The Syndicate

Bullzeye wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: So you had info when your option didn't win? So deaisy did mix it up a bit.

No I was told what 'my' option was beforehand, and it did not win. I'd be interested to see if Dom also had info, I believe he was the only one who voted the same as me.

But you got the info for just voting for it? You said you had info.

I had info because I was told which option to vote for when day 0 began. Is that not what you're saying you had?

No. And I don't understand what you are saying at all. Why would you get info from the poll before the poll?

It seems ever more likely that the theory that six different players, one each that was told to either vote a specific option or that one option would benefit them, is plausible. What meaning there is beyond that is the question -- and whether that actually is the case to begin with is also still questionable. But I think we at least are getting much closer to a solid understanding of what the Day 0 poll could mean.

Linki with Snow Dog: Typically, a player is told when Day 0 begins that they will benefit from voting a particular option or that if a certain option will win they will benefit. Did you receive such a notification?

Again, have to be careful what we actually discuss here; I don't want to break any rules. But I think discussing the fact that you had original info and nothing regarding whether you received any results at the end of the period is OK per what Daisy said earlier.

Snow Dog wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: So you had info when your option didn't win? So deaisy did mix it up a bit.

No I was told what 'my' option was beforehand, and it did not win. I'd be interested to see if Dom also had info, I believe he was the only one who voted the same as me.

But you got the info for just voting for it? You said you had info.

I had info because I was told which option to vote for when day 0 began. Is that not what you're saying you had?

No. And I don't understand what you are saying at all. Why would you get info from the poll before the poll?

Because I was told which option I needed to win. As others probably were as well and as you seemed to be claiming. So you got something from the poll without having been told you would initially?

MovingPictures07 wrote:It seems ever more likely that the theory that six different players, one each that was told to either vote a specific option or that one option would benefit them, is plausible. What meaning there is beyond that is the question -- and whether that actually is the case to begin with is also still questionable. But I think we at least are getting much closer to a solid understanding of what the Day 0 poll could mean.

Linki with Snow Dog: Typically, a player is told when Day 0 begins that they will benefit from voting a particular option or that if a certain option will win they will benefit. Did you receive such a notification?

Again, have to be careful what we actually discuss here; I don't want to break any rules. But I think discussing the fact that you had original info and nothing regarding whether you received any results at the end of the period is OK per what Daisy said earlier.

I received info because Castle won the poll. I didn't have to vote fpr it.

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:It seems ever more likely that the theory that six different players, one each that was told to either vote a specific option or that one option would benefit them, is plausible. What meaning there is beyond that is the question -- and whether that actually is the case to begin with is also still questionable. But I think we at least are getting much closer to a solid understanding of what the Day 0 poll could mean.

Linki with Snow Dog: Typically, a player is told when Day 0 begins that they will benefit from voting a particular option or that if a certain option will win they will benefit. Did you receive such a notification?

Again, have to be careful what we actually discuss here; I don't want to break any rules. But I think discussing the fact that you had original info and nothing regarding whether you received any results at the end of the period is OK per what Daisy said earlier.

I received info because Castle won the poll. I didn't have to vote fpr it.

Very interesting. So no information factored into your consideration of castle?

Yet Bullzeye seems to be claiming information given to him factored into his consideration of his vote, which was not castle.

Perhaps this Day 0 poll is more complicated than six players who received information before the Day 0 poll and had options that benefited them directly... Maybe some were offered information before the poll and some were told after the poll that their option did or did not win. And maybe there were more or less than six players in this case.

Or maybe someone is lying and there is a rigid explanation (either information was given out pre-poll closer to Bullzeye's information or it was given after-poll closer to Snow Dog's explanation).

Either way, I want to hear more from Snow Dog and Bullzeye, if necessary, and I even more so want to hear from other players regarding whether they did or did not have information.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Either way, I want to hear more from Snow Dog and Bullzeye, if necessary, and I even more so want to hear from other players regarding whether they did or did not have information.

I don't really know what more I can say at the moment other I'm not lying and I don't know what to think of Snow right now, or if he's even telling the truth himself.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Either way, I want to hear more from Snow Dog and Bullzeye, if necessary, and I even more so want to hear from other players regarding whether they did or did not have information.

You misunderstand. I WAS told before the poll that if Castle won I would receive certain info. But I didn;t have to vote for it. I did vote for it to make it as certain as possible to win.

I had/have no information.

I hope we hear more from some MIA vets. I think there must be several baddies doing the ole Under the Radar trick.

Oops, I posted but forgot to vote. I wanted to vote stick though.

As far as receiving information goes, I didn't have any.

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Either way, I want to hear more from Snow Dog and Bullzeye, if necessary, and I even more so want to hear from other players regarding whether they did or did not have information.

You misunderstand. I WAS told before the poll that if Castle won I would receive certain info. But I didn;t have to vote for it. I did vote for it to make it as certain as possible to win.

Oh, I see. That does change things.

So the distinction lies in whether the players who received info, who definitely received them PRE-vote, were forced to vote their options or whether they could choose to do so. And another possible distinction is whether the option needed to win for a player to benefit or whether such a player just needed to vote for it to benefit.

However, that is a not so exciting distinction, given it makes no sense that a player with info would NOT vote for their option.

Snow Dog wrote: No. And I don't understand what you are saying at all. Why would you get info from the poll before the poll?

Snow Dog wrote: I received info because Castle won the poll. I didn't have to vote fpr it.

Snow Dog wrote: You misunderstand. I WAS told before the poll that if Castle won I would receive certain info. But I didn;t have to vote for it. I did vote for it to make it as certain as possible to win.

Am I the only one who thinks these don't add up? Particularly number 1 and number 3.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:If SNow is not lying about his info, it would madness for a baddie to admit to it when everyone else is denying it. If he is not lying. I would expect at this point that each option had one role associated with it (the attributions would be fairly obvious) and that they are the ones who received info.

This is incredibly sound and I'd love to believe this is true. However, I'm hesitant because I wonder if Daisy would consider doing anything like that since obviously this could lead to the outing of players and their roles.

If it is somehow true though, we might want to be careful about how we discuss this any further, correct? Bubs, King of Town, Marzipan, Strong Sad, Coach Z, and Strong Bad are all civvie roles.

So if your theory is correct, this would mean 6 different civvies received information, baddies did not, and Trogdor did not.

If your theory is correct, I am glad we have uncovered the meaning of it, but I'm also a bit scared since outing civvies roles is not exactly something I want to do.

Couldn't we test this theory somehow? Because if Snow Dog was King of Town, for example, and Bullzeye was Strong Sad, this would be great to know as it would put their posts in context, but... would we even want to is the question... since then not only would the civvies know (which would be nice), the baddies would know as well.

I'm sorry, but I don't seem to be following your logic here. Why would you think 6 civillians would receive any sort of information and no one from any of the bad guy teams? And why would it be those 6 roles that received info? I'm just trying to understand the thinking behind this.

Bullzeye wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: No. And I don't understand what you are saying at all. Why would you get info from the poll before the poll?

Snow Dog wrote: I received info because Castle won the poll. I didn't have to vote fpr it.

Snow Dog wrote: You misunderstand. I WAS told before the poll that if Castle won I would receive certain info. But I didn;t have to vote for it. I did vote for it to make it as certain as possible to win.

Am I the only one who thinks these don't add up? Particularly number 1 and number 3.

Why is that then?

Snow Dog wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: No. And I don't understand what you are saying at all. Why would you get info from the poll before the poll?

Snow Dog wrote: I received info because Castle won the poll. I didn't have to vote fpr it.

Snow Dog wrote: You misunderstand. I WAS told before the poll that if Castle won I would receive certain info. But I didn;t have to vote for it. I did vote for it to make it as certain as possible to win.

Am I the only one who thinks these don't add up? Particularly number 1 and number 3.

Why is that then?

You say you knew which option to vote for. Therefore you had info on the poll before it was over. But you also questioned why I would have had info on the poll before it was over.

Bullzeye, I agree entirely. I'm still a bit hesitant because I'm not sure if it's because Snow Dog just misrepresented what he was saying, but it seems it could be damning. I was thinking that same thing myself. What's going through my mind is every possible way Snow Dog could NOT be a baddie and screw that up, if he is lying. If he is lying, things could be looking bad for him, but I want to make sure I consider if there's another way just in case we all bandwagon Snow Dog and he ends up being civvie -- because that would lead us nowhere.

However, before we discuss who had or did not have information any further, what do players think of what llama came up with regarding the theory? If somehow that is actually true... I don't think we'd want other players to necessarily say they had info from here on forward, would we?

This is important because I want other players to come in and attempt to corroborate Snow Dog and Bullz, assuming they are both truthful, but at the same time, if llama's theory that we have six civvie roles who received information is true, I don't want to risk narrowing down and outing those players.

Would Daisy even set up a poll so incredibly ballsy like that? One that could so clearly out a civvie if we came to this conclusion and tested it?

Bullzeye wrote: You say you knew which option to vote for. Therefore you had info on the poll before it was over. But you also questioned why I would have had info on the poll before it was over.

Yeah, that is weird.

BigDamnHero wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:If SNow is not lying about his info, it would madness for a baddie to admit to it when everyone else is denying it. If he is not lying. I would expect at this point that each option had one role associated with it (the attributions would be fairly obvious) and that they are the ones who received info.

This is incredibly sound and I'd love to believe this is true. However, I'm hesitant because I wonder if Daisy would consider doing anything like that since obviously this could lead to the outing of players and their roles.

If it is somehow true though, we might want to be careful about how we discuss this any further, correct? Bubs, King of Town, Marzipan, Strong Sad, Coach Z, and Strong Bad are all civvie roles.

So if your theory is correct, this would mean 6 different civvies received information, baddies did not, and Trogdor did not.

If your theory is correct, I am glad we have uncovered the meaning of it, but I'm also a bit scared since outing civvies roles is not exactly something I want to do.

Couldn't we test this theory somehow? Because if Snow Dog was King of Town, for example, and Bullzeye was Strong Sad, this would be great to know as it would put their posts in context, but... would we even want to is the question... since then not only would the civvies know (which would be nice), the baddies would know as well.

I'm sorry, but I don't seem to be following your logic here. Why would you think 6 civillians would receive any sort of information and no one from any of the bad guy teams? And why would it be those 6 roles that received info? I'm just trying to understand the thinking behind this.

Let's say each option corresponds to a role as they have in their descriptions... i.e., Bubs' Concession Stand corresponds to Bubs. With Strong Sad corresponds to Strong Sad. At King of Town's Castle corresponds to King of Town.

If only six players received information regarding the poll, it is possible that six different civvies (the ones that correspond to their option in the poll, assuming "at the stick" corresponds to Strong Bad) received information regarding what could be a beneficial option for them before the poll began.

However, this would out those six players as civvies, and not only that, exactly which civvie they could be, especially since so many players voted for castle.

Does that make sense?

Watch the Who is Online feature. Not at this moment, but there have been lots of our MIA vets that have been checking in today and then not saying anything. Does anyone find this suspicious? Maybe some ghosting behavior going on, because I've noticed more guests viewing the forum than usual.

linki - I think it would be weird if only civs had poll information. It ties up too nicely too. It doesn't auto make Snowy bad though. I feel like Snowy is just being careful in what he says so he doesn't rule break. There's probably only so much he can say.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Bullzeye, I agree entirely. I'm still a bit hesitant because I'm not sure if it's because Snow Dog just misrepresented what he was saying, but it seems it could be damning. I was thinking that same thing myself. What's going through my mind is every possible way Snow Dog could NOT be a baddie and screw that up, if he is lying. If he is lying, things could be looking bad for him, but I want to make sure I consider if there's another way just in case we all bandwagon Snow Dog and he ends up being civvie -- because that would lead us nowhere.

However, before we discuss who had or did not have information any further, what do players think of what llama came up with regarding the theory? If somehow that is actually true... I don't think we'd want other players to necessarily say they had info from here on forward, would we?

This is important because I want other players to come in and attempt to corroborate Snow Dog and Bullz, assuming they are both truthful, but at the same time, if llama's theory that we have six civvie roles who received information is true, I don't want to risk narrowing down and outing those players.

Would Daisy even set up a poll so incredibly ballsy like that? One that could so clearly out a civvie if we came to this conclusion and tested it?

If six civs had info isn't that a bit unfair to the baddies? They deserve just as much a chance to win as we do so I'd think they'd have info as well.

Linki Mongoose - That sentiment is exactly why I'm invisible on all mafia sites. Sometimes I'll be logged in in one tab and doing something else in another, or playing a game on Steam, or not even at my laptop and sometimes people just don't have anything to say.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: You say you knew which option to vote for. Therefore you had info on the poll before it was over. But you also questioned why I would have had info on the poll before it was over.

Yeah, that is weird.

I agree. Looking back at Snow Dog's posts, it's a ballsy move... but one that I think he would consider doing as a baddie. I'm very intrigued by this development.

Llama, you know Snowie well, is there anything you can think of that would clear him or is it perhaps that we misunderstood his posts and he wasn't clear enough? This wouldn't be the first time I would see Snow Dog lynched for unclear wording or for people misunderstanding what he was trying to say.

That being said, we could have come upon a scenario where Snow Dog is definitively baddie, and as such, I'm thinking maybe we should all just vote for him today and go from there.

However, before we reach that point, I want to hear more regarding your theory that I extrapolated, and I want to consider all of the options and perhaps hear from others (unless we decide that's too dangerous given the aforementioned theory).

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: You say you knew which option to vote for. Therefore you had info on the poll before it was over. But you also questioned why I would have had info on the poll before it was over.

Yeah, that is weird.

Yes I got my info after the poll like I said.

Snow Dog wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: You say you knew which option to vote for. Therefore you had info on the poll before it was over. But you also questioned why I would have had info on the poll before it was over.

Yeah, that is weird.

Yes I got my info after the poll like I said.

But you also had info before the poll ended/at the beginning of day zero? If so why would you question my saying I had too?

Mongoose wrote:Watch the Who is Online feature. Not at this moment, but there have been lots of our MIA vets that have been checking in today and then not saying anything. Does anyone find this suspicious? Maybe some ghosting behavior going on, because I've noticed more guests viewing the forum than usual.

linki - I think it would be weird if only civs had poll information. It ties up too nicely too. It doesn't auto make Snowy bad though. I feel like Snowy is just being careful in what he says so he doesn't rule break. There's probably only so much he can say.

You could be right, Mongoose, but I'm not sure. Again, it goes back to the real life v. mafia balance, so I hesitate to make inferences there just yet. Something to keep in mind though -- I think it just emphasizes that it would be better to hear from particular individuals, and I agree.

It would be weird, but think about it. Wouldn't it make sense? And I'm beginning to think more and more it's something Daisy would do...

Bullzeye wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Bullzeye, I agree entirely. I'm still a bit hesitant because I'm not sure if it's because Snow Dog just misrepresented what he was saying, but it seems it could be damning. I was thinking that same thing myself. What's going through my mind is every possible way Snow Dog could NOT be a baddie and screw that up, if he is lying. If he is lying, things could be looking bad for him, but I want to make sure I consider if there's another way just in case we all bandwagon Snow Dog and he ends up being civvie -- because that would lead us nowhere.

However, before we discuss who had or did not have information any further, what do players think of what llama came up with regarding the theory? If somehow that is actually true... I don't think we'd want other players to necessarily say they had info from here on forward, would we?

This is important because I want other players to come in and attempt to corroborate Snow Dog and Bullz, assuming they are both truthful, but at the same time, if llama's theory that we have six civvie roles who received information is true, I don't want to risk narrowing down and outing those players.

Would Daisy even set up a poll so incredibly ballsy like that? One that could so clearly out a civvie if we came to this conclusion and tested it?

If six civs had info isn't that a bit unfair to the baddies? They deserve just as much a chance to win as we do so I'd think they'd have info as well.

Linki Mongoose - That sentiment is exactly why I'm invisible on all mafia sites. Sometimes I'll be logged in in one tab and doing something else in another, or playing a game on Steam, or not even at my laptop and sometimes people just don't have anything to say.

How would it be unfair? Maybe the benefit was something simple and would have only benefited the individual himself or herself (but by extension, the civvie cause in general). Think about it... talking about all of this could benefit either side, which is why I want to be careful, if it even is true. It seems to be a logical explanation for the Day 0 poll, not the only, mind you, but I haven't seen anything to debunk it yet...

Bullzeye wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: You say you knew which option to vote for. Therefore you had info on the poll before it was over. But you also questioned why I would have had info on the poll before it was over.

Yeah, that is weird.

Yes I got my info after the poll like I said.

But you also had info before the poll ended/at the beginning of day zero? If so why would you question my saying I had too?

No i got my info after the poll. i was told I;d get the info if Castle won. It seems you got your info re4gardless. I find this suspicious.

MovingPictures07 wrote: How would it be unfair? Maybe the benefit was something simple and would have only benefited the individual himself or herself (but by extension, the civvie cause in general). Think about it... talking about all of this could benefit either side, which is why I want to be careful, if it even is true. It seems to be a logical explanation for the Day 0 poll, not the only, mind you, but I haven't seen anything to debunk it yet...

The thing is if every option is a civ option then no option is a baddie option. So the civ cause definitely does receive a benefit while the bad teams definitely don't. On the other hand it does mean baddies can't be caught out pushing their option but I just don't think I agree.

Linki Snow - The 'info' I got was that my option needed to win. Nothing more.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, you know Snowie well, is there anything you can think of that would clear him or is it perhaps that we misunderstood his posts and he wasn't clear enough? This wouldn't be the first time I would see Snow Dog lynched for unclear wording or for people misunderstanding what he was trying to say.

I can imagine it just being unclear wording, as that has happened to me in the past, but I still think it looks suspicious. Not sure if I'm ready for a vote yet. I definitely think he is a gutsy enough player to have tried such a ploy. Also, he is Welsh, so he can be forgiven for not speaking English properly. :P

MovingPictures07 wrote: That being said, we could have come upon a scenario where Snow Dog is definitively baddie, and as such, I'm thinking maybe we should all just vote for him today and go from there.

However, before we reach that point, I want to hear more regarding your theory that I extrapolated, and I want to consider all of the options and perhaps hear from others (unless we decide that's too dangerous given the aforementioned theory).

It is easy for me to imagine that the King would be told "If your castle wins the poll, you will get info" and analogous things for the other roles. I would advise other people who have info not to say so yet, because if Snow is the King, then the baddies already know and it is too late to do anything about it, but the others are still safe for the time being.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Snow is either a baddie who slipped or the King who garbled his message. If he is the king, and is not lynched, he might not be NKed because the baddies would want to frame him. If he is a baddie, he will not be NKed by his own team, but might be by the other. I don't know whether we should lynch him or not.

I don't think only civvies getting info is unfair. Info is of limited value, and I have been in plenty of games where only the baddies get it.

I looked back at Snow Dog's posts and read them all in order, and it seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the word "info". I think I get it now.

I'm not so sure he's a baddie caught in a lie. He could be... but I think he's telling the truth, assuming Bullzeye is. Not sure it means both are civvie... but I hesitate.

Bullzeye wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: How would it be unfair? Maybe the benefit was something simple and would have only benefited the individual himself or herself (but by extension, the civvie cause in general). Think about it... talking about all of this could benefit either side, which is why I want to be careful, if it even is true. It seems to be a logical explanation for the Day 0 poll, not the only, mind you, but I haven't seen anything to debunk it yet...

The thing is if every option is a civ option then no option is a baddie option. So the civ cause definitely does receive a benefit while the bad teams definitely don't. On the other hand it does mean baddies can't be caught out pushing their option but I just don't think I agree.

Linki Snow - The 'info' I got was that my option needed to win. Nothing more.

So you didn't get the info. Fucking hell!!! Why am I bothering?

Snow Dog wrote: No i got my info after the poll. i was told I;d get the info if Castle won. It seems you got your info re4gardless. I find this suspicious.

Can you not see that "if the King's Castle wins, you will receive info" is itself info?

Seems to be a musundrstanding about what "info" is

Seems to be a musundrstanding about what "info" is

Snow Dog wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: How would it be unfair? Maybe the benefit was something simple and would have only benefited the individual himself or herself (but by extension, the civvie cause in general). Think about it... talking about all of this could benefit either side, which is why I want to be careful, if it even is true. It seems to be a logical explanation for the Day 0 poll, not the only, mind you, but I haven't seen anything to debunk it yet...

The thing is if every option is a civ option then no option is a baddie option. So the civ cause definitely does receive a benefit while the bad teams definitely don't. On the other hand it does mean baddies can't be caught out pushing their option but I just don't think I agree.

Linki Snow - The 'info' I got was that my option needed to win. Nothing more.

So you didn't get the info. Fucking hell!!! Why am I bothering?

I didn't get anything after the poll. What I got (and what people were asking about) is info regarding which poll option benefited me (and presumably the other civs by extension). Once and for all did you or didn't you get a message at the beginning of day zero saying that if your particular option won you would receive a benefit? If you did, why is it weird that I also did?

Bullzeye wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: How would it be unfair? Maybe the benefit was something simple and would have only benefited the individual himself or herself (but by extension, the civvie cause in general). Think about it... talking about all of this could benefit either side, which is why I want to be careful, if it even is true. It seems to be a logical explanation for the Day 0 poll, not the only, mind you, but I haven't seen anything to debunk it yet...

The thing is if every option is a civ option then no option is a baddie option. So the civ cause definitely does receive a benefit while the bad teams definitely don't. On the other hand it does mean baddies can't be caught out pushing their option but I just don't think I agree.

Linki Snow - The 'info' I got was that my option needed to win. Nothing more.

No, but you see, baddies can win just as much or even more so than civvies win in this scenario. Say the winner gets an extra vote or something silly. Then there is pointless analysis because baddies never were pushing for an option because they never had one!

I could easily see this being something Daisy would do and it logically lines up with everything provided so far. I am assuming this theory is very possibly correct unless given reason to think otherwise.

Because of that, NO ONE ELSE say anything about whether you had info or not, from this post there forward, please.

Llama, I'll address youin a second.

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: No i got my info after the poll. i was told I;d get the info if Castle won. It seems you got your info re4gardless. I find this suspicious.

Can you not see that "if the King's Castle wins, you will receive info" is itself info?

No

Snow Dog wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: So you had info when your option didn't win? So deaisy did mix it up a bit.

No I was told what 'my' option was beforehand, and it did not win. I'd be interested to see if Dom also had info, I believe he was the only one who voted the same as me.

But you got the info for just voting for it? You said you had info.

I had info because I was told which option to vote for when day 0 began. Is that not what you're saying you had?

No. And I don't understand what you are saying at all. Why would you get info from the poll before the poll?

Snow Dog, the "info" you get is generally what poll option needs to win for you or your team to get some kind of prize. Does that help answer your question?

Also, I did not get info on the poll and voted Castle because it seemed the obvious choice from the clip.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, I'll address youin a second.

That sounds very severe. Am I in trouble?

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote: No i got my info after the poll. i was told I;d get the info if Castle won. It seems you got your info re4gardless. I find this suspicious.

Can you not see that "if the King's Castle wins, you will receive info" is itself info?

Thank you! This is exactly the misunderstanding here between both of them. As far as I'm now concerned, they are both telling the same exact scenario.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, you know Snowie well, is there anything you can think of that would clear him or is it perhaps that we misunderstood his posts and he wasn't clear enough? This wouldn't be the first time I would see Snow Dog lynched for unclear wording or for people misunderstanding what he was trying to say.

I can imagine it just being unclear wording, as that has happened to me in the past, but I still think it looks suspicious. Not sure if I'm ready for a vote yet. I definitely think he is a gutsy enough player to have tried such a ploy. Also, he is Welsh, so he can be forgiven for not speaking English properly. :P

MovingPictures07 wrote: That being said, we could have come upon a scenario where Snow Dog is definitively baddie, and as such, I'm thinking maybe we should all just vote for him today and go from there.

However, before we reach that point, I want to hear more regarding your theory that I extrapolated, and I want to consider all of the options and perhaps hear from others (unless we decide that's too dangerous given the aforementioned theory).

It is easy for me to imagine that the King would be told "If your castle wins the poll, you will get info" and analogous things for the other roles. I would advise other people who have info not to say so yet, because if Snow is the King, then the baddies already know and it is too late to do anything about it, but the others are still safe for the time being.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Snow is either a baddie who slipped or the King who garbled his message. If he is the king, and is not lynched, he might not be NKed because the baddies would want to frame him. If he is a baddie, he will not be NKed by his own team, but might be by the other. I don't know whether we should lynch him or not.

I don't think only civvies getting info is unfair. Info is of limited value, and I have been in plenty of games where only the baddies get it.

You are exactly right. However, given how many players bandwagoned onto castle, that eliminates other players' role identities fairly easily, wouldn't you think?

As such, I think it would be fruitful to avoid lynching Snow Dog or Bullzeye, because if we lynched one of them and they came up King of Town and Strong Sad, we'd have a double edged sword. We could propose that certain players could be certain roles based on this information, but so could the baddies.

The very fact that this could actually be exactly what happened scares me but also is very thrilling.

I don't think I want to lynch Snow Dog or Bullzeye today.

Linki with llama: Lol, I just wanted to make sure you knew I'd address your points in a second.

I'm not sure I want this theory confirmed or not. As far as it's not confirmed, it's just a theory... the baddies would benefit from it being confirmed.

Hold on. Bullzeye, you said you disagree with the theory. Do you still think it's not true?

MovingPictures07 wrote: As such, I think it would be fruitful to avoid lynching Snow Dog or Bullzeye, because if we lynched one of them and they came up King of Town and Strong Sad, we'd have a double edged sword. We could propose that certain players could be certain roles based on this information, but so could the baddies.

The very fact that this could actually be exactly what happened scares me but also is very thrilling.

I don't think I want to lynch Snow Dog or Bullzeye today.

I completely agree.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm not sure I want this theory confirmed or not. As far as it's not confirmed, it's just a theory... the baddies would benefit from it being confirmed.

This won't blow your theory out of the water, and I could easily be lying (I'm not) but I am definitely not Strong Sad. If I was I'd just completely ignore that aspect of your theory.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Let's say each option corresponds to a role as they have in their descriptions... i.e., Bubs' Concession Stand corresponds to Bubs. With Strong Sad corresponds to Strong Sad. At King of Town's Castle corresponds to King of Town.

If only six players received information regarding the poll, it is possible that six different civvies (the ones that correspond to their option in the poll, assuming "at the stick" corresponds to Strong Bad) received information regarding what could be a beneficial option for them before the poll began.

However, this would out those six players as civvies, and not only that, exactly which civvie they could be, especially since so many players voted for castle.

Does that make sense?

OK...I see what you're getting at now. I can't say I would subscribe to that theory as it seems to be a little lopsided in its fairness to the various teams. I would think that, if anything, daisy would give each team a "winning" option. Then, as you said, there would also be the potential of threatening the identity of one of the civilian roles and I don't see daisy letting that happen either.

Let's say each option corresponds to a role as they have in their descriptions... i.e., Bubs' Concession Stand corresponds to Bubs. With Strong Sad corresponds to Strong Sad. At King of Town's Castle corresponds to King of Town.

There is far too much for me to read and catch up on (Sockface! ) So I am going to skip most of it and just skim.

This is exactly what I was saying in my last post but it seems to have gone unnoticed. There are lots of theories being thrown around that make this game more complex than I believe it is. I think it is as simple as this quote so far. Before this game even started Daisy said this game was supposed to be fun, silly, and simple after the complex mind-fuck of Bioshock (my own words of course ). I stated before that I wasn't sure of the stick option. I now believe that would have benefited Strongbad. I will likely be looking at one of the many Castle voters for this lynch as it would make sense to me for baddies with no info to bandwagon on the "obvious choice."

Info: I had no info and completely randomized my vote.

As for being a low poster: I haven't had a lot of time with my laptop lately. It also doesn't help that I'm a slow reader with 4 new pages of posts to catch up on.

Linki: 5 NEW PAGES TO CATCH UP ON!!!!!

I was in linky with the post that talked about not saying anything about info, I apologize.

So much talking...

I think Player List: is bad tbh.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: As such, I think it would be fruitful to avoid lynching Snow Dog or Bullzeye, because if we lynched one of them and they came up King of Town and Strong Sad, we'd have a double edged sword. We could propose that certain players could be certain roles based on this information, but so could the baddies.

The very fact that this could actually be exactly what happened scares me but also is very thrilling.

I don't think I want to lynch Snow Dog or Bullzeye today.

I completely agree.

If this is true, the very fact that we split the vote up is actually harmful but also helpful for the civvies... but I think it is more harmful. The baddies can NK and vote. Civvies only have votes. So even if we could figure out who certain players are, and these players were all the civvies that corresponded to the poll options as would logically make sense, this would be bad.

However, maybe this isn't the case at all. It's an incredibly ballsy Day 0 poll by Daisy, if it is, so I would applaud her, but it's also unfair if we came to this conclusion and if the only players who didn't vote castle were the exact roles who would be destined to receive that information. Maybe she thought the vote would be more spread, but not completely spread.

That being said, there are just as easily other theories that make sense -- there could be any number of players who received information. Maybe only Bullz and Snow Dog did. Maybe more than six players did and some are lying and some haven't said.

Either way... I think this discussion needs to end and I don't want to find out whether this theory is true.

No one else please say whether you had information or not. PLEASE. Thank you.

Moreover.... for suspects... it might be worthwhile to dig into players who otherwise may seem suspicious (assuming we can even find that... it's Day 1, we might not be so lucky), or who otherwise are refusing to discuss, that fit into the criteria of bandwagoning into the castle, or even stick, crowd (but more likely castle). Because on the off chance the theory is true, baddies would surely have not had info, and not given the poll much thought.

Devin, one thing. If you completely randomized, as you say, that is interesting, because you were the only one who voted your option.

If the grand 6-tiered civvie theory is true, this means the player who benefited from that option is either you, and you are lying, or could have easily deduced this could bite them in the ass later on and threw their vote off elsewhere... if I were that player, I would have questioned that I would benefit from such an option because this poll did not seem to make much sense as an alignment-type poll as is typical in most games.