The Syndicate

Well, Canuck, you were the reason I decided vomps lol...

Oh well, if I fail, I fail, and hopefully Zombs flips millionaire. I just suspect she won't.

Canuck - thats what I'm doing too, to be fair. Except that I may as well own what I'll be accused of later

I don't think you are obsessed LC. I don't even necessarily think you are wrong. What I do think is I haven't really understood your case, and you do come across as though possibly you have info on epi. That's the way it reads to me...

But in any event, I don't think it's something that will be resolved today. It might be a tomorrow thing. Right now I think you need to decide whether you are anti-zombs or pro-zombs and vote accordingly.

So I voted vomps. I hope that, in the end, vomps dies and zombs is saved. Thats my goal today. I am not 100% sure zombs is good, but I do think she could be given more time to prove herself.

Also, I'm just really feeling like zombs is good right now, and it looks like she is going to be lynched....

It sounds to me like vomps is someone we can generally agree on, I'm definitely happy to vote that way.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Epi, rather than asking you questions, can you link me in a vowelfree fashion to your thoughts on LC and MovingBass?

I see TH has voted for LC. I agree with Golden about Zomba, I don't love what she's saying, but when I really thought about it, I don't think she has BTSC.

LC's bssssd wth m.

The word is obsessed.

Bass = MP, right?

I guess I'll have to vote in the morning

I don't see myself voting Zombs at this point. I'm definitely not voting LK or SVS. I'm open to other directions if people go in another direction and can convince me.

In the mean time, Zombs has said something which I have always agree with and still do. Baddies are very good at hiding by being quiet. I remember hosting a game (west wing) where the baddie team were pretty quiet and just let the civs all pick each other off, and won without a single one of them ever being lynched. They deserved their win, but it was a reasonably easy way to achieve it. In the mean time, if people are civ, they are civs that are very unlikely to be nked.

I'm happy to give people who subbed in a pass, but I'm very comfortable lynching someone at this stage who has been very quiet and been here since the start, especially in the absence of anyone I can see as clearly bad.

New Zealand - this doesn't really seem like it should be bed time in Illinois. But it definitely should be mine!

You had that right, too, zombs... I already had every one of you in my sights lol, even though I may not have called out some of you yet.

Unfortunately, this game... genuinely no idea. I haven't been able to find an in yet, like I did with Aces. Which is why I actually think your theory that they could be sitting back makes a bit of sense.

@LK - I think we can get traction for someone other than you or zombs. I think it can be done.

I wouldn't presume I wouldn't do that if I was bad! But I am civ.

I actually think (although it's the kind of thing I know I shouldn't think too deeply about) that the baddies may have wanted me to come out swinging against someone the next day - possibly sophie who had said 'shut up golden' in jest the night before so that she could catch up, maybe dom who I'd had a good spat with. So I thought the best thing to do is ignore the why and just assume it's because I'm loud and because sometimes I am a threat.

I'm actually feeling fairly good about both you and lizkeen now.

I think there is real merit to the possibility that the baddies might be laughing at us as all the louder people cut each other down. I would certainly be willing to consider a vote against:

A person, or
Vompatti, or
possibly canuck, or
maybe even Elo, who seems a lot quieter in content here than in RR.

If the criteria is who could be hiding.

I actually suspect noone can get anything from the will until the lawyer has had it and its been executed by the lawyer. Just a suspicion.

I genuinely believe that SVS's motivations on day one were 1) she thought BF was bad 2) she wanted to get the will into civ hands so that she could say what the will really did if he had been lying about it. And don't forget, when she voted for bf, he hadn't named you yet.

My first ever game of mafia, I was a civ and I played with SVS. It was a tough game, like this one, where we went a few lynches without finding a baddie and paranoia was at a high. So I built a case. It was such a solid case. It expounded on the links between the three people I thought were mafia. It focussed on their attitudes and many other things. It really looked so good.

Not one of them was bad.

The reason I had felt that way was, in part, because SVS went aggressively after people who I thought were civ all along, and got them lynched. She also tended to come after me, even though I was civ. I thought this must be bad SVS. I made this mistake three consecutive times... the first three times I played with SVS.

Then, I came to realise, SVS just believes in what she believes in. She goes hard for it - something I could completely relate to. And sometimes she is wrong. I honestly don't think we are seeing baddie SVS... its the exact SVS I've seen so many times before, suspected so many times before, and been wrong about.

(by the way though, I found the case I made on SVS in my first ever game the other day, and it was what made me think I needed to come back and play more mafia, so it was good for something).

Yeah, Liz, I completely overlooked the reference to Michigan Street until just now... I'm assuming, then, that the post is only present because we voted for Michigan St. Which changes my perspective a little. I mean, Michigan St still might have empowered the baddies to write a story in the paper, though. It's not ruling it out.

But, zombs isn't wrong... I've been heavily invested in this case, and even I can see it's built on a house of cards. They are good cards, though.

But, frankly, your continued focus on SVS bothers me. So let me tell you a story (in the next post)

Oh, Michigan st is even named in the story... this makes me think differently about it.

LizKeen wrote:The people on Michigan Avenue last night were Epi, Long Con, A Person, TH and bwt so it seems likely one of them was the source? I've been trying to figure out the wording in that Night Post and I can't really decide what to make of it. I don't however think it was something Llama came up with. It feels like there's a word missing or two missing at the beginning of the sentence that starts with "A Team", probably doesn't matter but I'm just curious. I'm not sure why the mafia would say it and assume they were going to be successful on targeting SVS since there's no way to be sure a kill will go through. It doesn't sound like Jeff Darrell as it's his paper and it says a "source".

Hey, Liz, now I don't quite understand where Michigan St becomes relevant here... but the newspaper did make Archer relevant, so I'm wondering if we have overlooked how the role of street selection could play into this.

Hey, I responded

I was/am hoping zombs had more to say today. I'm gonna be quite busy tomorrow and want to vote tonight, ideally.

LizKeen wrote:

I couldn't figure out what pgnss meant. The closest I could get was prognosis.*facepalm* I posted and comment the posts of yours that didn't make me feel like you were being particularly civvie in the order you posted them. If I had posted all of your posts people would still be reading it because it would be epically wrong. Do you requote all their posts when you're trying to make a case?

This should have read epically long, not epically wrong. And no it wasn't some Freudian slip.

Also, noone ever responded to my question about Epi's and LC's Day 1 back-and-forth about who was lying. I clearly don't trust Epi but oes someone who has played with them both have an opinion there.

As far as things go, it was a pretty funny slip, though

As for LC and epi, I don't know what to make of it.

I have decoded all the posts of Epi that I think you actually need to know. I'm only not translating those which either seem obvious or aren't fundamental.

Whoah, sophie, hold up on all those vowel mutations. aeaeaeae to you too!

I don't mean all the stuff about SVS... with that I think zombs is doing all the things she is accusing SVS of doing, honestly... making big assumptions that aren't really based in much and have plenty of civilian explanations.

And actually, I just read it again. And really? Civilian roles that post to the thread? Which ones? Jeff Darrell has posted, his name was mentioned. The poet was mia. Which others could it be? And why, why, why would they report on an event that they only could have known about if they were bad?

Epignosis wrote:Wll wll wll.

will will will?

I think epi wants your stuff :P

Seriously though, Zombs, you've given me pause for thought. I actually read what you said as civ.

I've played a lot with SVS, and I've pretty sure I've never seen her 'want someone to die'. I think it's a stretch to suggest SVS is a celestial and say that you can pick out half her team (rabbit? BWT? I'm not seeing these links at all!). If the celestials were after your stock certificate, it seems likely to me they would just steal it. If SVS is wrong, I think she is just a well-intentioned civ.

However - putting aside the reactive side of what you just said... I can understand the point you are making. It meshes with how I've been thinking about you for the entire game... until last nights night post.

So, what I want to understand and what I would like you to focus on is not the people accusing you, and it's not bf's will. It's the newspaper thing - do you understand why that looks bad?

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:OK, Epi, questions. Sorry for asking you questions while you can't use vowels. Mind you, you are the one bringing up a new theory, so I'm not that sorry.

Yesterday, you seemed (to me) to agree with the zombs theory that SVS and I were talking about. Today, you have espoused what appears to be a different theory.

So what I want to know is this:

Was I correct in thinking that you can see the merit in yesterday's zombs theory?

Have you now moved away from thinking that is correct? Or can you just see two different possibilities? Or do you think the two theories are somehow linked and part of one unified theory (a la Einstein)?

Have you, as of now, identified any candidate for the 'sudden case' you are looking for?

Th ndrlnd. Jst nw thght pgnss hd.

& N. Glrck slncd?

The underlined. Just a new thought Epignosis had.

And no. Gilrick silenced?

Long Con wrote:

Golden wrote:My own personal thoughts, though, on Epi's theory.

It would have to be one hell of a coincidence if:

1) The blond beast targetted SVS, thus was about to be the beneficiary of the will we all already know about if she died; AND
2) Gilrick had a role check masquerading as 'you are the beneficiary of my will', and he happened to target the blond beast.

Indeed... Epig's "theory" would imply that he thinks S~V~S is lying... or that this grand coincidence happened.

SVS ddn't thnk ppgnss thght sh ws tllng ls.

SVS didn't think Epignosis thought she was telling lies.

Ironically, epi, the closest thing I've seen to fitting your theory would be LC coming hard after you today. Lucky I'm more convinced by SVS's theory than yours

rabbit8 wrote:Chances the host allows baddies to insert into his host posts?

I have never played a Lama game before.

A Lama game? If he is a buddhist monk, it would explain why SVS's buddha was so protective

My own personal thoughts, though, on Epi's theory.

It would have to be one hell of a coincidence if:

1) The blond beast targetted SVS, thus was about to be the beneficiary of the will we all already know about if she died; AND
2) Gilrick had a role check masquerading as 'you are the beneficiary of my will', and he happened to target the blond beast.

OK, Epi, questions. Sorry for asking you questions while you can't use vowels. Mind you, you are the one bringing up a new theory, so I'm not that sorry.

Yesterday, you seemed (to me) to agree with the zombs theory that SVS and I were talking about. Today, you have espoused what appears to be a different theory.

So what I want to know is this:

Was I correct in thinking that you can see the merit in yesterday's zombs theory?

Have you now moved away from thinking that is correct? Or can you just see two different possibilities? Or do you think the two theories are somehow linked and part of one unified theory (a la Einstein)?

Have you, as of now, identified any candidate for the 'sudden case' you are looking for?

In all seriousness, though, SVS, is your theory terrified now that Canuck is here?

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:the Blind Beast

Lol, oops

Epignosis wrote:Pgnss thnks Glrck trgtd smn t gv hs wll t. Th prsn h trgtd ws th Blnd Bst, Crl vn Trsslr.

*rl chck*

f Pgnss s rght, ppl shld lk fr sddn cs md gnst smn.

Interesting...

Epignosis thinks Gilrick targeted someone to give his will to. The person he targeted was the Blind Beast, Carl von Tresseler

*role check*

If Epignosis is right, people should look for a sudden case made against someone.

I do completely agree llama would have remembered the buddha's glow and/or removed the article when he did remember.

Yes juliets. But if SVS had died - would you have been able to see it as coming from llama?

That's my point. It didn't come from llama, but the reason I don't think it was a frame job is because I think we might have assumed it was from llama if SVS had died. Since, obviously, the baddies wouldn't have had a chance to see what the will said anyway yet...

As with MM yesterday, though, I think if Zombs is bad she is probably the millionaire, so I'm not intending to put a vote on her unless I can see the vote is going that way.

Zoms, LK, Epi... frankly I can see pros and cons to all of these votes.

I also really prefer to vote zombs because I think there is evidence pointing that way rather than just a gut feeling - in fact, I kind of feel as though the evidence is mounting up.

I can't see the post in the newspaper as the baddies framing zombs. Since if SVS had actually died I think we would be looking at that post in the paper as probably coming from llama. I guess it is a perspective we want to consider, but it's just not something I'm buying.

Epignosis wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:

Long Con wrote:I meant to add, that's a total paraphrase of the exact content of Ender's Shadow, but the meaning is accurate.

I always hated Bean.

Nvr rd Crd.

I'm not sure if this is an admission or a warning.

Elohcin wrote:

Golden wrote:
If you are civ, you'd want to put the info you have out there now that you know you can't have the item stolen again or be killed for it.

Golden, what do you mean by this? Is there something that can be done that will make it so our item cannot be stolen and we cannot be killed for it?

Elo, I just meant that if you had a good item, you wouldn't be saying what it did, lest the baddies kill you to get their hands on it. Like, LK is saying the ear horns let you hear some baddie convo. No way she lets on about that while she still has the horns.

But the moment they are stolen, they can't be stolen from you again (since you no longer have it) and the baddies won't kill you to get it (since they wouldn't get it).

S~V~S wrote:I was thinking that BR 1.0 could have been Gildrick too, like I think Golden said

Wasn't me.

LizKeen wrote:While some people were making it a point their item did nothing I kept quiet until Day 2 because I didn't want to call a lot of attention to what I took hoping they wouldn't be stolen. Those of you who think I'm guilty..do you think I made up everything I said about what I heard?

I think not revealing your item does something until after it is stolen seems like perfectly normal behaviour for any affiliation.

If you are civ, you'd want to put the info you have out there now that you know you can't have the item stolen again or be killed for it. If you are bad, I'm sure you wanted to give an accurate representation of what the ear horns do before you could be called out for withholding information - whether or not the info you gave was true would be kinda moot, it might be or it might not be.

So for me, I took that post at face value, but something I would do in your position regardless of alignment, so it didn't make me swing one way or the other in terms of what I think of your alignment.

Liz, you are seeing basically what I saw about epi on day one. I haven't cleared epi completely from my suspect list, although he is by no means my biggest suspect right now. I think what ends up happening with today's lynch and reveal could potentially have a significant bearing on how I perceive Epi afterwards.

Also, I'll just note Liz's quote fail. It wasn't me who flipped on bf, that was epi. I know Liz didn't mean to suggest it was, it just looks a bit weird.

TH has been around in other threads. I'm feeling pretty confident he is the silenced one.

I dont think Mongoose said anything about it - we got to choose our items at the start without knowing what they did. She chose telegram.

Sophie, did you sub in for Mongoose? It's the telegram you are talking about, right?

I would be careful. We can discuss what we got. BF did, and was lynched. What if it is powerful and so the baddies would kill you for it? It's a risk. It also seems that we can't exactly quote the PM so you have to think do you understand it well enough to rephrase it? I'm happy to help you understand it if you go for it, but if I were you I'd just check whether you think it's something you might get killed for, and only do it if you are ok taking a risk.

blindfaeth wrote:

You said you didn't want a rezz!!!

But if you've changed your mind...

Sophie, it took me a couple of tries too.

I think what LC meant was, he considered taking the buddha way back on day zero, but he is glad he didn't because it meant SVS was able to and it helped her to survive.

I want BR 1.0 to get a rezz, so that I can find out what happens to BR when she is two people at once.

Fair enough, I never played with them. They seem actually quieter than DP, which I didn't know was possible.