The Syndicate

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:So let's say we eliminate the Troupe today.

Game continues, right? Unless the cult already has majority, in which case everybody wins?

No, I'm very confident that there's 2 baddies left.

Quin

You are completely wrong about everything.

Although it is possible there could be two baddies left lol.

But sig is not one of them, in any world, on any planet. I trust him as much as I trust Jack, and for essentially the same reasons.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:So let's say we eliminate the Troupe today.

Game continues, right? Unless the cult already has majority, in which case everybody wins?

sig wrote:You should with my record.
don't be salty I lynched one of your teammates, you win as a group anyway I'd assume.

@Golden if we had two mafia members left who'd you think they were?

sig wrote:

Golden wrote:It definitely clears Dom. Jack and Quin too. MP's been claiming indy, it's clear which. He is also clearing Daisy, with a clear mechanical reason for why he could (and hey, why wouldn't MP want his wife on side!). That leaves Sorsha.

Sorsha is the droid we are looking for.

Agreed and if Sorsha isn't the right role, it must be MP/Daisy.

@Quin since Dom mafia would have no reason to stop your lynch. Plus I already civ read him.

sig wrote:

Quin wrote:

sig wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

sig wrote: Sorsha = Her profile is a cat and cats are mean.

That's a dog wearing glasses

No that is where you're wrong. It's a cat dressed up like a dog with glasses on.
If it is a dog why does it have glasses????? Poor site or an excuse for why it keeps targeting civs.

linki: Dom is now for sure my favorite player.

There is no case or points agaisnt me. You say I want the bowl gone, which isn't the case I just think voting so much on it and who might has it is bad for the civs. all your other points revovled around me being Ishmael and you not wanting me lynched.

You literally said earlier you wanted to vote either jack or Ishmael because one of them have the bowl. Then you said I have to be wrong because you thought jack had it, not lc. Now you're saying voting for that reason isn't worth it, but you put a vote down based on that.

You think lc has it, because golden told you he did. Golden told you he did because he thinks I told him he did. You don't want a civ alive who you cant kill. You're bad, sig.

I did want to vote for jakc since he was annoying me, but in hindsight he isn't a baddie, and I wouldn't mind lynched an Indy, but if I can go for mafia or the head I'll do it.

For LC, I've been trying to get people to lynch LC all phase. Notice my giant cases agaisnt him? This is just me voting the way my cases lead me. Plus if he isn't mafia he is an Indy, which isn't a huge loss for anyone.

sig wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

sig wrote: Sorsha = Her profile is a cat and cats are mean.

That's a dog wearing glasses

No that is where you're wrong. It's a cat dressed up like a dog with glasses on.
If it is a dog why does it have glasses????? Poor site or an excuse for why it keeps targeting civs.

linki: Dom is now for sure my favorite player.

There is no case or points agaisnt me. You say I want the bowl gone, which isn't the case I just think voting so much on it and who might has it is bad for the civs. all your other points revovled around me being Ishmael and you not wanting me lynched.

sig wrote:

Quin wrote:

sig wrote:Btw Anybody who doesn't laugh at my jokey post is getting killed tonight.

Also I thought Jack had the bowl why do you care if I through a vote at LC?

Also I don't like Quin wanting to lynch me, maybe if they hadn't have been all clandestine "we have BTSC just follow us" type junk all day we'd have gotten something out of this day.

I could go with a Sorsha vote I guess, unless something pops up tonight. I do think we have at least two baddies left though.

linki:

Nah. Too much happened today for sig to have sorsha I the front of his mind. He has credibility as long as I'm alive, he's gonna milk that with as many mislynches as he can.

I do have to say I wish I was scum, this would be my best mafia game ever if I was, buuuut I'd have also killed Poe by know and gotten Violet out for sure, though i guess she could be gone we never know.

Though TS is mean to me, I've only been scum three times here.

Also I thought I was Ishmael why the change of heart?

sig wrote:Btw Anybody who doesn't laugh at my jokey post is getting killed tonight.

Also I thought Jack had the bowl why do you care if I through a vote at LC?

Also I don't like Quin wanting to lynch me, maybe if they hadn't have been all clandestine "we have BTSC just follow us" type junk all day we'd have gotten something out of this day.

I could go with a Sorsha vote I guess, unless something pops up tonight. I do think we have at least two baddies left though.

linki:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:Lets hope LC survives. If he doesn't, and we don't immediately follow up with a lynch on sig or Dom, you civs are terrible.

No

Dom wrote:

Quin wrote:Why the HELL does LC have two votes? Epi, do me a favour and lynch me will you?

how did you know to come in the thread
i thought you were out for the night?

sig wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

sig wrote:Are you going to answer any of my questions or nah?

Why do I think Quin isn't scum? How could I possibly know Olaf doesn't have the bowl?

Those questions?

Gee, idk. Gut?

Frankly I'll lay it all out, I can see one role you could be with any amount of info, you saying Quin isn't scum proves that role isn't yours. It also doesn't explain your and LC lockclearing junk. I'm tempted to vote for you or Lc since I'd bet one of you have the bowl. You'd have to bet at least say 5 or 6 votes so it would be quite easy to tie it.


Also Olaf not having the bowl has very little to do with anything, you voting for someone who you don't think is scum and pushing their wagon is an issue. If you thought MP was mafia why not vote for him?

If we assume Ishmael has BTSC (which we can't) then if we assume he recruited say Olivia Caliban, who is quin and got a check on MP, which turned up red, would be the only reason for this. Even then it is very an indirect and stupid way to do it. Not to mention it wouldn't find Olaf.

In theory Quin could be a converted Klaus, but the same logic applies why waste a phase lynching him, when you could have pursued and probably lynched MP?

There is no way in almost any world that LC and Jack are civs, they might not be mafia sure, but at this point non civs are just as dangerous espacilly if they're acting like this.

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:There is a pretty obvious reason why I wanted such a long wagon.

There is no obvious reason for why you wanted to die, though.

sig wrote:This vote is probably the dumbest shit I've seen. Everyone is acting like a cry baby and being over dramatic and not actually explaining anything. The fact we have 8 votes on one player means we aren't hitting mafia it's that simple. None of the mafia we've taken out this game has had this wide margins. The scum is totally screwing us over, I'm betting somehow Quin, Jack, and LC are mafia. Quin is Olaf he will appear as a role of their choice. Or theyre the cult and don't care if the civs loose. Since why attack Golden then vote that way? Why not vote MP if he is so obviously bad? Why vote for someone who is GOOD on your list? Unless your Klaus with info or Violet sent you a check then there is no reason to be so sure.

There is also no reason to create an 8 person deep wagon, AND why are we lynching someone who voted for themselves never vote for someone who wants to be lynched.
I can only hope Poe takes out the right player tonight.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Ok why did I spend the last 1:30 catching up on a mafia game?

Let's go eat.

And then play pokemon.

Fuck yeah Bayleaf. Favorite awkward teenage evolution.

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Even Quin voted for Quin.

This isn't even on the table anymore.

God, I hope this isn't another Dom situation.

It is another Dom situation. But it's one that should give us information, maybe... hopefully. Or even end the game.

Quin is claiming to be a bomb that will also take out MP.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Don't tell us that we "suddenly" thought Quin wasn't bad. My rainbow list far preceded your little spat with him last night.

But that's fine. You're probably right. Quin is so bad, and you have a fantastic read on MP. I'm going to trust you on this one, Golden old pal.

*votes Quin* I don't have to tell you how bad I feel.

What the hell is this?

I have a bad feeling Quin is town, we're all being played by at least someone, and everyone's going to prime to lynch me tomorrow.

MovingPictures07 wrote:"I think MP is bad because he's obviously Indy"

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:That was painful reading. I got nothing out of it. It's also hard to put any stock in Golden's perspective and early vote because he did the same thing to me last phase.

I see a similar Quin that I saw in Mad Max. I think dom's observation of Quin declaring me bad and then proceeding to argue Golden is disingenuous and bad is a good one as well. He seems like a desperate baddie willing to discredit and try to make an argument seem town vs town but personally I don't think it is.

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:You were the one who tried to twist my response (that what you expect from a civilian is what I would expect from a baddie) into fitting into the larger argument.

What?

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:No. You're just backpedaling. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

There's another one of those words. Backpedalling. What have I backpedalled on?

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

The underlined bit does not relate to this conversation. No, Golden, it does not.

Really? Then explain this:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

This is just ad hominem and pointless. All three things might mean the same thing, but none of them are anything like what you said, and that's the point. It's like you just keep avoiding the point I'm actually making.

I am literally grabbing the point you're making by the throat and screaming my response into it's face.

You're going to have to elaborate.

You're the one who is claiming that the directness of your answer (and the fact the answer I was looking for from a civilian is 'the same thing three times') is relevant. I didn't bring it up. Why you think it was relevant enough to throw at me then and irrelevant now?

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:OK then, what is the point I'm trying to make?

You're saying that there's a contradiction between my believing in one conclusion and discussing alternatives.

I'll take it. You try to reduce it to generic rather than specific, but I can give that a pass...

Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

I reduced it to what it was. I'm cutting the bias out of it.

You aren't cutting the bias out of it. I have no bias against you at all. You are cutting the facts out of it. So let me say what my point actually is in detail, rather than in summary.

This whole post is riddled with bias. You're making statements behind your own interpretations. That is what bias is. But whatever, let's go.

My point is that you are not being intellectually honest, because there is a contradiction not only in the words but in the way you talk about them between the way in which you expressed how sig could be on the troupe through several posts, and then the way you went on to explain how strongly you believe sig is ishmael.

There is no contradiction in the words. I asked you for them, you showed me nothing. I gave you a direct answer to a direct question. You expected indirect, blendy, assuring statements from a civilian? That doesn't make sense. I can say 'No, I think x' and still be open to alternatives. Don't say otherwise. A civilian doesn't have to make sure to blatantly say 'I'm open to alternatives' to actually be open to alternatives.

It's not a generic situation. I don't see any inherent contradiction between believing in a conclusion and discussing alternatives. I just don't believe that's what you were doing.

I don't believe you were 'discussing alternatives'. It reads to me like you thought you could throw a bit of mud at sig. You drilled down through several layers of that conversation, until I called you out and asked you if you actually thought he was bad, to which you replied that you did not. The whole conversation was pointless - it had no civilian aim from you. It wasn't 'discussing an alternative', it was 'dismissing golden's view that there is no chance sig is bad'. You didn't engage with my responses, you dismissed them. You only changed tack when I asked you a direct question, and then you used it to launch into something completely different, another way to smear sig, my using words such as 'case' and 'damning'.

No. If you're going to accuse me of flinging mud at sig, analyse the whole post. I even discredited my own theory by saying that Glorfindel being replaced counters is. If I'm going to attack sig, I don't do that. I did not 'dismiss' your responses. I disagreed. I told you why. Stop painting my use of the word damning as though I'm rearing to go and lynch sig. I'm not. I have made a very clear point that I don't want to lynch sig.

It looked like you wanted to have your cake and eat it too.

Then you went on to attack me (misrepresentative, illegitimate, and telling civilians to say the same thing three times) - things which made me feel like you were more interested in discrediting me than simply defending yourself.

This is exactly what I did. You misrepresented my post. (We've barely scratched the surface on that one) you have an illegitimate interpretation of my post, and the thing you expect a civilian to say in response to a direct question is exactly what I would expect from a baddie.

So yes, I'm discrediting you, because your argument deserves to be discredited. It has no truth to it.

It's about your language, Quin. The words you actually used. The way you expressed yourself. It's not about a generic principle.

Golden wrote:Why would a team not say yes?

Because it would be outright stupidity in a team of four, with a night kill only every alternate night, and three other killers out there. I don't believe a single soul left in this game would go for it. I'm certain sig wouldn't, he plays a smart tactical game.

I've been in a game of this size with seven players on my team but only alternate kills and the numbers were terrifying. When you can lose one (or more) players on any given night to nightkills, you need all the numbers you can get.

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

The underlined bit does not relate to this conversation. No, Golden, it does not.

Really? Then explain this:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

This is just ad hominem and pointless. All three things might mean the same thing, but none of them are anything like what you said, and that's the point. It's like you just keep avoiding the point I'm actually making.

I am literally grabbing the point you're making by the throat and screaming my response into it's face.

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:OK then, what is the point I'm trying to make?

You're saying that there's a contradiction between my believing in one conclusion and discussing alternatives.

I'll take it. You try to reduce it to generic rather than specific, but I can give that a pass...

Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:I do claim that. Because there is actually no way you could legitimately interpret any accusation from that post. Show me a single word, structure, syntax, whatever the hell terms literary geniuses use that points towards me accusing you. You cannot. Because I didn't.

I'm not claiming you were accusing him of anything. I'm claiming you were muddying the waters by raising a possibility you didn't believe in.

No. You said numerous time that I was flinging poo at both you and sig. People talk about opinions they don't have all the time. Again, it's a core element of all dialogue. If I had the time, I'd go through the thread and point out every single time it's happened. The fact that you're narrowing down on this weak-ass thing is not reading well to me.

And I already explained why your possibility is thoroughly unlikely. Remember this conversation, in which you said there was 'no good reason' not to think it could be true?

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

It got sig a pretty strong town read from you, so if that's the case then it's not such a bad strategy after all. I did almost the same thing when I subbed into Mad Max in the early game.

And sig nearly got murdered by the Guardians...

We only ever lynched one member of the Guardians. The rest were nightkilled. This is the math you are playing with here. There's no room for bussing needlessly.

You say there is 'no good reason' to think it didn't happen. There are plenty of good reasons to think it didn't happen. As I say, sig's behaviour has nothing in common with a normal bus. You are suggesting there's no reason to suggest you wouldn't bus a teammate because they asked for it.

Do you actually think this is what happened?

Why would not team say yes? Is it a moral issue? What? There are a load of factors you aren't considering. His reason for subbing out, the teams state in the thread, whether they need civ cred, the list goes on.

I mean, in all seriousness Quin, do you really believe that a teammate would choose to start bussing another teammate on day one, by himself, without provocation, without need, when the numbers are so precarious to begin with, and then continue to push it after the sub comes in, to the point that he gets said teammate lynched on a day when it would have been unnecessary? Why do you think that is any way a logical proposition that there is 'no good reason' to consider unlikely?

They could. It's dependent on the state of the baddie team, and as I said, there's a whole lot of factors that would go into that kind of decision. You don't know if there was no provocation, because if you're civ, then you're not in the baddie chat. If the circumstances were appropriate, I'd do it. Therefore it is logical.

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:I do claim that. Because there is actually no way you could legitimately interpret any accusation from that post. Show me a single word, structure, syntax, whatever the hell terms literary geniuses use that points towards me accusing you. You cannot. Because I didn't.

I'm not claiming you were accusing him of anything. I'm claiming you were muddying the waters by raising a possibility you didn't believe in.

No. You said numerous time that I was flinging poo at both you and sig. People talk about opinions they don't have all the time. Again, it's a core element of all dialogue. If I had the time, I'd go through the thread and point out every single time it's happened. The fact that you're narrowing down on this weak-ass thing is not reading well to me.

And I already explained why your possibility is thoroughly unlikely. Remember this conversation, in which you said there was 'no good reason' not to think it could be true?

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

It got sig a pretty strong town read from you, so if that's the case then it's not such a bad strategy after all. I did almost the same thing when I subbed into Mad Max in the early game.

And sig nearly got murdered by the Guardians...

We only ever lynched one member of the Guardians. The rest were nightkilled. This is the math you are playing with here. There's no room for bussing needlessly.

You say there is 'no good reason' to think it didn't happen. There are plenty of good reasons to think it didn't happen. As I say, sig's behaviour has nothing in common with a normal bus. You are suggesting there's no reason to suggest you wouldn't bus a teammate because they asked for it.

Do you actually think this is what happened?

Why would not team say yes? Is it a moral issue? What? There are a load of factors you aren't considering. His reason for subbing out, the teams state in the thread, whether they need civ cred, the list goes on.

I mean, in all seriousness Quin, do you really believe that a teammate would choose to start bussing another teammate on day one, by himself, without provocation, without need, when the numbers are so precarious to begin with, and then continue to push it after the sub comes in, to the point that he gets said teammate lynched on a day when it would have been unnecessary? Why do you think that is any way a logical proposition that there is 'no good reason' to consider unlikely?

They could. It's dependent on the state of the baddie team, and as I said, there's a whole lot of factors that would go into that kind of decision. You don't know if there was no provocation, because if you're civ, then you're not in the baddie chat. If the circumstances were appropriate, I'd do it. Therefore it is logical.

Golden wrote:OK then, what is the point I'm trying to make?

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

This is just ad hominem and pointless. All three things might mean the same thing, but none of them are anything like what you said, and that's the point. It's like you just keep avoiding the point I'm actually making.

Golden wrote:Here's the thing Quin - if you can't keep your brain straight, it's usually because you are bad.

Civvies don't go around throwing out end cases they don't believe in. It doesn't read like you were 'open to other possibilities' to me. If you were, your answer to 'do you think he's bad' would have been something more like 'Probably not, but I do really think it's possible, I'm keeping an open mind', instead of 'no, I think he's Ishmael, and I have a damning case to prove it'.

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:There is no way you can legitimately interpret that as anything more significant than conversation.

Also, this sentence is exactly the kind of thing I expect from a baddie.

In one breath you argue for an incredibly unlikely possibility for why sig is Troupe.

In the next you claim there is 'no way I can legitimately interpret' your post except the way you want me to.

The word 'legitimately' in particular would fail all of llama's adjective tests. Basically you're saying that if I interpret it in any other way, it's illegitimate and I'm trying to misrepresent you.

Golden wrote:

Quin wrote:

Golden wrote:How could you possibly simultaneously disagree with my assertion about why sig is not bad (on the basis of a tenuous side case of glorf actually asking to be bussed) and believe that you have a 'damning' case that he is ishmael?

You said there is no good reason for sig to be orange on LC's rainbow list. That is what I disagreed with. I can recognise alternative possibilities even while believing in one specific outcome.

But why?

I have a specific role in mind for sig, a specific role in mind for epi, a specific role in mind for DDL... given that fact, why on earth would I bother arguing for why they could be another role?

You're playing a risky game if you're locking yourself into your conclusions and not at least entertaining other options. And since we're arguing non-semantic meanings, there's a difference between 'arguing why they could be another role' and 'being open to discussing alternatives'. I was doing the latter.

I'm not blind to the fact there is the chance I'm wrong in each case (we can all recognise alternate possibilities), but, as a civilian, there is no value in talking about a very end-case scenario (the likes of which I've never heard and think is very improbable) for how someone could be bad when I don't even believe that they are. It would only serve to muddy the waters when what we really need are clean waters.

If you're not blind to the fact that you could be wrong, why are you so opposed to discussing other people's cases on the topic? This again just seems like you're locking yourself into your conclusions.

I asked you the direct question about whether you actually thought sig was bad because there appeared to be no reason at all for you to say what you did about how he could be Troupe. That's only magnified by the fact that you have a 'damning case' for why he isn't Troupe.

I can only hope that you're the only one who sees a contradiction in this. Because it quite frankly does not exist and there's a limit to the number of ways I can reiterate my points before I give up.

It doesn't seem like consistent or genuine thought patterns, to me. Just throwing seeds of doubt into the wind.

Quin wrote:I kind of don't want to clear sig of being Count Olaf, although he was one of the front-runners in the lynch against Glorfindel. He replaced out, and I still refuse to believe that it's because he wasn't able to handle the pressure of being bad. He didn't do that in Mad Max even though he was suspected relatively heavily for the majority of the game.I read in another thread (or maybe it was this one) that Glorfindel had timing issues that kept him from signing up to games. If that's true for his reasons for subbing out here, I'm open to the possibility that he asked his team to bus him before subbing out.

Basically, I'm not ruling out Glorfindel and sig being teammates.

Golden wrote:How could you possibly simultaneously disagree with my assertion about why sig is not bad (on the basis of a tenuous side case of glorf actually asking to be bussed) and believe that you have a 'damning' case that he is ishmael?