Re: Night 3- BLUE vs. RED
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:13 pm
Goddamit.
So, here's the post totals as of now:G-Man wrote:THE WHITE HOUSE
Section 3. Implementation and Coverage Formula Composition. Beginning on Tuesday, January 24, 2017, all speech conducted within The Syndicate from the time the current administration took office will be certified and tallied. All current members of The Syndicate will have their vote values reassessed in a manner that provides for the same total number of votes to be cast but the votes of individuals will be weighted in the inverse order of their current speech volumes.
I didn't protect you, I protected Epignosis!Marmot wrote:Thanks for the protection whoever protected me.
Yeah, lie detectable statements really do a lot of good for protectors.Long Con wrote:I didn't protect you, I protected Epignosis!Marmot wrote:Thanks for the protection whoever protected me.
Epignosis wrote:Yeah, lie detectable statements really do a lot of good for protectors.Long Con wrote:I didn't protect you, I protected Epignosis!Marmot wrote:Thanks for the protection whoever protected me.
I'm working on responding to your lengthy request right now.Epignosis wrote:DF is back in the naughty pile. Speak. Help civilians win.
Good. I'm going to bed.DFaraday wrote:I'm working on responding to your lengthy request right now.Epignosis wrote:DF is back in the naughty pile. Speak. Help civilians win.
Epignosis wrote:I want to know the following from everybody:
1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I'm leaning bad on Notsawyer because he is tunneling Epi, forcing the facts to fit his suspicion (ie., blaming Epi alone for SVS's lynch), and cites Epi's lack of caught baddies despite the fact that Notsawyer is hardly looking at anyone but Epi, and so has also caught no baddies.
2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Rereading his posts, I'm finding him to be pretty inconsistent. First he cites some mild suspicion, decides to vote her over Jack, then the next day says that he's glad everyone is "seeing sense" and voting Jack, despite making a case on Epi and continually pushing it throughout that phase. I'm leaning bad towards MM, but not as much as I am Notsawyer.
3. Where you stand on Floyd and why.
The lack of a kill could indicate that the remaining baddies are uninvolved, which would implicate Floyd more than anyone (and me next, I'm aware). I'm slightly leaning bad on Floyd.
4. Where you stand on DFaraday and why.
Vanilla Civvie all the way.
5. Where you stand on Quin and why.
I don't really recall Quin's activity this game. I'll need to look into him.
6. Where you stand on thellama73 and why.
If I'm right about Notsawyer being bad, it's unlikely Llama also is given the timing of his vote for Notsawyer on Day 1, when the lynch could still have gone that way. His Jack suspicion was also consistent and felt genuine. Leaning civ.
7. Where you stand on Long Con and why.
LC hasn't felt entirely involved in this game, like he's trying to keep out of the limelight. I don't have suspicions of him per se, but I don't really feel civ about him.
You get the idea. If I left you out, it wasn't personal.
Start talking. Tell me why you're good. Tell me why others are bad. Go.
If there's a protector, there's no lie detector, remember?Epignosis wrote:Yeah, lie detectable statements really do a lot of good for protectors.Long Con wrote:I didn't protect you, I protected Epignosis!Marmot wrote:Thanks for the protection whoever protected me.
My goal is to lynch the mafia, not take you down.Epignosis wrote:MM's vote is on notsawyer right now. Why?
Wasn't he your big buddy to help take me down?
I already told you I'm ignoring that assertion. How do you know you weren't attempted to be killed last night.Epignosis wrote:I don't understand MM this game. Mr. "I Would Never Kill Epignosis" A) Hasn't killed me and B) Tried to lynch me knowing I wouldn't kill Eloh.
He goes in the naughty pile.
Why does everyone go in the shit heap? There's only two mafia left.Epignosis wrote:thellama73?
This is someone I would lynch. Look at his posts in relation to me. Does he want to accuse me or buddy up to me? Even he doesn't know.
Shit heap. That's where he goes.
Wilgy is the other baddie, though.Epignosis wrote:I want to know the following from everybody:
1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I think Sawyer has looked bad from Day 1. His equivocating, his dismissiveness, and his case on you seems forced. He is getting my vote today.
2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
I currently have no suspicions of Metalmarsh89.
3. Where you stand on Floyd and why.
Floyd is absentee, which could explain the lack of a kill last night, but we've had other kills. He's probably a typical absentee civvie.
4. Where you stand on DFaraday and why.
I do not really understand the case on DF. No reason to distrust him yet.
5. Where you stand on Quin and why.
I'm leaning civ on Quin now after my meta analysis of his past games.
6. Where you stand on thellama73 and why.
Supatown.
7. Where you stand on Long Con and why.
I can't read LC. It wouldn't surprise me if he were bad.
You get the idea. If I left you out, it wasn't personal.
Start talking. Tell me why you're good. Tell me why others are bad. Go.
Ugh, I went back to refresh myself on the background of the "Fox News" accusation. What I found in the latest exchange was Epi citing evidence that he's a Civ, and you asking for the evidence, and Epi putting together a pretty credible-looking post with his evidence... and you never really responded until your latest post just now.notsawyer540 wrote:I'm going to be out of the house until this evening. I'll catch back up and post my overall thoughts on everyone as soon as I get a chance.
One question I would like answered is: Have I really been forcing evidence to fit my conclusions, or has Epi's Fox-News-style misrepresentation of facts and events fooled too many of you?
I don't get it Long Con. What's wrong with trying to draw information out from the baddies?Long Con wrote:2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Leaning scum on Marmot. His latest claim, that he was nightkilled but protected, feels like a) an attempt to look civ, and b) an attempt to draw out information from the baddies. That's why I countered him a little with my own jokey misinformation.
Marmot wrote:I don't get it Long Con. What's wrong with trying to draw information out from the baddies?Long Con wrote:2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Leaning scum on Marmot. His latest claim, that he was nightkilled but protected, feels like a) an attempt to look civ, and b) an attempt to draw out information from the baddies. That's why I countered him a little with my own jokey misinformation.
FixedLong Con wrote:Marmot wrote:I don't get it Long Con. What's wrong with trying to draw information out from the baddies?Long Con wrote:2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Leaning scum on Marmot. His latest claim, that he was nightkilled but protected, feels like a) an attempt to look civ, and b) an attempt to draw out information from the baddies. That's why I countered him a little with my own jokey misinformation.EBWOP: *FOR the baddies ... because I'm bad.
DFaraday wrote:Epignosis wrote:I want to know the following from everybody:
1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I'm leaning bad on Notsawyer because he is tunneling Epi, forcing the facts to fit his suspicion (ie., blaming Epi alone for SVS's lynch), and cites Epi's lack of caught baddies despite the fact that Notsawyer is hardly looking at anyone but Epi, and so has also caught no baddies.
thellama73 wrote:Epignosis wrote:I want to know the following from everybody:
1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I think Sawyer has looked bad from Day 1. His equivocating, his dismissiveness, and his case on you seems forced. He is getting my vote today.
I am of two minds on notsawyer. If he were a Syndicate regular, someone with whom I had experience interacting with, I might have a clearer opinion of him, because a stubborn insistence is a trait I am more likely to believe comes from a civilian. Consider: If he's mafia, then he knows I'm not bad, so what's his exit strategy should he prove successful? I call that short-term gain, long-term loss.Long Con wrote:1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I'm kind of okay with notsawyer. Epignosis' suspicion of him has some influence on me, but overall I think this interaction is civ/civ. I think his accusations seem genuine enough, even if I don't agree with them.
In his first post since the Day began, he asks a loaded question and uses the phrase "misrepresentation of facts" without mentioning a single fact I misrepresented. And he asked me for evidence, and when I gave him plenty, he had nothing to say about it. That's not encouraging.notsawyer540 wrote:I'm going to be out of the house until this evening. I'll catch back up and post my overall thoughts on everyone as soon as I get a chance.
One question I would like answered is: Have I really been forcing evidence to fit my conclusions, or has Epi's Fox-News-style misrepresentation of facts and events fooled too many of you?
I don't know if he realizes that he has votes.Epignosis wrote:Moreover, notsawyer is taking three votes right from the get-go and his reaction to all this is to double down on his smear campaign:
Which means no teammate has informed him of this fact.Marmot wrote:I don't know if he realizes that he has votes.Epignosis wrote:Moreover, notsawyer is taking three votes right from the get-go and his reaction to all this is to double down on his smear campaign:
Epignosis wrote:Which means no teammate has informed him of this fact.Marmot wrote:I don't know if he realizes that he has votes.Epignosis wrote:Moreover, notsawyer is taking three votes right from the get-go and his reaction to all this is to double down on his smear campaign:
I'm only defending him in the sense that I am considering his motivations for posting what he has been posting (something he refuses to do for me, but oh well). Do you agree or disagree with what I've said about him above?Marmot wrote:Epignosis wrote:Which means no teammate has informed him of this fact.Marmot wrote:I don't know if he realizes that he has votes.Epignosis wrote:Moreover, notsawyer is taking three votes right from the get-go and his reaction to all this is to double down on his smear campaign:![]()
I don't know if you're defending him or suggesting he has a teammate who hasn't been around today. Both are plausible.
So if he's mafia, what's his strategy there?Marmot wrote:Some people do have a tendency to fit evidence to a narrative. That's just how they play. I agree that notknowing notsawyer notreally knots my naughty read of him.
But you are not solely responsible for SVS being lynched. I deserve some of the blame for pointing players in that direction, even if I wasn't as vocal or convincing as you were. What I don't understand is why notsawyer has basically ignored my role in that lynch, and followed my suspicion of you. Not only that, but he interacted little with me when I was hounding you. I find that lack of engagement suspicious, especially since you are his top suspect.
Video games homieMarmot wrote:But I do give you three players who have not been around today.
DrWilgy: Hasn't posted since the start of Night 3.
MacDougall: Hasn't posted since the beginning of Day 4.
TheFloyd73: Hasn't posted since Day 3.
I believe it's easier to be sincere about one's own thoughts and ideas than it is to discuss those put forth by another person. One can inherently believe everything they say, but they (ideally) have to pick a side when looking at what someone else has to say.Epignosis wrote:So if he's mafia, what's his strategy there?Marmot wrote:Some people do have a tendency to fit evidence to a narrative. That's just how they play. I agree that notknowing notsawyer notreally knots my naughty read of him.
But you are not solely responsible for SVS being lynched. I deserve some of the blame for pointing players in that direction, even if I wasn't as vocal or convincing as you were. What I don't understand is why notsawyer has basically ignored my role in that lynch, and followed my suspicion of you. Not only that, but he interacted little with me when I was hounding you. I find that lack of engagement suspicious, especially since you are his top suspect.