The Syndicate

I think that, knowing how you can get me pretty worked up, I am done with this. If anyone else has questions or concerns, I will be happy to answer.

Here we fucking go again lol.

First a bath, then I'm catching up.

juliets wrote:linki, it was sig

I didn't break the tie between Wilgy and Scott. When I left for scouts I think Scott had one vote and then a few scattered votes. I had less then two minutes before the deadline and not enough time to read the cases before casting my vote. So I voted for the player I found most suspicious. I didn't then and I still don't see the case on Wilgy or Scott and would still not vote for either if they got tied again.

I had prior to going out said I'd be on very close to EOD to cast my vote so I don't see why it is strange? Especially since I never mentioned being suspicious of the two leading wagons. If it was a tie between someone I thought was a civ and someone who I found pingy it would have been different, but the sudden amounts of votes on Wilgy made no sense, he wasn't as active as civ Wilgy? I also think lynching scotty for being "shifty" and voting for a low poster wasn't good at all.


Glorfindel your reason for lynching Floyd is weird. Voting a player because he isn't as much as an asset when he isn't around to defend himself, seems rather strange for you. Are you and Zebra on the same team?


I seem to remember SVS missing votes as a baddie in Frisky Dingo however she had a triple vote ability in that game and I believe she actually missed those votes. The only reason that she might purposely avoid voting would be if she had a quadruple vote ability and that is really unlikely. I agree with many others that this wouldn't be something SVS would do and I think it is pingy that DH is pursuing this.

sig wrote:

juliets wrote:linki, it was sig

I didn't break the tie between Wilgy and Scott. When I left for scouts I think Scott had one vote and then a few scattered votes. I had less then two minutes before the deadline and not enough time to read the cases before casting my vote. So I voted for the player I found most suspicious. I didn't then and I still don't see the case on Wilgy or Scott and would still not vote for either if they got tied again.

I had prior to going out said I'd be on very close to EOD to cast my vote so I don't see why it is strange? Especially since I never mentioned being suspicious of the two leading wagons. If it was a tie between someone I thought was a civ and someone who I found pingy it would have been different, but the sudden amounts of votes on Wilgy made no sense, he wasn't as active as civ Wilgy? I also think lynching scotty for being "shifty" and voting for a low poster wasn't good at all.


Glorfindel your reason for lynching Floyd is weird. Voting a player because he isn't as much as an asset when he isn't around to defend himself, seems rather strange for you. Are you and Zebra on the same team?


I seem to remember SVS missing votes as a baddie in Frisky Dingo however she had a triple vote ability in that game and I believe she actually missed those votes. The only reason that she might purposely avoid voting would be if she had a quadruple vote ability and that is really unlikely. I agree with many others that this wouldn't be something SVS would do and I think it is pingy that DH is pursuing this.

Why is that pingy.

sig wrote:

juliets wrote:linki, it was sig

I didn't break the tie between Wilgy and Scott. When I left for scouts I think Scott had one vote and then a few scattered votes. I had less then two minutes before the deadline and not enough time to read the cases before casting my vote. So I voted for the player I found most suspicious. I didn't then and I still don't see the case on Wilgy or Scott and would still not vote for either if they got tied again.

I had prior to going out said I'd be on very close to EOD to cast my vote so I don't see why it is strange? Especially since I never mentioned being suspicious of the two leading wagons. If it was a tie between someone I thought was a civ and someone who I found pingy it would have been different, but the sudden amounts of votes on Wilgy made no sense, he wasn't as active as civ Wilgy? I also think lynching scotty for being "shifty" and voting for a low poster wasn't good at all.


Glorfindel your reason for lynching Floyd is weird. Voting a player because he isn't as much as an asset when he isn't around to defend himself, seems rather strange for you. Are you and Zebra on the same team?


I seem to remember SVS missing votes as a baddie in Frisky Dingo however she had a triple vote ability in that game and I believe she actually missed those votes. The only reason that she might purposely avoid voting would be if she had a quadruple vote ability and that is really unlikely. I agree with many others that this wouldn't be something SVS would do and I think it is pingy that DH is pursuing this.

I really dislike missing votes, I feel like I am disrespecting the host, which is why I was up front about the vote i would have made. There was another game beside FD where I had that, and I screwed up like Day One by voting for the wrong person, so I was in the group that HD to have my bad role in it, it actually was Recruitment.

Since I'd think you'd be familiar enough with SVS, it also seems like your trying to set her up by establishing that she was lying about not being able to vote and I recall you said earlier that she seemed scummy for trying to trap Glorfidnel? I would think it would have be more suspicious if she did come in and say broke the tie even though it was rather clear Glor was her prime suspect.

sig wrote:Since I'd think you'd be familiar enough with SVS, it also seems like your trying to set her up by establishing that she was lying about not being able to vote and I recall you said earlier that she seemed scummy for trying to trap Glorfidnel? I would think it would have be more suspicious if she did come in and say broke the tie even though it was rather clear Glor was her prime suspect.

I do know SVS's game. I'm not trying to "set her up" by establishing anything. I'm looking for a logical reason for her to have missed the vote after posting 10 minutes before the poll ended that she needed to vote.

Her post addressing Glorfindel was scummy because it was worded in a way that concealed its intent. My intent is perfectly obvious.

Yeah it would also have been more suspicious if she said "I am bad." What's your point? It would have been perfectly logical for her to place a vote onto Glorfindel, her main suspect, with ten whole minutes left on the poll. Had she done that I wouldn't have an issue. My issue is that for some reason it took her ten minutes to realize she had to vote after she explicitly said "I should probably vote."

sig wrote:

juliets wrote:linki, it was sig

I didn't break the tie between Wilgy and Scott. When I left for scouts I think Scott had one vote and then a few scattered votes. I had less then two minutes before the deadline and not enough time to read the cases before casting my vote. So I voted for the player I found most suspicious. I didn't then and I still don't see the case on Wilgy or Scott and would still not vote for either if they got tied again.

I had prior to going out said I'd be on very close to EOD to cast my vote so I don't see why it is strange? Especially since I never mentioned being suspicious of the two leading wagons. If it was a tie between someone I thought was a civ and someone who I found pingy it would have been different, but the sudden amounts of votes on Wilgy made no sense, he wasn't as active as civ Wilgy? I also think lynching scotty for being "shifty" and voting for a low poster wasn't good at all.


Glorfindel your reason for lynching Floyd is weird. Voting a player because he isn't as much as an asset when he isn't around to defend himself, seems rather strange for you. Are you and Zebra on the same team?


I seem to remember SVS missing votes as a baddie in Frisky Dingo however she had a triple vote ability in that game and I believe she actually missed those votes. The only reason that she might purposely avoid voting would be if she had a quadruple vote ability and that is really unlikely. I agree with many others that this wouldn't be something SVS would do and I think it is pingy that DH is pursuing this.

Your argument here doesn't make sense to me Sig. You have ALWAYS been one of those "Must lynch Day 1' Types. Despite having only two minutes to vote when you came on, are you seriously telling me that you didn't check to see the status of the votes and wasn't aware that there was a tie? With no certainty about what the result of a tie might be, you chose to go for someone else leaving live the possibility that it may result in a no lynch? REALLY???

And let me clear up one other thing for you - despite a pretty rocky start on this site as a result of my dealings with her, I recognise Zebra as someone with a great deal of experience and she is someone who's ability and intuition I have come to respect greatly. Yes, if I'm reasonably convinced that she is Town - I'm going to do what I can to keep her in the game for the good of our team.

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

I'm not bad, but thats the best case I've heard against me in a while

Okay, but here is what I don't understand everyone knew who she was going to vote for, she said she would have voted for him. Why is it suspicious that she failed to vote for him? If it was a player who already had three votes causing a three way tie then maybe or if she was planning to vote for one of the players who did tie for first maybe, but that wasn't the case?

linki: I NEVER said I didn't know there was a tie in fact I addressed that in my post. I didn't like either case so I didn't vote for either player if I had I'd be under even more suspicion no matter what they flipped as

I do find it odd you are going with the line of attack that I didn't see there was a tie when I talked about it in my latest post.

Looking at that graph, thanks man.

Am I not remembering correct? Wasn't TH the one who called for the Wilgy wagon? Yet he didn't put the final vote on Wilgy until right at the end which put him into the tie with Scotty? Is that what the graph is telling me?

So TH calls for the lynch but doesn't commit to it until such times as it causes a tie at the EOD?

Adding to my list Glorfindel to look further into over the coming day.

sig wrote:Okay, but here is what I don't understand everyone knew who she was going to vote for, she said she would have voted for him. Why is it suspicious that she failed to vote for him? If it was a player who already had three votes causing a three way tie then maybe or if she was planning to vote for one of the players who did tie for first maybe, but that wasn't the case?

linki: I NEVER said I didn't know there was a tie in fact I addressed that in my post. I didn't like either case so I didn't vote for either player if I had I'd be under even more suspicion no matter what they flipped as

I do find it odd you are going with the line of attack that I didn't see there was a tie when I talked about it in my latest post.

I am not attacking you Sig. Please don't accuse me of that. I simply want you to help me understand what I see as an inconsistency between your actions and my knowledge of your playstyle. If I've come across as otherwise, then I'm sorry. Was everyone so convinced that SVS was going to vote for me? True, she seemed to have fixated over something she thought she saw in a post of mine that was (in my opinion at least) a fairly long bow but I don't ever recall her outright accusing me of anything

My point is though (and you seem to have missed this) that you came on, saw the votes were tied and not knowing whether or not that would potentially result in a no lynch at all, chose not to break the tie but to vote for someone else? And no, had you voted for one of the lead wagons on the basis that you felt it was incumbent on you to break the tie and avoid the possibility of a non-lynching, I certainly wouldn't have considered too suspicious - in fact after the number of times I've seen players do that it wouldn't have surprised me at all irrespective of the outcome.

Scotty wrote:as a side note, I've been playing a metric ton of One Night Ultimate Werewolf with my coworkers recently and I've found that a) I'm almost always a werewolf and b) I almost never win because people assume as such.

But that's okay, because I live for these types of games.

speaking of ONW...... "Spring 2016"

sprityo wrote:

Scotty wrote:as a side note, I've been playing a metric ton of One Night Ultimate Werewolf with my coworkers recently and I've found that a) I'm almost always a werewolf and b) I almost never win because people assume as such.

But that's okay, because I live for these types of games.

speaking of ONW...... "Spring 2016"

whats happening then? Is it another expansion?


Also, I'm not looking forward to all the night actions that are about to wreak havoc. It's like the mystery flavor in Dum Dums- just an amalgam of all the runoff from other flavors. Except it's not really, because mystery flavor is yummy, and this will not be.

MacDougall wrote:Looking at that graph, thanks man.

Am I not remembering correct? Wasn't TH the one who called for the Wilgy wagon? Yet he didn't put the final vote on Wilgy until right at the end which put him into the tie with Scotty? Is that what the graph is telling me?

So TH calls for the lynch but doesn't commit to it until such times as it causes a tie at the EOD?

Yeah Mac the poll is showing you that I voted for a player I suspect to put them in a tie with a player I didn't suspect. There were like 10 people left to vote after me, it's not my fault that most of them didn't show up or that no one after me tried to break the tie. I called for the Wilgy wagon because he was one of my suspects who already had a vote (Bullzeye's) and Typh voted for Wilgy right before I tried to give it some steam. I repeatedly said that I didn't find Scotty or the other lynch candidates suspicious and my vote reflects that so what exactly is your point?

Turnip Head wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Looking at that graph, thanks man.

Am I not remembering correct? Wasn't TH the one who called for the Wilgy wagon? Yet he didn't put the final vote on Wilgy until right at the end which put him into the tie with Scotty? Is that what the graph is telling me?

So TH calls for the lynch but doesn't commit to it until such times as it causes a tie at the EOD?

Yeah Mac the poll is showing you that I voted for a player I suspect to put them in a tie with a player I didn't suspect. There were like 10 people left to vote after me, it's not my fault that most of them didn't show up or that no one after me tried to break the tie. I called for the Wilgy wagon because he was one of my suspects who already had a vote (Bullzeye's) and Typh voted for Wilgy right before I tried to give it some steam. I repeatedly said that I didn't find Scotty or the other lynch candidates suspicious and my vote reflects that so what exactly is your point?

Ah that's valid about all the no voters.

You guys remember when Draconus told Mac to fuck off?

That was pretty darn funny.

MacDougall wrote:Looking at that graph, thanks man.

Am I not remembering correct? Wasn't TH the one who called for the Wilgy wagon? Yet he didn't put the final vote on Wilgy until right at the end which put him into the tie with Scotty? Is that what the graph is telling me?

So TH calls for the lynch but doesn't commit to it until such times as it causes a tie at the EOD?

Still reading, but. Yeah I was thinking "but if sig said the vote was 3-4 leaning Scotty, then who tied it up at the last second?"

Let's see if TH answered this in these next couple pages

Ebwop: actually no, I am caught up.

But I do see TH in the browsing thing

Also I guess I'm not getting a response on my question(s) last time

(And if I have, I must've missed them and someone should tell me)

Scotty wrote:

sprityo wrote:]

speaking of ONW...... "Spring 2016"

whats happening then? Is it another expansion?

you will see when the time comes

DharmaHelper wrote:You guys remember when Draconus told Mac to fuck off?

That was pretty darn funny.

What was the convo in btsc?

MacDougall wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:You guys remember when Draconus told Mac to fuck off?

That was pretty darn funny.

What was the convo in btsc?

I think I told Draco to stop buddying me or something to that effect and he confessed that it was totally accidental. Lol.

Glorfindel wrote:

sig wrote:Okay, but here is what I don't understand everyone knew who she was going to vote for, she said she would have voted for him. Why is it suspicious that she failed to vote for him? If it was a player who already had three votes causing a three way tie then maybe or if she was planning to vote for one of the players who did tie for first maybe, but that wasn't the case?

linki: I NEVER said I didn't know there was a tie in fact I addressed that in my post. I didn't like either case so I didn't vote for either player if I had I'd be under even more suspicion no matter what they flipped as

I do find it odd you are going with the line of attack that I didn't see there was a tie when I talked about it in my latest post.

My point is though (and you seem to have missed this) that you came on, saw the votes were tied and not knowing whether or not that would potentially result in a no lynch at all, chose not to break the tie but to vote for someone else? And no, had you voted for one of the lead wagons on the basis that you felt it was incumbent on you to break the tie and avoid the possibility of a non-lynching, I certainly wouldn't have considered too suspicious - in fact after the number of times I've seen players do that it wouldn't have surprised me at all irrespective of the outcome.

No you specifically said this. I would have been suspicious of anyone who voted last minute for one of the two leading wagons without agreeing with or even knowing fully the case for either. It is also not my responsibility alone to break a tie, especially if I don't like either wagon, that seems like mafia logic to me.

Glorfindel wrote: Your argument here doesn't make sense to me Sig. You have ALWAYS been one of those "Must lynch Day 1' Types. Despite having only two minutes to vote when you came on, are you seriously telling me that you didn't check to see the status of the votes and wasn't aware that there was a tie? With no certainty about what the result of a tie might be, you chose to go for someone else leaving live the possibility that it may result in a no lynch? REALLY???

So you basically did say that I didn't check/know there was a tie, which I did. Also no I haven't always been a lynch day 1 in case of a tie that is completely different from me being against voting for a no lynch imo.

This has been an exceptionally fun game so far.

sig wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

sig wrote:Okay, but here is what I don't understand everyone knew who she was going to vote for, she said she would have voted for him. Why is it suspicious that she failed to vote for him? If it was a player who already had three votes causing a three way tie then maybe or if she was planning to vote for one of the players who did tie for first maybe, but that wasn't the case?

linki: I NEVER said I didn't know there was a tie in fact I addressed that in my post. I didn't like either case so I didn't vote for either player if I had I'd be under even more suspicion no matter what they flipped as

I do find it odd you are going with the line of attack that I didn't see there was a tie when I talked about it in my latest post.

My point is though (and you seem to have missed this) that you came on, saw the votes were tied and not knowing whether or not that would potentially result in a no lynch at all, chose not to break the tie but to vote for someone else? And no, had you voted for one of the lead wagons on the basis that you felt it was incumbent on you to break the tie and avoid the possibility of a non-lynching, I certainly wouldn't have considered too suspicious - in fact after the number of times I've seen players do that it wouldn't have surprised me at all irrespective of the outcome.

No you specifically said this. I would have been suspicious of anyone who voted last minute for one of the two leading wagons without agreeing with or even knowing fully the case for either. It is also not my responsibility alone to break a tie, especially if I don't like either wagon, that seems like mafia logic to me.

Glorfindel wrote: Your argument here doesn't make sense to me Sig. You have ALWAYS been one of those "Must lynch Day 1' Types. Despite having only two minutes to vote when you came on, are you seriously telling me that you didn't check to see the status of the votes and wasn't aware that there was a tie? With no certainty about what the result of a tie might be, you chose to go for someone else leaving live the possibility that it may result in a no lynch? REALLY???

So you basically did say that I didn't check/know there was a tie, which I did. Also no I haven't always been a lynch day 1 in case of a tie that is completely different from me being against voting for a no lynch imo.

OK, I accept that you DID know that there was a tied vote and that you deliberately chose not to break the tie (even though that may have resulted in a non-lynch) for reasons that you didn't sufficiently believe that either of the lead wagons was sufficiently viable in your opinion. I honestly don't think I'd have done that and nor I suspect would others but it is what it is - you're entitled to vote for whoever you want whenever you want.

My beef with SVS isn't that she missed the vote or that she wanted to vote for her top suspect. It's that she was in "Anyone but me" mode at the early stages of EoD and that seemingly continued right up until the buzzer. She didn't give reads on Scotty or Wilgy and I recall her being suspicious of Zebra but didn't put a vote there. That gives me a distinctly indy vibe from her and I'd like her to prove that vibe wrong. I plan on giving her some breathing room to operate Day 2 because I know it's easy to lose sight of other things when you're fighting for your own life.

Wilgy and bea are my top suspects. I told Wilgy I'd present him with my history lesson so for anyone curious here's his ISO from Recruitment IV (unrecruited then civ) and Pikmin (where he was civ and, in this very thread, claims to have barely played). Let the record show that in Pikmin he had 22 posts in the first 48 hours of the game and attempted to engage multiple players in multiple discussions. In this game he had 8 posts in the first 72 hours, granted this game is of larger scale than Pikmin. In Star Wars he had 5 posts in the first 72 hours. Take from that what you will. But his rate of posting isn't the only reason he's suspicious to me. The only player I see him engaging in meaningful discussion here is Mac who he's agreeing with, I don't see him trying to engage in discussions with others who's opinions do not line up with his own, unless it's to defend himself or toss out a quick read. As I said before Wilgy could go a long way toward changing my mind by proving he's engaged with the game, and I didn't get him lynched Day 1 so he has that chance now.

For bea I feel she is trying to fly under the radar. I said before that her lack of catch up posts makes me think she's reading the thread and reacting to it at different times and that makes me feel like she's trying to be careful. She did say that she wasn't doing her catch-up posts because she gets flak for doing them but I hereby give her permission to do them again because those posts help me get the best feel for her as a player. In addition I've mentioned her a few times now but those mentions seem to have gone unnoticed and I don't know bea to be a player who doesn't respond to posts about her. When bea is civ I can usually feel it and I'm not feeling it this game. She too has a chance to prove her civvieness to me going forward. And you know I love ya bea.

sprityo wrote:Ebwop: actually no, I am caught up.

But I do see TH in the browsing thing

Also I guess I'm not getting a response on my question(s) last time

(And if I have, I must've missed them and someone should tell me)

Are you talking to me? What is your question?

MacDougall wrote:

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.

I would say Dom is always aggressive and pretty much never mean.
Anyway, what is mean about my post? He part where I ask why you dropped me into your conversation to solidify our agreement? I found that weird. I wasn't even the only one. You used me as part of your attack, not as an explanation to someone else.

Turnip Head wrote: Wilgy and bea are my top suspects. I told Wilgy I'd present him with my history lesson so for anyone curious here's his ISO from Recruitment IV (unrecruited then civ) and Pikmin (where he was civ and, in this very thread, claims to have barely played). Let the record show that in Pikmin he had 22 posts in the first 48 hours of the game and attempted to engage multiple players in multiple discussions. In this game he had 8 posts in the first 72 hours, granted this game is of larger scale than Pikmin. In Star Wars he had 5 posts in the first 72 hours. Take from that what you will. But his rate of posting isn't the only reason he's suspicious to me. The only player I see him engaging in meaningful discussion here is Mac who he's agreeing with, I don't see him trying to engage in discussions with others who's opinions do not line up with his own, unless it's to defend himself or toss out a quick read. As I said before Wilgy could go a long way toward changing my mind by proving he's engaged with the game, and I didn't get him lynched Day 1 so he has that chance now.

Scotty, this was the info I was talking about looking up tomorrow. Since TH has already gathered it all I have to do is read. Thanks TH.

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.

Do you have a logical explanation for why SVS would do such a thing intentionally?

Also DH, I believe you are confusing logic with pretense.

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

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.

I would say Dom is always aggressive and pretty much never mean.
Anyway, what is mean about my post? He part where I ask why you dropped me into your conversation to solidify our agreement? I found that weird. I wasn't even the only one. You used me as part of your attack, not as an explanation to someone else.

How was it weird? You and I have made the same reads and asked the same questions of two different players. You just don't seem to enjoy being in that situation for some reason. The apprehensiveness on display comes off like you don't like that we are agreeing and I can't see why you would feel that way.

You mentioned me in another post in a similar way too so it's not all one way traffic here.

Turnip Head wrote:My beef with SVS isn't that she missed the vote or that she wanted to vote for her top suspect. It's that she was in "Anyone but me" mode at the early stages of EoD and that seemingly continued right up until the buzzer. She didn't give reads on Scotty or Wilgy and I recall her being suspicious of Zebra but didn't put a vote there. That gives me a distinctly indy vibe from her and I'd like her to prove that vibe wrong. I plan on giving her some breathing room to operate Day 2 because I know it's easy to lose sight of other things when you're fighting for your own life.

Wilgy and bea are my top suspects. I told Wilgy I'd present him with my history lesson so for anyone curious here's his ISO from Recruitment IV (unrecruited then civ) and Pikmin (where he was civ and, in this very thread, claims to have barely played). Let the record show that in Pikmin he had 22 posts in the first 48 hours of the game and attempted to engage multiple players in multiple discussions. In this game he had 8 posts in the first 72 hours, granted this game is of larger scale than Pikmin. In Star Wars he had 5 posts in the first 72 hours. Take from that what you will. But his rate of posting isn't the only reason he's suspicious to me. The only player I see him engaging in meaningful discussion here is Mac who he's agreeing with, I don't see him trying to engage in discussions with others who's opinions do not line up with his own, unless it's to defend himself or toss out a quick read. As I said before Wilgy could go a long way toward changing my mind by proving he's engaged with the game, and I didn't get him lynched Day 1 so he has that chance now.

For bea I feel she is trying to fly under the radar. I said before that her lack of catch up posts makes me think she's reading the thread and reacting to it at different times and that makes me feel like she's trying to be careful. She did say that she wasn't doing her catch-up posts because she gets flak for doing them but I hereby give her permission to do them again because those posts help me get the best feel for her as a player. In addition I've mentioned her a few times now but those mentions seem to have gone unnoticed and I don't know bea to be a player who doesn't respond to posts about her. When bea is civ I can usually feel it and I'm not feeling it this game. She too has a chance to prove her civvieness to me going forward. And you know I love ya bea.

I agree with your feelings towards bea. I am wondering why Nerolunar isn't on your list though.

I could see bea and MP being a team.

Golden wrote:I could see bea and MP being a team.

Do you have any reason to think that or is it just tossing it out there as a possibility?

city hall sounds like an interesting location so i'm voting that. also sorry for missing the last vote and the lack of thread-related posts, i haven't been keeping up with the thread
but for now dom seems more vocal than usual

Golden wrote:I could see bea and MP being a team.

Golden, what are you seeing in MP? I don't feel like I've seen enough behavior to draw conclusions but I'm obviously missing something because you're not the only one who's mentioned him.

linkis

MacDougall wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:My beef with SVS isn't that she missed the vote or that she wanted to vote for her top suspect. It's that she was in "Anyone but me" mode at the early stages of EoD and that seemingly continued right up until the buzzer. She didn't give reads on Scotty or Wilgy and I recall her being suspicious of Zebra but didn't put a vote there. That gives me a distinctly indy vibe from her and I'd like her to prove that vibe wrong. I plan on giving her some breathing room to operate Day 2 because I know it's easy to lose sight of other things when you're fighting for your own life.

Wilgy and bea are my top suspects. I told Wilgy I'd present him with my history lesson so for anyone curious here's his ISO from Recruitment IV (unrecruited then civ) and Pikmin (where he was civ and, in this very thread, claims to have barely played). Let the record show that in Pikmin he had 22 posts in the first 48 hours of the game and attempted to engage multiple players in multiple discussions. In this game he had 8 posts in the first 72 hours, granted this game is of larger scale than Pikmin. In Star Wars he had 5 posts in the first 72 hours. Take from that what you will. But his rate of posting isn't the only reason he's suspicious to me. The only player I see him engaging in meaningful discussion here is Mac who he's agreeing with, I don't see him trying to engage in discussions with others who's opinions do not line up with his own, unless it's to defend himself or toss out a quick read. As I said before Wilgy could go a long way toward changing my mind by proving he's engaged with the game, and I didn't get him lynched Day 1 so he has that chance now.

For bea I feel she is trying to fly under the radar. I said before that her lack of catch up posts makes me think she's reading the thread and reacting to it at different times and that makes me feel like she's trying to be careful. She did say that she wasn't doing her catch-up posts because she gets flak for doing them but I hereby give her permission to do them again because those posts help me get the best feel for her as a player. In addition I've mentioned her a few times now but those mentions seem to have gone unnoticed and I don't know bea to be a player who doesn't respond to posts about her. When bea is civ I can usually feel it and I'm not feeling it this game. She too has a chance to prove her civvieness to me going forward. And you know I love ya bea.

I agree with your feelings towards bea. I am wondering why Nerolunar isn't on your list though.

I don't have anything new to say about him. He'll get his turn. I wanted these 3 to know where I stand on them.

juliets wrote:

Golden wrote:I could see bea and MP being a team.

Golden, what are you seeing in MP? I don't feel like I've seen enough behavior to draw conclusions but I'm obviously missing something because you're not the only one who's mentioned him.

linkis

Hey juliets. Sorry I don't have time to elaborate right now. If you want to do a quick iso on me I have explained it a couple of times, otherwise I'll try and link you to some things later when I have more time. Sorry.

I haven't really read bea as bad per se, but I have noticed some posts from her that would work as an MP teammate.

I just took a look at MP's play and there was nothing remotely pingy about him to me and I have played two games with MP and caught him early as scum both times so I think I read him pretty well if there is something to be read. Sorry Golden I don't see what you see. Feel free to try to explain it to me more but at this point if anything I'd have MP as a civ read. He's coming off natural.

Golden wrote:

juliets wrote:

Golden wrote:I could see bea and MP being a team.

Golden, what are you seeing in MP? I don't feel like I've seen enough behavior to draw conclusions but I'm obviously missing something because you're not the only one who's mentioned him.

linkis

Hey juliets. Sorry I don't have time to elaborate right now. If you want to do a quick iso on me I have explained it a couple of times, otherwise I'll try and link you to some things later when I have more time. Sorry.

I haven't really read bea as bad per se, but I have noticed some posts from her that would work as an MP teammate.

Thats ok I didnt realize you had addressed it. Too many posts filling up my brain. I'll just look at your iso.

Just reading the reads Golden has on MP and trying to wrap my head around them. I feel like Golden's play has been pretty genuine tbh. That being said I think his read on MP is created in lieu of there being better standout candidates and that is probably a result of day 1 only really having four players with teammates. It's going to be hard to see where the non genuine hunting contributions are coming from in that respect because each of them only had one player to work around so could almost carte blanch hunt like a regular civ. The best thing to analyse out of day 1 is the nervous blendy posts and tone rather than the content itself.

I think the no-lynch on day 1 ain't so bad tbh. Day 2 should be a more difficult day for the mafia to hide. We're gonna see two players who were civs flip to mafia which is something we should look out for signs of and a bunch of people are going to have some night stuff to work with. Tbh this day 1 would be up there with the logistically most difficult to navigate for civilians as any I've ever seen. The chances of us lynching wrong on day 1 in this setup are huge.

I'm considering archiving my day 1 reads and starting fresh on day 2. I think it might be a good tactic.

@MM Why would someone opt not to vote instead of voting for someone with zero votes or casting a suspicious vote?

The Penguin
As a powerful informant, The Penguin learns the role of the person he votes for, and may blackmail his victim. The victim has a choice to either do whatever The Penguin says or have his or her role sent to a rival person. The Penguin wins by surviving.

Turnip Head wrote: Are you talking to me? What is your question?

sprityo wrote:
1. Why Wilgy?

2. Why Scotty?

i mean it's not directly at you TH, but if you want to answer. I was just looking for input. (also i dont remember if anyone DID reply to that aside from your sassy comment)

I feel like the answers you're seeking are in the thread.

My host posts were better.

DharmaHelper wrote:@MM Why would someone opt not to vote instead of voting for someone with zero votes or casting a suspicious vote?

The Penguin
As a powerful informant, The Penguin learns the role of the person he votes for, and may blackmail his victim. The victim has a choice to either do whatever The Penguin says or have his or her role sent to a rival person. The Penguin wins by surviving.

Ok. Why would the Penguin forfeit its vote and ability?