The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Golden wrote:MM, are you getting the snip?
Where's your daily shit-colored case? :P

I have no witty comeback.

MM, are you getting the snip?

Can someone please recruit G-Man? He deserves it.

@rey - I agree it's the motivation, not the action, that matters. That's why I kept asking why does it make me bad? You've claimed I've done certain things, but you haven't provided any motivation for why I would do them when bad. You've just said they don't read genuine. But why would I lie about those things?

That's also why I went back to epi setting out the exact thought process behind the post where he claimed I gave four different answers to what I would do when recruiting. Epi did not seem interested in motivation either, even though the obvious motive for me even starting that particular conversation was to see if we could narrow down the field of potential baddie recruits so as to better find a baddie, but he also declined to provide any motive for why it would be a bad thing to do.

But whatever. Sometimes people tunnel in on you and you don't think it is entirely logical. When I really understood where you were coming from, I found your suspicion on me genuine. I can't disagree that in trying to get you to see what I was saying, I was skimming over some of the points you were trying to raise, because I was trying to get you to see that there was no baddie motivation for your allegation. But nm.

rey, it looks like you need some company.

What are your current thoughts on the game? On balance, would you support or be against a bass lynch? An MP lynch?

Do you think anyones behaviour isn't being talked about enough?

What about DrWilgy's odd flip from a llama vote to an MP vote, what do you think about that?

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't think everyone fully comprehends that most players are truly only looking out for themselves right now, even if still are trying to do it all under the guise of helping the civilians.

I am beginning to realise that for players like you and me, it is possibly a flaw in our style to be honest about that fact.

But I really do think it should be reiterated.

The other thing that shouldn't be lost sight of is when I made my move to set up epi, I was frustrated with him as well. I have said that before, but perhaps not emphasised it enough.

I'm trying to explain what my thinking was, and exactly why I did it. I'm not trying to tell everyone my approach is better than your approach, my approach was certainly impacted by frustration. I'm just trying to state the facts of how I was thinking.

@MP - I want you in the game.

Ricochet wrote:but in essence, if your vibe/gut/read is that a player X isn't civ or is unlikely to be recruited as a civ, why trust him, why not suspect him and why want him progress. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't focus on actual civ/mafia aligned vibes, considering the game currently has such factions formed and the dichotomy will keep expanding, settling into traditional alignments eventually. But that's why it's a third factor.

Thank you Rico for understanding where I am coming from... you've completely nailed it.

Ricochet wrote: Unfortunately, the flaw in Golden's perspective, if indeed this is his perspective, is that by simply saying "I never expected player X to end up in the same team as me" is that, if that team of yours is civ, you're forgetting about the second civ team player X might end up in. However, if that team of yours is bad, you genuinely need that player gone, whether he'll be your opponent in the other baddie team or a civ opponent. Hmmm.

You can see that as a flaw, and my viewpoint becomes less and less strong the fewer neutrals there are. At his point of death, I do not think epi was a civ. I am not reducing the number of civ recruits that are going to occur in the game. So I don't agree with the flaw in terms of its application to epi. All in all, I still think epi was a person least likely to end up on my team, reducing his overall chances of having a win condition compatible with mine significantly compared to others. In addition, he was trying to get me lynched. I didn't really see any down side.

linki @SVS - but the rest of you are not necessarily going to be on my team. I mean, some of you will be. Obviously, there are some of you who would have ended up on epi's team. It's not in those people's best interests. But those people, I don't think they would have ended up on my team either, so their best interests are not the same as mine.

S~V~S wrote:
Golden wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Is it really? Everyone else that voiced an opinion on you & Epi seemed to think it was civ on civ. You unilaterally decided that you & he could not coexist, although no one else felt that way, and basically then bragged that YOU had solicited his death when he was NKed.

I have never seen this Golden. I played the very first game you played, and I was one of the people who watched, and understood, yur King Arthur sacrifice. But i have NO idea who is playing this game. None.
I've never played a game in which 90% of people started the game neutral. Every other game I've played has very defined sides. I've never even played a game like the Flash which is Factional. This is literally the first game I've played that is not a normal bad vs civ game of mafia. I have a very strong civ meta when I'm civ, and set out to replicate it when I am bad. But what am I supposed to do when I'm one in a sea of neutrals, and hardly anyone is yet civ?

From my perspective, the best approach in these circumstances is taking out people who I think are least likely to be civ, since I think I'm more likely to end up civ, and also people who I think are least likely to end up on the same team as me.

I'm not sure why this does not make sense, or how many times I would need to explain it to make it make sense. I am not a civ. Nor am I baddie feeling the need to try and be a civ. Nor am I, like in BoB, someone who will eternally be independent, knowing that all I need to do to win is to survive.

In this game, what I need to do is increase the odds of my team winning, even though I don't yet know which team that is. I'm finding my own feet in trying to figure out how to achieve that.

Do you understand it?
Can we talk about Epignosis? You unilaterally decided that he was bad, iirc NO ONE voted for him but you. It is very plausible that it was not your fault that the baddies killed him.

But then you came in & basically bragged that you solicited his death. No one thought he was bad but you. Very seriously. But you didn't care,did you? If i had done this, I would have had 20 votes already, lol.

I have reacted exactly to Epi as you did in this game when bad, then turned around and killed him & WIFOMed my way out of it. But this:

Golden wrote:I was not directly responsible for killing epi. I was intentionally baiting people into setting me up, though. I suspected that if I made enough of my intention to kill epi, someone else would do it.

I am very sad to see Typhoony die already, I agree with SVS it's a lame kill hope you get a rezz, typh.
I honestly don't know whether to take you at face value or not. It's almost like someone has hacked into Goldens account.

Linki @ Golden, I still think you are missing the point, but OK. Thank you for at least mentioning Epi in that post.

Linki @ Gman, you're wrong. It isn't garbage, when a person plays one game a year, killing them on night one, for people who know him, is rude. I doubt most of the people on MPs list would have killed him on night one. Not dissimilar to not lynching nubs on day one.

@SVS - I feel like you are missing the point too. I think we are just talking at cross purposes.

There are some things which I will point out about this point which may help.

1) I never decided epi was bad. Not unilaterally or otherwise. I decided it was in my best interests that he was dead. I think he was more than likely neutral, but that he was definitely not civ. I think you still don't fundamentally understand this. I didn't set out to kill epi because I was determined and tunneling on the fact he was on one of the two mafia teams. I just don't think we would have ended up on the same team, and that means it doesn't matter WHAT alignment epi had, it was not in my interests that he was alive.

2) I didn't intend to brag and sorry if it came across that way. I wanted to be honest about my own motives, that is all. And I didn't want to say 'that kill had nothing to do with me' when I feel like the honest truth is that it may have had something to do with me. If I had not been going on about killing epi, then the baddies may not have killed him (they also may have - I don't know. You are right that it is plausible it has nothing to do with me, I did not say what I said to claim credit for it. I said it because for me, saying that it had nothing to do with me would have felt dishonest because I felt like it DID have something to do with me, or at least may have). As I said to DH, sometimes it is probably smarter for me to keep my mouth shut, but I always try to be as honest as I can when I've executed a plan (obviously I couldn't say thats what I was trying to do before hand).

I can't really do much if anyone thinks the move was distasteful. Honestly, if you have a problem with me because I did it, and you want to vote for me for that reason, I'll understand.

I'm trying to play this game in the spirit of the game, which is to say, it is not a game that is civ vs baddies and I'm trying to play it for what it is.

I do not think epi being alive was in my best interests.

There is only so many times I can say this. If people are upset with me for it then I will take my punishment on the chin, be it a lynch or whatever. I've tried something out, obviously there are some people who are upset. It's like I said to JJ yesterday. From my end, there is no spite or malice intended. Epi has his methods and they are what they are, but in the past when I've been on the end of them I've come out worse off (admittedly in Death and Taxes it allowed me to sub back in and win, but golden 1.0 was worse off). I do think epi being alive was bad for my game, and I specifically wanted to show that in the absence of having a kill there are ways of fighting back. Epi said the feud needed to end and I agreed, so I set out to achieve that. There was no guarantee I would, but it is what I set out to do.

I also do think epi understands a game is a game and knows it isn't personal, but if epi needs an apology I'll freely give it. Epi is the kind of person I feel like, if we played Survivor together, when one of us made the move that beat the other we would turn around and say well played, and hold no grudges. I wouldn't do it to anyone that I didn't think would understand.

S~V~S wrote:Is it really? Everyone else that voiced an opinion on you & Epi seemed to think it was civ on civ. You unilaterally decided that you & he could not coexist, although no one else felt that way, and basically then bragged that YOU had solicited his death when he was NKed.

I have never seen this Golden. I played the very first game you played, and I was one of the people who watched, and understood, yur King Arthur sacrifice. But i have NO idea who is playing this game. None.

I've never played a game in which 90% of people started the game neutral. Every other game I've played has very defined sides. I've never even played a game like the Flash which is Factional. This is literally the first game I've played that is not a normal bad vs civ game of mafia. I have a very strong civ meta when I'm civ, and set out to replicate it when I am bad. But what am I supposed to do when I'm one in a sea of neutrals, and hardly anyone is yet civ?

From my perspective, the best approach in these circumstances is taking out people who I think are least likely to be civ, since I think I'm more likely to end up civ, and also people who I think are least likely to end up on the same team as me.

I'm not sure why this does not make sense, or how many times I would need to explain it to make it make sense. I am not a civ. Nor am I baddie feeling the need to try and be a civ. Nor am I, like in BoB, someone who will eternally be independent, knowing that all I need to do to win is to survive.

In this game, what I need to do is increase the odds of my team winning, even though I don't yet know which team that is. I'm finding my own feet in trying to figure out how to achieve that.

Do you understand it?

I see no reason not to want a sorceror back generically speaking. Although if Typhoony is the pyromancer, I'd prefer him not to return.

S~V~S wrote:Well, if Golden doesn't get Bass lynched, he will just get the baddies to kill him for him.

This is quite unfair.

But the reason I voted for you RIGHT THEN was to keep it level with MP, otherwise I would have waited on it longer. I don't think you are a bad vote (a better vote than MP) but it is definitely far more about saving MP than lynching you.

Bass, put it like this.

You theorised that the recruiters were likely to be people who are known for always participating fully. That might take the heat of you as being a recruiter. I don't think you would be likely to make that statement if you were a civilian recruiter. You might if you were a baddie recruiter. I saw that statement as being likely neutral.

But, who is more likely to recruit the person admitting they aren't reading the thread?

It sounds a bit mean, but you've kind of admitted it yourself. You wouldn't make a great recruit. At least, not for the civilians who need to solve the game. But someone like that can also be very hard to lynch. Not a bad candidate for a baddie recruit.

In any event, with you I see a worst case scenario of being neutral, and that is ok with me. I'm trying to avoid lynching people who are civs. I don't think you are civ.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Golden wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Golden wrote:It is a placeholder vote for now, really, but I'm happy to join the train and vote

bass_the_clever

And keep him from the pain of having to catch up on the thread.
Cop out. Why didn't you do the same for MP?
I don't think MP is bad. I'm voting you to tie the vote, because I don't want MP to be lynched. Why did you jump on a bandwagon?
Well Since I only have like 4 or 5 post and 2 of them are about me think MP could be bad I think it would be odd if I didnt vote him. If you were just trying to save MP from being lynched why not just state that instead of giving a bull shit excuse?

The 'bullshit excuse' is also a real reason. You (or, more accurately, the person who admits to not keeping up with the thread, whoever they are) would be a perfect recruit for a baddie team.

It's about timing, not about who. Voting for you right now is to bring back the tie. Why are you voting for MP right now?

S~V~S wrote:
Golden wrote:
Boomslang wrote:Now that we've got this MP/Llama stuff, can be return to talking about Golden? The whole "I baited the baddies into a making the kill for me" line seems... unlikely to me. How could he have known that Epi was on the baddie team opposite from the one making the kill, unless he himself was on the baddie team making the kill?
I've already addressed this, in quite thorough detail...
I would imagine quite a few people are going to ask for an explanation of this seeming dichotomy. You might want to have your original explanation in cut & paste. I would not mind hearing it again.

There is no point cutting and pasting the same thing into the thread. It's still there if people want to hear it again, it isn't going anywhere.

I do not think epi was civ. I think he was neutral or bad.

It didn't matter what baddie team he was on if he was bad. I could have baited a kill on night one or night two. Why does it matter?

I wanted epi dead because I do not believe he was ever going to end up on the same team as me. This game isn't as simple as civ vs bad and I'm not sure why people are trying to force 'epi was bad' into my motives. I'm not saying epi was absolutely certainly bad. I'm saying epi was absolutely certainly not civ. I still think it most likely he was neutral.

@JJ - I'm really sorry to hear that man! I hope things are looking up tomorrow.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Golden wrote:It is a placeholder vote for now, really, but I'm happy to join the train and vote

bass_the_clever

And keep him from the pain of having to catch up on the thread.
Cop out. Why didn't you do the same for MP?

I don't think MP is bad. I'm voting you to tie the vote, because I don't want MP to be lynched. Why did you jump on a bandwagon?

It is a placeholder vote for now, really, but I'm happy to join the train and vote

bass_the_clever

And keep him from the pain of having to catch up on the thread.

S~V~S wrote:
Black Rock wrote:
Speaker of Serenity wrote:Please lynch Turnip Head. That is all.
Ah, I did not realize that this was from the Speaker of Serenity, and I was confuzzled.

Linki @MM, yes that was confusing ha ha. I was like why would the game mod tell you to do things lol.

I dunno, but if I hear the voice of Mod, I will follow.

Boomslang wrote:Now that we've got this MP/Llama stuff, can be return to talking about Golden? The whole "I baited the baddies into a making the kill for me" line seems... unlikely to me. How could he have known that Epi was on the baddie team opposite from the one making the kill, unless he himself was on the baddie team making the kill?

I've already addressed this, in quite thorough detail...

And just as I say that, I get to this.

He votes llama, then votes MP? Eh?

DrWilgy wrote:Vote registered for MovingPictures07

I understand where MP is coming from completely. I don't get the suspicion on him, I won't be voting for him today. I don't see anything off about his responses to llama.

I don't intend to vote llama - when he says he's been away, hasn't been able to fully read and is voting hunches, I believe him.

@tranq - DrWilgy is new to me and new to the site. His behaviour is certainly... different. None of it has specifically pinged me yet, but should I read him back?

Tranq wrote:This post stood out to me. Why would you assume BWT wouldn't flip? Note Golden posted this before the lynch post revealed BWT didn't flip.

I had no idea what the voting situation was at the time the night ended early and I didn't figure out the difference in time zone, but just from a basic calculation it seemed early enough that there was no reason to assume BWT would flip. He only really led within the last hour or so.

I didn't assume no-one would flip, but I'm not sure why anyone would assume BWT would flip on a day that the night ended early. I was responding to Bea who hadn't caught up enough to have realised the night was ended early.

Fixed so easy on eyes.

Spoiler: show

Azura Nokomis - Sorcerers of the Elements
"There is no good and evil, there is only power...and those too weak to seek it. Better to save your own life and join me."
Kills on odd nights!

Position 1: Power Steal
Position 2: Chooses a player. Votes for her go to that player, and votes for that player go to her
Position 3: Immune to NK/Lynch
Position 4: Curse
Position 5: Choose 3 people to force votes

The Apprentice - Sorcerers of the Elements
At the beginning of the game he has a 10% chance of any of his powers working. Every night his chances improve. Once he is recruited the changes increase by 20% and continue to improve. Sometimes when a power fails they fizzle, other times a random effect happens.

Position 1: Insanifier
Position 2: Random Potion
Position 3: Silence
Position 4: Negative a vote
Position 5: Position Switch

Windscout - Sorcerers of the Elements

Position 1: Randomly blows votes
Position 2: Random Redirects 4 night powers
Position 3: Every X vote is doubled
Position 4: Seemer
Position 5: Team Seemer

Pyromancer - Sorcerers of the Elements

Position 1: Cremates a body
Position 2: Fireshield
Position 3: Firetrap
Position 4: Fire Vision
Position 5: Immolate

Chaos Dancer - Sorcerers of the Elements

Position 1: Switch three roles powers
Position 2: Switch two players targets
Position 3: Pick a player, that player's target is put to sleep instead
Position 4: Chaos Curse
Position 5: Bind two people

The Magnetarch - Sorcerers of the Elements

Position 1: Magnetically repel night powers to random targets
Position 2: Magnetically repel every third vote to a random player
Position 3: Choose a player to be a vote-magnet
Position 4: Choose three players, and steal an item from one of them
Position 5: Electromagnetic pulse removes half the votes from each player on the poll

The Gambler - Sorcerers of the Elements

Position 1: Select a number X. If the vote-leader in the next lynch receives X number of votes, you may utilize any one of that player's position powers the following night in addition to your own. If the vote-leader in the next lynch does not receive X votes, then your vote will be randomly forced the following lynch phase.
Position 2: Your vote is worth double, but you also start the day with one extra vote.
Position 3: Choose a clan to get a random power from. You will gain a vote each time the player whose power you have used gains a vote on the following day cycle.
Position 4: If you are targeted with an odd number of night powers, they will all be negated. If you are targeted with an even number of night powers, you will attract the direction of another night power for each one you are already targeted with.
Position 5: Select a number X. X random players will receive one additional vote against them this day phase. If any of these X players votes for you, their vote is worth double.

nutella wrote:Also, it's revealed that he was killed by the Brutal Executioner, and looking at that role we now know that Typh was a Sorceror. For what that's worth.

It's worth quite a bit. Good catch.

I wonder if it has to be someone whose clan is sorceror, or someone who is actually recruited. Probably the former?

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Golden wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:I saw the move he was making before Epi died. Personally, I say well played. He wanted Epi out and he made it happen, either with a kill or baiting a kill. I can't say I am glad Epi is dead necessarily, but I'm impressed.
I'm not going to pretend that I'm 'glad' epi is dead either. I like playing mafia with epi. I just don't think him being alive was in my interests this game.

@MP - I agree with that for he most part, although it assumes the killer thinks like you or me (I think most of that list would). You can absolutely discount someone like Roxy or SVS, for instance. The problem comes when trying to determine whether or not it is helpful information given there is no evidence Typh's kill was from a baddie. It might help narrow down who is a in a specific role, though...

linki @MP - oh, right, gotcha.
Good point re: bolded/underlined.

I agree 100% on Rox and S~V~S though, as well as most of the list. I just can't fathom either of them making that NK. I suppose anything's possible though.

Yes, deflection or something is probably possible as well.

Spacedaisy wrote:I saw the move he was making before Epi died. Personally, I say well played. He wanted Epi out and he made it happen, either with a kill or baiting a kill. I can't say I am glad Epi is dead necessarily, but I'm impressed.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm 'glad' epi is dead either. I like playing mafia with epi. I just don't think him being alive was in my interests this game.

@MP - I agree with that for he most part, although it assumes the killer thinks like you or me (I think most of that list would). You can absolutely discount someone like Roxy or SVS, for instance. The problem comes when trying to determine whether or not it is helpful information given there is no evidence Typh's kill was from a baddie. It might help narrow down who is a in a specific role, though...

linki @MP - oh, right, gotcha.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Regarding Golden, I'm not at all surprised by his explanation. I find him genuine; he won't be receiving my D2 vote.
Fun strategy, is it not?

That said, I don't have any intention of copying it; I just wanted my thoughts on Golden to be made clear, since he's already a hot topic and will likely continue to be one.

I don't think it is a strategy that can be easily copied, or even replicated by me. The baddies may have even known I was doing it, but either way they are only going to see something like that through so many times. Now that I've said thats what I was doing, I can't do it again.

linki @DH - I'm a little unclear. Are you saying you think F and K are likely civ but G is likely bad? And you seem to have a lot in the yellow-orange band...

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Golden wrote:MP, that isn't ALL the posts...
I can't imagine how long it would have taken to respond to ALL of the posts since page 15.

Well, hey, you are the one who said you would

MP, that isn't ALL the posts...

DharmaHelper wrote:
Golden wrote:@SVS - Multiple ideas are on the table with me at once.

I think epi could be neutral or bad, but I didn't think he was civ.

I also didn't think there was much chance of us ending up on the same team.

What I said is out there and I can see why it seems messed up. But I don't have a team right now, so it seems to me that taking out someone who I don't think will end up on my team is a smart move (I know, it's not certain, but I was trying to set up this move long before rey started pointing out to me that I was wrong to think it wasn't certain).
What exactly do you think is smart about being so openly anti-cooperative and ruthless?

It's probably not so smart. It's like MP in the Flash, lol. I just tend towards being honest about my motives, even when it might be smarter to keep my mouth shut. But I don't think what I've done in this game is uncooperative. I don't think epi was civ.

linki @MM - I think epi is a special situation.

S~V~S wrote:Yes, although the story sounds like baddies killed Epi. But he said he was baiting them to kill him. He thought Epi was on a baddie team. So he had to be baiting the baddie team that he thought Epi was NOT on. If it was the Night 2 team, the baiting would be pointless.

I just never heard anyone say anything like that, I guess.

Not necessarily. I might have baited them into doing something night 2.

@SVS - Multiple ideas are on the table with me at once.

I think epi could be neutral or bad, but I didn't think he was civ.

I also didn't think there was much chance of us ending up on the same team.

What I said is out there and I can see why it seems messed up. But I don't have a team right now, so it seems to me that taking out someone who I don't think will end up on my team is a smart move (I know, it's not certain, but I was trying to set up this move long before rey started pointing out to me that I was wrong to think it wasn't certain).

Dom wrote:
Golden wrote:I was not directly responsible for killing epi. I was intentionally baiting people into setting me up, though. I suspected that if I made enough of my intention to kill epi, someone else would do it.

I am very sad to see Typhoony die already, I agree with SVS it's a lame kill hope you get a rezz, typh.
you are making no sense tbh

What doesn't make sense, precisely?

I was not directly responsible for killing epi. I was intentionally baiting people into setting me up, though. I suspected that if I made enough of my intention to kill epi, someone else would do it.

I am very sad to see Typhoony die already, I agree with SVS it's a lame kill

hope you get a rezz, typh.

Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:I will try to respond to every post made later
Surely not every post made.

Only MP would undertake to respond to every post made.

Ricochet wrote:
Golden wrote:Also, I'm 4 glad BWT survived. His comment when he thought he was lynched seemed sincere to me (and just a little sad).
I would agree, but what about his prior comment that sounded like "good luck getting a majority to lynch me" (which then totally happened lol, at least in the unaltered universe)?

Yeah, he said a few things like that which caused me to vote for him, but in that moment the reaction felt sincere to me.

Ricochet wrote:
Golden wrote:
My thoughts on your theory

1) BR and LC needed to figure out the vote situation, so I don't think it likely that the lynch was simply stopped (unless there is another reason for them to need to do the count back).

2) I'm not so quick to discount the Lord of Thunder. He could theoretically given +3 votes to anyone and the person he gave them to could be Ubzargan/jilted lover. This would still require LC/BR to do a countback. That means that there is a 50% chance that literally any player could have been leading the vote.

3) But there is a 50% chance thunder said minus three.
I guess it's possible, lol, I did kinda forget added votes can include everyone else, but the "picking" in Thunder's role sounded like there would be need for something for him to pick from. Maybe this needs clarification? I didn't really discard him, however, what I said still applies: if anyone actually had more than 1 vote (thanks to him), that player's our survivor, but we can't tell and only Thunder can hint at that; if everyone was tied at 1, including players added thanks to him, we can't tell who survived; if anyone from the tie had his vote removed thanks to him, we can't tell who among the others is the survivor (and neither can him).

I don't get anything about the lynch stopping re: #1, did I say that or was it an additional thought?

It was an additional thought. If the lynch was simply stopped, why would LC and BR need to count back to figure out the vote situation when the day ended?

Ricochet wrote:So my theory so far is shaping up like this:

if the stats are correct that a 1-vote 11-player tie took place and a player gets lynched through randomization, then it must mean the player who got lynched survived the lynch, according to his position 1

ergo any of the following players (BWT, Canuck, Epignosis, Golden, MP, Russ, SVS, Tranq, Unfurl, Wilgy - I'm not, but feel free to throw me in as well; I would have super dead and super pissed if I would have been lynched or if the Day would have ended with me having two votes) can be:

Ubzargan the Ruthless - Immune to NK/Lynch
Jilted Lover - Can’t die as long as ? alive

I don't believe that Lord of Thunder's +/-3 votes would have changed this situation, if he already manipulated something by the time the Day ended. either he added votes and then there is definitely a specific survivor, which Lordy may now choose to try to hint at; either he substracted votes and it's still a large pool of tied players and the theory above still applies, but with vague chances of pinpointing at anyone in particular

same with Windscout, we don't know how many votes he can take down, but I doubt it's up to 10

I'm not sure if The Immortal's random power can activate during the Day, but even if it can, it's really a stretch to imagine that he protected someone that early and the stars aligned so that the one person he randomly protected was the one person that randomly got lynched; plus, we haven't seen a second death

same with Terras. can he protect during the Day? if so, same stretch of the imagination

If I missed anything, let me know, but so far I believe this to be the conclusion: our non-lynched player today is Uzbargan or the Jilted Lover. unfortunately we have 11 candidates for this spot

My thoughts on your theory

1) BR and LC needed to figure out the vote situation, so I don't think it likely that the lynch was simply stopped (unless there is another reason for them to need to do the count back).

2) I'm not so quick to discount the Lord of Thunder. He could theoretically given +3 votes to anyone and the person he gave them to could be Ubzargan/jilted lover. This would still require LC/BR to do a countback. That means that there is a 50% chance that literally any player could have been leading the vote.

3) But there is a 50% chance thunder said minus three.

Also, I'm 4 glad BWT survived. His comment when he thought he was lynched seemed sincere to me (and just a little sad).

I voted 5 again.

I can't really remember the analysis I did about it last time but it was my preferred option then so I may as well stick with it.

I thought option 3 was bad, surprised to see it so popular.

Dom wrote:
bea wrote: I'm currently unsure of which is more user friendly - collecting all my thoughts in one long post with no quotes or posting like 1000 times as I catch up. I welcome suggestions but doubt I will see them till I get to the end of this. I'm so far behind I don't know how teefies flipped yet.
Neither do we.

We don't even know IF teefies flipped.

DharmaHelper wrote:Supreme Judge - Children of Serenity
Position 1: End day period early

?

I would assume so.

I wonder when.

Black Rock wrote:
The day was ended early, unfortunately we were at work. We know have to count votes from that time back. Please have patience.

Interesting.

Or like the person in control of the lynch stop, possibly, lol.

BWT also went awfully quiet when he started taking votes. Like someone who might not want to create any more potential incrimination, possibly.

Spacedaisy wrote:And golden, you sound extremely over emotional. It doesn't help you to threaten to kill epi no matter what alignment you or he end up in.

I was over emotional yesterday. I am not today, even if I sound it. It may not help me to threaten to kill epi, but it helps others. No recruiter should be under any illusion and make the mistake of deliberately recruiting us both to the same team.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:Oh, then I'm sorry I didn't understand that a response to my question 'what is the baddie motive' was not you answering my question.

But I'd still like you to answer it.
I don't know what the baddie motive is for it. If you read my post more clearly you would see that I said that it doesn't make sense for you to think that way even as a recruiter. That is not why I think you could be bad. You do not sound sincere to me. It's that simple. Epig basically made the same argument about a different post from you and you kept trying to argue semantics with him over the content of the posts like you are with me right now.
Fine. I think you are not being sincere. You seemed to recognise my argument with epi as civvie golden just fine.
I didn't perceive the events through Epig's point of view. I read it differently that he did. I drew the parallel to his argument because they are similar. Just because I read the two situations differently, it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Fair enough.

You are wrong, but I feel way better about you than I do about epi. Having worked through your thought process, I can understand where things went wrong and I do not think it was any intent on your part to misrepresent.

On the other hand, I think you should read my posts again and recognise that my posts about epi were (and are) emotionally charged and that my primary meaning is that I don't think epi would be wanting me recruited to his team and I won't recruit him to mine, and for this reason it is no skin off my nose to see him lynched. I recognise this falls short of the 'certainty' I said yesterday. But lynching someone who is best case neutral who I don't think will ever be aligned with me makes sense to me.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:Oh, then I'm sorry I didn't understand that a response to my question 'what is the baddie motive' was not you answering my question.

But I'd still like you to answer it.
I don't know what the baddie motive is for it. If you read my post more clearly you would see that I said that it doesn't make sense for you to think that way even as a recruiter. That is not why I think you could be bad. You do not sound sincere to me. It's that simple. Epig basically made the same argument about a different post from you and you kept trying to argue semantics with him over the content of the posts like you are with me right now.

Fine. I think you are not being sincere. You seemed to recognise my argument with epi as civvie golden just fine.

Boy, I don't think I've taken so much bullshit suspicion on day one before.

1) Answering a question thoroughly
2) Using the word but
3) Thinking that the point of recruitment mafia was recruiters recruiting.

I think thats a record for me.

Search found 324 matches