The Syndicate

Stephen wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Lot wrote:Absalom the heathen, trying to lynch men of God.

Okay, well you seem pretty sure of yourself. Such clarity must be nice. The rest of us have no idea what you're talking about though.

This doesn't sound like a genuine defense. Why aren't you outraged over such a vague suspicion?

Lot wrote: And the opposite is true. How hard you fight is not, nor has ever been, a good indicator of who is bad.

Ruth wrote:RIP Job

I am voting Jebusites. It sounds like "Jeebus" and I am in favor of that.

Epignosis wrote:

Ruth wrote:RIP Job

I am voting Jebusites. It sounds like "Jeebus" and I am in favor of that.

There's a reason for that! It comes from the word "Jebus."

Judah wrote:

Jephthah wrote:I don't believe I'm doing it, but I think I'm voting Balaam. I am so freaking pinged by Samuel's vote

Why not vote Samuel?

Lot wrote:Silver linings time - not much of one though.

Job wasn't an activated disciple, so there is no clear reason for his Uzziah fixation (since he appears to be vanilla). Doesn't mean Uzz is good - but Job didn't have a whole lot of time to get info about him through some non-role-related manner before he went after him. The horseman theory, then, isn't a terrible one. Although clearly his vote for Rachel proved he was not required to vote Uzziah.

@Absalom - we've had four lynches, three of which have had either the first or second highest vote getter be a civilian where you pushed for their lynch HARD. The fact you haven't always quite succeeded is by the by... people are still following you each day. I still haven't forgiven you for lynching a silenced man. And it hasn't escaped my attention how interesting the NKs continue to be either. Gideon? Why, the only thing I remember about Gideon is how he vouched for Balaam so hard that when I suspected Balaam for even a second, Gideon voted for me...

Absalom wrote:Your logic that I have had suspicions and voice them and that sometimes the people I suspected died and sometimes they didn't, therefore I must be bad, is laughable.

Lot wrote:But nice to see you have started falling in to the baddie tropes...

Calling my suspicion laughable...
Saying I'm making up lies...
Misrepresenting what I say...

Yeah, I recognise these things. The defence of the baddie.

Lot wrote:Argue it, then.

Lot wrote:What am I dropping?

Nicodemus wrote:

Lot wrote:Argue it, then.

You've called my suspicion of Balaam "ridiculous" and "bollocks". You've also fundamentally misconstrued my whole point.

Lot wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:

Lot wrote:Argue it, then.

You've called my suspicion of Balaam "ridiculous" and "bollocks". You've also fundamentally misconstrued my whole point.

1) It wasn't a suspicion of me, so it's not a defence. Completely different thing.
2) The idea that civilians scramble is bollocks and ridiculous - that doesn't mean you are lying about it (no, he definitely didn't scramble, you were truthful) or the fact you take that view is laughable (no, sometimes people don't think logic through). It just means the statement was utterly factually incorrect.
3) How exactly did I fundamentally misconstrue your point?

@Rachel - perhaps it looks like they change quick because I've been virtually unable to talk for so much of the last week.

FWIW, if you read me back, you'll notice my eye has been on both Jephthah and Absalom for a good while.

Lot wrote:"He would have stood up for himself" is exactly the same as scrambling.

And what else is standing up for yourself if not voting for Job? And given your own assessment of what a civvie would do, how does that mesh with Job's own vote for Rachel?

I haven't fundamentally misunderstood your point. Balaam has had a ton of skin in the game, and he put a ton of skin into the game responding to Absalom as well. You picked out a single post as not standing up for himself, after he had done all the rest.

The simple truth is this: Your statement 'if he was a civ, he would have,,,,' is simply untrue, from the point of all the evidence of all history of playing mafia.

PS, only your first fact is a fact. The second is your opinion.

And what else is standing up for yourself if not voting for Job? And given your own assessment of what a civvie would do, how does that mesh with Job's own vote for Rachel?

Lot wrote:And I certainly suspected both of them before you.

I'm feeling pretty ok about you again. And you should go back and think about why I stated I voted for you, exactly, and see how consistent it is with what I've been saying today.

Lot wrote:I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

Absalom wrote:Hypocrisy. "Civs don't scramble" "You scrambled, so I feel good about you." You're not being remotely consistent with your own rhetoric. Now sit down and stop embarrassing yourself.

Lot wrote:Baddies will fight to the end even when they have a team and could relax.
Civilians will take votes against them calmly and hope people see the truth of their words.

And the opposite is true. How hard you fight is not, nor has ever been, a good indicator of who is bad.

Lot wrote:So the list against me from Absalom today currently stands at:

I'm laughable
I'm embarrassing myself
I'm a hypocrite
I'm a liar

This is way better than aiming at the substantive aspects of what I've said about him. Let's see what's next, shall we!

Lot wrote:This is the only time I will be talking in the thread today, so I'm going to make it count as much as I can. Expect a lot of words.

I was one of if not the first to suggest Martha was killed for being annoying. And I really did believe it. But then Paul died as well. And what should happen immediately afterwards?

Absalom wrote:

Rachel wrote:Who do you think did so, Absalom, son of David.

Some idiot. The pattern seems to be killing people who are annoying, which is a foolish strategy for the baddies. I hate them. Bah.

Absalom, who calls the killing of Paul a 'pattern'. I find this incredibly interesting. I don't think baddies tend to go for patterns... unless they can hide their real intention behind one.

Absalom, the man called out by Martha on day one. Martha, who said Absalom was very linked with Paul, and that possibly they were baddie teammates...
Absalom, who lynched Cain when he couldn't talk, and remained proud of it even after Cain turned out to be a role checker...

Who might benefit most from a Paul kill?

Absalom had taken a little heat from the Martha kill. He had even more heat from the Cain lynch. What better way to get the heat to die down a little than for the Heathen to kill Absalom's 'teammate' Paul, and Absalom to be 'upset' about it...

The baddies can make it look like they are just playing shits and giggles, after Paul did his whole 'I don't like posting at night' spiel. It gives them the perfect alibi to make out like they were taking out someone they find annoying, or just liked the irony of it.

Now Absalom feels soooo closely linked with three out of four deaths. For me there are really only two possibilities - either Absalom is bad, or the heathen really have it in for him and are trying to set him up to look bad.

Lot wrote:@Absalom - we've had four lynches, three of which have had either the first or second highest vote getter be a civilian where you pushed for their lynch HARD. The fact you haven't always quite succeeded is by the by... people are still following you each day. I still haven't forgiven you for lynching a silenced man. And it hasn't escaped my attention how interesting the NKs continue to be either. Gideon? Why, the only thing I remember about Gideon is how he vouched for Balaam so hard that when I suspected Balaam for even a second, Gideon voted for me...

Lot wrote:Oh, Absalom - you didn't know I was about to do that, but what poor timing for you to claim that was the entire substance of my case. I had a feeling that was going to be your angle. Now THAT, above, is the entire substance of my case.

Absalom wrote: Day 1: I voted for Cain, I expressed no suspicion of Samson. Somson was lynched and flipped civ.
Day 2: I voted for Cain, he was lynched and flipped civ. My bad.
Day 3: I voted for Uzziah, expressed no suspicion of Mary Magdalane. Mary was lynched and flipped civ.
Day 4: I voted for Balaam. I actively and repeatedly said I didn't think Job was bad. Job was lynched and flipped civ.

Absalom wrote:

Lot wrote:Silver linings time - not much of one though.

Job wasn't an activated disciple, so there is no clear reason for his Uzziah fixation (since he appears to be vanilla). Doesn't mean Uzz is good - but Job didn't have a whole lot of time to get info about him through some non-role-related manner before he went after him. The horseman theory, then, isn't a terrible one. Although clearly his vote for Rachel proved he was not required to vote Uzziah.

@Absalom - we've had four lynches, three of which have had either the first or second highest vote getter be a civilian where you pushed for their lynch HARD. The fact you haven't always quite succeeded is by the by... people are still following you each day. I still haven't forgiven you for lynching a silenced man. And it hasn't escaped my attention how interesting the NKs continue to be either. Gideon? Why, the only thing I remember about Gideon is how he vouched for Balaam so hard that when I suspected Balaam for even a second, Gideon voted for me...

Well, it's a good thing I don't play mafia to earn your forgiveness.

Your logic that I have had suspicions and voice them and that sometimes the people I suspected died and sometimes they didn't, therefore I must be bad, is laughable.

Day 1: I voted for Cain, I expressed no suspicion of Samson. Somson was lynched and flipped civ.
Day 2: I voted for Cain, he was lynched and flipped civ. My bad.
Day 3: I voted for Uzziah, expressed no suspicion of Mary Magdalane. Mary was lynched and flipped civ.
Day 4: I voted for Balaam. I actively and repeatedly said I didn't think Job was bad. Job was lynched and flipped civ.

If you're going to make up lie about me, you could at least be a little more creative.

Lot wrote:I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

Absalom wrote:

Lot wrote:I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You claim that I pushed civilian lynches HARD. That is simply false. Pull those quotes. I said who I suspected, gave my reasons, and voted. Only one of the people I have voted for is a confirmed civ. The other three lynches I had nothing to do with. I don't understand how you can say I'm constantly leading lynches against civs based on the facts.

The other interesting thing you said is "people are still following you." Yeah, so what if they are? Can I control who follows my vote? What exactly are you accusing me of, having teammates who follow my vote? Do you honestly think I'm saying "hey fellas, let's all vote the same way"? Do you think I would do that if I were bad?

These accusations make no sense to me, especially since they seem to have come out of nowhere. Are you cursed?

Lot wrote: But clearly this is what you call 'addressing my substantive case', since you claim that's what you did. So, if this is you addressing my substantive case, and even if you only thought my case was the one post you responded to...

Why did you ignore it when I said 'either the first or second highest vote getter'? Why did you only mention who was actually lynched?

Lot wrote: Why did you ignore what I said about NKs.. it even implied the rest of my case about you from the day before?

Lot wrote: Why is it relevant that the people you didn't suspect flipped civ, and that you made no mention of them being bad? How does that add in any way to my statement that on three of those days, you voted for a civ? When the highest two vote getters are civ/civ, why should it be a virtue you didn't vote for the person who actually got lynched?

Lot wrote: What I did ask was this:

Lot wrote:I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You could put this another way - I effectively asked "tell me how what you just wrote is a defence against my substantive case..."

Your response:

Absalom wrote:

Lot wrote:I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You claim that I pushed civilian lynches HARD. That is simply false. Pull those quotes. I said who I suspected, gave my reasons, and voted. Only one of the people I have voted for is a confirmed civ. The other three lynches I had nothing to do with. I don't understand how you can say I'm constantly leading lynches against civs based on the facts.

The other interesting thing you said is "people are still following you." Yeah, so what if they are? Can I control who follows my vote? What exactly are you accusing me of, having teammates who follow my vote? Do you honestly think I'm saying "hey fellas, let's all vote the same way"? Do you think I would do that if I were bad?

These accusations make no sense to me, especially since they seem to have come out of nowhere. Are you cursed?

So, at the moment, your entire substantive response to my posts is that you didn't push for the lynches HARD. So I'll go back and look at that, happily.

Lot wrote:Nicodemus, your entire response to me coming out swinging today does make me feel reasonably good about you. Your responses all feel genuine to me, and like you are defending views you genuinely held.

How does self-preservation mesh with 'being content with your lynch'? I mean, I guess I just don't understand what it is you thought you should see from Balaam, if not scrambling. What does your idea of skin in the game look like? And my point on Job is this - he WAS a civilian, and he did literally nothing. No skin in the game, no scrambling, no self-preservation, nothing. So if one civilian can, how can you reasonably disagree with me that you can't judge affiliation by that behaviour?

Absalom wrote:One more before bed. I will try to answer all your questions.

Responses in pink!

Lot wrote: But clearly this is what you call 'addressing my substantive case', since you claim that's what you did. So, if this is you addressing my substantive case, and even if you only thought my case was the one post you responded to...

Why did you ignore it when I said 'either the first or second highest vote getter'? Why did you only mention who was actually lynched?

I don't understand what the second highest vote getter has to do with anything.

It's not about whether or not you succeeded. It's about how hard you pushed on each day, and the fact the people you pushed against I know that three out of four days they were civs. Which is why I'm willing to look and reconsider whether or not you really did push hard or not, and whether or not you pushed Uzziah hard on day three.

Lot wrote: Why did you ignore what I said about NKs.. it even implied the rest of my case about you from the day before?

I actually forgot about that part of your case, since it was several days ago. I addressed it above after you reposted it.

Fair enough. Sorry to people reading, things get a bit out of synch because the long posts take a while. For me the NK links are the more damning thing - I think they all work in your favour. If you wanted Balaam out with minimal fuss, Gideon would have been a good kill, and I would have been a good choice to silence.

Lot wrote: Why is it relevant that the people you didn't suspect flipped civ, and that you made no mention of them being bad? How does that add in any way to my statement that on three of those days, you voted for a civ? When the highest two vote getters are civ/civ, why should it be a virtue you didn't vote for the person who actually got lynched?

"On three of those days" I voted for a civ is untrue, or at least unproven. You claim Balaam is a civ. I have no particular reason to believe you. Yes, I voted for a civ on two days, but it was the same civ. I don't see how that is so damning, to make have one wrong suspicion.
And it's relevant because you were trying to represent me as leading a bunch of lynches on civs (maybe you didn't outright say htat, but it was implied). I was showing that I didn't lead those lynches.

It is neither untrue nor unproven to me. I know it to be fact. I was saying you were trying to lead lynches on people - I wasn't saying you were successful. That comes back to why it is important that I note often they came in with the second most votes. Again, it comes back to whether or not it is true that you 'led' them. I agree with you that who you suspect is not too relevant. All civvies are going to suspect other civvies. Someone could suspect nothing but civs all game and still be civ. So it's not about WHO you suspect, to me it's about the approach to that suspicion.

Lot wrote: What I did ask was this:

Lot wrote:I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You could put this another way - I effectively asked "tell me how what you just wrote is a defence against my substantive case..."

Your response:

Absalom wrote:

Lot wrote:I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You claim that I pushed civilian lynches HARD. That is simply false. Pull those quotes. I said who I suspected, gave my reasons, and voted. Only one of the people I have voted for is a confirmed civ. The other three lynches I had nothing to do with. I don't understand how you can say I'm constantly leading lynches against civs based on the facts.

The other interesting thing you said is "people are still following you." Yeah, so what if they are? Can I control who follows my vote? What exactly are you accusing me of, having teammates who follow my vote? Do you honestly think I'm saying "hey fellas, let's all vote the same way"? Do you think I would do that if I were bad?

These accusations make no sense to me, especially since they seem to have come out of nowhere. Are you cursed?

So, at the moment, your entire substantive response to my posts is that you didn't push for the lynches HARD. So I'll go back and look at that, happily.

That wasn't my entire response. I posted several times after that, as you well know.

I answered your questions. Now how about answering mine in the quoted post?

Absalom wrote:You guys, I can't help it, I am all pinged out over Balaam. I just don't trust the guy. I know I'm alone on this, but it's how I feel.

Balaam wrote:I'm sorry you feel that way. What can I do to ease your mind?

Absalom wrote:I'm going to have to give my vote to Balaam today. Here's why:

1. His lists, while they have become more helpful, initially read to me as a way of saying "look at me! I'm helping! I must be good because I am helping!"
2. His comment about the Heathens having the game all sewed up, besides being untrue, felt a little like wishful thinking on his part.
3. My gut is just screaming at me to vote for him, and I like to listen to me gut.

I'll hold off on actually voting to see if anything else comes up today, but thta is probably what I will do.

Balaam wrote:I'll ask the question again, Absalom- is there anything you want to hear from me that might help ease your mind about me? Fire away- I'll answer any question you like. I'd much rather be voted for due to concrete evidence than for tone reads and gut intuitions, neither of which have proven to be very successful thus far.

Absalom wrote:I'm sure you see the problem. If I said "Balaam, old buddy, if you say X I'll believe you're good" and then you say X, it proves nothing, because anyone can say what they are told to say regardless of alignment. It's an impossible request that seems to make you look reasonable, and make me look unreasonable by failing to comply with it. Very cleverly crafted, but in fact that question makes me feel worse about you.

Balaam wrote:Fine, I'll simplify the question so you don't end up over-analyzing it: Hey Absalom, got any questions for me? Fire away- I'll answer anything. I've got nothing to hide.

Absalom wrote:Are you bad?

Balaam wrote:I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.

Absalom wrote:I notice you didn't say "no".

Balaam wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Absalom wrote:Are you bad?

I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.

I notice you didn't say "no".

Oh now you done did it, Absalom. Just for you, buddy, here's Balaam's list of responses to your question:

Absalom wrote:Are you bad?

No.
I am not bad.
I am not a baddie.
I am not a Heathen.
I am not a Horseman.
I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.
I am not a civvie role that can turn against other civvies.
The Heathens need to kill or outnumber me and the rest of the civvies to win.
I personally believe the same is true about the Horsemen.
I am trying to help my fellow civvies win the game.
I want to stone Heathens and Horsemen.
I am good.
I am a C.
I am a C-I.
I am a C-I-V-I-L-L-I-A-N.
And I have C-I-V-V-I-E in my H-E-A-R-T
And I will L-I-V-E E-T-E-R-N-A-L-L-Y.*

* actually I will only continue to live so long as I am not stoned or NK'ed

Absalom wrote:Thank you for your answer Balaam. II give you credit for your responsiveness. What I learn from this is that you really don't want to be lynched (I don't think you're in danger since I am the only one talking about voting for you.) What I infer from that... remains to be seen. Rest assured that I will think about my vote before I cast it.

Absalom wrote:So no one else is with me on Balaam, huh? Well I don't care. He's my top suspect and I'm voting him, despite his heroic efforts to talk me out of it.

Balaam wrote:Okay. To each his own.

Nicodemus wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Job wrote:Linki w/ Balaam - dude, you're reading too far into it. Cupid didn't shoot an anti-arrow at me. Uzziah is scummy and I want to lynch him. Ever heard of occams razor? Cute theory but not what is happening.

That's why I said it's a lot of if's but intriguing nonetheless.

Belshazzar wrote:Not just vote. That would be the Pharaoh's doing. Jonah said "feud" and I think that's the better word. It can encompass voting, of course.

Yeah, that's a much more sensible interpretation of it. I was letting my imagination run a little too wild I think.

Jephthah wrote:I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on Lazarus like you promised Balaam.

Oh crap! I forgot about that since yesterday. Gimme an hour or so- need to get some work done at work today. :P

Absalom wrote:So no one else is with me on Balaam, huh? Well I don't care. He's my top suspect and I'm voting him, despite his heroic efforts to talk me out of it.

Okay. To each his own.

Scummy post.

Jacob wrote:Shit, I screwed up and missed the vote again, I'm so sorry I would have voted for Balaam. Though it's odd how strongly Lot is vouching for him

Nicodemus wrote:A civvie so concerned with a near-Heathen win would fight tooth and nail if they were being suspected.

Lot wrote:And, having read back the whole thing...

Absalom, you actually didn't really seem to push Balaam, it's true. After voting for him, you hardly mentioned him (just a couple of not overly pushy posts, agreeing with Nicodemus, etc).

Nicodemus:

Nicodemus wrote:A civvie so concerned with a near-Heathen win would fight tooth and nail if they were being suspected.

For someone saying I misrepresented your point by calling it scrambling, I don't know how I'm supposed to have taken 'fight tooth and nail'.