The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:@Mongoose~ lovely hostess, are all fail kills portrayed the same way, or are distinctions made?

Hiya Mongoose. I'd love an answer to this when you get a chance.

As would I to this

Ricochet wrote:Any results from the Scorsese contest? What was the prize and who got it?

S~V~S wrote:And I saw my name, I missed any direct questions. I thought the reason for my vote was clear. And name a game where MP does not bring up my name:)

Why do you use this defense instead of actually addressing what Llama and I asked you? It's not fair to just shrug off every accusation I ever speak against you because I'm often suspicious of you. I even recognized TWICE that I'm terrible at reading you, and told Llama and others to make of it what they will. Dom is suspicious of me almost every game we play together (because we're rivals ), but I don't just say "You always suspect me, whatever".

Also, I can name a couple of games in recent memory:
- Clue: The Movie (Epig convinced many to vote for you on D2; I did not)
- Are You Being Served? (Trusted you all the way through that one)

In addition, I went most of Doctor Who and Champions game without suspecting you.

S~V~S wrote:I thought they were teammates. This is not apparent?

That is so incredibly weak.

Why are you failing to address my points made about BWT? Why did you not say anything about being able to read him REALLY well? Why did you ignore my post when I made all those counterarguments?

Also, is it just me or is anyone else getting the snarky, cornered baddie feel of S~V~S's posts recently? She keeps using in addition to her post phrasing, which makes it look like her baddie game to me.

I'd like to hear her answers to all the questions raised to her, but I'm inclined to agree with you, MP, she's reading like cornered baddie SVS to me right now.

I think SVS is acting weird and suspicious, but the number of people who have jumped on that is making me nervous. I also, like MP, acknowledge that I am bad at reading her. Does anyone agree with my "if Vompatti is bad, SVS likely saved shim, so let's lynch Vompatti first and see" logic?

I've finally just about caught up! I think it's very odd that Sabie would be targeted for an NK so early in the game, and even weirder if someone decided to protect her. I'm thinking Sabie herself probably was the cause of her survival.

I don't have a read on Vomps, but I don't necessarily think Llama is suspicious for looking at him. And I'm not clear on why SVS thinks there is a connection between AP and MM.

Excuse me if I missed this due to not reading the thread, but why does Llama think I needed to be saved when I didn't even win the lynch poll?

I think the number of people is making me nervous as well, Llama, but I think people might jump onto it regardless of whether she's bad, due to their being two mafia teams and plenty of opportunity to throw teammates under the bus. That said, TH's jumping onto S~V~S struck me as suspicious, but maybe it's just me? Or at least makes me wonder about him and what it means with regards to S~V~S.

I'm not sure about the lynching Vomps logic; I've found reason to suspect S~V~S due to her own behavior. But I suppose I could lynch Vomps at this point if you and others really feel it makes sense.

I have a super busy day today so I might not be back until tomorrow roughly 24 hours from now. We shall see.

MovingPictures07 wrote: That said, TH's jumping onto S~V~S struck me as suspicious, but maybe it's just me?

Why?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Or at least makes me wonder about him and what it means with regards to S~V~S.

What kind of things is it making you wonder?

Hi, I'm not going to be around much this day. I'll be here a bit later today, and then tomorrow morning my time, when you're all asleep. And then I'm gone. Right now, I still want to vote Vomp, and I also said in my post where I analysed the votes that if Vomp is bad, the timing of SVS' vote seemed most like a save (though I did mention some other names as well). I think I suck at reading SVS, so based on her posts alone, I can't see anything that screams baddie to me. I think that lynching Vomp would give us more information after how the lynch went down, even if he's civ. Because if he is, I can see the baddies spreading their votes more.

What are people's opinion of Bass, by the way?

I feel pretty alright about Bass. Why?

I'm slightly more suspicious of SVS than of Vomp, and I haven't yet gone back to trace a connection between them other than SVS's vote. I agree that lynching Vomp would probably lead to more information than lynching SVS but I won't base my vote on that fact alone.

Vompatti wrote:Excuse me if I missed this due to not reading the thread, but why does Llama think I needed to be saved when I didn't even win the lynch poll?

What I mean by "saved" is that people voted for AP to make sure you didn't win the lynch poll when it looked like you might.

thellama73 wrote:

Vompatti wrote:Excuse me if I missed this due to not reading the thread, but why does Llama think I needed to be saved when I didn't even win the lynch poll?

What I mean by "saved" is that people voted for AP to make sure you didn't win the lynch poll when it looked like you might.

I can neither confirm nor deny that.

Odd choice is right like others have said about Sabie. I also think her save was either a Role blocker or she saved herself which seems unlikely tbh.

I know everyone is still talking about vomps - which after what went down with him near lynch end last time I could poss vote this way.

SVS - I do see what others are saying and your posts have that dismissive tone to them esp noted it during your last interaction with Ricochet and in response to llama.You did not actualy address MP's questions and though I have asked twice you never responded to my question I have asked after Teeth was lynched. I would to hear from you and would like you to respond to my previous question even though it is kind of dated now. I could vote for you.

I however am still concerned with Made. He hasn't even bothered to mention my suspicion nor respond or acknowledge it in any way. I would vote for you.

Lizzy - whereforartthou?

I too am concerned about Made, especially his vote yesterday, which I still feel like we're missing the real story on.

Question to everyone.

If the Brotherhood targeted one of their own and saved themselves (sabie), who else would be a member of the Brotherhood that would be so risky with their NK? I can think of only a handful of players who would be so bold.

LC, SVS, or llama, or any combination of two of these. Actually, I would include myself, but I know I didn't do it.

Made wrote:Reread roles, I think it's more likely that Sabie saved herself for that very reason. I'll prolly catch up tomorrow morning

So you think sabie is bad? Last I checked, the only protector role is a baddie. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Question to everyone.

If the Brotherhood targeted one of their own and saved themselves (sabie), who else would be a member of the Brotherhood that would be so risky with their NK? I can think of only a handful of players who would be so bold.

LC, SVS, or llama, or any combination of two of these. Actually, I would include myself, but I know I didn't do it.

I think they would have to be nuts to try that, given how many roll blocks there are. If the protect got blocked but not the kill, they would lose a teammate and have wasted an NK opportunity.

I may be crazy, but I ain't stupid.

S~V~S wrote:FZ., generally, not always, but generally, a block is written either without the target, or the killer is foiled before he can attempt to kill. Like the scissors used to cut the chandelier wires would have been knocked from his hand, or the would have broken trying to cut the wires. A save involves the victim, and the kill is portrayed as having went through BUT something saves the specific victim, like Sabie was pushed out of the way. Which is what happened here. BUT... some hosts portray all fail kills the same.


@Mongoose~ lovely hostess, are all fail kills portrayed the same way, or are distinctions made?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Made wrote:Reread roles, I think it's more likely that Sabie saved herself for that very reason. I'll prolly catch up tomorrow morning

I doubt it. That means her own team tried to kill her as well.

I'm in agreement with llama. I bet it's one of the roleblockers doings.

Why do you dismiss the possibility of her own team trying to kill her out of hand? It has been done before. I don't know that I would do it this early... but that doesn't mean others might not.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Mongoose, that is the best reason I've ever heard for a delayed night post.

Black Rock wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:BR, I appreciate your clarification, but clearly you thought I was worth looking at before my vote deliberations yesterday. So... can you explain that? You keep citing the back and forth between me and Dom, but you still haven't explained why you think I'm bad, or maybe I'm misunderstanding. But it doesn't make me feel any better about you, since everyone knows I'm being suspected heavily by at least two other players (Dom and TH) before you even mentioned me AND everyone knows I'm always easy to get lynched.

If you think I took the easy way out, so be it, but I have a history of voting more like this when I'm a civilian, whereas if I'm bad I'll gladly vote a top lynch contender, especially if I can vote for a teammate.

I thought I said you were worth keeping an eye on and I wasn't going to dismiss you and Dom as civ on civ, or something to that effect. I now since then found you more suspicious because of your throw away vote. I would have to read my post again to absolutely know what I said but I think you are taking what I said and putting some sort of heavier meaning to it. A lot of that was because a few people were dismissing your back and forth with Dom and I thought that was premature.

Okay. Fair enough, I'll give you the BOTD for now. I guess I did read into the meaning more than what you intended, especially given I see that you were really expressing an opinion to emphasize you disagreed with the civ v. civ sentiment.

What do you think of S~V~S?

I think I am a civ.

Iirc, she said I pinged her. I want to hear about that, too. Thanks for reminding me

I am going to answer MP here because I also want to address SVS. MP Right now after catching up on the thread I am looking at 70-30 chance of SVS being a baddie. It reads like she is avoiding answering questions and only answering them when called out on that.

SVS, I had responded to why I put you on a watch lynch. At the time that's how I felt. Trust you less this game cause I trust you too much lately. That kind of bull. Now though you seem to be twisting in the wind. I would not be surprised if you flipped baddie. You don't have your usual civvie calm logic flowing here. I also am looking at the players that also feel this way, these are players that know you well. I don't believe they are all a baddie team setting you up so I am taking there opinion into consideration.

A question to the thread in general. What am I missing about Vomp? I do not know his play style well can something spell it out for me cause I don't get it. Is it just the last vote?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Question to everyone.

If the Brotherhood targeted one of their own and saved themselves (sabie), who else would be a member of the Brotherhood that would be so risky with their NK? I can think of only a handful of players who would be so bold.

LC, SVS, or llama, or any combination of two of these. Actually, I would include myself, but I know I didn't do it.

Another possibility, SVS was subtly trying to put sabie up for a lynch by suggesting she was protected/killed by the same team. This idea does not require sabie to be bad.

Black Rock wrote: A question to the thread in general. What am I missing about Vomp? I do not know his play style well can something spell it out for me cause I don't get it. Is it just the last vote?

I've reposted my explanation of why I find Vomp bad at least four times. Go find it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Question to everyone.

If the Brotherhood targeted one of their own and saved themselves (sabie), who else would be a member of the Brotherhood that would be so risky with their NK? I can think of only a handful of players who would be so bold.

LC, SVS, or llama, or any combination of two of these. Actually, I would include myself, but I know I didn't do it.

Another possibility, SVS was subtly trying to put sabie up for a lynch by suggesting she was protected/killed by the same team. This idea does not require sabie to be bad.

Long Con was the first to suggest that though, not SVS.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Question to everyone.

If the Brotherhood targeted one of their own and saved themselves (sabie), who else would be a member of the Brotherhood that would be so risky with their NK? I can think of only a handful of players who would be so bold.

LC, SVS, or llama, or any combination of two of these. Actually, I would include myself, but I know I didn't do it.

Another possibility, SVS was subtly trying to put sabie up for a lynch by suggesting she was protected/killed by the same team. This idea does not require sabie to be bad.

Long Con was the first to suggest that though, not SVS.

Thanks. I forgot about that post from LC. It looks more like a setup than what SVS posted.

What do you think about these ideas regarding SVS and sabie, llama?

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Thanks. I forgot about that post from LC. It looks more like a setup than what SVS posted.

What do you think about these ideas regarding SVS and sabie, llama?

I'm a big believer in Occam's razor when it comes to mafia. I got lynched in GoC for suggesting that the simplest explanation was true instead of the elaborate invented conspiracy lunatic arguments everyone else was making (and it turns out I was right!) I think the assertion that a team tried to kill its own member and protected her to create confusion makes no sense from a tactical standpoint. I think it's more likely that a role block was written strangely in the Host Post.

I don't think that necessarily makes SVS, LC or Sabie bad though, because I can see how someone would think the Golem was being indicated by the Host Post. I continue to feel like LC is good, sabie's inactivity leads me to believe that she was not part of a grand scheme, and I am increasingly distrustful of SVS, but I don't think the analysis of the night's events means much.

thellama73 wrote:

Black Rock wrote: A question to the thread in general. What am I missing about Vomp? I do not know his play style well can something spell it out for me cause I don't get it. Is it just the last vote?

I've reposted my explanation of why I find Vomp bad at least four times. Go find it.

Thanks for the help!

Black Rock wrote:A question to the thread in general. What am I missing about Vomp? I do not know his play style well can something spell it out for me cause I don't get it. Is it just the last vote?

He is near impossible to read. I'd rather lynch someone that I feel is bad than someone I don't know about.

Linki: As I said before, I agree that it was probably a roleblocker. But I am still interested in what everyone else thinks. LC has been aloof so far. He's introducing (or commenting on) ideas and letting other players play with them, but hasn't been involved himself. I think one of SVS or LC is bad. I agree with sabie. I'd bet she's a victim of circumstance.

Also, you mention that you think that the idea was introduced to create confusion, but you think LC is good. LC wouldn't 'try' to create confusion if he is good, would he?

Black Rock wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Black Rock wrote: A question to the thread in general. What am I missing about Vomp? I do not know his play style well can something spell it out for me cause I don't get it. Is it just the last vote?

I've reposted my explanation of why I find Vomp bad at least four times. Go find it.

Thanks for the help!

Sorry if that came across as rude, but, with all respect to you, a bunch of players have gotten into the habit of expecting others to do all their work for them, digging up all the quotes, building all the cases, posting all the links. If people can't be bothered to read the thread, I don't see why others should do work on their behalf.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Black Rock wrote:A question to the thread in general. What am I missing about Vomp? I do not know his play style well can something spell it out for me cause I don't get it. Is it just the last vote?

He is near impossible to read. I'd rather lynch someone that I feel is bad than someone I don't know about.

Linki: As I said before, I agree that it was probably a roleblocker. But I am still interested in what everyone else thinks. LC has been aloof so far. He's introducing (or commenting on) ideas and letting other players play with them, but hasn't been involved himself. I think one of SVS or LC is bad. I agree with sabie. I'd bet she's a victim of circumstance.

Also, you mention that you think that the idea was introduced to create confusion, but you think LC is good. LC wouldn't 'try' to create confusion if he is good, would he?

I agree, I'm not buying this "acting differently" bit. I haven't seen any spectacular changes. I was hoping for an answer that was different.

I think you are reading LC wrong, I don't think he was introducing it to cause confusion but more likely that was his first thought after seeing the post and he never waits to think about situations before jumping on the idea. I am not convinced his behaviour is one way or the other.

thellama73 wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Black Rock wrote: A question to the thread in general. What am I missing about Vomp? I do not know his play style well can something spell it out for me cause I don't get it. Is it just the last vote?

I've reposted my explanation of why I find Vomp bad at least four times. Go find it.

Thanks for the help!

Sorry if that came across as rude, but, with all respect to you, a bunch of players have gotten into the habit of expecting others to do all their work for them, digging up all the quotes, building all the cases, posting all the links. If people can't be bothered to read the thread, I don't see why others should do work on their behalf.

I was actually looking for different opinions than that though. I wasn't looking for the "acting different" or saved vote. I was hoping someone could give me a answer that had more to it. Not that your opinion isn't valid but It's not enough for me to understand why he should be lynched. I haven't found his posts that different.

So the case on SVS is that she's not answering questions? while she may be bad, I think that's a lame reason. When I'm bad, I try harder to answer everyone's questions. When I'm a civ, if I see a case on me, it bothers me less and if it seems silly to me, I sometimes just ignore it.


linki: BR, what about how we compared his baddie behaviour in Are you being served, to his behaviour here?

FZ. wrote:So the case on SVS is that she's not answering questions? while she may be bad, I think that's a lame reason. When I'm bad, I try harder to answer everyone's questions. When I'm a civ, if I see a case on me, it bothers me less and if it seems silly to me, I sometimes just ignore it.


linki: BR, what about how we compared his baddie behaviour in Are you being served, to his behaviour here?

I haven't looked at those links yet, I actually forgot about it until you just reminded me. I will look at that now.

Only here for a minute or so, just to say:

BR, I'm not sure I still see the case on Vomps either.

FZ., there is more to the argument against S~V~S than her not answering questions. Why are you saying there isn't? I've repeated multiple times my thoughts about both of her votes this game.

TH, probably just paranoia, but it's just how I interpreted your post -- especially since you just hopped and said yes, rather than more thoroughly explaining why you thought that.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Only here for a minute or so, just to say:

BR, I'm not sure I still see the case on Vomps either.

FZ., there is more to the argument against S~V~S than her not answering questions. Why are you saying there isn't? I've repeated multiple times my thoughts about both of her votes this game.

TH, probably just paranoia, but it's just how I interpreted your post -- especially since you just hopped and said yes, rather than more thoroughly explaining why you thought that.

Well, why don't you go check that comparison as well. LC quoted those lines as well.

As for SVS, I'm not saying everyone's reasoning is the one I mentioned, but it seems to be building up too fast and people seem to be jumping on that with the "look how she's avoiding answering the questions" train of thought. In contrast, look how hard it is to get people to view the Vompatti case. I wonder why it's so much easier to jump on the SVS case

FZ. wrote:So the case on SVS is that she's not answering questions? while she may be bad, I think that's a lame reason. When I'm bad, I try harder to answer everyone's questions. When I'm a civ, if I see a case on me, it bothers me less and if it seems silly to me, I sometimes just ignore it.


linki: BR, what about how we compared his baddie behaviour in Are you being served, to his behaviour here?

Alright I checked out his posts in a few games, following links and such. Good thing it wasn't MP I was looking for. I saw two different games where he was acting sameish to this game and he was civvie and baddie. I'm wondering if different factors are taking place here. Reading is posts in this came he seems more into the theme this game. I know theme has played a factor in some of my games. I'm just not convinced his behaviour is that different.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Only here for a minute or so, just to say:

BR, I'm not sure I still see the case on Vomps either.

FZ., there is more to the argument against S~V~S than her not answering questions. Why are you saying there isn't? I've repeated multiple times my thoughts about both of her votes this game.

TH, probably just paranoia, but it's just how I interpreted your post -- especially since you just hopped and said yes, rather than more thoroughly explaining why you thought that.

Happy to see I'm not alone.

FZ. wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Only here for a minute or so, just to say:

BR, I'm not sure I still see the case on Vomps either.

FZ., there is more to the argument against S~V~S than her not answering questions. Why are you saying there isn't? I've repeated multiple times my thoughts about both of her votes this game.

TH, probably just paranoia, but it's just how I interpreted your post -- especially since you just hopped and said yes, rather than more thoroughly explaining why you thought that.

Well, why don't you go check that comparison as well. LC quoted those lines as well.

As for SVS, I'm not saying everyone's reasoning is the one I mentioned, but it seems to be building up too fast and people seem to be jumping on that with the "look how she's avoiding answering the questions" train of thought. In contrast, look how hard it is to get people to view the Vompatti case. I wonder why it's so much easier to jump on the SVS case

I am worried about SVS, but I am going to do a lot more thinking and waiting for SVS before I would hop on a SVS train. If she is a civvie I would be very sad to see her wrongfully lynched, civvie SVS is a good asset to have around. So what I am saying is I'm suspicious of her but not ready to lynch SVS. Not before I am over the 90% hump.

Black Rock wrote:

FZ. wrote:So the case on SVS is that she's not answering questions? while she may be bad, I think that's a lame reason. When I'm bad, I try harder to answer everyone's questions. When I'm a civ, if I see a case on me, it bothers me less and if it seems silly to me, I sometimes just ignore it.


linki: BR, what about how we compared his baddie behaviour in Are you being served, to his behaviour here?

Alright I checked out his posts in a few games, following links and such. Good thing it wasn't MP I was looking for. I saw two different games where he was acting sameish to this game and he was civvie and baddie. I'm wondering if different factors are taking place here. Reading is posts in this came he seems more into the theme this game. I know theme has played a factor in some of my games. I'm just not convinced his behaviour is that different.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Only here for a minute or so, just to say:

BR, I'm not sure I still see the case on Vomps either.

FZ., there is more to the argument against S~V~S than her not answering questions. Why are you saying there isn't? I've repeated multiple times my thoughts about both of her votes this game.

TH, probably just paranoia, but it's just how I interpreted your post -- especially since you just hopped and said yes, rather than more thoroughly explaining why you thought that.

Happy to see I'm not alone.

FZ. wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Only here for a minute or so, just to say:

BR, I'm not sure I still see the case on Vomps either.

FZ., there is more to the argument against S~V~S than her not answering questions. Why are you saying there isn't? I've repeated multiple times my thoughts about both of her votes this game.

TH, probably just paranoia, but it's just how I interpreted your post -- especially since you just hopped and said yes, rather than more thoroughly explaining why you thought that.

Well, why don't you go check that comparison as well. LC quoted those lines as well.

As for SVS, I'm not saying everyone's reasoning is the one I mentioned, but it seems to be building up too fast and people seem to be jumping on that with the "look how she's avoiding answering the questions" train of thought. In contrast, look how hard it is to get people to view the Vompatti case. I wonder why it's so much easier to jump on the SVS case

I am worried about SVS, but I am going to do a lot more thinking and waiting for SVS before I would hop on a SVS train. If she is a civvie I would be very sad to see her wrongfully lynched, civvie SVS is a good asset to have around. So what I am saying is I'm suspicious of her but not ready to lynch SVS. Not before I am over the 90% hump.

I was a little less sure about Vomp after looking at the links. But then he did the "I'll let my team know" conversation, which really reminded me of his baddie game in Are you being served.

TH, you asked why I wondered about Bass. SVS put a vote on one of the two people who had a tie (AP and Vomp), and then Bass came in and voted for someone who had no votes.

Hey, Metalmarsh, I can sense you getting impatient with my Vompatti analysis. I want to say first that neither you or anyone else is putting a deadline on me for that, it will be done when it's done. It doesn't even have to be done today. Here's what the spreadsheet looks so far - I found some time to start this morning.

Game Alignment Demeanor Notes
Masters Of The Universe Civvie Non-jokey, game-focused BTSC Civ
Bioshock

The columns don't line up here, but that's a cop-paste from my spreadseet. So... I'll share everything when it's done. It's not fast, and I have things to do in Real Life. In about an hour or so, I'm leaving to hang out with a friend for the evening. Between then and now, I'm going to put a second coat of white on the trim in the boys' room. So don't be giving me no deadlines. Just know that I appreciate that FZ. took the time to give me those links, so I'm going to follow through and use them.

I think the S~V~S suspicion picked up some undeserved steam. I've been playing with her at least as long as anyone here, likely longer. I am not seeing anything particularly baddie about her at this time, she just happened to put herself out there with some votes that ended up Civvie. I'm in the same boat as her on the votes, and it's not because I'm trying to lynch Civvies, it's because I was wrong.

And I wasn't trying to "create confusion" with anything. If you became confused at any time during my post, then maybe you need a nap. I think the idea that Sabie's killer was roleblocked is a much more sensible one than her being protected, I hadn't thought of that when I posted about the protection.

Did it ever occur to you guys that if I had baddie bts partners they would have told MWe I had crap I needed to address? I don't expect much on topic at night, I skimmed, I missed some stuff.

Last thing I saw this AM that I did not address was that Llama said there was plenty of time for me to get others to vote for MM. Um no there wasn't in my vote post I said I was going to go play D & D at RM. I was gone until after the lynch. I thought they were teammates, so a vote for one was as good as for the other was my (incorrect) thinking at the time.

I am on the bus now I will bbl to see what else I have to answer and hopefully someone can give me the Cliffs Notes version of MPs other issues. And no snotty cracks about me asking Llama. That post up there was so rude I can't even tall to you right now.

Here's the only working theory I could come up with for Sabie being targeted by her own team:

Sabie opens her role PM and she's a baddie. This is not what Sabie wanted so she instantly asks to be replaced. Mongoose tells the thread she needs a replacement, but retracts her request shortly after.

So what could have happened here is that Sabie's team suggests, instead of getting replaced, that they target her with the kill and protect. The gambit is that everyone will assume one of the three role blocking roles was responsible for the missed kill. Sabie skates through the game with no suspicion and doesn't have to play her role. Meanwhile the three roleblockers will each be thinking to themselves "Did I block the killer?" And so that knowledge might color their own individual suspicions and lead them all on wild goose chases.

It's possible, and would be a great move, but I'm not sure who's capable of it, and I find it much more likely that a roleblock was responsible.

When I get home SVS I can compile all the questions asked of you that you missed

Wow how strange they would go after someone who hasn't participated, and yay no kill.
As far as the case on S~V~S i've been on two of her baddie teams in the past and in those games I felt like she went out of her way to answer every question people asked her. I feel like maybe she has a role she isn't super excited about.
As for the no kill I agree that it was more likely a roleblock and not a protection but it could be a crazy baddie gambit but it is a huge risk.

Turnip Head wrote:Here's the only working theory I could come up with for Sabie being targeted by her own team:

Sabie opens her role PM and she's a baddie. This is not what Sabie wanted so she instantly asks to be replaced. Mongoose tells the thread she needs a replacement, but retracts her request shortly after.

So what could have happened here is that Sabie's team suggests, instead of getting replaced, that they target her with the kill and protect. The gambit is that everyone will assume one of the three role blocking roles was responsible for the missed kill. Sabie skates through the game with no suspicion and doesn't have to play her role. Meanwhile the three roleblockers will each be thinking to themselves "Did I block the killer?" And so that knowledge might color their own individual suspicions and lead them all on wild goose chases.

It's possible, and would be a great move, but I'm not sure who's capable of it, and I find it much more likely that a roleblock was responsible.

That's an interesting theory and the first one that actually talks about what they have to gain from it. Because making us even notice Sabie without a pay off would be just stupid, because no one was thinking she's bad up until that point. But why not just get a kill and do what you suggested later. They need as many people dead now, and when people finally started paying attention to Sabie, that would be a good time to use it.


linki: Bass, why did you choose to vote for MM last day? It seemed like a wasted vote, and you didn't even try to convince anyone. Also, does it mean that you think all the people who had votes on them prior to your vote, are civvies?

I feel I should tell everyone that I had asked to be replaced after what had happened in the GoC game but the next morning I realized it was just a knee-jerk reaction and I had hurt feelings (read:over-reaction) - again. So I joined back in which is why Mongoose then said she no longer needed a replacement. Sorry for causing anyone confusion.

That's good to know Roxy. Glad you decided to keep playing!

thellama73 wrote:I think SVS is acting weird and suspicious, but the number of people who have jumped on that is making me nervous. I also, like MP, acknowledge that I am bad at reading her. Does anyone agree with my "if Vompatti is bad, SVS likely saved shim, so let's lynch Vompatti first and see" logic?

No because I don't agree that Vompatti is bad in the first place. I think SVS has gained suspicion on her own-- separately from Vompatti.

Black Rock wrote:SVS, I had responded to why I put you on a watch lynch. At the time that's how I felt. Trust you less this game cause I trust you too much lately. That kind of bull. Now though you seem to be twisting in the wind. I would not be surprised if you flipped baddie. You don't have your usual civvie calm logic flowing here. I also am looking at the players that also feel this way, these are players that know you well. I don't believe they are all a baddie team setting you up so I am taking there opinion into consideration.

Question: Who are the players speaking out against SVS that, in a mafia way, know her well?

Roxy wrote:I feel I should tell everyone that I had asked to be replaced after what had happened in the GoC game but the next morning I realized it was just a knee-jerk reaction and I had hurt feelings (read:over-reaction) - again. So I joined back in which is why Mongoose then said she no longer needed a replacement. Sorry for causing anyone confusion.

Glad you stayed ^_^

Roxy wrote:I feel I should tell everyone that I had asked to be replaced after what had happened in the GoC game but the next morning I realized it was just a knee-jerk reaction and I had hurt feelings (read:over-reaction) - again. So I joined back in which is why Mongoose then said she no longer needed a replacement. Sorry for causing anyone confusion.

I guess that shoots down TH's theory for good.

Yeah I'm definitely not even considering that theory at this stage. The replacement angle was basically holding the whole thing together.

FZ. wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Here's the only working theory I could come up with for Sabie being targeted by her own team:

Sabie opens her role PM and she's a baddie. This is not what Sabie wanted so she instantly asks to be replaced. Mongoose tells the thread she needs a replacement, but retracts her request shortly after.

So what could have happened here is that Sabie's team suggests, instead of getting replaced, that they target her with the kill and protect. The gambit is that everyone will assume one of the three role blocking roles was responsible for the missed kill. Sabie skates through the game with no suspicion and doesn't have to play her role. Meanwhile the three roleblockers will each be thinking to themselves "Did I block the killer?" And so that knowledge might color their own individual suspicions and lead them all on wild goose chases.

It's possible, and would be a great move, but I'm not sure who's capable of it, and I find it much more likely that a roleblock was responsible.

That's an interesting theory and the first one that actually talks about what they have to gain from it. Because making us even notice Sabie without a pay off would be just stupid, because no one was thinking she's bad up until that point. But why not just get a kill and do what you suggested later. They need as many people dead now, and when people finally started paying attention to Sabie, that would be a good time to use it.


linki: Bass, why did you choose to vote for MM last day? It seemed like a wasted vote, and you didn't even try to convince anyone. Also, does it mean that you think all the people who had votes on them prior to your vote, are civvies?

This early in the game I play with my gut more then anything and my gut is telling MM is bad. I didn't think AP was bad I really not sure about vomps though I think people have pointed out things that are starting to make me think he is bad. So I might me voting him or MM this time. Also why only ask me this question when I wasn't the only person to vote for someone that didn't have any votes?

Thanks, TH. I will read back, too, but having a cheat sheet helps.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:@Mongoose~ lovely hostess, are all fail kills portrayed the same way, or are distinctions made?

Hiya Mongoose. I'd love an answer to this when you get a chance.

I don't portray how the kill fails happened. Anything in the story is just for flavor

Thanks for requoting this, I missed it the first time.