The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:Quin, in your view, what is the correlation between someone not responding to a couple of your posts, and being a member of the mafia team?

Oversimplified question. Try again.

thellama73 wrote:I don't see any reason why begging you to lynch Dragon instead of me would have ben a civ move. In fact, I did not assume you would vote for Dragon. Nor did I assume you'd vote for me. I just didn't particularly care who you voted for.

Brzzzz. Never said that's what I wanted from you.

Quin wrote:@3J - I said I'd break the tie. DDL aside - for llama, that's significant, not only because it tells him that I'm keen on lynching one of the two of them, but because it tells them I have a reason to want to be involved in that wagon-war beyond what my posts showed at the time. Llama acknowledged neither of those things even though he was right there in the thread and had every reason to. I was just waiting for civilian behaviour from him, and I got none.

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?

thellama73 wrote:
Quin wrote: Yes. Especially happy because there was more to that post and you just chose not to address it. You gave me what I wanted and nothing more than that. You don't care. You're not open to discourse. You're bad.
I'm extremely open to discourse but I'm not interested in playing baiting games with you, where you call me bad if I refuse to answer your questions in exactly the way you want. It's not how I play. Don't like it? Lynch me. Oh wait, you can't. :P

linki JJJ: I wouldn't presume to say what you should have obviously known. I took it as a joke, possibly because I know Marmot quite well. I wouldn't demand thta you have a similar interpretation, but I don't think Marmot would have expected anyone to take him seriously, including you.

I'm not playing baiting games. I'm giving you opportunities to show a civilian mindset and you're failing at every opportunity. I couldn't care less about *what* you said at either opportunity. You could have told me to shut the fuck up and I'd be content because at least I know you've acknowledged the post. The thing I dislike is that both times you didn't say anything. That's my gripe.

The first time, I think that because I'd been giving you good signs all day, you were content thinking I'd have voted to save you. You didn't even inquire the littlest bit. For someone who had a 50 percent chance of being lynched that day, that's pretty complacent. And that's not a good thing.

The second time, right now, you're not giving the person you suspect the time of day. That shows disinterest and complacency, yet again, both bad signs.

thellama73 wrote:
Quin wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Quin wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Quin wrote:Don't ignore my posts, llama. You are bad.
I'll ignore all of your posts, and I am not bad.
Thanks for confirming that you aren't interested in confirming any validity of your case, then.
Which of your posts do you think I'm ignoring, the ones in which you postulate a ludicrous theory that the baddies wasted two of their role powers by trying to kill one of their own and then blocking themselves, taking the chance that their blocker would in turn be blocked and their own teammate would be killed?

I've read all of your posts and I'm not ignoring any of them. I just think they stink.
No, the one where I called you out for lying about being aware that I was 'baiting' you.
That's easily addressed. I wasn't lying. Happy?

Yes. Especially happy because there was more to that post and you just chose not to address it. You gave me what I wanted and nothing more than that. You don't care. You're not open to discourse. You're bad.

linki: I'll look through his posts again later, I'm failing at marinating chicken breasts right now. Right now I'll say I don't suspect him.

thellama73 wrote:
Quin wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Quin wrote:Don't ignore my posts, llama. You are bad.
I'll ignore all of your posts, and I am not bad.
Thanks for confirming that you aren't interested in confirming any validity of your case, then.
Which of your posts do you think I'm ignoring, the ones in which you postulate a ludicrous theory that the baddies wasted two of their role powers by trying to kill one of their own and then blocking themselves, taking the chance that their blocker would in turn be blocked and their own teammate would be killed?

I've read all of your posts and I'm not ignoring any of them. I just think they stink.

No, the one where I called you out for lying about being aware that I was 'baiting' you.

thellama73 wrote:
Quin wrote:Don't ignore my posts, llama. You are bad.
I'll ignore all of your posts, and I am not bad.

Thanks for confirming that you aren't interested in confirming any validity of your case, then.

Don't ignore my posts, llama. You are bad.

Long Con wrote:
Quin wrote:By the way, one of the people under the most scrutiny isn't gonna submit the kill when he's most likely to be targeted by civilian roles, especially role blockers.
You have the most scrutiny?

Absolutely.

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.

Another thing to consider is that since the first possibility could very well be what happened, we shouldn't read Boomslang either way based on his survival. I'm hesitant to believe the baddies would give us a free town clear for something like this.

Sorsha did essentially the same thing in ASOUE. That's another thing.

By the way, one of the people under the most scrutiny isn't gonna submit the kill when he's most likely to be targeted by civilian roles, especially role blockers.

Enjoy that delicious bucket of WIFOM

Scotty 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.
Ah.

So you're saying we should lynch you, and when you turn up as the civ role blocker, we'll lynch Elo right after, eh?

I can get behind that.

Because this:
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?
Is not somebody that looks happy that no one died last night.

Since role claiming is not disallowed, but only discouraged, I see we have a state of if/then. Because I also inferred that Elo blocked you from her post

No, that wasn't what I was inferring. And I wasn't referring at all to the fact that someone survived a kill in that post, because I wasn't involved.

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.

Oh, this is interesting.

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?

hey inh plz answer my question before llama kills me and it all gets swept under the rug

thellama73 wrote:I think it's hilarious that Quin's only reason for voting me was that I refused to take his clearly offered bait. Llama don't like being manipulated.

I also think Quin is probably lying.

Quin feels good about me:
Quin on January 12 at 5:47 PM wrote: I agree with this sentiment. Feeling okay about llama today. I thought I was seeing an association between this game and bad llama in the latest burglary, in which he attacked Made for being too enthusiastic, but Made was indy there so he may have been legitimately hunting to a degree there.

A couple of hours later, Quin feels ambivalent about me:
Quin on January 12 at 8:29 PM wrote: I've seen both civ and scum moments from Scotty and llama. Although, Scotty's is more of a 'I find this suspicious, but he seems genuine in his justification' thing.
But then forty minutes after that, Quin appears to feel good about me again:
Quin on January 12 at 9:10 PM wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What I like about llama is that he has drawn attention to himself deliberately and doesn't seem to give a damn. He made the game's first accusation, he assumed a confident posture in that read, and then he placed the game's first vote. At face value I like that kind of behavior.
I dig all of this. I won't even put my tinfoil hat on.
Then votes start coming in, some for me, some for DDL. Note that Quin has not discussed me as a suspect at all for 22 hours. Quin then says this:

Quin on January 13 at 7:10 PM wrote:I might just break that tie.
Now here's where it gets interesting. Quin now claims that this was a test that I failed by not responding. Why failing to respond to this post makes me more likely to be bad remains unexplained, but that is Quin's claimed motivaion for his vote, which came just 46 minutes later.

Quin on January 13 at 7:56 PM wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Voting DDL to break the tie.
Voting llama to retie it.
What happened in the thread during that time? Not much. Me and MM played an "answer a question with a question" game. The only significant event is that MM voted for DDL, putting pressure on a baddie and his teammates.

DDL certainly didn't respond to Quin's "test" any more than I did, but Quin gave him a free pass for that. What exactly was I supposed to say to pass the "test" anyway? This all feels very disinegnuous to me, especially given the lack of suspicion Quin showed for me before votes started pouring in. Quin might be my top contender for tomorrow's vote.

Clear contradiction. Pick a stance. Hopefully pick the one that's true. And I don't believe you saw me baiting you specifically from that post. You aren't that insightful. You're making yourself look good using hindsight as a weapon. Nah. If I hadn't said anything you'd have no idea what I was thinking.

And I didn't expect DDL to respond to me. He wasn't in the thread. You were. And you're the only one I saw any baddie tells from.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:@Quin

Was there a moment before your pledge to break the tie when your read on llama shifted for the worse?
Not really, but the voices in my head told me to test him.
What are your strongest reads right now, civilian and mafia?

I think Sorsha and Epi are civ, and llama is bad. I'd have put a civ read on INH too, if it weren't for his awkward change of heart. I'll see where his response takes me.

What are yours?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:@Quin

Was there a moment before your pledge to break the tie when your read on llama shifted for the worse?

Not really, but the voices in my head told me to test him.

@3J - I said I'd break the tie. DDL aside - for llama, that's significant, not only because it tells him that I'm keen on lynching one of the two of them, but because it tells them I have a reason to want to be involved in that wagon-war beyond what my posts showed at the time. Llama acknowledged neither of those things even though he was right there in the thread and had every reason to. I was just waiting for civilian behaviour from him, and I got none. I was cool with INH's llama thoughts too, so there's that as well. Still waiting to hear an explanation for his shifting read on llama, though. That's not going away, INH.

I see no reason why today should influence on my read on llama. They could easily be teammates. Hell, Llama threw a civ read at the guy for 'sounding civ' and all DDL had with him was fluff. Meh.

I just like to be controversial.

Jean Genie wrote:Right lads, ya got lucky this time, but all 'n all, I think yer performance is bloody sub par.

Best step it up and start gettin' to the real nitty gritty scritti politti or you'll be as gone as yesterday's fish and chip papers.

There's a right few folk who haven't even had a proper butchers yet, so sharpen yer mince pies and get busy, sods!

Hey, why don't I trust you?

STOP RUBBING THE JEANS

insertnamehere wrote:
Quin wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:huh. well. looks like I need to re-assess some things and watch La Jetee on Flimstruck.

I'm not gonna lie, the result of this day left me breathless. Hopefully Llama forgives the contempt from earlier. Not sure what to think about the band of outsiders who voted alongside me for Llama. But still, it's my life to live, and my vote to give, so I'm still gonna defend the logic I used when I wrote a case against Llama. Anywho, I'll have more to say over the course of the week end.
Why does a baddie DDL flip clear llama? I don't see the posts in either guys ISO's that would point to that.
I don't think Llama is cleared by any means, but I'm not quite as hot on him as I was before DDL's flip-eroo.

Why?

insertnamehere wrote:huh. well. looks like I need to re-assess some things and watch La Jetee on Flimstruck.

I'm not gonna lie, the result of this day left me breathless. Hopefully Llama forgives the contempt from earlier. Not sure what to think about the band of outsiders who voted alongside me for Llama. But still, it's my life to live, and my vote to give, so I'm still gonna defend the logic I used when I wrote a case against Llama. Anywho, I'll have more to say over the course of the week end.

Why does a baddie DDL flip clear llama? I don't see the posts in either guys ISO's that would point to that.

why do i do this to myself

Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:When I said I'd break the tie, I expected llama to at least acknowledge it, since he was one of the two I'd be voting to lynch. I think he was complacent enough to give it a pass based on my earlier posts about him.

I also think the contradiction people suspect DDL for isn't of value. That's who he is, I know that much. I also think he'd have a new energy here if he was bad, considering he often complains about how he never rolls bad here.
Why speak up now? What value is this comment at this stage?

Didn't feel like it at the time. The assumption that he'd have a new energy thing came recently and was what made me connect it into a worthwhile thought in his favour.

Epignosis wrote:You all have forgotten that my vote is still in play.

Yeah, but I don't count on you for anything

When I said I'd break the tie, I expected llama to at least acknowledge it, since he was one of the two I'd be voting to lynch. I think he was complacent enough to give it a pass based on my earlier posts about him.

I also think the contradiction people suspect DDL for isn't of value. That's who he is, I know that much. I also think he'd have a new energy here if he was bad, considering he often complains about how he never rolls bad here.

thellama73 wrote:
Quin wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Voting DDL to break the tie.
Voting llama to retie it.
Have you even expressed suspicion of me before now?

Nope.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Voting DDL to break the tie.

Voting llama to retie it.

I might just break that tie.

You're expecting me to come out guns blazing at the onset of suspicion, Boomslang. He used the wrong word to describe my posts, and I told him I thought he was wrong. He elaborated, so I elaborated in turn. It's not 'deflecting' if I address the point, either, so there's another instance of people using buzz words that don't fit. I think to say now that you think LC's point had merit shows that you didn't really evaluate what you read, because whatever point he made was quickly refuted, and even he didn't pursue it. Unless, of course, you want to tell me that my three posts were insistent, even with my elaboration of their contexts.

about Sorsha - Maybe I can rephrase, because I was painting it a bit too cut and dry. If Sorsha is being legitimate about not being around, she'd say so. That doesn't really say anything about whether she's good or bad, just that she wasn't around. If she didn't bring it up, it heavily points to the idea that she was around, and it adds value to 3J's thought process.

Boomslang, did you read the entire discourse between me and LC? I struggle to see how you can be on board with the 'boosting my post count' idea if you had done so.

I also disagree with your stance on 3J. I'd ideally have done the same thing, because it allows Sorsha to confirm or deny whether she was watching the thread without realising it.

Long Con wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Long Con wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Long Con wrote:Ought I?
Do whatever you like. I find your post evasive though.
Well, since we're making inferences these days, I infer that you think I am being evasive because I'm bad. Allow me to correct you. I am not being evasive, I just usually need to play a bit longer before getting reads. I liked your Sorsha paragraph, and when I looked over the rest of Day Zero, I found nothing that inspired much of a read on anyone.

Linki: Quin, my biggest vibe is the way you reacted to me disagreeing with your viewpoint. It's not a good look.
I can believe that you'd have few meaningful reads. It's very early. Why did you elect to skip Quin's question about this though and wait until my prodding to answer it?
My direct answer to Quin's question would have downplayed the oddness of his attitude toward me. I think it was more illuminating to focus on that attitude.

Not a lot of baddie vibes yet. Feel good vibes about most of the 'Hunters' but I don't really let that affect my suspicions that much. It's like, I feel good about them because they're active, and I feel suspicious because they could easily do that as a baddie. A baddie can do it if they're experienced and good at Mafia. All the people doing it fall under that category.

There's no reason we couldn't have had both conversations at once.

You're spending time answering as to why you wouldn't answer me rather than discussing my attitude, which is...why you didn't answer me. Meh.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Long Con wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Long Con wrote:Ought I?
Do whatever you like. I find your post evasive though.
Well, since we're making inferences these days, I infer that you think I am being evasive because I'm bad. Allow me to correct you. I am not being evasive, I just usually need to play a bit longer before getting reads. I liked your Sorsha paragraph, and when I looked over the rest of Day Zero, I found nothing that inspired much of a read on anyone.

Linki: Quin, my biggest vibe is the way you reacted to me disagreeing with your viewpoint. It's not a good look.
I can believe that you'd have few meaningful reads. It's very early. Why did you elect to skip Quin's question about this though and wait until my prodding to answer it?

It's because people fear the Jagged Toothed JimmyJay.

Biggest?

What is your smallest, and your middlest?

And if you don't have 'reads' you can just substitute it for 'vibes'.

I'd still like to know what your reads are.

Long Con wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Long Con wrote:
I take it your reads are currently pretty cut and dry? What are they?
This is an unusually defensive reaction, and I don't see how it follows my disagreement with your viewpoint on JJJ's reads.
You ought to answer his questions.
Ought I?

thellama73 wrote:Long Con has been moved into the Hunters column.
That was easier than I thought.

Yes please.

Long Con wrote:
Quin wrote:
Long Con wrote:
Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin's immediate response to being given an early positive read was to poke me about it. I like.
The fact that I was one of the eight names doesn't matter at all actually. I'm curious because I think there should be some instance of overlap with that many people.
You are very insistent on that point. I disagree.
'Insistent' is painting the conversation in the wrong light.

Three posts about the same thing.
Quin wrote:I notice that there's no overlap. You should talk about that.

Quin wrote:I just think it's worth noting that of the eight people (about half the roster) you got something from, none of them gave you anything but a one-way read.

Quin wrote:The fact that I was one of the eight names doesn't matter at all actually. I'm curious because I think there should be some instance of overlap with that many people.
"Insistent" is very accurate. Why is it the wrong light? What, exactly, is your problem with this analysis?

I take it your reads are currently pretty cut and dry? What are they?
This is an unusually defensive reaction, and I don't see how it follows my disagreement with your viewpoint on JJJ's reads.

1. Asking to talk about a thing a noticed.
2. An elaboration of my original point.
3. A clarification about what my point was, because 3J misinterpreted it. This post wouldn't have existed if it didn't have to.

So yes, the wrong light.

And my reaction was based on the inference that if you disagree with me, you probably sit in the same camp as 3J where your reads aren't muddled with both civ and scum behaviours. It wasn't even a defence.

I felt good about her 'look at this clusterfuck of WIFOM' defence. It sounds honest enough.

Not voting Sorsha.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What I like about llama is that he has drawn attention to himself deliberately and doesn't seem to give a damn. He made the game's first accusation, he assumed a confident posture in that read, and then he placed the game's first vote. At face value I like that kind of behavior.

I dig all of this. I won't even put my tinfoil hat on.

Long Con wrote:
Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin's immediate response to being given an early positive read was to poke me about it. I like.
The fact that I was one of the eight names doesn't matter at all actually. I'm curious because I think there should be some instance of overlap with that many people.
You are very insistent on that point. I disagree.

'Insistent' is painting the conversation in the wrong light. I take it your reads are currently pretty cut and dry? What are they?

thellama73 wrote:
Quin wrote: I've seen both civ and scum moments from Scotty and llama.
That's just the way I like it. Keeps me from getting NKed too early.

nekk minute

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin's immediate response to being given an early positive read was to poke me about it. I like.
The fact that I was one of the eight names doesn't matter at all actually. I'm curious because I think there should be some instance of overlap with that many people.
Are there any players in your own reads that would represent that sort of overlap for you?

I've seen both civ and scum moments from Scotty and llama. Although, Scotty's is more of a 'I find this suspicious, but he seems genuine in his justification' thing.

Although I'm prodding you based on a projection of myself onto you, so it's understandable that your thoughts just aren't meshing with mine at the moment.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin's immediate response to being given an early positive read was to poke me about it. I like.

The fact that I was one of the eight names doesn't matter at all actually. I'm curious because I think there should be some instance of overlap with that many people.

Search found 266 matches