The Syndicate

If no one went to the Docks tonight, is that where you'd go tomorrow?

btw I'm still liking my/Matt's buddy system for this poll Nero's vote (moreso than MP's) means it's not gonna be doable at every location, but if we skip out on the Docks tonight, we can still get 3 players almost everywhere and 4 on a few others. I like it a lot tbh.

Or we could have 3/4 everywhere and 2 at the Docks. That works too actually.

I was at the Docks D1

Enrique wrote:If no one went to the Docks tonight, is that where you'd go tomorrow?

btw I'm still liking my/Matt's buddy system for this poll Nero's vote (moreso than MP's) means it's not gonna be doable at every location, but if we skip out on the Docks tonight, we can still get 3 players almost everywhere and 4 on a few others. I like it a lot tbh.

I suppose it depends on how I feel when I decide to cast my vote.

Scotty wrote:Question to my voters yesterday (Dom, Mac, juliets, and DFaraday):
How likely are you to vote for me again tomorrow at this point in time?
Hypothetically if you don't vote for me, who would your vote go to right now?

1. Moderately unlikely. I don't agree with your stance, and it still feels unhelpful to the town, but I was in a hurry and slightly pinged by it. If any stronger suspicions arise I'll be voting for them instead.
2. Maybe Nerolunar, since his recent posts sounded like he was trying to encourage suspicion on SVS for missing the vote.

Enrique wrote:@Hosts: When does the Penguin learn the roles of the people he voted for?

Following the Day vote.

Thanks for responding DFaraday

True to my word, sabie showed up so now anyone's game.

I intend to look more closely at MP and put to words why exactly he pinged me.

Scotty wrote:Question to my voters yesterday (Dom, Mac, juliets, and DFaraday):
How likely are you to vote for me again tomorrow at this point in time?
Hypothetically if you don't vote for me, who would your vote go to right now?

I do plan on it at the moment. However, there's lots of time.
I guess MP.

Nerolunar wrote:Are you guys sure about that? She might have broken her meta and is trying a new strategy. Just because it´s traditional to do something doesn´t make it true.

Rubs me the wrong way that you don´t consider that option.

Yeah, Magnus - I think you need to explain this... I think for someone to be online at the very EoD with a tie in play and not vote and then subsequently claim they'd have voted for a player who was not one of those tied is suspicious - especially as it seems there was no rule or precedent to determine the consequence of a tied vote. I'd have presumed that someone with as much experience as SVS apparently has would have used their vote to break the tie one way or the other. Yes, certainly subsequent votes could have restored the tie, but one can only work with what one has to work with at the time.

Glorfindel wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:Are you guys sure about that? She might have broken her meta and is trying a new strategy. Just because it´s traditional to do something doesn´t make it true.

Rubs me the wrong way that you don´t consider that option.

Yeah, Magnus - I think you need to explain this... I think for someone to be online at the very EoD with a tie in play and not vote and then subsequently claim they'd have voted for a player who was not one of those tied is suspicious - especially as it seems there was no rule or precedent to determine the consequence of a tied vote. I'd have presumed that someone with as much experience as SVS apparently has would have used their vote to break the tie one way or the other. Yes, certainly subsequent votes could have restored the tie, but one can only work with what one has to work with at the time.

What do you think of someone who is not SVS voting last with the tie in place but not voting for one of the tied players? Would you consider that suspicious? Because it happened but I dont see you pointing that out.

Nerolunar wrote:Are you guys sure about that? She might have broken her meta and is trying a new strategy. Just because it´s traditional to do something doesn´t make it true.

Rubs me the wrong way that you don´t consider that option.

Nah. SVS has a certain code you can rely upon. Never missing the vote on purpose is one of those things.

She doesn't need to break her meta on her code, because she is such a good player and virtually impossible to read with it. I couldn't tell you any aspect of her meta that I have noticed as being alignment indicative.

Scotty wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Svs would not miss a vote on purpose, no matter what. Anyone that knows her and seriously thinks she would gets an

Well Nero probably doesn't know her as well. As an unaffiliated observer, I would think the same thing. I don't think this is necessarily suspicious to hypothesize.

I agree. But we should also let Nero know that it isn't suspicious for people not to even consider it either. SVS is like a Swiss clock on some things.

Glorfindel wrote:with as much experience as SVS

All of SVS mafia experience has not led her to be a conformist. I don't find it surprising that she would vote for who she most suspected.

I do understand the suspicion of the missed vote in a general sense... but the question I'd ask everyone who suspects SVS for it is this...

What, from a baddie mindset perspective, would be the difference between SVS voting glorfindel, and SVS missing the vote and then claiming she would have voted glorfindel? I mean, I might understand it if she was claiming she was going to vote for someone she hadn't really expected, or claiming she'd vote for someone where it might have made a difference...

But I can't honestly see what kind of baddie-mindset tactical advantage SVS would get from not voting, and then claiming her vote would have been entirely inconsequential. Would any eyebrows have been raised if she just voted glorfindel?

Also, voted Fish Mooneys, for no patricular reason.

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:At the end of the Day I think it's fair to say I tried to influence. I felt Wilgy was a much better choice than Floyd, Scotty or Zebra. That doesn't somehow invalidate or contradict everything I was doing before that.

I'm unsure that your explanation directly relates to what I was saying was suspicious. I felt that your explanations for your play, when questioned by Dom and I, were found to be lacking. While at the time you were carrying them off as though they were something that you felt strongly enough about to making movements towards casting doubt against the players subjected to your play.

Your explanation that your day 1 play is generally feeling out and developing reads, is not an explanation for why your case came across weak to both myself and to Dom when placed under a microscope.

If you prefer to dip your toes in, why proceed to influence the thread with your reads?

....Why am I suddenly being mentioned as if I'm standing by your side? I'm not.

This is a weird post. Is what I said incorrect? I didn't say you were standing by my side. I made the observation that we had the same reads. That is true. Am I seeing that aggressive mean scum Dom again? Because I see no reason for this antagonism.

Golden wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:with as much experience as SVS

All of SVS mafia experience has not led her to be a conformist. I don't find it surprising that she would vote for who she most suspected.

I do understand the suspicion of the missed vote in a general sense... but the question I'd ask everyone who suspects SVS for it is this...

What, from a baddie mindset perspective, would be the difference between SVS voting glorfindel, and SVS missing the vote and then claiming she would have voted glorfindel? I mean, I might understand it if she was claiming she was going to vote for someone she hadn't really expected, or claiming she'd vote for someone where it might have made a difference...

But I can't honestly see what kind of baddie-mindset tactical advantage SVS would get from not voting, and then claiming her vote would have been entirely inconsequential. Would any eyebrows have been raised if she just voted glorfindel?[/quote]
Which is my point about the last person who voted and voted someone not in the mainstream even though there was a tie sitting on the board. Doesn't look like he is under suspicion.

LoRab wrote:Caught up. Interesting there was no lynch. I doubt it was Robin--more likely a character trait, I'd think.

MacDougall wrote: I remain wary of Matt, Bea, Lorab and Bass. DharmaHelper has also started to worry me.

Thank you for properly using wary, first off. And I'd expect nothing less. A game without you suspecting me would be a game without one of us playing--and, let's be honest, you'd likely suspect me in a game that I wasn't playing, lol.

I'm voting Enterprises. Because gadgets are cool, yo.

Yeah and the most recent game I suspected you in you were bad so let's just overlook that.

Who was it juliet?

sorry, i somehow screwed up that post -

juliets wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:Are you guys sure about that? She might have broken her meta and is trying a new strategy. Just because it´s traditional to do something doesn´t make it true.

Rubs me the wrong way that you don´t consider that option.

Yeah, Magnus - I think you need to explain this... I think for someone to be online at the very EoD with a tie in play and not vote and then subsequently claim they'd have voted for a player who was not one of those tied is suspicious - especially as it seems there was no rule or precedent to determine the consequence of a tied vote. I'd have presumed that someone with as much experience as SVS apparently has would have used their vote to break the tie one way or the other. Yes, certainly subsequent votes could have restored the tie, but one can only work with what one has to work with at the time.

What do you think of someone who is not SVS voting last with the tie in place but not voting for one of the tied players? Would you consider that suspicious? Because it happened but I dont see you pointing that out.

Frankly, if it was someone that would be considered experienced then yes, I would. The thing is, I feel that any analysis of that is hampered simply by the way the site is set up. I should think a list of the voting sequence over the last hour/half hour or so before the EoD may be an interesting read...

linki, it was sig

Glorfindel wrote:

juliets wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:Are you guys sure about that? She might have broken her meta and is trying a new strategy. Just because it´s traditional to do something doesn´t make it true.

Rubs me the wrong way that you don´t consider that option.

Yeah, Magnus - I think you need to explain this... I think for someone to be online at the very EoD with a tie in play and not vote and then subsequently claim they'd have voted for a player who was not one of those tied is suspicious - especially as it seems there was no rule or precedent to determine the consequence of a tied vote. I'd have presumed that someone with as much experience as SVS apparently has would have used their vote to break the tie one way or the other. Yes, certainly subsequent votes could have restored the tie, but one can only work with what one has to work with at the time.

What do you think of someone who is not SVS voting last with the tie in place but not voting for one of the tied players? Would you consider that suspicious? Because it happened but I dont see you pointing that out.

Frankly, if it was someone that would be considered experienced then yes, I would. The thing is, I feel that any analysis of that is hampered simply by the way the site is set up. I should think a list of the voting sequence over the last hour/half hour or so before the EoD may be an interesting read...

It can be easily compiled from the polls thread in non-changeable vote games.

I see the answer to my question to juliet is sig.

Hey guys.

Im not necessarily suspicious of people who take SVS at face value, just kind of baffled if you could say so. I believe it´s definitely possible for someone/anyone to intentionally refrain from voting, even SVS. I don´t know her playstyle, and regardless of what you tell me I would much rather try to form viewpoints without any influence from meta.

From the eye of an outsider its just weird how you all seem to agree that this is SVS´s playstyle. Im not reeeeaaallly suspecting her, I just realized how much meta means to you guys and how much it influences your view on someone.

If I ever develop meta here, I would definitely exploit it once in a while.

Linki

Sig, please explain why you didn´t break the tie.

Scotty wrote:Question to my voters yesterday (Dom, Mac, juliets, and DFaraday):
How likely are you to vote for me again tomorrow at this point in time?
Hypothetically if you don't vote for me, who would your vote go to right now?

Quite likely. Wilgy's baseless comment is completely irrelevant to me. After the shit we pulled in GoC I wouldn't put it past him to just make stuff up for the fun of it to tailspin us.

That being said I find you and Turnip Head equally suspect, so depending on how things play out my vote may not end up on you.

Nerolunar wrote:Hey guys.

Im not necessarily suspicious of people who take SVS at face value, just kind of baffled if you could say so. I believe it´s definitely possible for someone/anyone to intentionally refrain from voting, even SVS. I don´t know her playstyle, and regardless of what you tell me I would much rather try to form viewpoints without any influence from meta.

From the eye of an outsider its just weird how you all seem to agree that this is SVS´s playstyle. Im not reeeeaaallly suspecting her, I just realized how much meta means to you guys and how much it influences your view on someone.

If I ever develop meta here, I would definitely exploit it once in a while.

Lots of players here exploit their meta.

SVS will exploit her meta.

But she also has a code of things she won't do. Missing the vote is not really a question of 'playstyle'. There are a number of us (me included) who wouldn't miss the vote tactically. It's a respect for the host thing. Games can be very frustrating as a host when a lot of people don't vote. Of all of those people, SVS feels those kind of 'respectful play' things more than anyone, its most important to her.

Golden is not pinging me in this game at all so he must be bad.

Golden wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:Are you guys sure about that? She might have broken her meta and is trying a new strategy. Just because it´s traditional to do something doesn´t make it true.

Rubs me the wrong way that you don´t consider that option.

Nah. SVS has a certain code you can rely upon. Never missing the vote on purpose is one of those things.

She doesn't need to break her meta on her code, because she is such a good player and virtually impossible to read with it. I couldn't tell you any aspect of her meta that I have noticed as being alignment indicative.

I could, but I won't.

Anyone who feels SVS would not intentionally miss the vote, explain to me how she missed the vote after explicitly stating that she had to vote 10+ minutes before EOD

MacDougall wrote:

Scotty wrote:Question to my voters yesterday (Dom, Mac, juliets, and DFaraday):
How likely are you to vote for me again tomorrow at this point in time?
Hypothetically if you don't vote for me, who would your vote go to right now?

Quite likely. Wilgy's baseless comment is completely irrelevant to me. After the shit we pulled in GoC I wouldn't put it past him to just make stuff up for the fun of it to tailspin us.

That being said I find you and Turnip Head equally suspect, so depending on how things play out my vote may not end up on you.

Is Scotty a lynch proof baddie then? Mac what do you think happened at lynch yesterday? Sorry if you explained this already and I missed it.

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Scotty wrote:Question to my voters yesterday (Dom, Mac, juliets, and DFaraday):
How likely are you to vote for me again tomorrow at this point in time?
Hypothetically if you don't vote for me, who would your vote go to right now?

Quite likely. Wilgy's baseless comment is completely irrelevant to me. After the shit we pulled in GoC I wouldn't put it past him to just make stuff up for the fun of it to tailspin us.

That being said I find you and Turnip Head equally suspect, so depending on how things play out my vote may not end up on you.

Is Scotty a lynch proof baddie then? Mac what do you think happened at lynch yesterday? Sorry if you explained this already and I missed it.

Lol Wilgy he's explained it twice!

juliets wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Scotty wrote:Question to my voters yesterday (Dom, Mac, juliets, and DFaraday):
How likely are you to vote for me again tomorrow at this point in time?
Hypothetically if you don't vote for me, who would your vote go to right now?

Quite likely. Wilgy's baseless comment is completely irrelevant to me. After the shit we pulled in GoC I wouldn't put it past him to just make stuff up for the fun of it to tailspin us.

That being said I find you and Turnip Head equally suspect, so depending on how things play out my vote may not end up on you.

Is Scotty a lynch proof baddie then? Mac what do you think happened at lynch yesterday? Sorry if you explained this already and I missed it.

Lol Wilgy he's explained it twice!

Blah! I have two tabs open. One that's about 600 posts behind and one that is recent being F5'd every few min.

Glorfindel wrote: Frankly, if it was someone that would be considered experienced then yes, I would. The thing is, I feel that any analysis of that is hampered simply by the way the site is set up. I should think a list of the voting sequence over the last hour/half hour or so before the EoD may be an interesting read...

Here you go my friend. Enjoy analyzing!

Day 1 Voting graph

DharmaHelper wrote:Anyone who feels SVS would not intentionally miss the vote, explain to me how she missed the vote after explicitly stating that she had to vote 10+ minutes before EOD

Maybe she spent too much time trying to formulate a post?

Maybe she got caught in linkitis hell?

Maybe she was posting on her phone, and was getting inconsistent wifi?

Maybe she got caught up in the discussion and lost track of the time?

Maybe DH was pestering the hell out of her in mafia BTSC and distracted her from voting?

DharmaHelper wrote:Anyone who feels SVS would not intentionally miss the vote, explain to me how she missed the vote after explicitly stating that she had to vote 10+ minutes before EOD

She's a human being.

Typhoony wrote:

Glorfindel wrote: Frankly, if it was someone that would be considered experienced then yes, I would. The thing is, I feel that any analysis of that is hampered simply by the way the site is set up. I should think a list of the voting sequence over the last hour/half hour or so before the EoD may be an interesting read...

Here you go my friend. Enjoy analyzing!

Day 1 Voting graph

Typh, this says I voted for Wilgy when I really voted Scotty. Unless I'm reading it wrong.

DrWilgy wrote:

juliets wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Scotty wrote:Question to my voters yesterday (Dom, Mac, juliets, and DFaraday):
How likely are you to vote for me again tomorrow at this point in time?
Hypothetically if you don't vote for me, who would your vote go to right now?

Quite likely. Wilgy's baseless comment is completely irrelevant to me. After the shit we pulled in GoC I wouldn't put it past him to just make stuff up for the fun of it to tailspin us.

That being said I find you and Turnip Head equally suspect, so depending on how things play out my vote may not end up on you.

Is Scotty a lynch proof baddie then? Mac what do you think happened at lynch yesterday? Sorry if you explained this already and I missed it.

Lol Wilgy he's explained it twice!

Blah! I have two tabs open. One that's about 600 posts behind and one that is recent being F5'd every few min.

OK, I just thought it was funny. No ill intent in my laughter.

All the votes are fucked up. Lemme fix that

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Anyone who feels SVS would not intentionally miss the vote, explain to me how she missed the vote after explicitly stating that she had to vote 10+ minutes before EOD

Maybe she spent too much time trying to formulate a post?

Maybe she got caught in linkitis hell?

Maybe she was posting on her phone, and was getting inconsistent wifi?

Maybe she got caught up in the discussion and lost track of the time?

Maybe DH was pestering the hell out of her in mafia BTSC and distracted her from voting?

You forgot the "was busting to the go to the toilet" option.

Typhoony wrote:

All the votes are fucked up. Lemme fix that

You just have Scotty and Wilgy as the wrong colour I think.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Anyone who feels SVS would not intentionally miss the vote, explain to me how she missed the vote after explicitly stating that she had to vote 10+ minutes before EOD

Maybe she spent too much time trying to formulate a post?

Maybe she got caught in linkitis hell?

Maybe she was posting on her phone, and was getting inconsistent wifi?

Maybe she got caught up in the discussion and lost track of the time?

Maybe DH was pestering the hell out of her in mafia BTSC and distracted her from voting?

None of these explain anything.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Anyone who feels SVS would not intentionally miss the vote, explain to me how she missed the vote after explicitly stating that she had to vote 10+ minutes before EOD

Maybe she spent too much time trying to formulate a post?

Maybe she got caught in linkitis hell?

Maybe she was posting on her phone, and was getting inconsistent wifi?

Maybe she got caught up in the discussion and lost track of the time?

Maybe DH was pestering the hell out of her in mafia BTSC and distracted her from voting?

None of these explain anything.

Maybe you should ask her specifically about those 11 minutes. She's the best one to answer the question, not us guessing.

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

All the votes are fucked up. Lemme fix that

You just have Scotty and Wilgy as the wrong colour I think.

Nah more stuff is wrong, like somehow LC ended up on the graph. I modified an old graph, changed the names in the Excel sheet but the graph wasn't using the cells, it was just using the names I implemented by hand. So now it should be fixed.

Day 1 Voting Graph

Typhoony wrote:

Glorfindel wrote: Frankly, if it was someone that would be considered experienced then yes, I would. The thing is, I feel that any analysis of that is hampered simply by the way the site is set up. I should think a list of the voting sequence over the last hour/half hour or so before the EoD may be an interesting read...

Here you go my friend. Enjoy analyzing!

Day 1 Voting graph

Wow! That's pretty cool :-0 And yes, Sig - I think you have some explaining to do...

juliets wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Anyone who feels SVS would not intentionally miss the vote, explain to me how she missed the vote after explicitly stating that she had to vote 10+ minutes before EOD

Maybe she spent too much time trying to formulate a post?

Maybe she got caught in linkitis hell?

Maybe she was posting on her phone, and was getting inconsistent wifi?

Maybe she got caught up in the discussion and lost track of the time?

Maybe DH was pestering the hell out of her in mafia BTSC and distracted her from voting?

None of these explain anything.

Maybe you should ask her specifically about those 11 minutes. She's the best one to answer the question, not us guessing.

I intend to. But with everyone dismissing it as a nonissue, I'd just like to know what logical explanation they have for it.

Glorfindel wrote:

Typhoony wrote: Here you go my friend. Enjoy analyzing!

Day 1 Voting graph

Wow! That's pretty cool :-0 And yes, Sig - I think you have some explaining to do...

Just be sure to use the New version!

DharmaHelper wrote:

juliets wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Anyone who feels SVS would not intentionally miss the vote, explain to me how she missed the vote after explicitly stating that she had to vote 10+ minutes before EOD

Maybe she spent too much time trying to formulate a post?

Maybe she got caught in linkitis hell?

Maybe she was posting on her phone, and was getting inconsistent wifi?

Maybe she got caught up in the discussion and lost track of the time?

Maybe DH was pestering the hell out of her in mafia BTSC and distracted her from voting?

None of these explain anything.

Maybe you should ask her specifically about those 11 minutes. She's the best one to answer the question, not us guessing.

I intend to. But with everyone dismissing it as a nonissue, I'd just like to know what logical explanation they have for it.

I was trying to find Zebras post myself, tbh, and then I started reading it when she posted it. THEN Matt said he still wasn't responding. I got too involved in that situation and lost track of time. When I realized it the poll was over for literally less than a minute.

Believe it or don't believe it, it's the truth

S~V~S wrote:I was waiting for that last second train, lots of people droplast second votes, and several had mentioned me. I was mediating and lost track of time. I almost never miss votes.

Which is it?

It's both DH. Reread the thread in real time, and you will see it is true.

No matter what I say you won't believe it. Sometimes you are right; this time you are not.