The Syndicate

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I have no problem dueling it's probably going to happen anyway. All I ask is if I can duel Quinn .

You seem very sure on Quin, but I don't really understand why. Is it just because you don't like the way he presented his suspicion on you, or are there other things that he has done?

Matahari wrote:and congrats on your upcoming arrival!

Cheers, and nice to play with you again! Feels like forever!

Regarding nutella, looking back there isn't really a 'link' or a 'quote'. It's just that her record on the first couple of days regarding Wilgy and MM, and her fight with MP where MP really wanted to lynch her, make her an unlikely candidate for either team.

Sloonei wrote:

Golden wrote:Pretty sure nutella isn't bad, and she has already posted pretty good evidence as to why.

Also, I agree with the green DF read.

The only places I read nutella's list and felt disagreement were russti and lorab. I have russti as town, and I don't trust lorab quite as much (but wouldn't say she is a big suspect either).

Who do you feel most inclined to vote for today and why?

Scotty and simon, because they seem most bad.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:Pretty sure nutella isn't bad, and she has already posted pretty good evidence as to why.

Also, I agree with the green DF read.

The only places I read nutella's list and felt disagreement were russti and lorab. I have russti as town, and I don't trust lorab quite as much (but wouldn't say she is a big suspect either).

So you read me as likely bad then?

Quite contrary to your posts.

Shows you exactly how much attention I'm paying, doesn't it!

I don't think you are bad. I didn't notice nutella had you as such. I didn't do a detailed analysis.

Pretty sure nutella isn't bad, and she has already posted pretty good evidence as to why.

Also, I agree with the green DF read.

The only places I read nutella's list and felt disagreement were russti and lorab. I have russti as town, and I don't trust lorab quite as much (but wouldn't say she is a big suspect either).

MacDougall wrote:Nutella's rainbow list is entirely non controversial, hivemind and his placement of himself on it is an old school ping.

If I am a bad enough read to be that low on your list then let's discuss. Ain't felt suspicion from you all game so why have you been hiding your feelings towards me?

Nutella is female.

Elo went for Sorsha on day 3, then came this on day 4.

Elohcin wrote:I wouldn't say I was focused on Sorsha. I am more focused on those who are eagerly willing to battle. I asked MP as well about his eagerness. I wanted to get feedback from both of them. Voting for Sorsha and asking Sorsha and MP about their eagerness are not related in my thought process.

This felt like it was in response to people suggesting Elo had info, to me, and I took this post to mean 'I didn't have info'.

The idea elo could have been recruited in there is viable, but I wouldn't call it a fact.

Maybe, bass, but don't you see why it could be suspicious to have a guy who asks to be in the duel but then seems upset when he actually gets the votes to take him there?

Do you want to duel, or do you not want to duel? Was that a thing where it was only at a particular point in time?

Quin wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Quin wrote:You don't think I have cause to scum-read you for trying to get me lynched because I'm not dead yet?


Okie.

So your case is a No U?

No, my case is that you used the fact that I haven't been killed yet as a means to try and start a lynch train on me (and DDL) without going to any effort as to back it up with any in-thread evidence. You also expressed an interest in duelling earlier, something I expressly stated I found suspicious. It flipped a scum MP so I see no reason not to consider that against you.

So what do you make of Simon doing the same?

Quin wrote:Is...anyone going to comment on the double length night phase we just had? Is that relevant? Or was Epi just busy?

I'll catch up at some point. I'm still looking at Bass. We should listen to what's his face for once.

It's common to extend phases for US public holidays. But you can always ask the host.

But I would hope even you can see the logical dichotomy you created yourself in

1) finding me suspicious because I lack urgency and I'm floating along; and
2) saying I had 'dropped' my suspicion on simon within a short period of the day beginning, merely because I hadn't mentioned him in my first three posts, despite the fact you recognise I'm just floating along.

It doesn't make sense - you want to cut me both ways.

Scotty wrote:@Golden- I'll respond to you in full later tomorrow RE: your response to my questions surrounding you.

Golden wrote:And lol at my 'lack of urgency to get him lynched today'.

I've had no urgency to get anyone lynched on any day. I'm floating along without any urgency at all.

That is exactly what perturbs me about you this game, Golden. Floating around the water park in the lazy river without getting wet is not the downhill toboggan type of Golden I'm accustomed to.

No it's not. But it's not the golden you are accustomed to as scum either, so ascribing it to me being bad is bad logic. Its also wrong.

Because I don't know when I might be called to stop playing this game immediately (due to childbirth) I don't want to get so invested that I can't stop playing when I have to. It's as simple as that.

The problem I have with you in that post is not that you suspect me... it's the way you chose to frame that suspicion (and other things). I'm used to feeling like you are relatively straightforward and agendaless, but that post didn't feel like it.

Scotty wrote:-That Caps wagon had been creeping up over the course of a few days and since you all seemed so willing to lynch him TWICE I would like to put the eye on those that voted him. If you did vote him, what about Russ, who has been up twice and won twice, has you peeled away? Why does he get a free pass?
I dunno, I just felt like both he and Russ were the low hanging fruit for lynches and it just comes off as lazy.

Just examining more bits of this post now that my eye is on you, and it really doesn't hold up as living in logic.

1) Why is voting for CapsFan twice inherently bad? What is it that means people were 'so willing' to lynch him? As opposed to, just ordinary voting for someone because they suspect him... and continuing to vote for him after he wins the duel because they didn't get their way... Isn't it quite normal for civilians to go back to back on someone they think is bad when they escape getting lynched?

2) Why is Russ a good analogy? In my opinion, there is very good reason to fight against a lynch of russti. He certainly doesn't appear to be Nanman, at least.

3) If you don't like the laziness in this thread, have you been creating good analysis? I can't remember much of you since back in the prefect days.

Scotty wrote: I don't know why Golden has prescribed to the 'Nanman killing high posters and YT killing low posters" theory as canon.

Oh, and this too... I don't like your language today.

When have I ever tried to suggest any of my ideas in this game 'are canon'. I literally am not paying attention. I don't have any understanding on how the duels might work or why some people ask to participate in them. I haven't read the game rules. I am the worst possible person to listen to, to figure out what might be canon.

All I've done is explained my own thinking. I continue to think my theory is true, because of who is getting killed by each faction at each turn. Vocal people all know that if you kill all the other vocal people, you stand out and are prone to lynch, so they don't go killing exclusively vocal people. On the other hand, the only people I know who go exclusively after non-posters and contributors with kills are people like MP, Jay... people who are solvey solvey and get frustrated that the non-contributors hinder their ability to sovle. Don't forget, that team needed to figure out who the nanman are...

It's just a theory, not canon, but it's one I'm working off for now. You work off whatever theory works for you.

And lol at my 'lack of urgency to get him lynched today'.

I've had no urgency to get anyone lynched on any day. I'm floating along without any urgency at all.

Scotty wrote:-Golden, you went after Simon yesterday for reasoning that he seemed like a different person in the recent phases, and that he is a low poster, he must fit into the NM cast. This blatant accusation of a low poster I was actually questioning, and I was thinking maaaaaybe Golden had something on Simon. Because why else would he use that loopy logic to go after him?
Cut to today, and already Golden has dropped his push for Simon, and has latched onto this Mac case. I have gone back and forth on whether to trust Golden this game, and so far I have felt he has pushed unsubstantiated claims, as if he is phoning it in. Does anyone else see that, or is it just me?

This makes no sense.

1) What is your evidence for me having dropped simon? I've posted exactly three times in this phase, and the day has only just begun. Do you think that in order to suspect someone, they should be my sole area of suspicion and that I should mention simon in every post I make? And what do you mean by 'already' dropped, as though its something that I was flittering out there in the wind at the end of the last phase... when I've actually had simon in the mix for days and voted for him more than once. Did you even notice that, or do you just think I brought him up out of nowhere yesterday?

2) Despite me having simon listed for days and having voted for him two or three times, the only other person I can remember who voted for simon is simon (who asked to be in a duel). In addition, in all of those days, I essentially explained my case once... by way of quoting Mac. How exactly is that a 'push', when not even one other person has followed me and I've never made an issue of it.

3) In the three posts I've made today (that you claim is my 'latching onto the mac case') - One was irrelevant nonsense, one was me agreeing with mac that his half-bakedness wasn't suspicious and asking him a question, and the third was me saying I won't vote for Mac today. How is that latching on to the Mac case?

4) I would also like you to explain exactly how I've 'pushed unsubstantiated claims'. What do you mean by pushed, because I've not pushed much all game (other than a few people I think are innocent, and I think those cases are relatively substantiated). What do you mean by unsubstantiated? Do you mean the fact that my votes have lacked in explanation?

5) Why are you accusing me of phoning it in as though I haven't literally said 'I am not reading the thread' over and over in this game. I am phoning it in. I've made no secret of it... it's taken you until day 8 to find it suspicious? Rico was finding it suspicious days and days ago... This is probably the first post I've made in the entire game of any substance at all.

Frankly, Scotty, this post is the most suspicious thing I've seen all game. You are vastly overstating my effort and influence in this game, using emotive words like 'pushed' that simply don't apply, and made out like me phoning it in is something that wasn't obviously noticeable to everyone a very long time ago...

Good position, Mac. I won't be voting for you today.

MacDougall wrote:If we are talking half baked attempts to play the game, how about Syndicate Player of the Year Golden's contributions to this game. Or several others. Why am I the player most worthy of vitriol?

Agree. It does feel somewhat like you are being singled out for half bakedness when others like me are also half baked. And in my case, half is an overstatement.

However, I anticipate that your current state of bakedness is non-alignment indicative, ie I wouldn't town read you for it either... do you think that's fair?

Double Down definition: "strengthen one's commitment to a particular strategy or course of action, typically one that is potentially risky."

I'm with DDL

This is in lieu of having anything actually valuable to contribute. Maybe I'll do a rainbow.

Simon and Bass.

@DF - its one of those things that there is always two sides to. For me, its only people who literally are not playing (which you never are, for instance). DP really didn't seem to be playing at all. This is different from someone like Bass, who is playing.

But, I guess I expect that people will vote. I don't mind if they do nothing else, but I do expect them to vote.

DP also had dodgy votes when he did vote.

The problem with allowing genuine inactives to survive is it makes the end game quite problematic and less fun. For me there is no easy solution.

I also think that nanman are quieter people (I hear Mac's objection!) so that is part of it too.

@DF - there are like half the game full of inactives. For me, the DP vote was taking one person I suspected (capsfan) and one person that felt very inactive.

I feel a bit better about capsfan now so I won't vote there again.

Russtifinko wrote:Oh also, what happened to the suspicions/voting of me? That was a thing, right?

I don't think it should be, though. I'm glad people aren't voting you. I don't think you are bad.

Actually, recruitment makes a lot of balance sense. I always thought that team was too small.

I don't find nutella suspicious for raising it. I mean, seriously, nutella is going to be chewed out by her own teammate MP all game and then spill their teams key secret? I don't think so.

I'm up for a bass vote.

TheCapsFan wrote:

Golden wrote:I think Simon started with alive friends to talk to and ended up, as Mac said, seeming 'more lonely'.

But statistically, wouldn't there be a higher chance of a scum/town interaction than scum/scum?

I'm talking behind the scenes friends. In behind the scenes chat, there is no likelihood of scum/town interaction.

@Sloonei - confident is an adjective. It's not one I'd use to describe me. He is someone for whom my suspicion is at least somewhat describable. I think that's as far as I would go.

MacDougall wrote:I have an oddball theory.

Simon has gone quiet. He seemed to have a random beef with JJJ. If he is a Nanman and is low on partners he might lose interest and he might kill JJJ. I could see a lonely Simon mafia doing that.

FYI I am just digging throught the thread for some missing pearls at the moment. Nothing has been really jumping out at me. If nothing juicy comes out I am going to revote Russ and Dunny as nothing there has made me feel any better about either of them.

I think Simon has been a Simon of two halves - the Simon before Wilgy and MM died, and the Simon after Wilgy and MM died. Given the Nanman keep killing high posters, I also think that they may be low posters. I think Simon started with alive friends to talk to and ended up, as Mac said, seeming 'more lonely'.

Essentially, I just agreed with this post from Mac and don't really feel like Simon post MM-death has ever gone back to being like Simon pre-MM death.

Sloonei wrote:

Golden wrote:Sorry to see you go, glorf. You were a beast.

Who killed him?

Nanman. I remain of the opinion that they are a group of not very high posters, given they continue to take out people I think can be fairly categorised as town leaders.

I'm pretty sure Simon is one of them and I think we should be lynching him.

Sorry to see you go, glorf. You were a beast.

its a bit odd that sig has vanished. Not like him. Hope all is ok.

Epi locks after he posts the post, rather than the moment that the poll ends. I guess it's technically when voting ends but not when the day ends?

Hmm. I actually like that from CapsFan. My vote is cast now, but it makes me double think.

@Russti - I pick the two people I find most worthy of a vote at the time, independent of each other. It's not a 'grand theory of the game' at work in my mind. Simon is the one I'd like to pick, but noone else seems to be looking there.

DP, CapsFan from me.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:All the love amounts to me, a dead guy, and a bunch of people saying they "might" vote for him.

Does it bother you how many people say they 'might' vote for him?

I'm not saying it is suspicious on any person for thinking that about Mac, I'm just saying the fact of it bothers me. He seems to be an option plenty of people are happy to throw a vote on to today.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:The next person to claim that I only started suspecting Booms or Mac now will get voted in the following lynch poll. If you are not reading the game, at least admit it.

You only started suspecting Boom and Mac right now!

Just kidding. I admit that I'm not reading the game.

I do, however, think you have a much higher chance of being right about Mac than you do about Boom. I'm good with Boom.

My possible votes right now - CapsFan, DP, Simon (not sure why people keep sleeping on Simon, some good evidence was raised about why he is Nanman and he seems to have vanished since it was)... maybe Mac on the outside, although I'm kind of suspicious about how much love he is getting for a vote all at once.

nutella wrote:I'm not MP's teammate. As you can see when I voted, Russ said at first that he was voting for Bass, and then switched to MP at the last minute. At the moment I voted I thought he was voting for Bass, so I also voted for Bass in hopes of getting him in second rather than Glorf. Also, I really thought MP was good. He had me fooled. While I felt fine voting for Bass because though my read of him was pretty neutral it was not as good as my read of MP.

Of course you're not. A team doesn't throw a way a third of its resources that easily in a 38 player game. If you're bad, you're Nanman, and if you're Nanman, then I think MP had info on you.

Sloonei wrote:

Golden wrote:

Sloonei wrote:I'll start with what has been my biggest question in the game: Nutella. I've been reading her as a strong townie based off of her tone and the volume of her content, but I've admittedly not done a thorough investigation of her. I've also seen a few people express very vague suspicion of her ("I think she's lying", "She seems off", etc.). Does anyone have a more substantial case to offer against Nutella? If there's reason to suspect her, I'd like to know about it.

The biggest case came from MP, who we know was bad... he was so sure nutella was bad that he was willing to duel on it.

I've read nutella as good all game, but in some ways I find this potentially persuasive. What better way for MP to get townie points if he duelled someone he had info on and knew was on the other team?

On the other hand, I really don't get ANY baddie vibes from nutella in thread at all.

Who are your top suspects and why? You can just link me to a post if you've already shared some reads, I just wanna get to the meaty parts of the game quickly.

I'm not really reading the whole thread, so I'm REALLY not the guy to ask. I haven't been really posting reads, just reactions to things I happen to read.

I'm sort of floating along, but I tend to think Nanman are low posters (they always kill high posters) and Yellow Turbans are high posters (they always kill low posters).

Sloonei wrote:I'll start with what has been my biggest question in the game: Nutella. I've been reading her as a strong townie based off of her tone and the volume of her content, but I've admittedly not done a thorough investigation of her. I've also seen a few people express very vague suspicion of her ("I think she's lying", "She seems off", etc.). Does anyone have a more substantial case to offer against Nutella? If there's reason to suspect her, I'd like to know about it.

The biggest case came from MP, who we know was bad... he was so sure nutella was bad that he was willing to duel on it.

I've read nutella as good all game, but in some ways I find this potentially persuasive. What better way for MP to get townie points if he duelled someone he had info on and knew was on the other team?

On the other hand, I really don't get ANY baddie vibes from nutella in thread at all.

Glorfindel wrote:

Scotty wrote:I don't have lots of time today, but I'm just gonna put these statements out there:

-I don't buy TH's rebuttal after being silenced, nor do I understand why we dropped that case entirely. He can be very articulate when he wants to be, and comments like he has made such as [paraphrasing] 'I play this way because I'm trying to play a specific game' is raising my alarms. I may or may not be voting for him this phase.

Trust me, Scotty - you won't be voting for him...

This, lol!

Glorfindel, that's some really good work going on there.

Speculation: MP wanted to take Nutella down for some specific reason, and believed he could do it. He wasn't really offering to have a go at russti, he wanted to be voted specifically up against nutella.

Secondary speculation: MP, being a suicidal moron, sometimes does things that seem good in the moment but less good when it all shakes out. Something I can relate to completely (*cough* champs finale *cough*).

Tertiary speculation: MP really genuinely believed that taking down nutella would make him look good.

I did literally laugh out loud when I figured out MP was bad. It was pretty funny.

I've used phrases like that when town before, although I'd usually phrase it as 'if I were bad..' I'm not sure... I wonder how often Jimmy uses it.

Epignosis wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Epignosis- Will you announce when a team has been eliminated?

I never do that.

Then how does anyone ever know when the game is over?

TheCapsFan wrote:Took a quick glance at the vote patterns, because I like those, and I could definitely see JJJ as scum.

I'd like to put up a case against Disgruntled Porcupines. The original reason I was drawn to him was because his vote on me was the scummiest.
- Has posted like twice all game, both just saying who he votes for, with no reasoning.
- Day 2, he votes for Russetfinko (alongside MM and JJJ) and timmer, who we know to be town (alongside MP and JJJ once again).
- Day 3, he votes for me and timmer again (alongside MP)
- Always one of the last to vote, and only against people with substantial amounts of votes to their name

DP is definitely one of those on my radar for a vote. His lack of posting is normal, but his choice of votes could be meaningful. I feel pretty good about Russti being town.

Quin wrote:Reading back, I notice that 3J pretty vehemently opposed my case against MP. He even declared MP one of his top town reads at one point.

I'm coming around to the idea that 3J may have been bad. Would anyone care to pursue this avenue with me?

I also feel as though there is a decent shot Jay was yellow turban. I never trusted him in this game. Didn't trust his self vote for prefect, didn't trust him backing MP's push on nutella...

BUT... playing both sides here... would Jay have been so overt in his support of MP if they were two of a three person team? I feel like thats such a small team that you might need to hide your links more.

@Glorfindel... I don't think so.

MP would never miss PMs, so I'd say that MP being in that team means your theory is more likely to be incorrect no matter how sporadic his thread contributions might appear. But - question... is it possible they only get one kill every two nights?

Good work on lynching the suicidal moron.

I think the Nanmans are full of people who aren't posting very much, hence the high profile targets.

@LoRab - I need to take a good look at you today. For most of the game, I've felt you are engaged town and I've been sort of thinking 'its great that LoRab clearly has plenty of time to play'. It's just that yesterday really bothered me. I think you really are wrong on Glorfindel.

A four way duel? This is an interesting outcome. Not one I like much... I really don't think Russti or Glorfindel should be in there at least.

Voting for TWO people who say they want to be voted for also doesn't make much sense, because for instance the reason MP wants to be voted for is only to defeat someone who is bad. I don't want to presume everyone suggesting people vote for them must be good, but on the whole its a good way of absconding any need to find baddies and that's bad.

Voted Bass and Simon. Hoping to keep Glorfindel out of fire, and I think Simon might be bad.

Too much work and other stuff to think anymore deeply than that (the draft isn't helping!)