The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

thellama73 wrote:
I already told you. DH and I are best friends. We will always back one another up.

Who are you going to vote for?

I don't know yet. I'm leaning towards John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt. He has only posted once and it was to announce a self-vote. Those types of players always make me nervous. I still have nine hours to decide, though.

Who are YOU going to vote ofr?

At the moment, it's between Dom and you...sorry

No apology necessary. I look forward to proving you wrong.

FZ. wrote: I look forward to you making me feel I'm wrong too.
Last game even though you felt the same way about people doing things like self voting and posting like that, yet you didn't vote accordingly, which again seems like an easy way out.

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote: I look forward to you making me feel I'm wrong too.
Last game even though you felt the same way about people doing things like self voting and posting like that, yet you didn't vote accordingly, which again seems like an easy way out.

I voet for the person I think most likely to be bad. While I don't like people who don't participate and think it can be good cover for baddies, if I have a better suspicion I will place my vote there instead. Right now, John is my best guess, but that's not to say it couldn't change, and my vote will go to the person I think deserves it at the time of voting.

Regarding me being calm, I lost my temper during the Shawshank game and I have been chastising myself ever since. I am trying to not get so emotionally involved this time, so I suspect that is what you're picking up on.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: So you don't think anything of DH backing you up, or do you believe in the fairness too?

I already told you. DH and I are best friends. We will always back one another up.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: So you don't think anything of DH backing you up, or do you believe in the fairness too?

I already told you. DH and I are best friends. We will always back one another up.

Not that I don't believe you, but that's quite convenient to have someone there to vouch for you.

insertnamehere wrote:FZ, Kneel, and S~V~S are really making me suspicious for being so aggressive this early. I understand FZ and Kneel, because they are new, but I thought S~V~S should know better. So I'm voting for her. It's a Day 1 vote, it doesn't really mean a lot.

thellama73 wrote:Addendum: Actually, I did think her silence on DH's eagerness to stop discussion was a bit out of character. But I wouldn't say she's been aggressive.

FZ. wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
What is it about Dom that makes you want to give him a vote?

One time, he answered my question regarding SVS with an answer that pinged me, and the way he questioned someone defending someone else, made me think it was something too easy to accuse people of. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the most I've got on someone at the moment.
With llama, it's his nonchalant answers that are making me question his sincerity,since last game he felt less... *looks for a word*... calm.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Addendum: Actually, I did think her silence on DH's eagerness to stop discussion was a bit out of character. But I wouldn't say she's been aggressive.

Wasn't that in the other game?

FZ. wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:FZ, Kneel, and S~V~S are really making me suspicious for being so aggressive this early. I understand FZ and Kneel, because they are new, but I thought S~V~S should know better. So I'm voting for her. It's a Day 1 vote, it doesn't really mean a lot.

We tend to be quite aggressive from the get go where we come from. Some people say it backfires and we end up lynching civs. I disagree. Last game we played there, we were so close to lynching a baddie on the first day, only for someone to take their vote off at the last minute because they got scared it was a civ lynch. So I'm all for pushing people and questioning them from the start. I really don't see the point in talking if you do nothing but make sarcastic remarks. I'd rather just come back the next day.
If you just vote randomly, there's a higher chance of lynching a civ. I try to make my odds better. Sometimes it doesn't work, but then, I'm not doing any worse than lynching a civ randomly

FZ. wrote:We tend to be quite aggressive from the get go where we come from. Some people say it backfires and we end up lynching civs. I disagree. Last game we played there, we were so close to lynching a baddie on the first day, only for someone to take their vote off at the last minute because they got scared it was a civ lynch. So I'm all for pushing people and questioning them from the start. I really don't see the point in talking if you do nothing but make sarcastic remarks. I'd rather just come back the next day.
If you just vote randomly, there's a higher chance of lynching a civ. I try to make my odds better. Sometimes it doesn't work, but then, I'm not doing any worse than lynching a civ randomly

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I have a question when we send our white card in do we always send it to boo ?

FZ. wrote:

Dom wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:Shoot! I forgot this was a speed game and I thought we had until Wednesday to make a decision. I probably will not be able to participate much if at all before deadline, I have assignments due. I'm currently posting on my phone.
BWT caught my eye, saying he has been more fluffy but he wasn't imo because there is plenty of time. Plenty of time?? Where is this time and where can I get some? Especially if you haven't truly started yet. IGMEOY
Llama, did you see my suspicion? Are you the type to respond or ignore suspicion? Can anyone give some input on this?

Llama is flopping between this game and Game of Champs so take that into consideration.

Is there a reason why you just gave Llama an excuse?

Is there an easier way to throw suspicion on someone than to question them on something like that? Baddies would usually not be so stupid as to stick up for a fellow baddie so blatantly. I could see him defending him to get on his good side though, but I could also see you just using that little thing to make him look bad. This is the second time in this game where I feel you are trying to make someone look bad.

Dom wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Dom wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:Shoot! I forgot this was a speed game and I thought we had until Wednesday to make a decision. I probably will not be able to participate much if at all before deadline, I have assignments due. I'm currently posting on my phone.
BWT caught my eye, saying he has been more fluffy but he wasn't imo because there is plenty of time. Plenty of time?? Where is this time and where can I get some? Especially if you haven't truly started yet. IGMEOY
Llama, did you see my suspicion? Are you the type to respond or ignore suspicion? Can anyone give some input on this?

Llama is flopping between this game and Game of Champs so take that into consideration.

Is there a reason why you just gave Llama an excuse?

Is there an easier way to throw suspicion on someone than to question them on something like that? Baddies would usually not be so stupid as to stick up for a fellow baddie so blatantly. I could see him defending him to get on his good side though, but I could also see you just using that little thing to make him look bad. This is the second time in this game where I feel you are trying to make someone look bad.

I think this is your second, maybe third, game with me, yes?
I always question. I generally post in questions. This is very typical of me. Civ or baddie.


Anyways, my point was, did you notice that no one answered your questions for me?
I wanted to know why DH felt the need to answer for Llama. This is actually exactly what I thought you'd want to see out of a player right now: someone asking questions and such.

And if my answer about SVS bothered you, then I'm sorry, but I find SVS to be literal at times, but I've also seen her have lots of not so literal fun in threads. Everything I've seen out of her in this game is par for the course. I don't really know what you wanted out of an answer.

insertnamehere wrote:Well, shit. I'm sorry S~V~S. This is why I don't play 2 games at a time.

thellama73 wrote:Okay, time to vote. I think I will go for John. He has only posted once, self-voted and didn't respond to me calling him out. I don't like that.

thellama73 wrote:Okay, time to vote. I think I will go for John. He has only posted once, self-voted and didn't respond to me calling him out. I don't like that.

FZ. wrote: We've both seen John play his first game in the Shawshank game, and he was a pretty awesome baddie, so I really don't think this is how a baddie John would act.

insertnamehere wrote:I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

Dom wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

FZ. wrote:

Dom wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

Dom wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Dom wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

My understanding of how there are cultural differences between the community I came from and the community you came from is that there are a lot of them. One of those, I've seen is that you all rely on metagaming far more than we do. I'm surprised you're questioning this in this way.
You have gotten yourself into a circular argument here. The wine-in-front-of-me (WIFOM) argument. "That's what he WANTS you to think!"

FZ. wrote:

Dom wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

FZ. wrote:

Dom wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Dom wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

My understanding of how there are cultural differences between the community I came from and the community you came from is that there are a lot of them. One of those, I've seen is that you all rely on metagaming far more than we do. I'm surprised you're questioning this in this way.
You have gotten yourself into a circular argument here. The wine-in-front-of-me (WIFOM) argument. "That's what he WANTS you to think!"

Lol, Roxy used the WIFOM accusation on us when she started playing with us.
I don't think that's the case though. I didn't even remember him doing the same thing until you both said it. I think we should just wait and see how he acts in the future. I don't think it's enough to vote for him, when others have neither voted nor said anything. By the way, last game he voted for llama without explanation. This time, he voted for himself and explained why. Llama on the other hand, voted for him last game for voting him, and now, for voting himself. So he's not voting for him because he's acting like last game

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

FZ. wrote:We tend to be quite aggressive from the get go where we come from. Some people say it backfires and we end up lynching civs. I disagree. Last game we played there, we were so close to lynching a baddie on the first day, only for someone to take their vote off at the last minute because they got scared it was a civ lynch. So I'm all for pushing people and questioning them from the start. I really don't see the point in talking if you do nothing but make sarcastic remarks. I'd rather just come back the next day.
If you just vote randomly, there's a higher chance of lynching a civ. I try to make my odds better. Sometimes it doesn't work, but then, I'm not doing any worse than lynching a civ randomly

To be fair, your day periods generally last 4-5 IRL days, so it lends itself to more discussion and, in turn, makes you more likely to nab a baddie on Day 1. Most of us are used to 48 hours at most, so generally we'll feel a bit differently about it than K-Siters will.

I agree on the voting randomly part though. I try to go for the person who I feel strongest about based on what happens in the thread on Day 1. I feel that's much
better than trying to roll the dice and hope you get lucky.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I have to leave for work soon, and won't have time to check in before the deadline. I'm not very sure about anyone quite yet, and the only thing that's stuck out is John's self-vote. Instead, I'm going to try something I normally hate people doing because I feel like it: randomizing!

I did a 1-18 generator (in order of everyone's name in the lynch poll), and got #5, so Bass. Sorry man!

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Dom wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

It seems like you've fallen prey to confirmation bias. You think I am bad, so you are bending all the evidence to fit that theory rather than taking the evidence as it comes and evaluating it objectively. I see no reason to second guess JJ. He behaved this way last game and was bad, he is behaving the same way this game, so I think he might be bad here too. Add to that the fact that I always like to vote for low posers and self-voters, and I feel very good about my vote. Your pursuit of me is starting to seem a little forced.

FZ. wrote: @linki2: I have no idea llama. I'd like to think I would genuinely consider your reasoning, and make up my mind accordingly. If you now want to NO U me, I'm not going to hold it against you, because I think suspecting people who suspect you is legit, but it's not going to make me feel better about you

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote: We've both seen John play his first game in the Shawshank game, and he was a pretty awesome baddie, so I really don't think this is how a baddie John would act.

To my memory, this is pretty similar to how he played in Shawshank, actually.

thellama73 wrote:

FZ. wrote: @linki2: I have no idea llama. I'd like to think I would genuinely consider your reasoning, and make up my mind accordingly. If you now want to NO U me, I'm not going to hold it against you, because I think suspecting people who suspect you is legit, but it's not going to make me feel better about you

Thank you. I don't know how I feel about you yet, but I may well decide you're bad in the future, in which case I promise I will vote for you.

DharmaHelper wrote:Oh his username is actually John..

Dom wrote:i have no idea who to vote for tbh

thellama73 wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:
Llama, did you see my suspicion? Are you the type to respond or ignore suspicion? Can anyone give some input on this?

I saw your suspicion and in general I like to respond to suspicions when I think the person makes a reasonable point. I don't understand, however, what me referring to my record has to do with anything. I have objectively been terrible at catching baddies in the last few games I have played, so I'm mixing it up a little here to try to do better.

linki: I am also neck deep in a really time consuming and tedious project, so I haven't had the chance to really build any detailed cases yet. I hope that will change soon once I have more data.

lots more linki