The Syndicate

My instinct leans towards believing Dom, frankly.

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Woah tons of linki!! And glad to finally see some thoughts from Snow Dog re: Zeek. That does make me feel relatively better about you since you now seem to posting more along the lines of what I expect. Any thoughts on anyone else yet, Snowy? (or anyone else, for that matter?)

Yes I have more to say. Regarding your opening gambit against zeek, or rather gamble is a better word. I found it an odd thing if true. Seemed unlike you somehow and more like Llama. I thought it more likely that you made up the whole "gambit" story to extricate yourself from the situation.

On the other hand maybe you really are trying something new?

Lol, odd for sure, and definitely more something Llama would do, but you hit the nail on the head in that I was really just wanting to try something new, because I find that I often don't have the best success in sniffing out baddies, especially that early on.

That said, I'm not really sure it was a success. But it did get discussion going! Which was a main goal. So... partially successful.

Maybe I should start exclaiming that I'm supatown in llama's absence. :P

But seriously, did anyone have any thoughts on my suspects? Thoughts on Sabie, Rox, anyone?

Well my thoughts on me are that I'm good and lynching me isn't going to help anyone, but the baddies. I don't say much no but what about all the people that didn't even bother to vote? I always thought that was a worse offense than not being sure who to vote for, but still voting because it's part of the game. I'd rather participate in what's required of me than say or do nothing at all even if I'm not a hundred percent sure. Or at least that's how I thought the game was played. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Maybe I should start exclaiming that I'm supatown in llama's absence. :P

I am perhaps not as absent as you think.

MP, tbh, I'm not really seeing what you're seeing in either one of them-- I'm not even quite understanding your suspicion of Roxy. And with Sabie, I just hosted her, and she is behaving similarly, I think, and she was civvie.

What do you think of my thoughts on Made? You somewhat addressed it earlier, but it was rather vague and wishy washy-- which is exactly how I'd describe your entire gameplay so far.

Guys my internet is not working so good . We are trying to fix it, but I have so many pages to catch up on I won't even try on this phone.

alright, caught up.

bea wrote:Attention!!! Attention!!! This just in:

K9 wrote:Doctor. I have received some confusing and contradictory information tonight. The Valeyard is a role. Epignosis is Jim The Fish. The Valeyard is not a role. This requires further analysis.

So we know that it's not two truths. so either valeyard is or isn't a role.

Dom wrote: Honestly, I'm looking at Made today.

lezzgo b

Dom wrote:

zeek wrote:I'm not entirely clear on your suspicions of Made, is it because he is unclear about your posts? Like he's trying to force suspicion on you over nothing?

The problems I have with your explanation are:
I don't buy that you used a randomizer for on four options.
Logically, an accidental vote is a random vote.

Obviously, you can't answer these criticisms if what you say is true. I don't know you - maybe you just religiously follow a randomizer, even for small polls, but it is odd.

I can understand your concern, but I have answered to the best of my-- or anyone's for that matter-- ability.
I suspect made because I think he tried to get someone to run with a suspicion of me without building any case. He simply threw my name out there saying I hadn't explained something that I HAD explained.
However, he then said he MISREAD what I had said. how did he both miss it and misread it?
In addition, Made says that he missed my explanation for why I thought MP was being hypocritical.. however, people WERE waiting for an explanation on my Enrique vote. It makes me think he saw that someone was waiting for an explanation from me, and just assumed that was it. It's sloppy mudslinging if you ask me.

I gave the persona/angle reads I had on everyone active, and realized afterwards that you, Dom, weren't on my radar, so i went back and read you.
I missed where you gave this explanation (or MISREAD where you gave your explanation as an independent read on MP) so I asked in thread if you ever explained it.

Rereading Epi, Mr, and TH.

Regarding sable and Roxy I would have to read their posts so coudn't possibly comment until that has been promulgated.

Aah....it is sabie and not sable. Though on reflection I prefer the latter.

Well!!!! I have just read Sabie/Sable. Didn't take long. I see nothing there. What am I missing?

Chris wrote:

Dom wrote:Zeek, have you heard the phrase "wine in front of me"?

You mean like this entire post?

S~V~S wrote:Those were a couple of unexpected kills, IMO. Especially MR. I would guess that MR may have been killed by someone not who sent in the kill, and possibly voted, fairly early, and did not really come back before the end. MRs drive by vote was so odd, and he could not have been silenced. It was mentioned several times,mostly by me, but still.

Had he not died, I was intending on coming in here today and making a case on him, and I think that was very apparent from my posts last night. Generally it is my experience that baddies don't NK those under suspicion. So like I said, i don't think the Master was probably an early voter.

As for TH, he went hard against MP early, but then quieted down. It is possible that that kill was done to set MP up, since most people would, as a reaction to THs death, reread TH. Personally, I don't think MP would have killed him as he has taken a lot of suspish already and TH being NKed might only add to that. This might be someone who was more involved, perhaps someone who thought they might be coming under scrutiny today. This would be a way to set up an advance distraction.

I still want to reread both MR & TH to see if anything else can be learned from their deaths.

Also glad to see more people straggling in

Can you be more specific? I am giving my opinions on who was killed in the night. I have no concrete info on this, so i am speculating as to what might have happened, and what the motivations for it may have been. That is how we play Mafia. WIFOM is woulda/coulda/shoulda in a context of accusations of guilt.

^^ That whole post is not it.

Ok... WIFOM by proxy if you will...

Long Con wrote:Does anyone else want to come forward and let us know they had info on that poll? It seems unlikely that Zeek would be the only one. I didn't have any info. Not that I voted, but there was no PM informing me of my best choice or anything.

I agree that it seems unlikely. I thought at least one or two others appeared to have info on Alzarius and were pretty obvious about it, not just zeek. Several people voted for that option pretty quickly. I pushed hard for it towards the end, and I would not have done that if i believed it to be a bad option (See Chris? THAT was WIFOM).

Chris wrote:Ok... WIFOM by proxy if you will...

How?

Made, who do you think is suspicious

sabie12 wrote:Well my thoughts on me are that I'm good and lynching me isn't going to help anyone, but the baddies. I don't say much no but what about all the people that didn't even bother to vote? I always thought that was a worse offense than not being sure who to vote for, but still voting because it's part of the game. I'd rather participate in what's required of me than say or do nothing at all even if I'm not a hundred percent sure. Or at least that's how I thought the game was played. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay, fair, but you have no other thoughts right now at all? Suspicions, thoughts, anything? Rather than just deflecting onto people who didn't vote?

Dom wrote:MP, tbh, I'm not really seeing what you're seeing in either one of them-- I'm not even quite understanding your suspicion of Roxy. And with Sabie, I just hosted her, and she is behaving similarly, I think, and she was civvie.

What do you think of my thoughts on Made? You somewhat addressed it earlier, but it was rather vague and wishy washy-- which is exactly how I'd describe your entire gameplay so far.

I'm confused; I outlined my reasons for suspecting Rox in my post in the part labeled "Rox"; what don't you quite understand about it? Your thoughts are appreciated nonetheless.

I do think Made has acted suspiciously, but I don't feel confident enough about him at the moment to place a vote on him. I just see a Made that's acting more careful than Mades I have previously seen, but I'm not sure whether that's because he's bad or because he's trying to NOT be the center of attention the entire game (ironically). I did think his comments on juliets were weird (as I stated earlier), and his behavior has been "odd" overall, but I'm not sure it makes him bad.

BUT that said, I revisited your Made post, and I do think your point about him asking for clarification on the wrong item is a bit strange. Is your strongest point about him that he's insincerely mudslinging then? If so, that's actually sort of compelling.

Honestly, I'd need to re-read him to clarify my thoughts on him, I think. I need to re-read a few other players as well. Don't have time right now, but maybe I'll do that later tonight.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
A response to Rox (which elaborates why I find her suspicious): Thank you for your thoughts. I'm sad to hear you don't "buy" my true intentions, but I suppose that's your right. I gave up my Enrique suspicion because his responses seemed genuine to me, and my back and forth with Dana made me reexamine the strength of my thoughts against him. On the flipside of your POV, I thought what Juliets did was incredibly suspicious and I'm still shocked she flipped civvie, to be honest. She must have just been WAY overthinking what she was attempting to post and her inability to attempt to decide things for herself seemed OOT moreso than normal. And personally, I have no reason to believe we're seeing a baddie Epig here, and despite the fact that I appreciate your contributions, I think some of them are off the mark. This is demonstrated especially since you suspect Hedge for thinking Epig's thoughts were valid; you even just essentially say you think she's bad because she disagrees with your assessment on the juliets situation. I am a civvie and I saw it unfold and I firmly believe juliets's actions were incredibly suspicious, so the fact that you're not willing to consider an alternative perspective as a possible civvie one seems suspicious to me. I am also suspicious of why you mention Elo's vote but not Sabie's (more on this later). Lastly, I get this "oh, the case on JC was so bad, how could anyone believe it?!?!?!" feel from you, which seems very opportunistic, especially since you weren't around (understandably for RL reasons, I won't blame you for that). It just strikes me as an easy way for a baddie to come in after the fact and be all, 'well, how could anyone believe that?? These people who did must be bad!!' Strikes me as suspicious as well. Additionally, I had my eye on you when you seemed to be setting up suspicion against me, but consequently never expressed any firm opinions about anyone at all, and now all of a sudden you have tons of opinions after being called out for it.

Is this what you're talking about, MP?
Again, I'm not so much seeing this. The one point that resonates with me is what you said about her retrospect approach to juliets. However, I did not notice that myself and would have to reread her-- which I cannot do right now.

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
A response to Rox (which elaborates why I find her suspicious): Thank you for your thoughts. I'm sad to hear you don't "buy" my true intentions, but I suppose that's your right. I gave up my Enrique suspicion because his responses seemed genuine to me, and my back and forth with Dana made me reexamine the strength of my thoughts against him. On the flipside of your POV, I thought what Juliets did was incredibly suspicious and I'm still shocked she flipped civvie, to be honest. She must have just been WAY overthinking what she was attempting to post and her inability to attempt to decide things for herself seemed OOT moreso than normal. And personally, I have no reason to believe we're seeing a baddie Epig here, and despite the fact that I appreciate your contributions, I think some of them are off the mark. This is demonstrated especially since you suspect Hedge for thinking Epig's thoughts were valid; you even just essentially say you think she's bad because she disagrees with your assessment on the juliets situation. I am a civvie and I saw it unfold and I firmly believe juliets's actions were incredibly suspicious, so the fact that you're not willing to consider an alternative perspective as a possible civvie one seems suspicious to me. I am also suspicious of why you mention Elo's vote but not Sabie's (more on this later). Lastly, I get this "oh, the case on JC was so bad, how could anyone believe it?!?!?!" feel from you, which seems very opportunistic, especially since you weren't around (understandably for RL reasons, I won't blame you for that). It just strikes me as an easy way for a baddie to come in after the fact and be all, 'well, how could anyone believe that?? These people who did must be bad!!' Strikes me as suspicious as well. Additionally, I had my eye on you when you seemed to be setting up suspicion against me, but consequently never expressed any firm opinions about anyone at all, and now all of a sudden you have tons of opinions after being called out for it.

Is this what you're talking about, MP?
Again, I'm not so much seeing this. The one point that resonates with me is what you said about her retrospect approach to juliets. However, I did not notice that myself and would have to reread her-- which I cannot do right now.

Indeed!

Thanks, much appreciated. I don't know how great my track record is with Rox, in fact it's probably pretty crappy, so maybe I'm off the mark. That's just what I've thought of her so far this game though.

I understand there, I'm trying to get a bunch of homework done and just can't go back and read people yet. I'll let you know what I think of Made when I do though.

Also, since I didn't see it asked:

Hosts: can we discuss whether players had info on the N1 poll or any results involved in association with the poll?

Perhaps we can, but should we? We have already done some large target drawing. IF I had info, even if I were allowed to say so, i do not know that I would openly say so. And I don't think we should ask people to openly say so.

S~V~S wrote:Perhaps we can, but should we? We have already done some large target drawing. IF I had info, even if I were allowed to say so, i do not know that I would openly say so. And I don't think we should ask people to openly say so.

Actually, that's a really good point.

It might be best not to open that can of worms, in light of recent events.

I guess we can see what the hosts will say, but to do a complete 180 on what I said before, lol, it's probably better to concentrate on suspect talk. So what are you thinking?

S~V~S: You know Rox really well, thoughts? Or on Made, Epig, Enri, or anyone else?

Well, Zeek didn't seem to be targeted for his saying so. Not yet anyway.

And CHRIS!! Good to see ya man, who should I vote for?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I feel like he probably (read: blatantly) had info on the night poll. I don't think if he was bad he'd be so pushy about it though, which leads me to believe he's civ. What I do take issue with though is the 'avoidance of responsibility' line. This is only a game, people here don't owe each other anything.

Linki: Not that I know of, but it does look like there may have been info flying around last night.

I didn't mention it, but the fact that nothing has happened makes this all the more suspish. We went to the planet he wanted, seemingly, (he even says so here) but nothing is happening, nor have the hosts made any indication that we have visited a planet. It did seem that he had info, but it looks like a bluff to me. Either it was a lie (intentional or not) or this is something that might benefit him, but no one else, and not in a good way.

To be honest, I actually DID mean to write it into the night post that all of you were travelling to the planet that one the night poll. That was a mistake on my part, and I will be sure to correct it in the future.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Also, since I didn't see it asked:

Hosts: can we discuss whether players had info on the N1 poll or any results involved in association with the poll?

To the info part, the only responses I'm okay with are 'yes/no' responses. As for any potential results, I would have to say no on that one.

Ahem

MP wrote:A response to Rox (which elaborates why I find her suspicious): Thank you for your thoughts. I'm sad to hear you don't "buy" my true intentions, but I suppose that's your right. I gave up my Enrique suspicion because his responses seemed genuine to me, and my back and forth with Dana made me reexamine the strength of my thoughts against him. On the flipside of your POV, I thought what Juliets did was incredibly suspicious and I'm still shocked she flipped civvie, to be honest. She must have just been WAY overthinking what she was attempting to post and her inability to attempt to decide things for herself seemed OOT moreso than normal. And personally, I have no reason to believe we're seeing a baddie Epig here, and despite the fact that I appreciate your contributions, I think some of them are off the mark.

I think you were WAY over thinking Day 0 as well as Day 1. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. Juliets is this way EVERY game in the beginning. Questioning and either disagreeing or agreeing. It is not until later in a game that she starts doing her own suspicions. Ofc you know this as well as I as you have prob played more games with her than I have.

MP wrote:This is demonstrated especially since you suspect Hedge for thinking Epig's thoughts were valid; you even just essentially say you think she's bad because she disagrees with your assessment on the juliets situation. I am a civvie and I saw it unfold and I firmly believe juliets's actions were incredibly suspicious, so the fact that you're not willing to consider an alternative perspective as a possible civvie one seems suspicious to me.

I do not find Hedge suspicious for disagreeing with my assessment - if you had read it properly you would know I have a *ping* from her for riding the fence. I know you need to keep saying you thought Juliets was suspicious but can you step back a second and look at it without your preconceived suspicions and try to understand where I am coming from? The more you hammer that Juliets did this to herself the more I have to wonder if you are finding me suspicious for not just simply agreeing with you and letting it go.

MP wrote:I am also suspicious of why you mention Elo's vote but not Sabie's (more on this later). Lastly, I get this "oh, the case on JC was so bad, how could anyone believe it?!?!?!" feel from you, which seems very opportunistic, especially since you weren't around (understandably for RL reasons, I won't blame you for that). It just strikes me as an easy way for a baddie to come in after the fact and be all, 'well, how could anyone believe that?? These people who did must be bad!!' Strikes me as suspicious as well.

bc I found Elo's vote much more suspicious. Elo has played way more games than sabie. I played with sabie twice now. Once when I was bad and stopped llama from going after her. The last time we were both civ and I went against SVS and she was lynched even after I defended her. I am seeing the same sabie here. I believe she is good at this time. I am sorry you do not.

You, yourself, find Elo suspicious for her vote so why are you suspicious of me for finding her suspicious?

I am not an opportunist MP. I resent the insinuation tbf. I was just giving my opinion on what happened day 0 and day 1. Sure hindsight is 20/20.

Am I not allowed to comment on things that happen when I am not around???? If that is the case then I will not be saying much as a lot happens when I sleep or when I am working. That seems a really odd thing to say - that I can't comment on Juliets since I was not here during that time.

MP wrote:Additionally, I had my eye on you when you seemed to be setting up suspicion against me, but consequently never expressed any firm opinions about anyone at all, and now all of a sudden you have tons of opinions after being called out for it.

I already told you why in my first response it was only day 0 and day 1 I don't like going off half cocked pulling suspicion out of my hat. That is your style not mine. Now that some time has passed and we have learned things from lynches and thread talk I do have opinions. You are now saying you called me out? Thats funny since you have the answer to this in my first response today yet you do not mention that here.
Also I am not "setting up" suspicion on you I am in fact pointing out what I find suspicious about the way you handled day 0 and day 1. So not setting you up at all just stating my suspicions as that is the point of the game right?

Nice no u btw.

Roxy wrote:

MP wrote:A response to Rox (which elaborates why I find her suspicious): Thank you for your thoughts. I'm sad to hear you don't "buy" my true intentions, but I suppose that's your right. I gave up my Enrique suspicion because his responses seemed genuine to me, and my back and forth with Dana made me reexamine the strength of my thoughts against him. On the flipside of your POV, I thought what Juliets did was incredibly suspicious and I'm still shocked she flipped civvie, to be honest. She must have just been WAY overthinking what she was attempting to post and her inability to attempt to decide things for herself seemed OOT moreso than normal. And personally, I have no reason to believe we're seeing a baddie Epig here, and despite the fact that I appreciate your contributions, I think some of them are off the mark.

I think you were WAY over thinking Day 0 as well as Day 1. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. Juliets is this way EVERY game in the beginning. Questioning and either disagreeing or agreeing. It is not until later in a game that she starts doing her own suspicions. Ofc you know this as well as I as you have prob played more games with her than I have.

MP wrote:This is demonstrated especially since you suspect Hedge for thinking Epig's thoughts were valid; you even just essentially say you think she's bad because she disagrees with your assessment on the juliets situation. I am a civvie and I saw it unfold and I firmly believe juliets's actions were incredibly suspicious, so the fact that you're not willing to consider an alternative perspective as a possible civvie one seems suspicious to me.

I do not find Hedge suspicious for disagreeing with my assessment - if you had read it properly you would know I have a *ping* from her for riding the fence. I know you need to keep saying you thought Juliets was suspicious but can you step back a second and look at it without your preconceived suspicions and try to understand where I am coming from? The more you hammer that Juliets did this to herself the more I have to wonder if you are finding me suspicious for not just simply agreeing with you and letting it go.

MP wrote:I am also suspicious of why you mention Elo's vote but not Sabie's (more on this later). Lastly, I get this "oh, the case on JC was so bad, how could anyone believe it?!?!?!" feel from you, which seems very opportunistic, especially since you weren't around (understandably for RL reasons, I won't blame you for that). It just strikes me as an easy way for a baddie to come in after the fact and be all, 'well, how could anyone believe that?? These people who did must be bad!!' Strikes me as suspicious as well.

bc I found Elo's vote much more suspicious. Elo has played way more games than sabie. I played with sabie twice now. Once when I was bad and stopped llama from going after her. The last time we were both civ and I went against SVS and she was lynched even after I defended her. I am seeing the same sabie here. I believe she is good at this time. I am sorry you do not.

You, yourself, find Elo suspicious for her vote so why are you suspicious of me for finding her suspicious?

I am not an opportunist MP. I resent the insinuation tbf. I was just giving my opinion on what happened day 0 and day 1. Sure hindsight is 20/20.

Am I not allowed to comment on things that happen when I am not around???? If that is the case then I will not be saying much as a lot happens when I sleep or when I am working. That seems a really odd thing to say - that I can't comment on Juliets since I was not here during that time.

MP wrote:Additionally, I had my eye on you when you seemed to be setting up suspicion against me, but consequently never expressed any firm opinions about anyone at all, and now all of a sudden you have tons of opinions after being called out for it.

I already told you why in my first response it was only day 0 and day 1 I don't like going off half cocked pulling suspicion out of my hat. That is your style not mine. Now that some time has passed and we have learned things from lynches and thread talk I do have opinions. You are now saying you called me out? Thats funny since you have the answer to this in my first response today yet you do not mention that here.
Also I am not "setting up" suspicion on you I am in fact pointing out what I find suspicious about the way you handled day 0 and day 1. So not setting you up at all just stating my suspicions as that is the point of the game right?

Nice no u btw.

Thanks for the response. You make some really good points. Actually, your counterpoint about Elo being more experienced than Sabie makes sense; I suppose one could argue I give too much weight to Elo's past playstyle.

Sorry about the insinuation; opportunistic is my new favorite mafia word, as I've ditched "nefarious".

I wasn't suspicious of you finding Elo suspicious by itself, really, it was more I thought it was strange you found Elo suspicious but didn't mention Sabie at all.

Well, your response is pretty fair, I guess my suspicion of you wasn't really based on anything extraordinary. Even with Sabie, the only thing she's really done was her D1 vote. Man, I hate the first few day periods.

I'm confused what you mean about this though: "Thats funny since you have the answer to this in my first response today yet you do not mention that here." What do you mean?

MP - its bc you brought up the fact I had no opinions or suspicions but now I do. I had already responded to that once today here but you mention it a second time like I had first ignored you had already said that.

It's back to work for me tomorrow. No longer ill enough to justify being off, so I'll be a little quieter than I have been since the game began. I'm sure most of you will be relieved by this and I don't blame you :P

Funny I have caught the flu as you are just getting over it! You just had to spread your flu germs all over the thread didn't you *said in a mom-like tone*

This is flu from Liverpool.

You should be honoured.

Ringo probably had this flu.

You're welcome.

Front page guys

Vastra and Jenny have BTSC, for sho.

No juicy baddie secrets revealed, but we did get The Master.

I'm useless at decoding these things but I'm not sure it'd benefit the civs more than the baddies at this point. Obviously the Master's should be attempted.

MovingPictures07 wrote:My instinct leans towards believing Dom, frankly.

Agreed.

FWIW, I believe Dom's claim regarding his night vote.

Y'all pressuring him too much for what could likely have been just a mistake. And even if it wasn't, he was in a position where it'd be difficult to slip up, it seems.

About zeek--earlier I said I thought he was innocent, and I'll stand by that, but just say that I'm gonna continue to remain skeptical of him until it's obvious why he was pushing so hard for that one specific planet. Saying that it will all be explained by night 2 sounds like it could just be a way to stall and remain free of accusations for at least one more day. If he really was a baddie, staying alive until the night would be the ideal goal.

Gotrees wrote:Y'all pressuring him too much for what could likely have been just a mistake. And even if it wasn't, he was in a position where it'd be difficult to slip up, it seems.

Even if it wasn't a mistake, that is.

4

zeek wrote:I'm useless at decoding these things but I'm not sure it'd benefit the civs more than the baddies at this point. Obviously the Master's should be attempted.

I can't think of a way to decode it at this point, but I'm thinking on it.

What's this about Jenny and Vastra?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I feel like he probably (read: blatantly) had info on the night poll. I don't think if he was bad he'd be so pushy about it though, which leads me to believe he's civ. What I do take issue with though is the 'avoidance of responsibility' line. This is only a game, people here don't owe each other anything.

Linki: Not that I know of, but it does look like there may have been info flying around last night.

I didn't mention it, but the fact that nothing has happened makes this all the more suspish. We went to the planet he wanted, seemingly, (he even says so here) but nothing is happening, nor have the hosts made any indication that we have visited a planet. It did seem that he had info, but it looks like a bluff to me. Either it was a lie (intentional or not) or this is something that might benefit him, but no one else, and not in a good way.

To be honest, I actually DID mean to write it into the night post that all of you were travelling to the planet that one the night poll. That was a mistake on my part, and I will be sure to correct it in the future.

That answers that then.

Gotrees wrote:About zeek--earlier I said I thought he was innocent, and I'll stand by that, but just say that I'm gonna continue to remain skeptical of him until it's obvious why he was pushing so hard for that one specific planet. Saying that it will all be explained by night 2 sounds like it could just be a way to stall and remain free of accusations for at least one more day. If he really was a baddie, staying alive until the night would be the ideal goal.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:To be honest, I actually DID mean to write it into the night post that all of you were travelling to the planet that one the night poll. That was a mistake on my part, and I will be sure to correct it in the future.

That answers that then.

Indeed.

Gotrees, I wouldn't paint a target on my back over nothing. There was little suspicion on me since MP's gambit. Could have just kept it like that.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

zeek wrote:I'm useless at decoding these things but I'm not sure it'd benefit the civs more than the baddies at this point. Obviously the Master's should be attempted.

I can't think of a way to decode it at this point, but I'm thinking on it.

What's this about Jenny and Vastra?

If you look at their secret texts, they're small. Only a couple of words. BTSC with Jenny/ Madame Vastra fit perfectly.

Captain Jack's text is the only one without colouring. I don't know if this is significant. He has a history of moral ambigiuty and, while he's always been an ally of the Doctor, is it possible he is not completely civ-aligned?

zeek wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

zeek wrote:I'm useless at decoding these things but I'm not sure it'd benefit the civs more than the baddies at this point. Obviously the Master's should be attempted.

I can't think of a way to decode it at this point, but I'm thinking on it.

What's this about Jenny and Vastra?

If you look at their secret texts, they're small. Only a couple of words. BTSC with Jenny/ Madame Vastra fit perfectly.

Not bad reasoning. It is inconsistent with Jenny not having her last name included, but possible, especially if it's a typo.

zeek wrote:Captain Jack's text is the only one without colouring. I don't know if this is significant. He has a history of moral ambigiuty and, while he's always been an ally of the Doctor, is it possible he is not completely civ-aligned?

All of the others are civvie green like the Civvie title except for the Master who is indy orange like the Indy title. Since Jack's doesn't have color, maybe it is a misprint?

zeek wrote:Captain Jack's text is the only one without colouring. I don't know if this is significant. He has a history of moral ambigiuty and, while he's always been an ally of the Doctor, is it possible he is not completely civ-aligned?

Sorry. That was a misprint on my part. It should be correct now.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Not bad reasoning. It is inconsistent with Jenny not having her last name included, but possible, especially if it's a typo.

More than possible, very likely given they're partners. Many of the known descriptions are informal. Like in Mickey's text it just says Rose, no last name.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

zeek wrote:Captain Jack's text is the only one without colouring. I don't know if this is significant. He has a history of moral ambigiuty and, while he's always been an ally of the Doctor, is it possible he is not completely civ-aligned?

Sorry. That was a misprint on my part. It should be correct now.

That answers that then.

Linki: I meant inconsistent with Vasta. Hers includes the Madame with her name. I believe you either way though.

zeek wrote:

Gotrees wrote:Gotrees, I wouldn't paint a target on my back over nothing. There was little suspicion on me since MP's gambit. Could have just kept it like that.

I know, but sometimes people make dumb and/or risky moves (see Day 0 MP). You could have been trying to get a gauge on who would be easier or harder to recruit to your cause, whether there is a lot of proof for it or not. Maybe it's that WIFOM thing. It might be unlikely, but it's still possible. Just saying, I'll see how the planet situation plays out and rethink it. Again, I'm still assuming you're innocent, but I'm holding that opinion with a bit of skepticism.

5

Dalek ones are up.