The Syndicate

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:34 pm**

Sorsha wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I'm here
Hi Sorsha! What's going on? Do you have any suspects? What do you think of Dom, MM, and Russ?
Have only been skimming. Looks like Dom is mostly getting votes for the trump schtick, mm for some connection to wilgy and I have no idea what Russ did to be suspicious. My own suspicion is inh but it could probably be more of an annoyance than suspicion. Lobbying for prefect and promising to be active and then bailing.

I don't really find Dom suspicious I could be ok with a mm vote, Russ I don't know yet.

I do not like this post from sorsha. She just brushes over all the popular suspicions as if they're inconsequential, then brings up her own totally baseless suspicion and never elaborates on it. I can understand sorsha suspicion, but I'd be hesitant to cast a vote until she gives us more to work with. For now. Not a town read.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:38 pm**

Ive voted where i said i would earlier, I havent got chance to read through anythinf right now unfortunately just thought id post my votes in case i missed the deadline
Will try to catch up again tomorrow before Day 4

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:38 pm**

I suppose it's time I looked into this Turnip thing.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:43 pm**

Nerolunar wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Dom wrote:Boomslang, does a careless player mean an evil player that needs to be kept on the other side of the wall?
I'd say a careless player needs to be carefully vetted until we can figure out what's going on Case in point is Nerolunar. "I guess you could say I am guilty of saying the same thing, which I kind of am Ugh. I am a goddamn hypocrite." I really don't like this defense. If you're calling your own behavior out as shady, you're asking us to trust your civility on nothing but your word. I agree with the punishment of BWT's self-voting, but that's about it.
That's not what I meant. I am a hypocrite because I voted timmer because of reasons(not being able to understand the game and the different arguments being thrown around) I exhibit myself. It wasn't really a "defense" more like an elaboration of my previous vote. I don't think I am acting "shady" - more the opposite by doubting my own point of view about things. If you disagree, let me know. I think you reached a little here with your interpretation.

But you still made the vote, and you still say that you didn't make it for good reasons. If we can't trust you to make informed, useful votes, how can we trust that you're working the best interests of the town?

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:54 pm**

@Rico, Scotty meant to say that he thought TH was a Nanman team member, and just mixed up the baddie teams. Not a slip at all, imo. Mixing up which team is which is something that only someone who is not on either team would do. Unless he somehow made that mistake on purpose, but from his posts it's pretty clear to me that it was genuine.

Unfortunately I'm really busy now until EoD. I'll pop in briefly to vote, most likely for Timmer and either TH or Russ. I don't have time to do that TH ISO I wanted to do, but I think the wifom and general pingy gut feelings are enough for me to consider voting him. I'm a little hesitant though since he might be silenced and I generally try not to vote for silenced players; however, the silencing role is on the Nanman team and it may be a protective measure, strengthening the theory that he's bad.... on the other hand it could be a frame attempt. Wifom wifom everywhere and not a drop to drink.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:59 pm**

I have looked into the Turnip thing and I do not understand where the suspicion is coming from. Who wants to explain it to me?

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:02 pm**

Boomslang wrote:
Nerolunar wrote:
Boomslang wrote:
Dom wrote:Boomslang, does a careless player mean an evil player that needs to be kept on the other side of the wall?
I'd say a careless player needs to be carefully vetted until we can figure out what's going on Case in point is Nerolunar. "I guess you could say I am guilty of saying the same thing, which I kind of am Ugh. I am a goddamn hypocrite." I really don't like this defense. If you're calling your own behavior out as shady, you're asking us to trust your civility on nothing but your word. I agree with the punishment of BWT's self-voting, but that's about it.
That's not what I meant. I am a hypocrite because I voted timmer because of reasons(not being able to understand the game and the different arguments being thrown around) I exhibit myself. It wasn't really a "defense" more like an elaboration of my previous vote. I don't think I am acting "shady" - more the opposite by doubting my own point of view about things. If you disagree, let me know. I think you reached a little here with your interpretation.
But you still made the vote, and you still say that you didn't make it for good reasons. If we can't trust you to make informed, useful votes, how can we trust that you're working the best interests of the town?

In retrospect, no, my vote was poorly made. I know that, but nobody makes completely rational and utilitarian choices all the time, whether it is town or not. I am in no way proud of my scumhunting abilities(again, see transistor) and I have never been. I suck, I really do. But I also try to improve, especially as a civilian because thats the alignment I am worst at.

I value transparency more than anything, and being able to question or criticise my own previous line of thoughts is what ultimately will help me improve and learn from my mistakes. I don't want to cruise along faking false confidence just for the sake of appearing linear or composed.

With that said, lynch me if you want. I trust the dice.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:05 pm**

Sloonei wrote:I have looked into the Turnip thing and I do not understand where the suspicion is coming from. Who wants to explain it to me?

The main thing is a bit of wifom early in the game suggesting he may be Wilgy's and MM's teammate. Additionally, many players have cited an intangible bad vibe from him since the beginning of the game, something about his style and participation is rubbing the wrong way.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:13 pm**

nutella wrote:
Sloonei wrote:I have looked into the Turnip thing and I do not understand where the suspicion is coming from. Who wants to explain it to me?
The main thing is a bit of wifom early in the game suggesting he may be Wilgy's and MM's teammate. Additionally, many players have cited an intangible bad vibe from him since the beginning of the game, something about his style and participation is rubbing the wrong way.

Could somebody link me to said wifom? I could not find it.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:14 pm**

I'm getting a pretty solid civ read on Boomslang. I'm not convinced of the TH case; I still need to review his posts myself. And I'm feeling a bit better about Dom now that he's toned down the gimmick, though I'm far from convinced he's civ.

One of my votes is definitely going to Timmer, and I'll decide on the other after I look over TH.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:15 pm**

I'm on my way out the door but I know Lorab quoted/pointed it out a few pages back.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:20 pm**

nutella wrote:I'm on my way out the door but I know Lorab quoted/pointed it out a few pages back.

Thanks. I am not entirely convinced by this. I doubt I'll be voting for Turnip today.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:46 pm**

3 hours to go and I think my short list is down to 3 people. Right now I am leaning toward 2 of DDL, Russtifinko, and timmer. So far no one has more than a single vote, let's start working toward a consensus.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:59 pm**

I think I'm going with BWT again and someone else, but I'm not sure who.

Sloonei, who are the people you have in mind?

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:02 pm**

Sloonei wrote:3 hours to go and I think my short list is down to 3 people. Right now I am leaning toward 2 of DDL, Russtifinko, and timmer. So far no one has more than a single vote, let's start working toward a consensus.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:05 pm**

Well, I'm going to get the ball rolling with votes on the people I indicated previously. Nothing crazy has happened to change my mind, so voting TH and Sorsha.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:08 pm**

Sloonei wrote:
Sloonei wrote:3 hours to go and I think my short list is down to 3 people. Right now I am leaning toward 2 of DDL, Russtifinko, and timmer. So far no one has more than a single vote, let's start working toward a consensus.

I don't really feel bad about any of those - Boomslangs suggestions seem better to me, especially Sorsha.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:10 pm**

Sorsha could climb into my list, but she hasn't responded to any of the accusations against her yet. The longer that remains the case, though, the more suspicious she becomes.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:15 pm**

First mention of INH.

Sorsha wrote:Dom is making me laugh so I'm not voting for him.

I think I'm going to vote for two of the prefects. Jimmy, Scotty, INH... See who's the toughest.

Sorsha wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I'm here
Hi Sorsha! What's going on? Do you have any suspects? What do you think of Dom, MM, and Russ?
Have only been skimming. Looks like Dom is mostly getting votes for the trump schtick, mm for some connection to wilgy and I have no idea what Russ did to be suspicious. My own suspicion is inh but it could probably be more of an annoyance than suspicion. Lobbying for prefect and promising to be active and then bailing.

I don't really find Dom suspicious I could be ok with a mm vote, Russ I don't know yet.

I think this reasoning is a little strange - INH might just be busy or something. Did he mention anything about his schedule?

Sorsha wrote:Voted for myself and inh

And the final vote.

Yeah I could vote for Sorsha.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:20 pm**

Nerolunar wrote:I think I'm going with BWT again and someone else, but I'm not sure who.

Sloonei, who are the people you have in mind?

Why would you repeat your nomination for BWT in light of him not having done anything new.

...I mean, I realize the answer could lie in my question, sort of, but still, why make it one of your two choices for the Day? Does no relevant suspect brought forth inspire you?

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:23 pm**

Ricochet wrote:
Nerolunar wrote:I think I'm going with BWT again and someone else, but I'm not sure who.

Sloonei, who are the people you have in mind?
Why would you repeat your nomination for BWT in light of him not having done anything new.

...I mean, I realize the answer could lie in my question, sort of, but still, why make it one of your two choices for the Day? Does no relevant suspect brought forth inspire you?

Not really. I guess you could say BWT is a tangent that is yet to be solved.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:29 pm**

Nerolunar wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Nerolunar wrote:I think I'm going with BWT again and someone else, but I'm not sure who.

Sloonei, who are the people you have in mind?
Why would you repeat your nomination for BWT in light of him not having done anything new.

...I mean, I realize the answer could lie in my question, sort of, but still, why make it one of your two choices for the Day? Does no relevant suspect brought forth inspire you?
Not really. I guess you could say BWT is a tangent that is yet to be solved.

Do you reckon the chances of it being solved are high toDay?

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:33 pm**

Ricochet wrote:
Nerolunar wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Nerolunar wrote:I think I'm going with BWT again and someone else, but I'm not sure who.

Sloonei, who are the people you have in mind?
Why would you repeat your nomination for BWT in light of him not having done anything new.

...I mean, I realize the answer could lie in my question, sort of, but still, why make it one of your two choices for the Day? Does no relevant suspect brought forth inspire you?
Not really. I guess you could say BWT is a tangent that is yet to be solved.
Do you reckon the chances of it being solved are high toDay?

Maybe. This reminds me of how the third parties are treated in the presidential election right now.

Voting is my right and I'm going with BWT and Sorsha.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:34 pm**

Nero, I touched on why I don't agree with your BWT suspicion here. Thoughts?

Sloonei wrote:
Nerolunar wrote: This post made me vote for BWT:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I hate having to do this, but I haven't caught up at all, I'm more than 10 pages behind, and I've had a really bad cold I've been dealing with for the last few days. I'm going to vote for myself and random another person on the list. I'm hoping with any off day tomorrow that I'll have enough time to read through everything and catch back up. Sorry everyone!
I hate random votes, and what I hate more is self-voting, even in a game like this. Seems like BWT wants to duel another random person and squash the opponent no matter who it is. I don't like it.
I cannot get behind this accusation and I do not understand your logic in making it. It seems that when BWT self-voted, he was the only person voting for himself that day. He wasn't asking to be put into a duel, he was simply trying to avoid doing any accidental or unnecessary damage. His stated reason that he was simply not caught up enough to justify any vote seems more believable to me. Additionally, would he not also want to use his second vote on one of the other players near the top of a bandwagon if this is what he was doing?

I can understand a self-vote in a situation like this one. I am not saying I town-read birdwithteeth because of it, but I do not scum read him for it either.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:41 pm**

I too am pinged by bwt. He posts short replies like a lazy scared mafioso. Not even referring to his self vote which is more or less null.

After reading further I am thinking of voting Dunny and Bass. Dunny's dropped lip reply to my last post didn't do much for me at all. Arguing that my continued suspicion is wrong simply because timr has passed. You go squish now. Bass wants to duel... and tbh he tone reads bad.

Not keen on lynching TH. Seems like a weak framejob. Probably concocted by Evil Marmot Wifombot.

Also we should lynch Darth Sloonei if y'all know what's good for you. Sloonei is always bad is so right it is a scientific law.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:42 pm**

To clarify my Sloonei case here are the cliffs:

He is Sloonei

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:49 pm**

MacDougall wrote:I have an oddball theory.

Simon has gone quiet. He seemed to have a random beef with JJJ. If he is a Nanman and is low on partners he might lose interest and he might kill JJJ. I could see a lonely Simon mafia doing that.

FYI I am just digging throught the thread for some missing pearls at the moment. Nothing has been really jumping out at me. If nothing juicy comes out I am going to revote Russ and Dunny as nothing there has made me feel any better about either of them.

I heard that.

I don't know why he was killed by someone else. Don't look at me. It wasn't me.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:50 pm**

MacDougall wrote:To clarify my Sloonei case here are the cliffs:

He is Sloonei

I am not.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:51 pm**

MacDougall wrote:To clarify my Sloonei case here are the cliffs:

He is Sloonei

sold

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:52 pm**

I could potentially get behind a dunny vote. I haven't looked too closely at his posts but I remember seeing the case against him and not thinking it was bad. That's a plus.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:52 pm**

DFaraday

So the accusation I vowed to go back and research was DFaraday misrepresented Dom's statements on Bass and was looking for an easy lynch subject. I'm probably paraphrasing a bit, but I think the essence is that Dom believes DFaraday is hounding him as a baddie.

This is the first reaction from Dom towards Bass and I think it can be summed up as Dom signaling that whenever Bass will drop his activity, he should be sanctioned (or unmasked) for not sticking to his word.

DFaraday's reaction was fairly swift, timeline-wise. Since Bass is known for being a low poster, DF disliked Dom's "rationale", believing the accusation easy to prepare "down the road" - in case Bass would in fact not be as active as he expressed intent.

Dom's reaction is to say that DF is "twisting the fact" and that his intentions are not good (civilian).

Day Two and DFaraday updates his accusations against Dom are "not fully addressing the points made against him" and the suspicion of "hiding behind gimmick". The latter can fall under subjective reaction towards gameplaying / or annoyance, while the former, I find that I've pointed myself at a few occasions where Dom was evasive or hollow in rebuttals. Dom replies strongly yet again, with the usual stance of having contributed behind all the Domtalk.

Finally, DFaraday admitedly trips a bit into thinking Dom has flip-flopped on the issue of reading Bass. Which strenghtens Dom's counter-suspicion to the point of implying DF is misreading Dom extensively. Further down the road, he also complains that DF's final vote on him was not "quantified".

===

I'll leave aside the fact that "suspecting DFaraday of looking for/casting an easy vote (against Dom)" because "DFaraday suspected Dom of potentially preparing an easy vote (against Bass)" is a pretty blunt NO U from Dom - maybe I'm sensitive to this issue. Apart from the misread mistake DFaraday made, I do not find that DFaraday was farfetched or reaching in suspecting Dom's projection that Bass dropping the activity would be nefarious, nor in being disappointed by the content ("addressing") or style ("gimmick") of Dom's rebuttals.

I don't see how a baddie verdict on DF can be reached purely from judging this content.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:53 pm**

Yo Simon, nice unannounced vote on me. And on Golden, who regards me as a major civ read. Care to explain yourself?

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:53 pm**

Sloonei wrote:I have looked into the Turnip thing and I do not understand where the suspicion is coming from. Who wants to explain it to me?

I'm in the same boat on TH. It seems the case revolves around the assumption that MM nominated TWO of his team mates in his Day 1 lynch votes (a fact which, despite not knowing him well, I'm struggling a little to grasp) and the fact that he hasn't answered Scotty's question despite (as I understand it) he hasn't been around this Day phase and some general feeling of disquiet about his posts. I can't say that I've observed anything that disturbing in his behaviour that leads me to suspect him right now.

My votes this Day phase will almost certainly be for Sorsha (again) and timmer as a consequence of the MM Day 2 vote.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:54 pm**

I'm voting timmer. The Dom train just isn't getting any steam. I'm considering calling TheCapsFan's bluff as an alternative.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:55 pm**

MacDougall wrote:I don't think Marmot is a good candidate either. I don't like that the case has trace elements of Wilgy wifom in it. Wilgy is a savant of causing wifom to work the way he wants. I feel like he would be expecting Metalmarsh to get suspicion from that post.

MacDougall wrote:
Not keen on lynching TH. Seems like a weak framejob. Probably concocted by Evil Marmot Wifombot.

A pattern arises.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:59 pm**

Let's have Golden vs. Boomslang.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:00 pm**

Simon wrote:Let's have Golden vs. Boomslang.

no

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:04 pm**

Simon wrote:Let's have Golden vs. Boomslang.

I do not presently support either of these options. I haven't looked at Golden yet though.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:09 pm**

Hmmmm....just noticed TH hasn't posted this entire day cycle. And I also saw that he was viewing the thread. So, thinking he may be silenced. So I'm not going to vote for him for now because it's bad form--and I totally called him out for doing that to me last game (maybe the game before...they all blend together--recently though).

So, now I'm not sure what to do with my second vote. I'll probably use 1 on Timmer.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:09 pm**

BRING ON THE DUEL.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:09 pm**

Ricochet wrote:
MacDougall wrote:I don't think Marmot is a good candidate either. I don't like that the case has trace elements of Wilgy wifom in it. Wilgy is a savant of causing wifom to work the way he wants. I feel like he would be expecting Metalmarsh to get suspicion from that post.

MacDougall wrote:
Not keen on lynching TH. Seems like a weak framejob. Probably concocted by Evil Marmot Wifombot.
A pattern arises.

Where?

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:10 pm**

Sloonei wrote:
Simon wrote:Let's have Golden vs. Boomslang.
I do not presently support either of these options. I haven't looked at Golden yet though.

That's okay.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:12 pm**

I have expressed my beefs with Golden and they haven't improved so far. I have a new vibe of him being indy, maybe, but it's purely subjective interpretation of his non-committal-ness outside agreeing or (mostly) disagreeing with stated suspicion. A sort of fearing to lock on an option and face its outcome. A baddie would have no issue throwing darts at everyone, whether landing on civ or indy, as long as it doesn't backfires at him (apart from, in extremis, bussing a teammate). An indy, technically, could be in murkier waters and try to tread more carefully. His D1 votes look pretty weaksauce (DF, DP). Then on D2 he locks on significant counter-wagons, at a bad timing, according to my chart - which looks more committed and relevant, but isn't an improvement, I'd say.

linki: right there, Mac. To paraphrase: Wilgy would concoct WIFOM for MM. MM would concoct WIFOM for TH.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:18 pm**

What do people think of DDL?

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:20 pm**

Voted Dom and timmer. The latter voted TCF so I avoided going there for now. In hindsight I might have thought too hard about that, because I skipped on the detail that they could both be bad, just on another team. I'm comfortable with my vote anyway.

linki: I have a pending ISO to complete on DDL, so I'll give you my thought when I do it.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:21 pm**

Ricochet wrote:I have expressed my beefs with Golden and they haven't improved so far. I have a new vibe of him being indy, maybe, but it's purely subjective interpretation of his non-committal-ness outside agreeing or (mostly) disagreeing with stated suspicion. A sort of fearing to lock on an option and face its outcome. A baddie would have no issue throwing darts at everyone, whether landing on civ or indy, as long as it doesn't backfires at him (apart from, in extremis, bussing a teammate). An indy, technically, could be in murkier waters and try to tread more carefully. His D1 votes look pretty weaksauce (DF, DP). Then on D2 he locks on significant counter-wagons, at a bad timing, according to my chart - which looks more committed and relevant, but isn't an improvement, I'd say.

linki: right there, Mac. To paraphrase: Wilgy would concoct WIFOM for MM. MM would concoct WIFOM for TH.

Surely Marmot wouldn't double down on his teammate though. That would be epic dumb. Would be giving him concrete boots.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:23 pm**

MacDougall wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I have expressed my beefs with Golden and they haven't improved so far. I have a new vibe of him being indy, maybe, but it's purely subjective interpretation of his non-committal-ness outside agreeing or (mostly) disagreeing with stated suspicion. A sort of fearing to lock on an option and face its outcome. A baddie would have no issue throwing darts at everyone, whether landing on civ or indy, as long as it doesn't backfires at him (apart from, in extremis, bussing a teammate). An indy, technically, could be in murkier waters and try to tread more carefully. His D1 votes look pretty weaksauce (DF, DP). Then on D2 he locks on significant counter-wagons, at a bad timing, according to my chart - which looks more committed and relevant, but isn't an improvement, I'd say.

linki: right there, Mac. To paraphrase: Wilgy would concoct WIFOM for MM. MM would concoct WIFOM for TH.
Surely Marmot wouldn't double down on his teammate though. That would be epic dumb. Would be giving him concrete boots.

I considered the possibility. I think it's feasible for him of all people.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:27 pm**

timmer wrote:BRING ON THE DUEL.

That's really all you have to say for yourself? Alright. Vote: Timmer

I can't really decide whether TH's apparent silencing makes him more or less likely to be on Nanman, and I guess I'll err on the side of granting him the same courtesy as Lorab. So my second vote is going to the next name on my list, who also hasn't bothered to defend himself lately: Russ.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:27 pm**

Quin wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I have expressed my beefs with Golden and they haven't improved so far. I have a new vibe of him being indy, maybe, but it's purely subjective interpretation of his non-committal-ness outside agreeing or (mostly) disagreeing with stated suspicion. A sort of fearing to lock on an option and face its outcome. A baddie would have no issue throwing darts at everyone, whether landing on civ or indy, as long as it doesn't backfires at him (apart from, in extremis, bussing a teammate). An indy, technically, could be in murkier waters and try to tread more carefully. His D1 votes look pretty weaksauce (DF, DP). Then on D2 he locks on significant counter-wagons, at a bad timing, according to my chart - which looks more committed and relevant, but isn't an improvement, I'd say.

linki: right there, Mac. To paraphrase: Wilgy would concoct WIFOM for MM. MM would concoct WIFOM for TH.
Surely Marmot wouldn't double down on his teammate though. That would be epic dumb. Would be giving him concrete boots.
I considered the possibility. I think it's feasible for him of all people.

If that is the case his teammates would be thrilled.

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:32 pm**

Sloonei wrote:What do people think of DDL?

I don't think I have any strength or time left to thoroughly go through his posts and judge him. I think the points you brought up were fairly poopy, but not major moments in his activity. I rather noted down, even during my spectating, the amount of paranoia stances he embraced, but that's about it. I don't have a proper picture to read DDL toDay, overall.

===

Boomslang, in short

+ his D3 catchup post, with a few reads: not detecting any content to have issues with or any suss'ing which feels nefarious; it also doesn't give me the vibe that Boomslang would have received an alert to act more eloquent and wordy in his posting, in case the jump in quality and quantity is an issue here

~ his duel options D0 theory: not an option I would have been sympathetic with myself, but I think it was overall D0 talk, with no effect since nominating suspects was ultimately taken as the motto; when the design allows for variations, I don't feel opposite views around how to approach that variation (or rather stay conservative / not complicate things) have a specific pattern, alignment-wise ("baddies would propose this")

- the Day 1 vote reasoning (voting two players who bantered about wanting to duel)
- his D2 questioning of Jan wanting the exact same players that he voted D1, for a similar wonky reasoning ("wanting to see them gone"), strikes a bit iffy; I mean, no doubt, I suspect Jan of the same, but for Boom to bring it up, in light of his own messy reasoning... blergh
- a bit quick, all of a sudden, jumping on Sloonei's case on DDL, with strong words like "fantastic catch" that strike me a bit too enthusiastic; full context is required, in that DDL already suss'd Boomslang. I find this DDL - Boomslang dynamic to suddenly shape up in an interesting way, there could be something to either of them trying to get each other lynched.

So not without its spottiness and the minuses seems to outweight the pluses, but I wouldn't say it'd convince me enough to make Boom one of my nominees right now.

The Syndicate

Romance of the Three Kingdoms [ENDGAME]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 1]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 3]