind you. Interesting stuff if my interpretation is not in error. I'm not going to spoil anything. I'd wager that some of you also know what I'm talking about.

Zomberella12 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Zomb, I have the following questions for you:

- How do you feel about Snowman this game? Any read on him yet (more likely civ or bad) or not sure?
- Same question regarding Epi
- Same question regarding trice (I had a good laugh when you called him PornStar)
- Regarding your point about Russ and FZ., could they not have baddie BTSC with the same argument? I'm not saying I suspect or don't suspect either of them, but I'm merely playing devil's advocate with your argument.

- Snowman's behavior is typical. He likes to do psychoanalysis and then sit back and watch the fight. I cannot read him. Ever. I know that if he is a baddie, we are all probably dead.