The Syndicate

Matt F wrote:
MacDougall wrote:G2H Matt r cum

Gun down Matt r cum
You think everything's cum, perv.

U r cum. Juliets is cum. Also LoRab is cum. If I was civ I would vote to lynch u guise but I am not so I won't.

G2H Matt r cum

Gun down Matt r cum

Matt r cum

If I am a low voter then sure.

Matt F wrote:I voted No.

As Epig said, the lynch is a civvie's best weapon. How does it help us to eliminate half the town from that process?

Half the town?

Nooooooooooooo

LoRab wrote:Dr w: Nice way to ask me a question, decide i'm suspicious, make a few assumptions, and vote for me before I have a chance to even answer your question.

When I'm done with this convention, in happy to further explain my suspicion of sig. Right now, I'm listening to Vice President Biden speak. That is somehow more important than worrying about having a vote.

Linkitis: you shouldn't vote for me because I'm not bad. Mac, you are wrong. And also bad. And I posted before I went away that I'd be away. So yeah, I'm busy. That doesn't mean I'm bad, it means I'm busy

Linkitis: I am fairly certain I had posts about sig the first time he came up, when I initially suspected him.

I am bussing you.

Epignosis wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:<3 ya Mac, join us at our shirtless bonfire.

Epi, join us.

Ok then LoRab, why shouldn't I vote for you?

Indeed. Matt join us.
I don't want to see Mac at a shirtless bonfire. Or Lorab, if you are proposing such.

But you do want to see Wilgy.

That's cool bro.

Linki: Matt ya nub vote 4 LoRab. The doctor knows best.

Join us. It's blissss.

LoRab wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
LoRab wrote:Voted sig. His last post tipped the decision. He continues to not accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people. And his defenses in general continue to make him more suspish.
Compare the initial slip vs his descriptions. Characterize those pings for me, and what exactly makes them more suspish?

I don't know any bit of the Sig case, but what I do know is that it's hard to lynch mafia. It was pretty easy for you to vote based on a defense, rather than discuss it and point out the exact flaws in the defense.
I voted for him for thto second time based on my ongoing suspicion of him. I had several posts last Kung outlining my reasons for suspecting him. Don't have time right now to make fuller case or explanation.

Busy LoRab have excuses. LoRab plz u r cum.

How does being a sig defender and then voting me when sig is safe = suspicious. You should stop being supatown. You are ordinary at this game.

This Lukewagon is lel. U guiz r nub.

Linki: Epi plz.

Epignosis wrote:Hamburgerboy = sig defender

Hamburgerboy = votes MacDougall when sig has six

Nah.

Changing my vote to sig. He cum.

Dom and HB have voted for me before. Has anything untoward happened to either of you as a result?

If you want to lynch me you won't be hurt. Go ahead.

HamburgerBoy wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Dom wrote:Anyone wanna vote Mac with me?
No. Nobody does. And it pains me.
Yeah I'll go for this.

Mac

Is this OMGUS because I called you a jerk?

Dom wrote:Anyone wanna vote Mac with me?

No. Nobody does. And it pains me.

I pretty sure juliets is scum. HamburgerBoy is a jerk and I will vote for him because he is a jerk.

Rest in Peace my dark and nutty friend.

I will vote whichever way is most disruptive to your efforts moments before deadline.

RIH Turnip

Haaaaaaa

Ha.

I don't see the purpose of dwelling on these poll options in lieu of scum hunting.

Option 3 plz

nutella wrote:Wow, surprised I didn't die. I guess Tranq was right.

Totally forgot to come back to defend again before the poll ended as I have been totally swamped with work today, but I see Typhoony made a post about me and a couple others voted for me without much explanation. If there is any point in particular that people want me to answer, ask away.

Who should I kill tonight?

S~V~S wrote:Unchangeable votes might be refreshing Personally I would like to see a poll of only low posters

And since they had some of the same people on both sides, I assumed it would be one lynch and votes would be added together. That was what made the most sense since people could not be lynched twice.

Bye Bubbles, and BIH mysteriously benign SK.

Do you know I actually heart you?

sig wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
sig wrote:I'm as scummy as you Mac...............oh wait nevermind since I'm not actually a baddie.
Vote me you fiend
Nope I'm good I don't like to vote for those who encourage it usually something nasty happens to those who do it.

Well let's see. Dom voted for me and he is fine. HB voted for me and he is fine.

If you think I am bad as evidently your expectation of bad things occuring by voting me indicates how do you plan to have me killed if not via lynch?

Scum confirmed.

What a shame.

Turnip Head wrote:
Typhoony wrote:
Turnip Head wrote: I don't know what juliets thinks about sig tbh. I think she had her heart set on voting sig coming into the lynch, maybe to appear consistent with her vote yesterday. She caught flak for it and moved off of it. I think what's interesting is that she didn't stick to her guns by owning up to her vote, but she also didn't noticeably change her stance on sig either. She just sort of moved to other targets.
You said you thought she was possibly trying to make herself look better. I don't think her switching her vote (especially in the way you described) makes her look better, it makes her look flaky and unsure of what she's doing, ie panic mode. Is panic mode indicative of baddie juliets?
Well what I'm saying is she was getting heat for voting sig, so maybe she thought not voting sig was the way to get attention off of her. I can see it the way you're saying too though. I have no idea what baddie juliets looks like, she's been a civ in every game I've played with her up to this point.

So does she seem different then?

sig wrote:I'm as scummy as you Mac...............oh wait nevermind since I'm not actually a baddie.

Vote me you fiend

timmer wrote:I've voted Golden in section 1. My gut tells me he is bad. As foe the second section I have no suspects and it appears that bubbles is going to be lynched so I tossed the vote away on eloh.

I'm having a gallbladder attack so don't expect any more from me for this evening.

I agree Golden is definitely scum

timmer wrote:I've voted Golden in section 1. My gut tells me he is bad. As foe the second section I have no suspects and it appears that bubbles is going to be lynched so I tossed the vote away on eloh.

I'm having a gallbladder attack so don't expect any more from me for this evening.

I agree Golden is definitely scum

S~V~S wrote:
timmer wrote:I've voted Golden in section 1. My gut tells me he is bad. As foe the second section I have no suspects and it appears that bubbles is going to be lynched so I tossed the vote away on eloh.

I'm having a gallbladder attack so don't expect any more from me for this evening.
Ouch

Feel Better

I still haven't forgotten that you are scum

Golden wrote:
Typhoony wrote:
Golden wrote:I find it odd that people find nutella the better option than bubbles. I'm definitely the opposite. I would be surprised if bubbles comes back civilian but I am much more on the fence about nutella. But I'm still feeling very hopeful that both are a team together.

How awesome would it be if a baddie team went down two people in one day.
Would you agree with my representation of the case against Bubbles or is there anything you would like to add/change?
I agree entirely with your representation of the case on bubbles. I think you have drawn it together very well.

^ scum team

Typhoony wrote:Oh hey, it's Luke with another non-explained vote. Would you be willing to explain this one to us once you get back?

Oh hey it's another player ignoring my self confirmation amd instead attacking a noob.

Turnip Head wrote:
Typhoony wrote:Juliets reads like she been in panic mode for most of today, but I do not know if that means a baddie juliets or a civvie juliets.
You say you think she may be trying to make herself look better by hopping off the sigwagon. Do you think she suspects sig is not bad and voted him in the beginning despite that, or do you think as the day passed on she realized this?
I don't know what juliets thinks about sig tbh. I think she had her heart set on voting sig coming into the lynch, maybe to appear consistent with her vote yesterday. She caught flak for it and moved off of it. I think what's interesting is that she didn't stick to her guns by owning up to her vote, but she also didn't noticeably change her stance on sig either. She just sort of moved to other targets.

Ok u r scum

sig wrote:I'm okay with the Bubbles lynch, not sure about nutelle I'll review that case.

I'm not sure about Juliets switch that is strange.

linki: I'll need to look Luke over don't expect to find much but we could find a mafia there also.

Lol scummiest post evar.

I am taking my vote off TB and putting it on Golden. Defo scum.

Hello self confessed scum here.

Any vote for a self confessed scum is a smart vote.

I am scum.

Who should I vote for?

Dom Dom where u at.

Matt in answer to your question. If you vote for me I will be thrilled.

MacDougall wrote:Does anyone know if there is an easier way to use Chatzy on Android than just a browser app? Does it have it's own app or something? Is there a trick I am not privy to?

Does anyone know if there is an easier way to use Chatzy on Android than just a browser app? Does it have it's own app or something? Is there a trick I am not privy to?

Gone fishen

Voted juliets and tb

So can we vote for two in either group?

nutella wrote:So there have been lots of fluffy, boring exchanges, but finally this Dom/Mac exchange is, dare I say, interesting. (Like Lorab I am pro-"interesting." Epi crusaded against it a couple games ago and I feel slightly defiant every time I use it now. )

Dom's well-organized case on Mac has some compelling points but I also find Mac's responses reasonable, and I haven't played with him before so I think a lot of what has felt slightly off about him is just a style thing.
This post pinged me though:

MacDougall wrote:
Dom wrote:^no it's because you're bad and its' obvious
If it's so obvious put your case together and get the town to lynch me.
The way he says "the town" sounds kinda slippy to me. Like he's not part of the town. Could also just be the way he uses the terminology, but the phrasing doesn't sit right with me.

BUGLABUSH wrote:Luke is mafia
Please elaborate.
I haven't gotten the best vibes from Luke either, but I would really like to hear actual thoughts from you as well.

The civs, the town. How else do I describe civs other than myself in a group?

LoRab wrote:Travelling all day and y'all post a lot so keep not having time to finish reading.

I think people can say things are interesting and that be a statement in and of itself. It is not lame. It is saying, huh--that is interesting.

I'm finding myself frustrated with the tone of several posts here and people insulting others in a way that doesn't seem either productive or fun.

I'm also finding myself frustrated with people saying someone is bad, just because they know it and they are sure and we should all just follow them. That is not helpful to me. Or particularly interesting to read.

I think I'm perhaps a little cranky, but there seems to be an ongoing tone amongst several posts that are crank inducing. But maybe I'll feel better tomorrow.

Also, I have cats, but I prefer dogs.

Everything you just wrote is directed at me but you didn't refer to me by name. Am I that annoying?

Dom wrote:#1) Your suspicion of me is based on a case Epi made on meta-analysis. Not only would I say his case is wrong, but you have zero bearing for my meta-game. Why would you follow that? How does that indicate I am bad? You say you don't want to follow people, but you do here. You have since evolved this into a standalone suspicion based on???? What? I don't even know what. If it's the meta-analysis you have no grounds for it, and that is suspect to me. In fact, you called Epig's case "the best case of the game" when you should have zero ability to judge that.

#2) You consistently condemn "silly" players, but when in need of a distraction, completely derail the thread and act just as silly-- or exceedingly silly--to dismiss allegations against you. You see, what you've been doing is attacking me personally to make people less likely to want to comment.

#3) You alleged that I was disinterested until I took votes. That is simply not true and a mischaracterization.

#4) You attempted to lure me into voting you over Banana Day 1. This, I believe, was an attempt to make sure I died that day.

#5) You have named 9+ people to be "scum" with a high degree of certainty, however, there is a maximum of 8 baddies in the game... who are your suspects? Why are you inconsistent?

#6) Starting in day two, you seemed to drop the talk of SVS and I. You pulled up several new suspicions out of nowhere. I believe this was an attempt to get me off your ass.

#7) You posted a list of people you suspect, one of which was me and one of which was Bea. You claim that this was confusing because you're playing two games, but I am not playing Dune and Bea is not playing here. Who are your real suspicions?

#8) You assume that the Banana lynch was a save on me rather than a save on Bug. You have refused to entertain the thought-- it's almost like you might know.

#9) You claimed my disinterest is a reason to suspect me because I only became interested when I took votes. To be honest, that's hypocrisy on a whole new level. You literally phoned in for a day only because "you didn't have the energy" and "were on a road trip". But I'm totally disinterested by a lower than above average post count on Day 1??????? OKKK!?!??!

In short, your behavior would have gotten you lynched if you were from this site.

I asked you to quote your posts. Your argument has been about how I have ignored your posts. I didn't ask you to make another, I asked you to quote your posts.

1. I've already explained this. Ignoring my explanations and suggesting I have ignored you isn't a really good way to catch scum. Good way to get me mislynched though if that's your agenda. I never said I had a read on you independently of Epignosis's read before the other wagons started to feel wrong to me. I had a town read of Epignosis and I hated the other two lynch wagons enough to push you over them. Epi's case wasn't huge and elaborate at all, but it was assured and it was better than the cases I saw on Bug and Banana. Yes, I was entirely deferring to Epignosis. As the day progressed I became quite sure of there being a mislynch counterwagon being built. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not infallible. When did I say that I never follow people or don't want to follow people?

2. Do you really take personally the words of an anonymous internet forums poster who doesn't know you? If so, I apologise for offending you. My insults were out of line. No, my intention was not to make it too awkward for others to comment at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I would love nothing more than to see a million votes pile onto me.

I was genuinely annoyed at your tone. Your tone from the word go in reaction to me was rude, dismissive and belittling to me. I've already been asked to stop provoking you and I will and I apologise for any personal insult you feel, but you need to know that I was actually annoyed too. I don't take this stuff half as seriously as you and that's fine, but it doesn't make me scum.

3. I am not going to bother quoting the entirety of page 1 of your ISO but your posts before you started to gain lynch attention were low content, non provocative and came across like you weren't interested in the game to me. It's not intentional mischaracterisation (why do you guys use words like this?!), it's how I read your posts. You and anyone who is interested can look and see them and if you think that my post on the subject is non genuine then good for you. It wasn't.

4. It wasn't. It was an attempt to get you to vote for me because I was your scum read and I wanted to see how seriously you believed your scum read.

5. Really? Okay show me the high degree of certainty with which I have given reads on 9 players? I also already responded to this.

6. You believe wrong. I don't care that you are "on my ass". Our feelings about one another are well documented. I don't tunnel people. You do though. I don't need to continue harping on about it. Nobody was interested in a day 2 Dom lynch so why would I bother bashing on about it? I'm here trying to hunt other scum to build out my reads some more. You're putting all your eggs in one mislynch basket.

7. On the other game at the time I had a scum read on Bea and Floyd in a team. Here at the time I had a scum read on you, S-V-S and Floyd. And I had been following the game on my phone with one hand while driving down the highway. You can choose to see that as scummy, but why would I be that careless as scum? What would be the benefit of anything I have done as scum?

8. Did you just accuse me of knowing that you are scum? Like, really? How could I possibly know you are scum? I think in combination with the fact that I had taken up Dom wagon over Bug and Banana on day 1 and that there was a counterwagon in play on Banana that it's fair that I would assume that it was a counterwagon designed to spare you? That would just be me being consistent in my reads? So I am scummy for being consistent in my reads? It's not that I'm not entertaining the idea that it was to spare Bug, but with all respect to Bug if he was close to getting lynched on day 1 I would have bussed the fuck out of him if I were the scum team. If there was a counterwagon I believe it was to spare you. There may not have been a counterwagon anyway. Maybe you're all civilian and the scum didn't have to bother?

9. Read it again, I didn't say your disinterest was a scum tell. I was saying you were showing just as little disinterest as another player in a conversation you weren't even a part of.

So tl;dr

You are harping on about me ignoring you and dismissing your cases and what not but the fact is the only telling parts of your case are things that actually probably make me look more like disinterested town than scum and/or are things I have replied to.

You accuse me of dismissing your case. I have actively chosen to ignore you at times because when I explain you just tunnel harder and dismiss my responses. There's no point engaging discussion with you because it takes up too much thread space and content and is making it less pleasant for the rest of the players and harder to scum hunt.

I actually have changed my mind. I don't think you are scum. I think this is a case of civilian tunneling, and you're angry at me for being rude to you, so it's influencing it even more.

So what's the play now, are you going to continue to tunnel me or are you going to just vote for me when the day starts if we're both alive and then look at other players?

Search found 408 matches