The Syndicate

My candidates for a vote right now.

MP
SVS
Nerolunar
Matt

Possibly in that order.

ekeknat wrote:

juliets wrote: ekeknat who are you going to vote for and why?

idk lol

i don't think anyone's who's really been posting has done anything to warrant my vote yet.. i could vote zebra just because last game drove me crazy but i don't think that's a good move

You believe there to be no cases made by anyone that have even slightly resonated with you?

Someone dot point the SVS case please.

sig wrote:@Glorfindel, okay thanks what do you think of me right know? Also who do you plan to vote for?

Is Floyd usually this silent as a civ or is he more silent as mafia? I can only recall playing two games with him THM and Tree, he posted a bit more in Tree then in THM?

I'm not feeling the Scotty lynch today. I see the case on Matt, but I don't really see a case against him. I've still got a bad gut feeling of Glorfindel, but not much else for the time.

@Typhoony who are you thinking of voting for?

Sig, you know we're good friends and you know my game inside and out. If there is anyone here that can read me like a book, it's you. Shortly after S-V-Ss remarks about the 'craftedness' of THAT post of mine, you claim to have been 'pinged' by what I said/how I said it. A less charitable mind might interpret that as laying the ground work for a later lynch vote. You also claim (more recently) that I am not posting the way I normally do when I'm Town. Frankly, I don't see it that way and I know it to be a misrepresentation (whether through error or deliberately) because you are wrong.

On the other hand, your posts so far this game have been largely articulate and polished which to me suggests you are not playing your normal Town game. I think I've said this to you previously this game so it should come as no surprise to you. Whether this change is indicative of your alignment being other than to the Town or for some other reason, I'm not sure. I am watching you carefully though...

Good points Glorfindel.

OK I have a busy night so I need to vote now . I voting zebra.

MacDougall wrote:

ekeknat wrote:

juliets wrote: ekeknat who are you going to vote for and why?

idk lol

i don't think anyone's who's really been posting has done anything to warrant my vote yet.. i could vote zebra just because last game drove me crazy but i don't think that's a good move

You believe there to be no cases made by anyone that have even slightly resonated with you?

not really, both because i haven't exactly understood the game thus far to a complete extent, and because i don't know the perspective from which any of these cases are being made

MacDougall wrote:Someone dot point the SVS case please.

Her post to Glorfindel reads as nefariously "crafted" to me, and her responses/defense has been needlessly verbose and campy, which suggests to me that she is bad.

Black Rock wrote:I've decided to look at a few people to best get a feeling of the thread. I feel a little out of the groove. So I started with Scotty, which I was happy to see had under 30 posts. I wish I knew how to read him better. In a direct comparison to the last game I played with him and this game, he feels a lot more conservative and less accusational. He's playing it safe and I don't trust that.

I'm going to check out dharmahelper next.

This feels like a manufactured way to get involved. Have you read the thread cover to cover? And what made you start with Scotty?

Like why start with a player who you admit you can't read well?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:OK I have a busy night so I need to vote now . I voting zebra.

Bad.

Turnip Head wrote:Like why start with a player who you admit you can't read well?

Why not start with someone who has a case on them already and has been actively discussed as a suspect?

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Like why start with a player who you admit you can't read well?

Why not start with someone who has a case on them already and has been actively discussed as a suspect?

I guess you've supplied her with a decent answer to my question.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:OK I have a busy night so I need to vote now . I voting zebra.

You vote without giving a reason which you know is not a good thing to do. So why? I think I need to take another look at your posts.

Turnip Head wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Like why start with a player who you admit you can't read well?

Why not start with someone who has a case on them already and has been actively discussed as a suspect?

I guess you've supplied her with a decent answer to my question.

Did that answer not occur to you before you posted your question?

ussig i didnt vote u. chill

i dont "think zebras a civ," youre putting words in my mouth. i just dont think shes sus?

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Like why start with a player who you admit you can't read well?

Why not start with someone who has a case on them already and has been actively discussed as a suspect?

I guess you've supplied her with a decent answer to my question.

Did that answer not occur to you before you posted your question?

From my years of experience with civ-BR she follows her own gut. That's why it was weird to me. Like I said it felt like a manufactured way to get involved.

But really I posted my questions to BR because I wanted her answers to them

DharmaHelper wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Someone dot point the SVS case please.

Her post to Glorfindel reads as nefariously "crafted" to me, and her responses/defense has been needlessly verbose and campy, which suggests to me that she is bad.

I was very careful in my wording to Glorfindel, yes. Do you think my careful questions are more suspicious than his careful replies? I was asking questions, lol. Since when are carefully worded questions something suspicious?

He came in from a whole thread read, and the only thing he commented on was how he thought Zebra was not bad. Then when someone asked him if he had any suspects, he said "Matt". The person who mist suspected Zebra.

I think people are more likely to answer you if you aren't pointing a finger in their face, so I was fairly careful in how I spoke to him, especially since I knew he had left a game at one point over thread occurences and was specifically trying to be non confrontational.

So yeah, I was careful and tried to be very clear.

And after my meltdown with Zebra, I was trying to lighten up a bit. Thus "campy" as you put it. Plus I was doing this in the signup thread too, before we even had roles. And I am a chatty bitch.

@Dom, besides Glorfindel I suspect Zebra to some extent, which is why Glorfindels initial post caught my eye. I also have not had the clear civ feels from Typh I would like. This AM, the way he reacted to my question for Glorfindel asking me flat out if I suspected him did not help. If I go to all that effort to ask clear questions without any finger pointing, I must have a reason for that, yes? But he pulled me out anyhow.

But his showing up this afternoon and being engaged make me feel better. But like he said about me, while I am not seeing bad Typh, I amnot seeing good Typh either.

Glorfindel wrote:

sig wrote:@Glorfindel, okay thanks what do you think of me right know? Also who do you plan to vote for?

Is Floyd usually this silent as a civ or is he more silent as mafia? I can only recall playing two games with him THM and Tree, he posted a bit more in Tree then in THM?

I'm not feeling the Scotty lynch today. I see the case on Matt, but I don't really see a case against him. I've still got a bad gut feeling of Glorfindel, but not much else for the time.

@Typhoony who are you thinking of voting for?

Sig, you know we're good friends and you know my game inside and out. If there is anyone here that can read me like a book, it's you. Shortly after S-V-Ss remarks about the 'craftedness' of THAT post of mine, you claim to have been 'pinged' by what I said/how I said it. A less charitable mind might interpret that as laying the ground work for a later lynch vote. You also claim (more recently) that I am not posting the way I normally do when I'm Town. Frankly, I don't see it that way and I know it to be a misrepresentation (whether through error or deliberately) because you are wrong.

On the other hand, your posts so far this game have been largely articulate and polished which to me suggests you are not playing your normal Town game. I think I've said this to you previously this game so it should come as no surprise to you. Whether this change is indicative of your alignment being other than to the Town or for some other reason, I'm not sure. I am watching you carefully though...

I can read you better then some and I have defended you already. However, to say I can read you always correctly is wrong, I had some pings of you in Star Wars, but overall thought you where a civ. However, I was wrong and you were indeed mafia. I'm getting slightly the same vibe some of your posts are very genuine others aren't. I especially don't like your push on me saying I'm to neat/polished to be town. First off this isn't true, second off to form a case around me based on the fact not as many people are suspecting me as usually and I'm that I'm more articulate means that I'm bad is foolish. Know I'm not going to argue that I'm playing badly (what a weird thing to do) However, I've already had one very unpopular view, as well as a slightly less popular thing. Plus TH formed a case based around me using poor word usage so I don't understand that at all?

I'll also point out you're saying I'm not playing as Town Sig, which isn't always a good playstyle so why shouldn't I be trying to improve it? I repeatedly get lynched and suspected early as town (like right know) so shouldn't I try to stop this from happening? However, this is like the ultimate WIFOM self drag argument and I believe your insincere in pushing it. Or perhaps your being paranoid since I've in the past fooled you as mafia. Which I'm not doing Matty since I'm not mafia this game.

gotta eat dinner I'll be back afterwords to discuss more and vote.

Scotty wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Scotty wrote:So now some of you are actively looking at low posters, huh? Interesting.

Is the reason none of you are willing to vote lovedelic because he's new to the site?

I am tempted but only because he hasn't posted once or logged on in ages and if that goes on there's no point him being around. If he posted even once I'd be unwilling to vote him straight away though. I'm also considering Floyd and Bubbles because honestly they've contributed as much to the game as Lovedelic has and both consistently get away with low participation for long periods of time in my experience. For Floyd in particular I actually associate tend quietness and badness based on my experience with him in TH.

Which is exactly why I'd more willingly vote him over Equiv.

I would agree, if I were to look at low posters, that ekeknat would get my vote if lovedelic so much as says hello.

The one game I played with Floyd, he was the cop, and actually posted about the same amount as now in a manner of 2 days, so I'm still wary that is happening here.

ekeknat- "anyone could be bad"? Yes. You are technically correct. But come on man. All this time, and nothing to add...on anything?

linki: BR You are correct that I haven't been posting all that much this game. Maybe it is a strategy I'm employing in order to actually win a game for once and not get blasted and NK'd for talking too much. Or maybe I just haven't had much time. I'd go with the latter, but who knows?

Convenient that you settle on ek after others have.

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I think Floyd just enjoys barely playing.

Floyd plays late when he gets there. I know some people aren't a fan of that but as an impartial observer of Tree Mafia I thought that Floyd turned an early start into a really good performance.

I don't think it is a good habit that we have gotten into recently where we suspect people for being low posters who are always low posters. Bubbles is another of these. DF, Bass... I'd rather view them all based on the substantive content they do have.

For me, the kind of person I'd lynch for being a 'low poster' is really an absentee... someone who has stopped playing entirely.

I tried contacting lovedellic on rym but I was having trouble loading RYM. Anyone else able to give it a try?

This guy right here gets it.

Does that make any sense to you, @Dom?

No because you choosing to vote an actual low poster has nothing to do with your contradiction earlier.


Enrique-- why are you so defensive?

Mkay. Voted.

Like you always do

Seriously though DH, do you think carefully worded questions are suspicious?

Voted lovedelic like I said I would. I need to get ready for a show.

@Dom in regards to ekaknat: Why is that curious? People have listed tons of people before me. In terms of tone, I am most thrown off be him than the others. That recent post he made is the reason why. It has nothing to do with what others were talking about.

Scotty wrote:Voted lovedelic like I said I would.

Shocker.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:SVS, I also encountered the same Winston Churchill quote when I googled appeaser.

It's the main appeaser quote, I think. Neville Chamberlain and all~

dom ive literally always played like this. whats the issue, that i try to respond thoroughly?

S~V~S wrote:Seriously though DH, do you think carefully worded questions are suspicious?

I've expressed what I found suspicious.

DharmaHelper wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Seriously though DH, do you think carefully worded questions are suspicious?

I've expressed what I found suspicious.

Which boils down to carefully worded questions, campiness, and using lots of words.

Scotty wrote:Voted lovedelic like I said I would. I need to get ready for a show.

@Dom in regards to ekaknat: Why is that curious? People have listed tons of people before me. In terms of tone, I am most thrown off be him than the others. That recent post he made is the reason why. It has nothing to do with what others were talking about.

Nah.

You didn't bring him up until others did. You made it a point to talk about low posters, but missed ek until others brought him up. You don't really care who you lynch-- as long as it's not you and it doesn't bring you mass suspicion if you're wrong.

Enrique wrote:dom ive literally always played like this. whats the issue, that i try to respond thoroughly?

Responding thoroughly is not overreacting to questions about your posts from someone whose entire gameplay is seeing how people react to questions-- especially at the beginning of games.

would you mind explaining what turns my reactions into overreactions? im answering your questions can you be happy with that

Enrique wrote:would you mind explaining what turns my reactions into overreactions? im answering your questions can you be happy with that

When you immediately infer suspicion where there isn't any.

Turnip Head wrote:

Scotty wrote:Voted lovedelic like I said I would.

Shocker.

I get a certain "Hey look, I'm consistent" vibe in this post from Scotty.

With all this talk of SVS being 'campy' I now have an image of her twirling her fake moustache and monologuing about her nefarious plans.

Ugh stupid scouts I've got to go like in five minutes. I might hold my vote as I'll be done my activity by 8:30 so it will be a late vote, or I'll vote before I leave.

So for Enrique tbh I mainly don't like that he is thinking of voting for me, I find his reasons to be weak, I find it interesting he was so pro hunting inmates and wonder if this was really the case or if he was putting on a front to appear more civ like. His early game defense which seemed a bit over the top, it kind off reminds me of how he acted in Star Wars when he was a baddie. Does he act the same way in his civ games?
I also don't like what I see as Glorfindels attempts to set up my lynch without actually providing a real case.

One other thing is ekeknat he has made a few posts., but none of substance I don't like this at all.

I'm most likely not going to vote for Enrique today, but think it is worth pointing out.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Scotty wrote:Voted lovedelic like I said I would.

Shocker.

I get a certain "Hey look, I'm consistent" vibe in this post from Scotty.

As an unbiased observer, it looks to me like he's rather contradictory.

Golden wrote:With all this talk of SVS being 'campy' I now have an image of her twirling her fake moustache and monologuing about her nefarious plans.

I have neither a fake moustache nor nefarious plans, lol.

I am just perplexed at why anyone thinks that writing a carefully worded post questioning someone is suspicious. You seem to think it is; can you explain to me?

@Enrique what do you think of ekeknat?

I'm not quite sure I understand the case against SVS?

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:formy atrocious typing

Oh SVS, this is just...

What? I got a new laptop a few months ago, an ASUS. With my old laptop, I could rest my wrists on the edge of the front, and just type. This one has a huge space between the edge and the keys, so I have to hover over, and it has been a learning curve, lol. I ran all my words together for a while. It is oneof the reasons I stayed out of the chatrooms in GOC as much as possible, harder to proofread and still keep up with the conversation.

I was always a horrible typist, but this laptop is teaching me to be a better proofreader. But I still miss a few. Maybe one day I will even get rid of "Becasue".

Not sure if you think that typo is "carefully crafted" since you liked THs point, but it was just a typo. Honest.

I also took this as over defending.

sig wrote:@Enrique what do you think of ekeknat?

I'm not quite sure I understand the case against SVS?

That makes two of us.

Apparently when I questioned Glorfindel, my post was carefully worded. And I am having dome campy fun and using lots of words, some of them big.

Linki, you took it wrong. Anyone who has been in a chat room with me recently knows about this issue.

PLU PLUS PLUS having played extensive irc games with me, you know I can't type for shit. Geez.

And I am always over defensive, and whats more, you know that too.

Golden was ribbing you for mentioning your bad typing and having a typo in mentioning your bad typing, and you wrote a verbose rebuttal to that swearing that it was an "innocent typo".

Over defending.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:With all this talk of SVS being 'campy' I now have an image of her twirling her fake moustache and monologuing about her nefarious plans.

I have neither a fake moustache nor nefarious plans, lol.

I am just perplexed at why anyone thinks that writing a carefully worded post questioning someone is suspicious. You seem to think it is; can you explain to me?

No, its not that it was carefully worded at all. We'd probably do better if we all worded our posts carefully.

What I didn't like is the gap between it feeling like you were being nice to and building up glorfindel when your intention actually appeared to be the opposite. I understand the concept of a civvie trap (I use them sometimes) but your approach to glorfindel feels slightly nefarious to me, like you were baiting him to a trap in order to lynch him.

Matt and sig are my biggest suspects so far by a long shot, and I think there's more of a chance that Matt's absurd tunneling of me is genuine (although he did agree with sig by advocating map discussion....which I find shady as hell) than the chance that sig's contrived suspicions of anyone who listens to the host is genuine. So I'm probably going to vote sig. However, I'm up for discussion before I place my vote.

S~V~S wrote:PLU PLUS PLUS having played extensive irc games with me, you know I can't type for shit. Geez.

I don't suspect you because you can't type for shit.

Bass wants me dead so I'll be gone from the thread, nothing new there.

I still don't understand the case against Scotty. He was hypocritical with one of the points he made? Is that really it or am I missing something?