The Syndicate

Choutas wrote:

Golden wrote:It's not even wifom.

Wifom is, like, 'if I was town... if i Was scum'.

There really isn't any wifom there.

I think people should take a serious look at those who are resisting lynching me. I think the real scum are running scared and sewing doubt about whether or not I should be lynched.

I swear on my wanking hand that after sorsha you're gonna bite the bullet in due time.

Why not just do it now?

Good to point out the redirection roles, JJ, but yes I have taken them into account.

Anyway, I doubt Il'l have a chance to be back before the lynch. I'd vote myself if I could, but that would be heinous rule breaking deserving of punishment, so I'm sticking with it on JJJ. I don't think Sorsha is the right person to lynch.

Good luck everyone - I'm really hoping that I'll discover you have listened to me, but if you lynch someone else then good luck on that one.

@JJJ - oh, really, you think I haven't considered a disastrous impact of my own lynch? What would that be?

@Bullz - I don't think refusing to hear other civilians is a townie thing to do.

It's not even wifom.

Wifom is, like, 'if I was town... if i Was scum'.

There really isn't any wifom there.

I think people should take a serious look at those who are resisting lynching me. I think the real scum are running scared and sewing doubt about whether or not I should be lynched.

Bullzeye wrote:I don't think he's bad and I won't take whatever bait he thinks he's thrown out there.

This makes no sense. If you don't think I'm bad, why wouldn't you take the 'bait' I've thrown out there. If you think I'm civ, surely you know me well enough to trust my gambits?

I actually kind of feel really bad after reading bea's posts. bea, you know I love you.

@bea - I don't really think anything you've done looks bad... I would way prefer to see JJJ lynched than you. If things don't go in your favour and you are civ, I'm really sorry.

@mac - interesting theory. Perhaps you should ask those who know me if I've ever 'cracked badly', or even if I've ever defended a teammate so hard in the early running when scum. No-one who knows me will recall either ever happening.

@zebra - its kind of you to say I'm causing damage for the town. If you think that is what I'm doing, then I advise you AGAINST voting for me. I suggest you only vote for me if you think I am scum, or if you think I'm helping the town. Otherwise you may be disappointed.

Epi, right now my rainbow list has you as my strongest town read. That is just context for why I'm asking you specifically this question, it is not intended as flattery to get me the answer I want.

I want to know, what is your view on whether or not the whole JJJ/LC thing could be a designed gig to create credit for others (such as JJJ and bea).

sig wrote:Welcome RadicalFuzz glad to have you here, know a question will you lynch Golden with me today or fall for the nefarious plotting of the mafia and lynch Sorsha? \

@Epi why is that funny?
Golden why if you think Sorsha is clean are you still voting for her who else would you vote for over her?

I just answered that.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:To Golden I say...watch out, you might get what you're after!

I don't actually need to 'watch out' for something that I've been openly trying to achieve.

@Macdougall - I voted Sorsha to demonstrate how ridiculous the bandwagon was, something that seemed immediately apparent after I voted for her. She had something like 7 votes at the time I voted for her and no-one else had more than one. It's like BWT all over again. I feel like this game is full of sheep, and I don't intend to be one.

Anyway, my vote is going back to JJJ now.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:SEASIDE

SIG

SORSHA

STRAWHENGE

town
town
town
town

Cool so I note that your vote is currently on a person you think is town.

Well noted! You are exactly correct.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:THEFLOYD73

THELLAMA73

Town
Scum

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:SEASIDE

SIG

SORSHA

STRAWHENGE

town
town
town
town

Man, I think the baddie team is really big.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:RICOCHET

ROXY

RUNDONTWALK

RUSSTIFINKO

Scum
town
scum
town

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:MARSH

MOTEL ROOM

ZEBRA

REYWAS

scum
town
town
scum

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:GOLDEN

JJJ

MACDOUGALL

MATT F

supatown
scum
town
town

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:ELOHCIN

EPIGNOSIS

ESPERS

FZ

town
town
scum
town

When I say 'scum' i mean anti-town, including sk.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:CHOUTAS

DEVIN

DIINY

DRWILGY

scum
town
town
town

bcorn - town
bea - scum
BR - town
Bullz - town

I'm in, but it needs to be now.

Great way to advertise that only civs should take part, JJJ. I would have said the value of this for EVERYONE is in demonstrable links later - if you are a civilian, this might point to it later.

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:@Devin - why not? Gets you talking about how suspect I am. I don't know how much harder I have to try to get people to lynch me.

Why are you so insistent that you get lynched?

Why not?

@Devin - why not? Gets you talking about how suspect I am. I don't know how much harder I have to try to get people to lynch me.

I'm in for gut reads, but JJJ you have to play too. And, for post number reasons, lets make it four or five at a time?

Hey, I think zebra is enjoying playing with me.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Does anyone have any feelings about the ease with which this early Sorsha wagon has grown?

I think it's insane.

Sorsha wrote:

Golden wrote:Someone asked how I feel about Sorsha - I feel the evidence that has been produced is good, and I have absolutely no issues with the vote going that way today.

Did you even read my responses?

Yes. I don't feel strongly that you are bad, but I think the evidence is good - I wouldn't choose to vote for you but I just did because everyone else is so... why not. I think I've made it pretty clear there are plenty of others who I think are a better choice for the lynch, but I don't think you are a bad choice.

Vote sorsha

Someone asked how I feel about Sorsha - I feel the evidence that has been produced is good, and I have absolutely no issues with the vote going that way today.

Bullzeye wrote:

Golden wrote:If you all refuse to make it a thing between me and JJJ (which I think would be a win/win), I still think the town would benefit by lynching me.

If you're a civ, how can we possibly benefit from your death? If you're bad, why would you be saying such a thing? This is one of the craziest ideas I've ever seen you come out with.

And yet, it isn't even the first time I'm come out with it as a civ

@JJ - couldn't agree more! I'm loving it! I haven't been so excited for a mafia game in aaaages

Yeah, Wilgy is looking pretty good right now.

If you all refuse to make it a thing between me and JJJ (which I think would be a win/win), I still think the town would benefit by lynching me.

I can see no-one is listening, so opportunity lost I guess.

We had a unique opportunity today, I told you to make it about me and JJJ for a reason. Oh well.

sig wrote:

Golden wrote:Long Con, JJJ, bea, ricochet, Dr Wilgy, sig.. one more... possibly MM.

That's where my head is at right now.

Wait Golden I'm not sure if I understand your post. Long Con is dead so I don't see why he is on your list, but why both me and bea? I could see just bea, but with LC flip and me being one of the first to call him out and then vote for him, also he himself voted for me yesterday which could have gotten me lynched why am I on this list?

Meh, a list like that is spec. I was looking back at the polls and thread interactions. You were name 6 so by far the least of my theory. The first 4 I feel pretty confident about right now.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:OK, JJ, I can probably compartmentalise this suspicion somewhat at times...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My case on LC was 100% correct -- I didn't believe his claim that his bea suspicion was a ruse despite multiple people telling me I should think otherwise including you.

I've never known you to be SO determined about your suspicion as to ignore the multiple people telling you that all know the persons meta, versus yourself who does not. In fact, you almost invariably take it on board in a very measured and careful way. This time you did not.

Your entire behaviour around that end day comes across to me as someone who knew what way LC would flip. Could you be a civilian info role? No - I don't see you ever doing antics that crazy and overt if you had a civilian info role.

@JJ - go enjoy sweden. We can continue this later

I literally told you at one point that my suspicion of LC had waned because of his admirable job explaining himself to me. I had to re-convince myself to end the day with my vote on him.

More on this point: During my "antics" I kept asking Zebra to expand his own beefs with LC. Because I wasn't sure. Why are you ignoring content that plainly refutes your position that I knew what LC would flip?

Bceause I disagree that it plainly refutes it.

I find your posts in this game incredibly fake, JJJ. I have not found your 'deliberations' genuine. They seem like you are pursuing an agenda. Your actions towards the end of yesterday were an opportunity for me to figure out what that agenda was. In the end, I believe that agenda was to bus LC and make yourself look as clean as possible.

What, you think baddie JJJ bussing a teammate WOULDN'T pretend to be unsure in the middle of the day?

PS, I don't actually care what disclaimer 'you can accept' nor (to JJJ) do I care about someone saying 'I will be the judge of whether or not you have given me the chance'.

Neither of you get to decide where my vote goes, I do. And it will go where it goes no matter what you can accept. If you think this makes me scum, then vote for me.

inb6 getting semantical.

I rejected that explanation the first time and I reject it again. Your explanation for what YOU meant is irrelevant, your original meaning of your post is not important. The point is that you tried to use semantics against me. Three times now. And don't pretend you didn't, because in the same post you objected to me saying aggressive, you yourself admitted to being intense in your defense - even though you were responding to me saying 'slightly defensive'. You knew absolutely what I meant, and you chose to use the words I used against me while ignoring the clear intent of the words. That is what using semantics is.

Ricochet wrote:I fear you are hooked on the semantics. You even asked me back then

I will continue to be hooked on semantics for as long as you continue to attempt to use semantic arguments to take your point. Nice use of quote, but lets put that in context, eh?

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:Rico on this page is making me vote rico. I'm not a fan of the slightly defensive rico I'm seeing. I still need to go back and think about why I feel bad the whole time. It does start a bit with hearing that even he and MR F were going at it in the other thread. Aggressive rico bothers me. In the words of llama, I think there is precedent for rico playing the Detective Aggressive Scumhunt von Threadleader style.

I'm surprised, we've played enough games before for you to have an idea of how intense I can get in rebuttals. Same as it ever was! Also, I don't get where I've been aggressive, nor where I've been DAS von T so far, maybe you can expand on that. Finally, at the risk of being deserving of pedantic pink yet again, you're "not a fan of "slightly defensive rico", then you're bothered by "aggressive rico". Well, which one am I?

YOU are the one getting semantic over the use of the word aggressive. You were happy to use the word 'intense' to describe your defense, but rejected the word 'aggressive'.

My response (that you quoted) was me pointing out the fact you were being semantic.

@rico - I have taken into account on you exactly the same amount of meta as I have on anyone else, which you well know. That amount is 'when I've played with you'. I have not gone away and researched anyone beyond my own experience with them. My experience with you, as I stated, is that you do not have a meta. That IS taking into account meta, you are the one who wants to make it look like I'm being inconsistent when I am in fact not at all.

Oh, but by the way - I'll allow others to do the talking about those games for me, should they choose to. If they don't, then you have no more reason to think they are relevant than I have to think your own self-reference is relevant. If they do talk about it, then you have an objective frame of reference to work off. Which is a difference.

@rico - lets go for the threepeat.

So far, your approach to me calling you 'aggressive' is you to semantically question how defense can be aggressive.

Then, you semantically question how I can simultaneously question two different people about statements about their own meta, just because their comments are opposites.

Now, you are semantically raising that I am pointing out things that have happened in the past, merely because I have also referenced events that happened in past games (that, by the way, I am not asking you to go read).

The single connection going all the way through this is this - you haven't voted for me once, and yet you continue to go after me with semantics. I do not find your semantics in any way relevant or persuasive. I do not keep a spreadsheet of all the games I've played to help me figure out what is going on in this one. I play on my gut, because my gut works for me. You will never get past my gut with semantic arguments.

Long Con, JJJ, bea, ricochet, Dr Wilgy, sig.. one more... possibly MM.

That's where my head is at right now.

That very post from JJJ is another one which pinged me a lot even at the time. For the person who was elected to say that the dusk 0 poll was unlikely co-ordinated was very self serving.

OK, JJ, I can probably compartmentalise this suspicion somewhat at times...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My case on LC was 100% correct -- I didn't believe his claim that his bea suspicion was a ruse despite multiple people telling me I should think otherwise including you.

I've never known you to be SO determined about your suspicion as to ignore the multiple people telling you that all know the persons meta, versus yourself who does not. In fact, you almost invariably take it on board in a very measured and careful way. This time you did not.

Your entire behaviour around that end day comes across to me as someone who knew what way LC would flip. Could you be a civilian info role? No - I don't see you ever doing antics that crazy and overt if you had a civilian info role.

@JJ - go enjoy sweden. We can continue this later

Sorry, I should have used orange

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My case on LC was 100% correct

So it was. Imagine that!

I cannot imagine how you do not think anything I've said is alignment indicative.

motel room wrote:

Matt F wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:17 fucking guests lmao

LOL

One of those might be me. Are hidden members counted as guests?

Why would you go hidden?

I noticed jay had that setting too, pretty sure.

Habit. Where our mafia culture comes from, 'who is online' and what activities they are doing has successfully been used against people (by scum, and against scum).