The Syndicate

I would like to say at this juncture, that when I asked LC if he had read day one, I was not getting in his face.

Zombs - I get the paranoia, but I'm always going to stand up for who I think is civ and go after those I think are bad. It's just the way I play.

But all I'm actually doing, right now, is trying to ensure people keep an open mind. I don't know you are good, but I certainly don't think it is 'obvious' or 'clear' that you must be bad.

Long Con wrote:

Golden wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:It was not very subtle of me at all, but that doesn't make it untrue. You seem very talkative at nighttime for someone who didn't show up until 48 hours after the game started though, and very insistent that I behave the same.

It's not very civvie like to keep ideas out of the thread.......

Rabbit, how many times do I have to tell you there is no such thing as civvie behaviour?

Is there such a thing as baddie behaviour?

Did you read day one, by chance?

rabbit8 wrote:I'm trying to see the game as you and BF, Golden. How am I doing?

Pretty good, actually. But, now you have to pick a best mafia bud...

Long Con wrote:Epig knows all this already, and lied about not recalling me doing it before. I don't know what his angle is, or why he'd lie about it, but the fact that he lied about it makes me wary of responding the way he obviously wants me to.

I have to admit, although I fall well short of thinking that epi 'lied' about this... my recollection was that you did vote MM on day one in Roger Rabbit, so I am interested to know what epi meant when he said 'it was not exactly the same'.

I'm getting the hang of him now, and I'm assuming what he meant was something like 'it was very similar, but I have a difference in mind'... so... want to hear Epi's response now that you have given yours.

rabbit8 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:It was not very subtle of me at all, but that doesn't make it untrue. You seem very talkative at nighttime for someone who didn't show up until 48 hours after the game started though, and very insistent that I behave the same.

It's not very civvie like to keep ideas out of the thread.......

Rabbit, how many times do I have to tell you there is no such thing as civvie behaviour?

At RM, everyone shut up at night!

Except me. I never shut up. Is that why I always get nightkilled?

Lol, rabbit, I guess we are just seeing it a different way. You could be right, I could be right. It's just a gut feel for me.

And I see your point on SVS, although I still don't think she is bad. I'm just not seeing it, SVS is seeming very logical to me... I may not always agree with her (certainly I tried to convince her that bf wasn't bad), but nothing has struck me as not being genuine. If you are right about zombs and SVS, then :bowdowntorabbit:

Long Con wrote:He wants me to play Epig's mindgame first.

I want you to play epi's mindgame, please...

I shouldn't have to be the only one whose played.

Here is something for you, though, LC. I said, on day one, that we should be very wary of voting for self-voters, because they might be the millionaire and fishing for votes to make them more powerful. Why didn't you take that into account?

rabbit8 wrote:Golden, getting the Will and saying whats on it to have it stolen and confirmed does what? Gets he believed shes telling the truth about the will. That sir, is a purpose in itself. Think. Or you got other agendas?

I don't understand this, could you rephrase?

As for 'who honestly believes zombs is a civvie'.

Well I honestly do. To me, I do not come to the same conclusion you do. I come to a different one, as the most likely answer. I don't rule out she could be bad, but I just genuinely think there is another explanation I find more compelling.

rabbit8 wrote:Please. SVS takes risks. Keep thinking baddies never make any moves. Keep watching them dominate you.

Whats the point of the move though... everyone knows where the will is, it will surely just be stolen tonight??? By someone...

So, what, take a whole lot of heat to get the will, but have everyone know where it is anyway? Surely they would have been better off NOT lynching bf, trying to lynch someone else, and NKing bf.

I honestly don't think this theory checks out. It doesn't make sense to me.

There is a reason I was encouraging civs to steal SVS's will... the civs need it to be somewhere where the baddies do not know it is.

It's like bea said. Now that bf died, the target has just shifted to SVS with the will. Should we just continue to lynch everyone who votes first for the person with the will? If MM, or rabbit, or whoever votes for SVS first, does that mean they are the baddie just trying to get the will?

I'm not sure how we got here:

rabbit8 wrote:I kind of feel like you're painting BF as even worse for what he did with this post. Like you pushed the lynch on BF and want him to look worse off for it. But I can't imagine what you had to gain from doing it after what Zomba has posted. And lets face it made it even worse as she dug he grave a little deeper back there basically confirming she is a baddie.

I do not think Zombs is a 'confirmed' baddie. I think her comment simply confirmed what I think even SVS acknowledged - that no matter the wording of the will, and how much bf read into it, zombs is probably one of only a handful of roles...

But her decision to work through it with llama and come out swinging and trying hard... while it could be a fabrication... feels true and civ to me.

I am not seeing the game the same way you are, thats for sure. I think the baddies in the bf vote were probably esconsed later. I don't think any of them would want to be on the hook as having voted a particular way to get an item this hotly debated this early. Like, if SVS is bad, don't you think she would know she would get this kind of heat today? Why take the risk?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:It's because it happened in RR that I find it interesting

I am curious, why so?

Because 'we just did that last game, it's nothing unusual' is a great distancing tactic. But as noted, your last post was quite substantive and that eases my fear slightly.

I think you are wrong on SVS. Actually my whole vibe from her was the exact opposite - that she got on to the bf train early (and, possibly, may not have entirely bought the case, although she may have) to ensure that if bf was lynched, the will did not fall into baddie hands. That's the way I've been reading her all along.

The way I read bfs and SVSs different interpretation of the will is this - bf made svs have made different assumptions based on whatever wording they have got. Bf assumed money, SVS assumed items. Bf thought 'role', SVS thought 'practical'. In my experience with both of them, this very well matches up with the way their brains actually work.

But it does make me feel better about you, that you brought this case which I can see how you arrived at.

Ever since bf died, no-one specifically asks questions of me any more I feel very isolated, like Linus from Peanuts without his blanket.

It's because it happened in RR that I find it interesting

I agree with epi's question. Especially as it applies to LC.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I voted State St because my uncle lives just a few blocks away from there.

Side-note. Only 17 players remembered to vote in the lynch, yet 18 have already voted in this night poll.

Very interesting side-note, MM, actually.

Turnip Head wrote:

Zomberella12 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:This is already reading like a Keeler work. Well done host.

I bet the real killer isn't even playing and won't show up until Day 17.

Did I miss the part where the thread tells us that all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average?

That part was in all the civ role PM's

TH knows this, because he is actually all the civs.

Sophie wrote:@Golden? Why sorry. I dig crazyness, you know that. I got pretty entretained by your posts so far

Cos I probably account for around 3 pages of your catch up

Sorry for the golden craziness, sophie!

@dom - I hope that I am not wrong... in whoever I vote for. And if you are civ, I hope that I do not vote for you. I'd genuinely sooner admit I'm wrong about you before it's too late and figure it out than go hard-headedly into a lynch of a civilian...

And my mind is open on you. I think your reactions to people not named golden in the last 24 hours have read quite different to your posts towards me, and that is something I notice too.

linki @JC - I agree. I read it as zombs recognises the will has a connection to her role ie it is not completely unrelated. It doesn't make her bad or even oliver oliver, but she has provided a very short list of roles it could be. So it did tell us something, but I agree with you when you read it pretty neutrally. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I even read it quite civvie. I still think we would, however, be quite silly to put any votes onto Zomba unless a substantial number of people were to agree she was bad... on the off chance she is the baddie millionaire who gets more powerful with more votes.

I do not think I created 'suspicion' around the comment, no. You think I did. I disagree. I don't think rabbit and my intent was any different. I think you chose to read different intent in by the way we phrased it. This is you choosing to have an opinion about what I meant. Just like I'm choosing to have an opinion about what you meant.

I think YOU created suspicion around my comment. Honestly, I wasn't doing anything but simply saying the statement pinged me, and not that much. It's your reaction to it which has led to this big conversation.

I have never acted like you didn't clarify. All I've said is that I'm suspicious of the statement itself, because I believe you can clarify it whatever way you like, but the original statement itself is still meaningless - the kind of statement one makes to put suspicion on someone else without ever getting real data back. I believe your clarification could be true. I also believe it could be false. Either way, I agree that your statement has literally zero bearing on my suspicion of you, because I think its what a civ would say in the situation, and what a baddie would say in the situation. Do you get what I'm saying there? In that sense, yes, I see your clarification as worthless to my own suspicion. But I did not pay it no mind. I expressly said on at least two occasions that I did not think your clarification altered my ping either way. This is what I mean when I said 'nothing you can say would alter my original ping'... literally you would say the same thing if you were good or bad.

Of much more interest to me was the overall tone and approach of your reaction. Saying things like you did in your last post... 'you are leaving things out for your own benefit'... that kind of stuff. Calling me a liar, but still not pulling what my apparent lie is even when I challenge you on it. Saying I've said I don't care, when I've actually tried to get you to present answers to me but all you do is go at me, with a lot of words but not a lot of content.

By the way, saying 'I have no reason to believe I am wrong' does not = I must be right, or I will never admit I'm wrong...

I just don't think you get to interpret your own words and then tell me I refuse to admit I was wrong.

If mafia could say whatever they liked, 'interpret' those words, and then we had to admit they were wrong, that would be a very strange game.

I'm staying on 22nd, since llama said the police station was there.

Dom, I'm not bf. So don't treat me like I am. Bf got lynched for his perspective. We are best mafia buds, but I'm listening to what everyone has to say, and I have said that about 35 times...

1) I have not lied - if you think I have, please quote the lie.
2) I have no reason to believe I am wrong about the assumptions I've made.

The underlined parts of the post have you calling me a liar (for what, I don't know - you keep using that word), and then saying I had said something that you just admitted I had not said. You want others to believe I'm a liar while you are being a liar. Do you not see why that looks bad to me?

And what I have tried to explain to you, but you refuse to hear, is that there were no 'facts' to that situation. There was only you writing a question that could have meant anything, and you making an explanation later. These are not facts. These are your posts... they could be the truth or they could be backpedalling. They are what I'm supposed to use to try and figure out whether or not you are good or bad. Don't expect me to take your words as gospel truth.

Unless there are some facts I'm missing that you don't think I'm taking into account - like, not your opinion about what you meant when you made the JC post, but actual facts? In which case - tell them to me and I'll listen.

Dom wrote:There is no way we're both right because both Blindfaeth and Golden have decided I am bad (I am not) on shaky (at best) presumptions they have made. These presumptions are essentially outright lies. I seem to be the only one calling them on this. Tell me, Bea, am I only analytical when I am on a team?

It's very frustrating to talk to a pair of people who have literally said they do not care what anyone else thinks. It's also very frustrating to try and point out why someone is wrong when they literally say, "Nothing you could say could change my mind" when their mind was made up on an incorrect supposition.

How can you not see why I think you are bad when you say stuff like this:

You call ME a liar just for making an presumption while ACTUALLY lying about what I've said. I've never said I don't care what you think.

I have said 'nothing you can say can change the fact your question to JC looks suspicious'. Yes, because it can't. You made that comment, it pinged me, thats that. All you can do is choose how you play the rest of the game. A ping is a ping. I never lose sight of what has pinged me. I have never said 'nothing you could do could make me change my mind about your alignment', and that would be frankly ridiculous.

This game is about making suppositions, to figure out who is bad, I don't know why you are having so much of a problem with that.

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:
@dom - Do you read mine? Because, the starting point of my suspicion of you was when you didn't, and tried to stir up more heat on me (when I already had it from other sources) without reading my posts properly. I find you suspicious for the call you made on JC. I can keep saying it all day if you like. I didn't find it overly suspicious, but I never said I did. Nothing you can possibly ever say will make me take back that I found it suspicious. The only thing you can do is to continue to make me think your overdefensiveness is the sign of someone who didn't like to be called out for something they don't feel they did, but know that the ultimate truth is still the same - the Aces defence, if you want a recent example.

You didn't find my overly suspicious but wanted to vote me?
Nothing I could say could change your suspicion of me that is based on things that did not happen?
Sounds like you are #1) a liar and #2) someone who does not hold high regard for facts.

I don't think I could say anything to you. You'd twist it into a suspicion of me for no reason whatsoever other than I suspect Blindfaeth because you two have apparently decided whose opinions matter and whose do not in a game about opinions. You two have said that you trust each other, that you do not care what anyone else thinks. Please, do tell, how the hell anyone is supposed to have a discussion with that?

Yaeh, I do want to know how I'm supposed to have a discussion with someone who keeps calling me a liar and saying I don't care what you think. And accuses me of not being able to read their posts when clearly they don't read mine... or choose to twist them.

I do care what you think, Dom. I'm listening to every word you say. Unfortunately, right now, every word you say is telling me that you are pissed at me for suspecting you, and you don't think I have a right to. I do have a right to. You might be better off looking at your own actions and recognising that, actually, they did look a little hinky. You might be better off realising that, actually, someone might suspect you for it. But you would definitely be better off realising that you are calling me out for making an 'assumption'... that near everyone else made too... while you are busy assuming things about me.

bea wrote:Golden - I know you are getting the drfunk bea you've missed so much -but isn't what I'm saying logical? Maybe? Just maybe? it wasn't the best move for BF to make. Maybe- just maybe - he should have kept his info to himself - instead of painting a target on someone (zombra ) who has a 50/50 chance of being a civ. As well as anyone who would inherit his will post his demise. If BF is a civ - he's painted a target on two other potential civs. On Day 1. How is that logical "civ" game play?

Your perspective absolutely is logical, bea. Which is why I hoped bf would survive, and some unknown civvie would steal the will from him. But I don't think two opposing points of view can't both be logical. I think bfs move was risky, but I also think it was logical.

Anyway, now that he is a proven civ, I guess that's easy for me to say! So, I'll just move on from my defence of bfs move and say... Once again I think some unknown civ should steal the will from svs tonight, so that there is no longer a target associated with the will (other than on zombra...)

It's pretty clear bf played it wrong in hindsight, but at the time I would have done the same, I think.

I really want to get to play with my fellow lawyer mongoose, but on the other hand I'm really pleased to see sophie

And bf... rip.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'm so confused.

If BF and Golden are both mindful, logical players, then why did they each make a rash decision on Day 1?

I'm confused.

How many times do you want me to address this? Because I would think I've done so enough times by now?

BTW - if you think bf's decision was rash, then you look at things differently to me. I am logical, and I think I would have made the same 'rash' decision that bf did. I don't think his decision was illogical at all. Harmful to his own health, sure. But that doesn't make it illogical.

Mine was illogical, but as noted I've already addressed that several times and don't intend to do so again. My explanation is really not confusing - you just have to decide whether or not you believe me, but lets not go pretending its confusing.

DFaraday wrote:Ugh, all this BF/Golden/SVS/Bullz/Zomberella/Whoever Else stuff is mind boggling. As it stands to me though, I think BF was probably an overexcited civ who made a bad decision. I don't think a baddie would create such a spectacle around themselves. I don't really see anyone in this conflict as particularly suspicious, just a whole lot of butting heads.

This, frankly...

And I'd been waiting for bf to make the call I expected him to make if he was civ... which was to name the person on the will before it could be passed on and lied about.

BF - You do look confused about SVS - if she is misguided, why would she lie about the will?

And Zombs reaction was basically what I'd expect from her, good or bad, and what bullz predicted in the first place.

@dom - Do you read mine? Because, the starting point of my suspicion of you was when you didn't, and tried to stir up more heat on me (when I already had it from other sources) without reading my posts properly. I find you suspicious for the call you made on JC. I can keep saying it all day if you like. I didn't find it overly suspicious, but I never said I did. Nothing you can possibly ever say will make me take back that I found it suspicious. The only thing you can do is to continue to make me think your overdefensiveness is the sign of someone who didn't like to be called out for something they don't feel they did, but know that the ultimate truth is still the same - the Aces defence, if you want a recent example.

I didn't 'run with it' and I didn't 'present my anything as fact'.

All I did was stated that you got my eye for it. Once. It's you who has run with it.

As for the first one - go read the thread. I said the reason I hadn't responded to you was because you were linki and I had to run for work. But anyway, why would I respond specifically to you when all you did was said, essentially, 'yeah golden, what the other person said'... why would I not just answer the first person?

And honestly - I don't need to make you 'look' bad for it. I think the reaction of the thread tells you all you need to know, frankly. You did look bad for it. But your reaction is the kind of thing I look for which I find, frankly, to be much MORE indicative of a baddie... blowing everything well out of proportion.

As I said - it's VERY easy of you to claim a particular interpretation now, after everyone has 'misinterpreted' it. Which I don't think I actually did misinterpret it. I think, in fact, your interpretation is the very one I was thinking when I gave you the eye. I know LC stated 'JC's us meaning the baddie team'... but you just got me eye for calling JC up on it at all. Because I don't think there is anything about it which is possibly indicative of someone playing a baddie game, and I don't buy it when you say it fits a pattern of what you have observed as typical baddie behaviour.

Everyone says 'we' and 'us'. It's normal.

Dom - anyone who tries to trip someone up on minutiae looks bad to me.

You would say 'us' as civilian, or as mafia.

I said it pinged me, because it pinged me. Frankly - when basically every single person in the thread saw it the same way - I think you might realise that actually it looked a bit sus.

I have no control over what bf comes into the thread and says after me. You got my eye for it - you still do have my eye for it. I think baddies like to ask questions that look like they are trying to trip people up but in reality have absolutely no value.

You can, later on, decide to interpret that question whichever way suits you.

It's not a massive ping for me, I was simply stating that it caught my eye. It was the second thing that caught my eye - after you asked me why I hadn't responded to a post that I had (two) just before my third ping on you - that you called me and bf out (the people with heat in the thread) but not rabbit.

If I hadn't thrown my vote away, I'd be looking very strongly at a vote for you.

BWT just posted once and did say he would be away a couple of days, I think.

@zombs - because Epi wasn't getting his story straight on bf.

He did that whole 'double check, are you sure you are addressing this to me' think to bf around the linki...

Then a bit later, he said he wasn't suspicious of bf...

Then later, he's on bf for linki on that original 'are you addressing this to me' thing... and saying he thinks bf is bullshitting.

Apparently thats just epi, but generally if people flip flop on their story, I don't trust them. I don't know why epi gets a pass for changing his story back and forth as to whether or not he suspects bf.

He's been my number one suspect for a while, and I haven't seen anything from him that makes me think otherwise.

Lizkeen - there isn't much I can do to defend myself against my vote. It was an emotional vote. It was something I needed to do for me. It is exactly the kind of thing I'd call out other people for, and that I don't usually do.

I wish I hadn't, because I want to act on the opinions I actually have on who is bad, and I don't think rabbit is bad. Right now I'd prefer to be voting Epi, or possibly Dom. But I'm glad I did, because I genuinely think it helped me blow off steam and not quit the game. I needed to get stuff off my chest. I've been feeling way better today than I was yesterday, in large part because of it. I'm kinda hoping this vote for rabbit won't come up again and again, but I recognise that when you let stuff get into the mafia thread, you've made it part of the game. I'm sorry I did that, llama is right that I should have gone to him first before venting in the thread. But I did do it. So there you go.

rabbit8 wrote:^^I think that's what Dom was getting at. But that's a streeeeeeeeeetch.

So, Dom, did you just choose to ignore the post right before mine? Rabbits one right there ^ ??

I do not know what you mean by 'I did not seem to care'. I just spoke my mind about what I saw. I do care if I am right or wrong.

Dom, sorry, what evidence am I supposed to have behind me?

It did sound as though you were asking JC if 'us' was her and her baddie team - to me. It sounded like you were calling her out for it.

Dom got my eye for it too... it's a big stretch.

I understand that SVS, and on a straight reading I'd agree...

But it doesn't seem like llama would want to encourage a scenario where everyone could just vote for themselves to keep their items safe (or make them vanish into the nether if they die)... and I'm not sure he had MM in mind when he wrote the instructions.

I just think it is worth clarity.

How do we know no-one will get the item.

Llama, when dishing out the lynchee's items, will dead people be excluded when you allocate?

I feel like the death of Mr Spock has left a logic deficit in the world.

It's the only thing I can take from this game so far.

Somewhere in there Vompatti self-voted.

If everyone else just follows suit, rabbit would be lynched. Rabbit, you'd be ok voting for yourself to clinch your lynch, right?

Given the baddie role that has been talked about - the one who gains strength from votes that don't lynch him - I think we ought to be uber-wary about self-voting in this game.

Zombs - would I fake emotional crap as a baddie? Absolutely. I'm not going to say I wouldn't, I pull out all the stops in this game.

But no, it wasn't faked. I don't mean this in a dismissive way, but I recognise people will take that exchange whatever way they will. What was important to me was only that rabbit listened and understood - and I think/hope he did. One of the frustrating things I find in mafia is that you can't deal easily with that kind of thing out of thread - no-one wants to make the game worse with illegal btsc (and yes, I once tried to resolve a personal issue behind the scenes in that way and it did not work out well. People just believe you are extending the game into illegal btsc.)

Those who need to know that it was real know. Anyone else is allowed to come to their own conclusion.

This is for you, bea:

You make me feel nostalgic for bea's drunk posts

Haven't even had a night phase, and already Vompatti is insanified.

I think he's faking it

Black Rock wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:You know, the way certain other players are acting every game is getting passe too but I never say that to them. I'm insulted, frankly.

You should call Epignosis on it.

BR that was quite funny.

MP, I need you to stay and be my thread-derailing buddy! We should team up. In all seriosuness though, if you need a break I think its ok to take it - go smash some peeps in smashfest.

By the way, for what its worth, if its getting old that MP does the same thing every game, then I think 'thats just MP'!

MY READ ON MP

He reacted to everything completely reasonably... until people started using words like 'impressive' to describe BR's case. Now, I'm not knocking people who used words like that. I don't think they were intended to have the effect they did. But I do understand why it looked to MP like a case that even BR admits was a minor ping snowballed into something far beyond how valuable it was. And I can understand MP's reaction in light of that - especially since he had already flagged in the last game that he felt like he was constantly being called out every game for things that were so small they were ridiculous.

Doesn't mean MP is good or bad - frankly, as I already said in response to bullz earlier in the game, being a major suspect on day one for what feels like no good reason ALWAYS feels unfair and sucky.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Ugh, I'm sorry, I feel I derailed this game inevitably now.

MM, are you self-voting?

I wasn't planning on it. I'd rather lynch someone whose item I can take.

Well if there is one thing no-one can accuse me of in my vote to rabbit, it's that I was after his nifty loot.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Ugh, I'm sorry, I feel I derailed this game inevitably now.

MP, welcome to the club.

FWIW, I'm more suspicious of BR than you. The moment she posted that post, I thought about RR and thought 'what exactly does BR expect MPs reaction to this to be'... I didn't expect anything different from you, actually.