The Syndicate

nutella wrote:Guys don't freak out, LC answered somewhere that the thread lock would only be 4-6 hours.

Still good to register early votes though. I'd consider a vote for Rey since I could totally see him having killed Epi.

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok Nutella will be much simpler, no spoiler quotes. The thing with Nutella is that she always reads blends to me when she is civ. Always. And I have said before, I'll say it again, if I get good feels from Nutella, she is probably bad. If I get baddie vibes from Nutella, she is probably good. I don't like that reading back over her posts I see confident Nutella. Confident Nutella usually = Baddie Nutella. Read her posts, while she does change her mind,she doesn't read as uncertain as she does when she is a civ. They are more clear straight forward stances with less of the waffling that usually gets her lynched as a civ.

If I was putting her in a rainbow list, I would have her as orange.

I think I haven't come across as waffley this game because of its setup. We started out with a majority of players being unrecruited, so I basically assumed most people were unrecruited, rather than being pressured into having civ or baddie reads of people, which are always difficult early in the game. It's not that I'm not uncertain about a lot of players, it's that the things I've been talking about are the things I have stronger convictions about. In more typical games that start out with full civvie and baddie teams, there's a lot more pressure in the thread to decide on stuff like rainbow lists and a definitive perspective on players who are under scrutiny, and that's the stuff that I tend to waffle on and get in trouble for (and btw @ Lorab yes in fact I have still been getting lynched as a civ for these reasons in the last couple games I've played recently). In this game I'm just observing things on my own, and there are certainly players/topics of discussion in the thread that I don't have strong opinions of either way.

That said, I don't agree with your suspicion of Unfurl, I think she is genuine.

This answer made me feel miles better about you. It was the set up with neutrals at the start that kept me from feeling 100% about you, and I didn't mention it because I wanted to see how you would respond. This rings true to me.

Lorab, your response about her age doesn't hold water for me because in the recent games I have played with her this meta has still been there. That is not to say her game play hasn't evolved, she is a great player for sure, but even in the last game I played with her she herself admitted to this meta? She was explaining why she comes across blendy, they didn't believe her, she got lynched and flipped civ.

Ok Nutella will be much simpler, no spoiler quotes. The thing with Nutella is that she always reads blends to me when she is civ. Always. And I have said before, I'll say it again, if I get good feels from Nutella, she is probably bad. If I get baddie vibes from Nutella, she is probably good. I don't like that reading back over her posts I see confident Nutella. Confident Nutella usually = Baddie Nutella. Read her posts, while she does change her mind,she doesn't read as uncertain as she does when she is a civ. They are more clear straight forward stances with less of the waffling that usually gets her lynched as a civ.

If I was putting her in a rainbow list, I would have her as orange.

Get ready folks, this is a doozy of a post...

So I was reading tonight and felt pinged by something but did not immediately write anything down about it. Later I was trying to remember what it was and who said it, I incorrectly thought at first that it was Nutella, so I did an ISO of her posts. As a result I will share thoughts on her next. But first I remembered who it was that pinged me, unfurl. So here is my impressions after reading all her posts.

First, the two posts that pinged me big time: These two posts felt like they were disproportionate to the situation. What I mean is that low posters, though they have been discussed have not taken any serious heat until bass, and his lynch was a result of the content of his posts, not the quantity. Additionally, the comment about encouraging players to keep playing felt like emotional manipulation. Like, "don't come after me it makes me feel unwelcome here," kind of thing. It felt seriously underhanded. Now, as to her level of contribution, I don't think I agree with the idea she hasn't contributed much. In the first cycle she did not contribute, I'll touch on that more later, but from there she has asked some insightful questions of the hosts and made some accusations and stated clear suspicions for grounded reasons. So I don't think she is a non-contributor. I just really didn't like the feel of the statements she made here, they feel like emotional blackmail , so to speak.

Now going back to the beginning, I am not the only one who noted these comments from her: She has a very dismissive attitude of the idea anything useful can be learned from any kind of investigation or discussion here, I don't like this. It is not so much that she doesn't seem interested in helping, it is that her dismissive attitude comes across like a discouragement to others from doing anything other than just guessing, because we can't really figure anything out now anyway. Needle in a haystack and all. I don't like this.

Then MP brought up low posters, she immediately joked, that was fast looking forward to seeing these comments. And MP engaged her in conversation about it. This was her response to him: Note please that she says two distinct things here:
1. she understands his point and you're right, it is a good idea to get rid of people not playing because they make the game boring
2. She calls it a LMS set up

Note also: she did not make any kind of clear stand against the idea of voting low posters. In fact as the conversation between them continues it is obvious that MP is discussing with her the fact she doesn't want to talk about anything, not the low poster issue.

MP notes that she has been unwilling to talk about golden vs Epi, and now is unwilling to talk about low posters so he invites her to share what she is interested in talking about and this is her response (including their back and forth conversation): She refused to engage in any kind of conversation and in fact seems to dance around it and turn the tables to make it look like he was somehow the bad guy for asking. It's a hostile tone to me, using phrases like freedom of choice as though he is somehow threatening that freedom.

MP then voted for unfurl and here is her response: MP explained his vote and this was not the reason at all. He explained it was because he believed this early in the game a recruiter would want to be careful not to say too much and make a mistake. He also said earlier that yes he was looking at low posters but of course if he found something that might indicate to him someone is a recruiter then he would vote that way instead. You exhibited an extreme desire not to talk. you made it clear you were just going to take a guess with your vote. He made it clear he voted for you because he believed you might be a recruiter who is nervous about talking too much. But you come at him saying it's because of the low poster idea and because you were standing up to him. Which you did not clearly stand up against it until after he voted, in the following post quoting me... Before that you gave me the impression of someone who is tired of this old debate, being sarcastic jokey about it. And your response to him even seemed to be in agreement with him to some extent.

Now your response to my post: Wait, what? Rewind. You said to MP earlier this IS a LMS set up. Then you say to me this is NOT a LMS set up. You never said any of this about low posters being easy targets, etc. I feel like there are some direct contradictions here from your earlier statements.

Now I want to be fair here, so I will say this is an extremely good point we need to remember. Roles can be recruited by any team, so any messages in thread should always be taken with a grain of salt. This was a very civ minded comment IMO: I feel like there is a good amount of contradiction in the things unfurl has said. Additionally, she was very reticent to even try to have a conversation, which was flat out weird. And her posts after bass was lynched felt like emotional manipulation to me, and I did not like it one bit. That said, she has asked some good civ minded questions of the hosts and she has made a good point regarding message roles. So she is a bit of a mixed bag. At the moment I would call her a contender for my vote, in fact I will put it there for now since votes are changeable, but I am not 100% certain it will stay there yet.

Registering a vote for unfurl.

I agree. I think that the only people who benefit from the civs not communicating are the baddies. Rainbow lists are no better or worse than back and forth conversation about suspicions or lists of people's reads on others, etc. I don't do them, but I don't mind them either.

Scotty, you take care of RL first and I cannot and will not fault you for that. Also, you are a lot of fun to play with, if you ask me.

I did not find it mean at all.

Bullzeye wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:He had to answer you - if he'd ignored it he'd have looked even worse. He just feels so blendy and shady to me right now, like he's drawn himself some attention he wished he didn't have and now he's trying to hide from it. I don't know if I'm explaining how I feel very well - I've been awake for 18 hours after 3 hours of sleep. His answer to you just really caught my eye in a huge way.

I understand your perspective and in many ways share it. I think we need to ask ourselves these questions to sort out the matter of Bass on Day 2:

1.) If Bass's response wasn't satisfactory, then what would a satisfactory response have looked like?

.....a.) Is the response you're imagining a reasonable expectation for a player with so few posts?

.....b.) Should we demand a player who has had limited time in the thread and faced a number of accusers have thoroughly developed reads on a lot of other players?

.....c.) Does his "no u" inclination indicate paranoia (a town tell) or deflection (a mafia tell)?

The factor which is most preventing me from giving Bass a break is that in both games I've played with him he's been mafia -- and he's behaved quite a lot like he has in this game so far.

1. If you asked me to pick 3-5 random players, I'd grab the last 3-5 posters and have a quick glance over their posts. You'd see a sentence or three of my first instincts and some kind of conclusion based on what I'd read.

a. Why shouldn't it be when he has clearly had time in the past couple of hours?

b. No. But it didn't take me long to make that 8 opinion post and for half the people on there I had to give them a good look. I hadn't really put much thought at all into Nutella, Aapje, Timmer, or Rey. Now I have vague opinions on all of them.

c. Paranoia isn't a town tell IMO. Baddies have more to be paranoid about.

It's 3am. I don't feel good at all about Bass. His responses have only made me feel worse. Therefore I'm: *Voting Bass*

I disagree entirely with the highlighted portion. I think the natural response, while I might list some cursory comments off the top of my head, I would also have commented about being put under pressure to list stuff on the spot. I mean I said outright earlier that I was having trouble feeling negative feelings about anyone. Instead he just grabbed a few people and listed a bunch of suspicions on them, it doesn't seem like a natural response to me.

Yeah, after reading back over all of Bass' posts, I'm pretty comfortable with my vote where it especially given that Golden is the other leading candidate and I don't think he should be lynched right now.

Golden wrote:I am confident it is in my best interests, and if I had my time over I would do it again. Why can't I also feel guilty about it?

I'm sick of people using honesty against me. Once again, WHY IS IT BAD FOR ME TO SAY THAT?

I don't think it is and I don't think you should feel guilty either. It's a game, you played it. Own that move, not many would have been able to pull it off. But people will remember, even after this game so it comes at a sacrifice of trust. Just the way it rolls. That said, I don't feel anything you have said is disingenuous.

Ok, I've been reading and trying to decide who to vote for. Right now I am leaning a bass vote, because he feels like he is trying to get attention to anywhere but himself, and is shooting for the low hanging fruit. I'm going to register a vote for bass but I'm going to go back and read over his posts to be sure I'm as comfortable with it as I feel at this moment.

Where is Russti? He has been quiet for a while. Did we have a silencer in position last night or something?

Does the poll actually close at the time listed or does it close earlier? I thought the last day got closed early so I am trying to sort out if the day is shorter than it appears.

Canuck, I have refreshed my last read and see now what pinged you about me, however there is a simple enough explanation. earlier in the game, DH asked me a question that struck me as odd, when I asked him why and said how it came across to me, he told me he was looking for my thoughts. So when DH asked me that question about recruiting Golden I assumed he was asking for the same reasons and just gave him my thoughts. Perhaps he was kidding around, I don't know. Only he could answer that. I didn't feel overly srsbsn though,I just answered the question put to me by sharing my thoughts since that's what he was looking for last time.

nutella wrote:DrW kind of reminds me of Merlin the Wizzard. *wipes tear*

That is a high compliment Dr.Wilgy! Merlin is a good guy, and very humorius writer. Miss that guy.

Canuck, I don't recall seeing your ping against me, I'll have to try and find it later to respond, getting ready for work now.

I really don't agree with the assessment this is not civs vs baddies. just because it's not fully formed teams yet doesn't change the set up.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing the lectures to Golden. He pulled a ballsy move and it either worked or he is deceiving us majorly. If you think it is the former than drop it and move on. What is done is done. If you think it is the latter then vote for him. But I'm tired of discussing it. SVS, you are the only one I am not directing this to because you seem to be saying you don't recognize this as a normal Golden move. I respect what you are saying. I can even agree that this doesn't seem in character, but not just for civ golden, but baddie golden as well. But I just think he is most likely neutral. Who would recruit him right now anyway?

Vote for MP or don't, it's up to you. But he is not lying when he says he wouldn't recruit me first. And vice versa. I'm not going to defend him getting emotional, but I can say this isn't a faked thing. He has some decisions to make about what he wants to do in the future, but as for this game I don't personally see anything that makes me feel the desire to vote for him.

I'm sorry Typhoony got killed, but I think the outcry is a bit much. What you basically are saying is that it's ok to kill Metalmarsh or whoever else first but not someone who hasn't played in a while. Everyone playing really was looking forward to the game, so let's not start making someone out to be a horrible human being because of their choice of kill. And no, it wasn't me, but I've been in a spot where people went off about a game decision I made that wasn't personal, it was purely game strategy because I was playing the game as it was intended and it can be really hurtful to hear people rip you a new one without knowing its you or being able to defend yourself because then you are outed, so I'm not ashamed to ask you all politely to lay off. And let's not unintentionally (or intentionally) say Typhoony is more important than any other player, and therefore should be given special consideration please. No offense to you Typh, I wasn't really stoked to see you go, but I feel that about the majority (if not all) of the players here. And I look forward to the chance to play with you again, I hope in the not too distant future.

I need to go to bed, I'll try to think through everyone else tomorrow. Right now I am plagued by feeling mostly positive or neutral feelings about everyone, which makes it hard to decide who to vote...

Linki @Dom: I was just about to answer that.

I don't think that was a threat, I think he was just playing around, apparently I became his dance partner without knowing it. Which is totally fine with me, as long as he doesn't mind me stepping on his feet, because I can't dance...

I'm confused. I mean I know what is going on with MP voting llama, but where are these other votes coming from? I feel like I've missed a step somewhere...

Unlikely. I think too much like Golden, I would want to build a team with various strengths if I was recruiting. Golden is my brain twin and as much as I enjoy playing with him and would love btsc with him, I wouldn't recruit him knowingly.

I saw the move he was making before Epi died. Personally, I say well played. He wanted Epi out and he made it happen, either with a kill or baiting a kill. I can't say I am glad Epi is dead necessarily, but I'm impressed.

I can get behind a vote for 3

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm glad to know you agree with most of that post, even if not all of it. There must be something wrong with me to be happy for approval from Epi...

At least Epignosis responds to your posts.

Awe I'll respond to your posts if it will make you feel better?

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm glad to know you agree with most of that post, even if not all of it. There must be something wrong with me to be happy for approval from Epi...

DH, to explain my vote more thoroughly, my initial gut response to Canuck was along the lines of, "That is exactly the mind set that will be counter productive to baddie hunting, but clearly she is neutral," but then I realized that I have no idea if she actually is neutral or justifying what would normally look like an opportunistic baddie vote by making herself appear like a neutral. And that is why I voted her.

Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.

I agree with this.

And golden, you sound extremely over emotional. It doesn't help you to threaten to kill epi no matter what alignment you or he end up in.

The attitude of this game being played as survival only produces exactly what Canuck is espousing. She doesn't want to baddie hunt, but hey that is ok, because it's all about survival and she is only a neutral. Now this is carte blanche for baddies to do whatever they want because whenever we try to analyze anything, they are just neutrals liking to survive, they don't have to actually baddie hunt. As long as they don't get lynched it is ok. Look people, the majority of us will end up being civ.

I'm voting Canuck.

Also, DH, your response made me laugh.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok people this is clearly not a LMS game. Allow me to demonstrate...

From the hosts posts:
"Win Conditions

Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1"

So Civvie group 1 can win with Civvie group 2, and they both share the same enemies. In fact their win cons are exactly the same which makes them one standard civ team in every sense of the word. The only difference is only ones of the baddie teams is out to kill them.

Additionally, they set the teams up like a traditional civ team, meaning the recruiters for the civ team get limited amount of btsc, see the below quite from the hosts posts...

"If someone gets recruited, do they gain BTSC with the Leader?

Some Civvies get BTSC with the Leader, but it is a very limited number because too much Civvie BTSC would ruin the game. Baddies always get BTSC with their recruits.."

I am rethinking my bwt vote at the moment, leaning towards one of these people who keep billing this as a no civ game when it has been made clear by the hosts in multiple ways that there are civ aligned recruiters.

Not a bad place to put your vote. What do you think of this post from TH?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

I don't like it. Just as I don't like the same type of statements from MP, Timmer, or Rox. These are all experienced players too, which I find even more concerning. However, I will say that I did not even recall that comment from TH when I made my point. The ones I have found most baffling are the people who have seemed intent on continuing to believe this or who started the belief this was the way the game is set up later in the game. Because I am not the first person to point this fact out. I would need to look back at the context of that one quote you pulled to say if I trust him more than the other people perpetuating this misconception or less to determine if he would be the person I would want to put my vote on. I find your post directed at me to be odd as TH obviously did. It looked like you wanted someone else to build a case for you.

Rico, I am well aware of the fact a large number of us are neutral, and the teams build progressively, but it doesn't change the fact that this IS a civ vs bad set up. Do you see the danger in that mind set being accepted as true? It is an easy mind set for baddies to hide in.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I can't say much at work, but one point I want to make is this: the importance of a lynch extends beyond just the alignment of the victim. Randomization ensures that a vote is not readable whatsoever and that it cannot progress the game.

Agreed. However I think the more pertinent question had already been asked. Was it actually random or was it a minor suspicion. His vote reasoning is unclear.

Motherfuckers be skeptical as fuck. When have you known me to ask anyone to build a case in my stead? I wanted your thoughts..

Never, which is why it felt so odd to me. I will read back on TH and tell you my opinion of whether or not he is a contender for my vote.

EBWOP: a lot of, not a lost

G-Man wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:

G-Man wrote: -Timmer was speaking some good truth on general topics though I can't say I follow him when he touched on specific players.

Which general topics are you referring to?

Also regarding the llama/Rico/MP stuff, are you saying you agree with Rico, and distrust the other two?

That post is nearly as unclear as your magic eight ball posts.

No clue. I'd have to go back and look at his posts but I'm at work and it's time to do some billing.

I may feel drawn more to Rico just because I think we're cut from a similar cloth. Llama plays a mustache-twirling shifty sort of game and MP peed in my face once.

Sorry?

You don't have to be sorry, I just look forward to you clarifying some more when you are able. Otherwise it felt like a post with a lost pseudo-opinions, with it offering any real, direct opinions. I would like to hear what your opinions actually are though.

G-Man wrote: -Timmer was speaking some good truth on general topics though I can't say I follow him when he touched on specific players.

Which general topics are you referring to?

Also regarding the llama/Rico/MP stuff, are you saying you agree with Rico, and distrust the other two?

That post is nearly as unclear as your magic eight ball posts.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Ok people this is clearly not a LMS game. Allow me to demonstrate...

From the hosts posts:
"Win Conditions

Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1"

So Civvie group 1 can win with Civvie group 2, and they both share the same enemies. In fact their win cons are exactly the same which makes them one standard civ team in every sense of the word. The only difference is only ones of the baddie teams is out to kill them.

Additionally, they set the teams up like a traditional civ team, meaning the recruiters for the civ team get limited amount of btsc, see the below quite from the hosts posts...

"If someone gets recruited, do they gain BTSC with the Leader?

Some Civvies get BTSC with the Leader, but it is a very limited number because too much Civvie BTSC would ruin the game. Baddies always get BTSC with their recruits.."

I am rethinking my bwt vote at the moment, leaning towards one of these people who keep billing this as a no civ game when it has been made clear by the hosts in multiple ways that there are civ aligned recruiters.

Not a bad place to put your vote. What do you think of this post from TH?

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

I don't like it. Just as I don't like the same type of statements from MP, Timmer, or Rox. These are all experienced players too, which I find even more concerning. However, I will say that I did not even recall that comment from TH when I made my point. The ones I have found most baffling are the people who have seemed intent on continuing to believe this or who started the belief this was the way the game is set up later in the game. Because I am not the first person to point this fact out. I would need to look back at the context of that one quote you pulled to say if I trust him more than the other people perpetuating this misconception or less to determine if he would be the person I would want to put my vote on. I find your post directed at me to be odd as TH obviously did. It looked like you wanted someone else to build a case for you.

Rico, I am well aware of the fact a large number of us are neutral, and the teams build progressively, but it doesn't change the fact that this IS a civ vs bad set up. Do you see the danger in that mind set being accepted as true? It is an easy mind set for baddies to hide in.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I can't say much at work, but one point I want to make is this: the importance of a lynch extends beyond just the alignment of the victim. Randomization ensures that a vote is not readable whatsoever and that it cannot progress the game.

Agreed. However I think the more pertinent question had already been asked. Was it actually random or was it a minor suspicion. His vote reasoning is unclear.

Ok people this is clearly not a LMS game. Allow me to demonstrate...

From the hosts posts:
"Win Conditions

Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1"

So Civvie group 1 can win with Civvie group 2, and they both share the same enemies. In fact their win cons are exactly the same which makes them one standard civ team in every sense of the word. The only difference is only ones of the baddie teams is out to kill them.

Additionally, they set the teams up like a traditional civ team, meaning the recruiters for the civ team get limited amount of btsc, see the below quite from the hosts posts...

"If someone gets recruited, do they gain BTSC with the Leader?

Some Civvies get BTSC with the Leader, but it is a very limited number because too much Civvie BTSC would ruin the game. Baddies always get BTSC with their recruits.."

I am rethinking my bwt vote at the moment, leaning towards one of these people who keep billing this as a no civ game when it has been made clear by the hosts in multiple ways that there are civ aligned recruiters.

Oh! I forgot to say what I would not look for. I don't care about fun or who I like. I'm probably going to have fun with pretty much anyone, I'm pretty easy going most of the time. I would not want someone under the radar, our someone high profile. I'd probably want someone in the middle ground. This is true of either good or bad aligned too. See the same things a baddie had to think of a civ does too. A civ doesn't want to recruit someone that will likely be lynched our night killed either. So while I think these conversations about what kind of player might be recruited are great, they can only be informative when combined with behaviour I think.

One last thing I forgot, Epi in the past I have realized when you have a choice you like to have players on a team you have not worked with before because you think long term, you want to understand a player's baddie game so you can read them better down the road and the best way to do that is to be on a team with them. Don't think I didn't know what you were doing in guess who. Also, you will learn my baddie game better in a full game, I suck at speed games.So, I found your answer to the question interesting. I'm unconvinced you would choose llama.

I have finally reached the end. And up until last night I was caught up, then the thread exploded today and it took me all evening to catch up. Ugh. I have so many thoughts...

First let me be clear here, I have been quiet not because I didn't have thoughts to share our am flying under the radar, but because I have had technical issues. I tried posting three times in the last two days. Each time were long posts with multiple quotes in them and each time I lost them to the monster that is my iPad. It is out to crush my soul, I tell you. Each time, I ended up throwing my iPad away from me in rage and give up for the moment. Only to return later and find one or more other players have said what I wanted to say. I need a computer, but we just finished paying for a wedding so it will have to wait for the moment.

Now, these are my game related thoughts:

This is not a LMS style game. The Civ factions both share two common enemies, not each other. They are only grouped into two factions because the baddie teams only need the other baddie team and one of the two civ factions eliminated to win. When I read this I thought it seemed kind of silly because if civ team 1 needs baddie team 1 eliminated to win, doesn't that mean that technically baddie team 1 would need them to be eliminated to win? It is not as if they can win together. Their win conditions are mutually exclusive, if I am understanding it correctly. Anyway, my eye is on those who are trying to paint this as a LMS set up when it clearly is not. The host identified two civ teams and made it clear who they need eliminated. It seems like trying to foster a LMS atmosphere would make it easier for baddies to hide. I'm looking at you MP and Timmer...

Regarding what I would look for in a recruit, I would be looking for balance people. People who would bring things to the table I lack, or that I know I work well with. Their skill as mafia would make a difference to me whether I was civ or bad. If i was civ, I would not want the feb players to be recruited by the mafia, and if I was mafia, heck yeah I would want them on my team. But everyone has their idea of who are the really skilled bad players and we have a lot of old timers back and new players, so that muddies the water a bit.

Voting low posters. Really? If you want to vote someone for low contribution, fine, but in this situation there seems like a beck of a lot of other things to consider and I think the discussion of recruit/recruiter reasoning has been an excellent example. If we can locate either a recruit or recruiter it might give us a possible direction to look next. At one point llama made a comment about not thinking low posters are a good lynch option, but if we are going to lynch them today would be a good day. I think that is extremely silly given the fact a recruitment has already occurred, and twice for at least one of the baddies it seems. It didn't give me warm feels about llama, but I read it twice and he did say he didn't think they were the best option, so I kind of out him on my back burner, suspicion wise. Anyway, the low poster people who have masse me last comfortable are MP and bwt. MP listed me in his low poster column, knowing full well what my situation is because he has been witness to my rage against the iPad.

Golden, I trust you. I get what you were trying to say with the "but" statement, and it flowed naturally in my mind as I read it. I don't think you are bad at the moment, but I also don't think sacrificing yourself is really what is best for the game.

Epi, I also don't think you are bad, yet. But I think you are wrong. At least at the moment, players can go from neutral to bad very quickly. It is the nature of the game. Right now I think you are both either neutral or civ.

I don't like people listing who they specifically would recruit. We have no way of knowing if they are being honest or not and basically it seems like a great way to paint targets on people's backs.

Speaking of which, I don't know how the nonsense about MP recruiting me got started but slow me to remind you all of the Champion's game, in which everyone believed I was MP's narrator. They kept falling about how killing me would kill him blah blah blah. And I repeatedly told you there was no way he chose me. He didn't. I know him. I guarantee you that I would not be his first recruit and it is likely he would not recruit me at all. And frankly I would not recruit him either. Enough with that noise, felt like some serous target painting to me. Yeah, I'm looking at you again llama, and was it MM or bwt that jumped right on that train of discussion too? Talk about who specifically someone would recruit once you have some tangible evidence to go on to even know that they did recruit. Until then, you are just blowing hot air. And in regards to me being a good recruit, I played the first recruitment game. I was never recruited, I actually got randomized into a baddie role late in the game to replace aapje I think. So I'm not sure why you think I would be a good recruit but if this were the school playground and they were picking dodge ball teams, I would be the one left standing with the creeper mouth breather. I have never been picked first or early for anything recruitment in nature where mafia is concerned. It would actually make me feel good if someone would think I'm an ideal recruit, feel free y'all.

DH & MM, next time you plan on having a string of posts about granola bars our such other off topic conversation, do us all a favour and OT green that shit, some of us are trying to keep up here and it makes it a heck of a lot easier if we can skip crap like that. Funny as you all are, we can make jokes in OT green too.

Right now the fore runner for my vote is probably bwt. The way he jumped on the JJJ thing about golden using the word but, then back pedaled out of it, followed by him jumping into MP's case for voting a low poster, I'm just feeling all kinds of sketch from him right now.

Did we end up in the position where a lynch stop can be used? I can't recall. This early in the game it might be useful since we are way more likely to lynch a neutral than anything else. Just my two cents. If it is something that can be used anytime we are in that position I can't see a down side to it, unless we feel pretty sure the person we lynch is bad.

I think I covered most of my thoughts, but I had to catch up on so much I gave up on writing things and did this by memory. Anyway, that's all right at this second. I should be able to be more active tomorrow, it's my day off. And I have started using the kindle in place of the iPad, despite it having a more annoying autocorrect and being less convenient to type posts on, art least it doesn't eat them!

Two things:

1. I'm here but I have to catch up

2. I'm having trouble with my iPad the last couple days, so bear with me trying to post.

Off to catch up.

My kindle doesn't like to let me post from work. Posting from my phone before my break ends just to say I decided to go with position 1

I hate my iPad. I had a post but it froze and I lost the whole damn thing.

In short it said I have not spoken up yet because I could not wrap my head around the game. I have spent some time reading though, and I think I am getting a handle now...

To summarize what I said much better in my first version of this post *insert explitives under my breath* I believe it reads as though the followers of Caelia and Ahriman are most likely civ groups. But there is enough gray area in there that I am concerned that a surprise is lurking the alignments. The only thing that is clear as far as alignments go is that the followers of Terra's will most certainly be neutral, lol.

All this talk of avoiding certain positions is most likely pointless, both hosts have made it pretty clear that won't happen. BR explicitly stated that things will happen to force certain positions. So yeah, nice in theory, useless in reality I think.

Hosts, the Brutal Executioner, does the designated kill refer to the recruited players or the originating clan? Does this role just kill one from that clan at randomly how is this kill directed?