The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:@Quin, nope! Not at all.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Quin wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I'm increasingly willing to believe that 3J has been playing a super-helpful, positive baddie game. Not sold on it, but increasingly willing to believe it.

What does this say to you about Quin, who hates my guts?

He didn't suspect you until after the theory of a roleblock came out and that he was the killer. That sort of timing doesn't benefit my read of you.

This is wrong. I started to suspect him after he posted his initial feel-good/bad reads on Day 0.

No, you chatted with him on Day 0, questioned him on Day 1, projected your feelings on him, agree with him about llama, bantered with him, didn't include him in your reads when asked, and finally asked if he was llama's teammate on Day 2.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. You didn't "suspect" Jay until it was an extension of a suspicion of llama.

Made wrote:Anyone else considering a vote on JJJ? I don't want to force a tie.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I'm increasingly willing to believe that 3J has been playing a super-helpful, positive baddie game. Not sold on it, but increasingly willing to believe it.

What does this say to you about Quin, who hates my guts?

He didn't suspect you until after the theory of a roleblock came out and that he was the killer. That sort of timing doesn't benefit my read of you.

Sorsha wrote:

Quin wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I think Quin and jj could both be bad so I could put my vote on either of them.

Put it on 3J and maybe I won't kill you tonight.

But if I put it on you you'll be lynched and won't be able to kill me anyway

Sorsha wrote:I think Quin and jj could both be bad so I could put my vote on either of them.

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I mean, if someone had spoken positively about me before comes in and says he is going to break the tie, I would interpret that to mean that he would break the tie in my favor. No comment would be necessary.

Am I ignorant for thinking this?

Yes.

Then you have unreasonable expectations of people.

Llama wasn't inquisitive enough to ask me for my reads. I'd never once said I civ or scum read either of them. That's not unreasonable.

If the objective was that he was supposed to guess that you wanted him to ask you a question, then I have to say you have unreasonable expectations of people in general, and of llama specifically. Llama wasn't going to ask you for no damn reads.

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I mean, if someone had spoken positively about me before comes in and says he is going to break the tie, I would interpret that to mean that he would break the tie in my favor. No comment would be necessary.

Am I ignorant for thinking this?

Yes.

Then you have unreasonable expectations of people.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Quin wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Quin wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Quin wrote:All three of them insisted that my hypothesis they role blocked themselves was tinfoil. So now I think that's what happened again.

You think that three mafia teammates all walked into the thread to dispute the same theory, that's got a decent consensus belief around it?

And that Boomslang voted for a teammate yesterday as well as today?

A-yup.

Would you believe me if I told you I didn't believe that you believe in that assertion at all?

Would you believe me if I told you that I believe you'd believe me in about an hour?

Would you believe me if I told you that I believe that my disbelief of your belief coupled with Jay's belief in my belief of your belief of his disbelief leads me to believe that I can't believe in either of you?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Quin wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Quin wrote:All three of them insisted that my hypothesis they role blocked themselves was tinfoil. So now I think that's what happened again.

You think that three mafia teammates all walked into the thread to dispute the same theory, that's got a decent consensus belief around it?

And that Boomslang voted for a teammate yesterday as well as today?

A-yup.

Would you believe me if I told you I didn't believe that you believe in that assertion at all?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Quin wrote:All three of them insisted that my hypothesis they role blocked themselves was tinfoil. So now I think that's what happened again.

You think that three mafia teammates all walked into the thread to dispute the same theory, that's got a decent consensus belief around it?

And that Boomslang voted for a teammate yesterday as well as today?

Sorsha wrote:

Quin wrote:I feel like I should elaborate on my Boomslang read.

He's come across as disingenuous twice in his cases against me.

The first time, he jumped on LC's theory that I was being insistent by pushing my argument against 3J. This was after I discussed it with LC and even he moved on from that specific element of his argument. He still assures me that he read the dialogue to the end, which clearly isn't true.

The second time, he accused me of backtracking in my theory as to why he survived, even though nobody had expressed suspicion at me for it at the time. Backtracking isn't a thing in that context.

He's not voting me either. He wants to bring attention to 3J, so he's not voting me. Even though he's suspected me more than anybody else in this game. Nah.



I'd call a baddie team of llama, 3J and Boomslang.

So you think boomslang just voted for his teammate today?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:@Marmot

I think his suspicion of me has mostly come from places I can understand (like my Day 1 posts about DDL). I would call his equal-opposite reactions to my concerns with the tinfoil theory were more default. It all fits into the mixed bag that is my read on Quin.

Alright, what's your GTH read of Quin.

Civilian.

Epignosis wrote:I mean, if someone had spoken positively about me before comes in and says he is going to break the tie, I would interpret that to mean that he would break the tie in my favor. No comment would be necessary.

Am I ignorant for thinking this?

Scotty wrote:I'd vote for JJJ today. Then Quin.

Quin is reminding me of that game I got killed in pretty recently that he won as a baddie: tunneling on Dom all game (llama in this one) and all over the place.

JJJ does look like he is steering the narrative a certain way, and the couple posts that I quoted in regards to DDL seem...lacking something.

I didn't win that game. LoRab spelled my downfall with a well-placed role use.

nijuukyugou wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

nijuukyugou wrote:Also, llama's not necessarily cleared by any means by this last lynch, so there's also that.

I wanted to circle back to this point, because it's a good one. I'm certainly not cleared by the lynch at all. For that reason, I'm a bit puzzled as to why INH, whom I generally feel good about, decided to drop his case against me after the lynch. Can you clear that up, INH?

Good point. Why did he drop the case all of a sudden?

nijuukyugou wrote:I'm catching up in the thread, but I think I'll do some thought posting before being fully caught up so I can actually contribute without feeling like I'm just rehashing. So, expect possible rehashing of others' thoughts.

1) Yep, Epi has definitely and immediately thrown a team member under the bus Day 1. I was there. So he's not entirely in the clear, but I do agree with someone (don't remember who) that the way he threw suspicion out at DDL was different from the way he attacked him in Guess Who. Didn't play the other game mentioned, so I have no comparison, but I'm inclined at the point to see Epi as good. Scary.

2) I will be focusing attention on llama voters ATM. Initial thoughts on each as I read through and remember what was posted during the Day:

INH: Came out, guns a-blazin', against llama for reasons I remember agreeing with (and posted about in my bigger post). It was mostly the going after Sorsha part that I agreed with (as in, llama came out going after Sorsha with no real reasoning, and continued to push it with no real reasoning), as well as the part pointing out the way llama has with manipulating with words. In other words, INH had a case against llama and went with it, making him the least suspicious in my eyes. Also, llama's not necessarily cleared by any means by this last lynch, so there's also that.

Long Con: Added on to llama votes. Honestly, haven't looked at him particularly closely yet (still reading), but I do see he's getting suspicion, especially from JJJ at the bottom of his read list, so I'd like to look back more at him. But not a good look if, in fact, llama is good. Well, also not a good look regardless, since DDL flipped bad.

Quin: First to break the tie. Not a good look (again, considering what we know). Seeing a lot of back and forth between him and JJJ in the most recent pages that I'd like to look more closely at. OH and that weird comment after Eloh posted? The one about claiming she's the blocker with her comment? Weird comment, no matter how you slice it: if bad, sounds defensive and frustrated after missing a kill. If good, why point out someone you think is the blocker?! Might as well paint a target for baddies.

Wilgy: In and out of the thread. Appears to have voted for llama out of a desire to "save" the Marmot, but MM only had one vote on him at the time (to be fair, however, there was possible momentum in the thread that could have picked up towards him, enough for me to post my disagreement with it). Either way, dude broke the tie at the end against DDL, which is definitely not a good look, and hasn't come back with anything of substance since. Not a good look.

But now, as I write this, only focusing on llama voters, and thinking about how llama may or may not be good, I want to look at outliers too, dammit. Think I'll do that a bit later as I read more.

Blooper out for now.

Boomslang wrote:Whew, thanks much to whatever behind-the-scenes shenanigans kept me alive last night! Hopefully we can keep this good juju running.

In all of the discussion about Quin's tinfoil theory, I think people are missing this key post, in which I think he clearly backtracks from the position:

Quin wrote:

Sorsha wrote:It's possible but pretty unlikely that the baddies would block their own kill like that. Especially after losing one of their own in the day one lynch.

That's a good point. I'd say this is more likely a doctor job.

And then he returns to using the theory while defending against Quin, calling it "the second most likely scenario." Also, "There's no tinfoil to be found there. This near-exact scenario happened in the very last game, which you modded." Which again glosses over the differences in context between the Sorsha situation and this hypothetical. I feel like Quin's digging a very deep hole.

Elohcin wrote:I'm back for a few while fish sticks are in the oven. Yes...fish sticks for breakfast, my daughter is weird.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:If Eloh role blocked me, but Boomslang's survival was the result of a doctor protection, it would probably mean Elohcin calling me out wasn't an attempt at a frame job. That would make her civilian. Any reason I shouldn't think this?

If all of these assumptions are granted, sure. I'm not certain we have the data necessary to just call Elohcin a roleblocker (for either faction). She emerged into this day phase with two primary comments of relevance:

1. Appreciative of my reviewing of the progression of votes on Day 1, which included a lengthy description of Quin emerging looking less than stellar.

2. She is suspicious of Quin.

My inclination is to tie these together -- she agreed with the concerns I expressed about Quin's vote and expressed suspicion accordingly. Elohcin, please correct me if this is not accurate.

You are 100% accurate in this. And then there was this which furthered my suspicion.

Quin wrote:

Elohcin wrote:Yay! No kill. I guess the kill was blocked.

I know I haven;t been here much, but I have been following along today and I think JJJ's summary of the votes on Day 1 was nicely detailed enough to catch me up. I have an idea of someone I think could be bad. Quin. His vote, his sneaky tone, and the fact that his defenses haven't sounded genuine to me.

So it was you, huh?

Whether I am a roleblocker or not...I will not say. But this reaction is alarming to me. If I were caught up, I would be voting Quin right now. But I feel I should at least catch up before voting.

Epignosis wrote:Quin, why did you vote llama Day 1? That's something I haven't worked out.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:Okay, but you tried to push it as though I was making a deal out of the fact that I was being framed. Justify that.

I think it's one of your less encouraging face-value comments in your post history. You developed a highly convoluted and in my eyes unlikely scenario to suggest a potential frame job by Elohcin against you. Given that you've also insisted Elohcin is a roleblocker, this reads to me like someone immediately assembling a barrier against an anticipated flood of suspicion -- likely to take the form of Elohcin blocked Quin and prevented his kill. Anticipatory behavior like that tends to be something I find suspicious.

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:I see a situation right now where the mafia killed Boomslang, but was role blocked or protected. Elohcin's sudden appearance to show distrust towards me comes across to me as a role blocker claim. Put that in your back pocket, people.

I can see a situation where the baddies killed Boomslang and role blocked themselves so that a bad Elohcin could come out and say this, but she'd have some heavy collateral to deal with once I flipped. It's nothing she couldn't explain her way out of if she did it well enough, though. There's two role blockers and a civilian doctor still in the game.

An alternative is that she's a civilian role blocker, and role blocked me. This would be an interesting coincidence considering I didn't kill nobody, yet Boomslang still survived.

I'm just gonna wait on other thoughts on the situation before I commit to any line of thinking.

Okay I hadn't discussed this. I would be willing to call the highlighted text extreme tinfoil. It makes me imagine Quin standing in the center of an unfurnished, locked, windowless room staring at the door with tinfoil covering every wall and the empty boxes piled in a corner.

Extreme tinfoil on its own isn't necessarily a big deal, but I am less than amused that Quin employs this tinfoil to arrive at a conclusion akin to this is how I have been set up.

You are going to justify this. It's the second most likely scenario.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:So there's just the one post. Is that enough?

One post is enough for one second. That's the point. Single posts fell into the thread and I gave hot takes.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:I'm not suggesting I expect balance from you. You just haven't interacted with him.

With or without the quantity of direct interaction you expect, the name "llama" appears many times in my post history. If you suspect we're scum teammates, then okay. Without a more comprehensive case there's not much else I can say about this.

Quin wrote:Why did you say you felt good about DDL for at least a moment at the beginning of the game?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:Bad. It's been bad the whole game, actually.

You're not interested in engaging the questions of your own suspect?

Quin wrote:Tell me this, 3J.

You haven't interacted to a decent degree with llama once in this game. You've sparked up conversations with me, Epi, Long Con, and basically everybody else who could be considered a high poster multiple times. But not llama. Why?

I don't know what "decent degree" means, but I think that statement is untrue. I have interacted with llama about as much as Epignosis, and I am doing it right now. I have been extremely suspicious of Long Con so of course he has attracted more of my attention. Much of my dialogue with you was initiated and pressed by you. Allocation of focus in any Mafia game is circumstantial; I don't keep a running tally for the sake of balancing all attentions I give.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:Counter question:

Are you llamas teammate?

If he's a civilian, yes.

Now please give my questions a go.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:I see a situation right now where the mafia killed Boomslang, but was role blocked or protected. Elohcin's sudden appearance to show distrust towards me comes across to me as a role blocker claim. Put that in your back pocket, people.

I can see a situation where the baddies killed Boomslang and role blocked themselves so that a bad Elohcin could come out and say this, but she'd have some heavy collateral to deal with once I flipped. It's nothing she couldn't explain her way out of if she did it well enough, though. There's two role blockers and a civilian doctor still in the game.

An alternative is that she's a civilian role blocker, and role blocked me. This would be an interesting coincidence considering I didn't kill nobody, yet Boomslang still survived.

I'm just gonna wait on other thoughts on the situation before I commit to any line of thinking.

Okay I hadn't discussed this. I would be willing to call the highlighted text extreme tinfoil. It makes me imagine Quin standing in the center of an unfurnished, locked, windowless room staring at the door with tinfoil covering every wall and the empty boxes piled in a corner.

Extreme tinfoil on its own isn't necessarily a big deal, but I am less than amused that Quin employs this tinfoil to arrive at a conclusion akin to this is how I have been set up.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:A separate set of questions for Quin:

~ Prior to the EOD sequence we're discussing, who was your top suspect on Day 1?

~ What in the end inspired you to participate in either of the prevailing wagons rather than the player you name above? You've established a reputation for sidelining your vote in lynches when you don't like the most popular options.

thellama73 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Just to ensure that the viewing audience is clear on the reads emerging from this conflict, could each of you please confirm or deny the following statement associated with you:

~ Quin, you currently believe llama is bad.

~ llama, you currently believe Quin is bad.

Confirmed. I believe Quin's arguments against me are inconsistent and tenuous. I believe the initial reversal of his read on me at exactly the time Dragon was in trouble is suspicious. And I believe that Quin's theory that boomslang was the victim of an elaborate mafia plot to target themselves smacks of desperation.

thellama73 wrote:Fine, this is unproductive and circular. Quin has made up his mind and refuses to respond to any of my questions with a straight answer. I'm done with this conversation. I will gladly answer any question from anyone else, but I don't wish to clog up the thread with any further rehashing of the same point. I didn't respond to "I might just break the tie" because I didn't regard it as important, and didn't feel like participating in what to me was an obvious attempt to elicit my response. If people think that means I'm bad, so be it, but I have nothing further to say on the subject.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Just to ensure that the viewing audience is clear on the reads emerging from this conflict, could each of you please confirm or deny the following statement associated with you:

~ Quin, you currently believe llama is bad.

~ llama, you currently believe Quin is bad.

thellama73 wrote:

Quin wrote: If your civilian participation is dependent on how intimidated you are by a person, you're not particularly helpful. Whether you show civilian behaviour should have shit all about whether you feel threatened by me. You should be showing it even if I've got every single vote on the lynch poll.

I have been participating, although I suspect my definition of "civilian behavior" is different than yours. Where's your outrage at the lack of "civilian participation" by all the players with fewer than 5 posts?

thellama73 wrote:

Quin wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Quin wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Quin wrote: I gave you no reads, no motivations, just a cryptic post that could have lead to your death. You didn't want to inquire about any of that?

No, I didn't. And I still don't see why you think my lack of interest is the same thing as malevolence. I've asked you this several times, and as far as I understand it, you haven't answered.

It wasn't a lack of interest. It was complacency. I've said this probably three times now, don't act like I haven't.

Very well, why is complacency an indicator of malevolence?

There are more baddie traits than malevolence, llama. I made a statement entailing an intention to lynch one of two people (one of which was you) and you did not care because of all the good things I'd had to say about you prior. A baddie does that. A civilian says 'hang on, this guy has said nothing at all but threatened me or DDL with a vote. What are his motivations? I want to talk about this while I'm still alive.'

You are asserting that a baddie is more apt to be complacent than a civilian. I reject that assertion, and believe that you have provided no evidence for it.

I didn't feel threatened by you. I was quite confident I would survive. I rather assumed you would reveal your reasons before voting, and was surprised when you didn't. But I felt no need to address your original comment. I still feel no need to address it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:If Eloh role blocked me, but Boomslang's survival was the result of a doctor protection, it would probably mean Elohcin calling me out wasn't an attempt at a frame job. That would make her civilian. Any reason I shouldn't think this?

If all of these assumptions are granted, sure. I'm not certain we have the data necessary to just call Elohcin a roleblocker (for either faction). She emerged into this day phase with two primary comments of relevance:

1. Appreciative of my reviewing of the progression of votes on Day 1, which included a lengthy description of Quin emerging looking less than stellar.

2. She is suspicious of Quin.

My inclination is to tie these together -- she agreed with the concerns I expressed about Quin's vote and expressed suspicion accordingly. Elohcin, please correct me if this is not accurate.

thellama73 wrote:

Quin wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Quin wrote: I gave you no reads, no motivations, just a cryptic post that could have lead to your death. You didn't want to inquire about any of that?

No, I didn't. And I still don't see why you think my lack of interest is the same thing as malevolence. I've asked you this several times, and as far as I understand it, you haven't answered.

It wasn't a lack of interest. It was complacency. I've said this probably three times now, don't act like I haven't.

Very well, why is complacency an indicator of malevolence?

thellama73 wrote:

Quin wrote: I gave you no reads, no motivations, just a cryptic post that could have lead to your death. You didn't want to inquire about any of that?

No, I didn't. And I still don't see why you think my lack of interest is the same thing as malevolence. I've asked you this several times, and as far as I understand it, you haven't answered.