The Syndicate

so b/c you agree or disagree with me or my vote that makes me town or scum? interesting

where is Samuel

i ain't scared of no bears

bring it

Paul wrote:now this is d1

You have voted early and maybe hastily wasted a vote.
You have not really given solid reasons for your vote. By your standards of d1 and how this game should be played, should we now vote for you? If not, why?

Jephthah wrote:

Paul wrote:now this is d1

You have voted early and maybe hastily wasted a vote.
You have not really given solid reasons for your vote. By your standards of d1 and how this game should be played, should we now vote for you? If not, why?

im catching scum that's why

Paul wrote:

Jephthah wrote:

Paul wrote:now this is d1

You have voted early and maybe hastily wasted a vote.
You have not really given solid reasons for your vote. By your standards of d1 and how this game should be played, should we now vote for you? If not, why?

im catching scum that's why

Do you have tell signs so we can make sure of it?

Deborah wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Paul wrote:who actually thinks Ruth is scum right now show of hands

The only people who know are the Heathens.

There are two sets of baddies in the game (unless you think The Four Horsemen are civ?). I find it interesting that instead of saying "only the baddies know" you said "the Heathens". Is that because you are a Horseman and thus you without realizing it subtracted your group from your comment? Or maybe you are both Heathens and only said the one baddie group for that reason?

The Lord is watching, Rachel.

Deborah, we do not know the Horsemen's win conditions. They appear, to me, to be an indie team. If they were just another baddie team, then I doubt their win condition would be secret. I think you are reading far too into what I have posted and far too little into what the post has and has not.

Belshazzar wrote:I don't disapprove of meta in sock games, but I hardly expect great results from it either. It is indeed far-fetched to think that players can fully and precisely out themselves in such circumstances or that, instead, a full and precise profiling of a player can be achieved - and I myself am not pursuing any of this. However, if meta crumbs or trails surface, I will make note of them. That being said, I also think Ruth is pushing it a bit.

Rachel wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:

Job wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:
Linki @ Job: why do you ask for confirmation? are you also new to the site?

Irrelevant. Why does it matter?

First evasive answer of the game.

Does it matter?

If he is new or local? No.

If he answers "Doesn't matter. Why does it matter" to a question? Maybe.

If the question didn't matter, why did you expect an answer?

Paul wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Paul wrote:who actually thinks Ruth is scum right now show of hands

The only people who know are the Heathens.

That's not what I was asking

I was asking how many people think Ruth is scum

I understand.
I am saying, given Ruth's posts, no one really knows, right?

Paul wrote:

Samuel wrote:Check in. I see we are all trying to play our little parts. How cute, in that case I recommend not crossing me or I may have to call down some bears on your ass. Just sayin'.

@Host, will it be relevant to the game to figure out who the other players are?

scum post if there ever was one

Why?

Jephthah wrote:

Balaam wrote:Holy early vote! Got any proof there Paul?

Are you seriously asking this? What exactly do you expect Paul to say?

An analysis of the posts that Paul finds so suspicious?

Mordecai wrote:I'm in a bit of middle ground on this. Samuel's "I'll call some bears on you" (Elisha reference) was very odd. But not enough for me to call him guaranteed scum yet like Paul has.

On that note, Pauls willingness to do that right out of the gate rubs me the wrong way as well. A lot of jumping the gun going on here. That method of pressuring him with a vote is pointless at the moment, seeing as it's the only vote on Samuel for the time being. One vote does nothing in a game this size unless there is a tie, and I question that technique being employed at the very beginning of day one.

If we follow this for the rest of the game, and anyone who misattributes events in the Bible, we're gonna have a bad time tbh.

Paul wrote:so b/c you agree or disagree with me or my vote that makes me town or scum? interesting

This is the kind of response I was looking for.

Don't twist the reason there is suspicion on you - noone said you were suspicious because they disagreed with you. A lot of other reasons were given, none of them were that.

[quote="Rachel

Paul wrote:

Samuel wrote:Check in. I see we are all trying to play our little parts. How cute, in that case I recommend not crossing me or I may have to call down some bears on your ass. Just sayin'.

@Host, will it be relevant to the game to figure out who the other players are?

scum post if there ever was one

Why?

Jephthah wrote:

Balaam wrote:Holy early vote! Got any proof there Paul?

Are you seriously asking this? What exactly do you expect Paul to say?

An analysis of the posts that Paul finds so suspicious?

[/quote]
An analysis of two posts with barely something in them? Either you feel it or you don't. There's no way someone can logically and methodically accuse another person of being bad based on that and come out looking good.

Screwed up the post.

Well, I have a party to go to. If I'm not wasted, I'll be back later.
By the way, did I mention that all the avis look the same to me? And that's when I'm sober

Jephthah wrote:[quote="Rachel

Paul wrote:

Samuel wrote:Check in. I see we are all trying to play our little parts. How cute, in that case I recommend not crossing me or I may have to call down some bears on your ass. Just sayin'.

@Host, will it be relevant to the game to figure out who the other players are?

scum post if there ever was one

Why?

Jephthah wrote:

Balaam wrote:Holy early vote! Got any proof there Paul?

Are you seriously asking this? What exactly do you expect Paul to say?

An analysis of the posts that Paul finds so suspicious?

An analysis of two posts with barely something in them? Either you feel it or you don't. There's no way someone can logically and methodically accuse another person of being bad based on that and come out looking good.[/quote]
....so if a post looks bad to you, there's no reason behind it?
What?

Lot wrote:

Paul wrote:so b/c you agree or disagree with me or my vote that makes me town or scum? interesting

This is the kind of response I was looking for.

Don't twist the reason there is suspicion on you - noone said you were suspicious because they disagreed with you. A lot of other reasons were given, none of them were that.

you're scum

Lot wrote:I could see Paul getting a lot of votes... I'd consider voting that way. So far not much has stood out for me. Paul has, very much, with posts and practices which seem designed to set himself apart. So has Ruth - what with the apparent fishing for finding out where people are from and then waving it off as a joke.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone felt that their vote in the poll yesterday turned out to be worthwhile. I, for one, do not - at least I have no reason to believe it was for now.

this post essentially says I could see a wagon on Paul so I'm not gonna commit to voting him but gonna leave the possibility here for later b/c I am scum and need to find a reason to vote someone

Lot wrote:I'm just getting a vibe from Paul I don't like... It's not only because he sets himself apart, it's the way he is doing it... like, my practices are so different from yours, how could you possibly lynch me until you've gotten to know me... I don't easily buy that he has an actual suspicion of Samuel... the vote feels like a tactic.

I agree with Balaam. A very early vote is a wasted vote, because 48 hours is a lot of time for something real to happen.

then there's this post

basically saying I am getting a vibe from Paul I don't like and putting a bunch of words in my mouth that I did not say

you don't use word scum? fine

you don't rvs on d1? fine

I never said it wasn't fine

this is how I play and how I catch scum

Lot wrote:

Paul wrote:so b/c you agree or disagree with me or my vote that makes me town or scum? interesting

This is the kind of response I was looking for.

Don't twist the reason there is suspicion on you - noone said you were suspicious because they disagreed with you. A lot of other reasons were given, none of them were that.

then there's this post as if Lot was actually looking for a specific response from me and his posts are fabricated

dream on

I told you guys I would catch scum d1

Lot is scum

boom I told you guys scum don't win the bible

doesn't matter that I can't change my vote I already found one scum now where's the rest

Not a specific response... and not necessarily from you, either.

But a specific kind of response? Yes. A twisty one, a weasely one. It happened to be you, who I was already looking at.

So I say you are twisting words, and your response? No u. You get a little suspicion, and you want to lynch your accuser.

And no, I'm not going to commit to voting for you two days before the lynch, because unlike you I'm actually trying to vote for the person I think is most likely to be heathen today, instead of just voting whoever I feel like and passing it off as a grand plan. I think you did it because you thought it would make you seem more foreign to the site and lessen your chance of getting votes. I don't think you did it as a grand plan. I also don't think you are foreign to this site at all.

I particularly like the irony of this post:

Paul wrote:

Lot wrote:I'm just getting a vibe from Paul I don't like... It's not only because he sets himself apart, it's the way he is doing it... like, my practices are so different from yours, how could you possibly lynch me until you've gotten to know me... I don't easily buy that he has an actual suspicion of Samuel... the vote feels like a tactic.

I agree with Balaam. A very early vote is a wasted vote, because 48 hours is a lot of time for something real to happen.

then there's this post

basically saying I am getting a vibe from Paul I don't like and putting a bunch of words in my mouth that I did not say

you don't use word scum? fine

you don't rvs on d1? fine

I never said it wasn't fine

this is how I play and how I catch scum

You certainly just put a whole lot of words in my mouth - for the second time (your twisty reason for why people apparently suspected you being the first). Don't try to pass off voting 48 hours early as 'rvs'. You can 'rvs' 48 hours later if you still don't have a genuine suspicion. I have never said what word I use, never whether I would vote randomly on day one, and neither of those things have any impact on why I find you suspicious. The reason I find you suspicious is because it looks to me like you are trying to hide in a defence you know is coming... this one:

Absalom wrote:Isn't the whole point of being scum trying not to be noticed?

im not twisting any words man i wanted d1 to start so I started it

i still think you're scum and you read into my posts stuff that isn't there

I don't understand why I would wait to cast my vote I am proud of my vote

if you thik I'm scum vote for me

I'm not afraid to die I get lynched d1 all the time on my home site

i already have caused plenty of talking what have you done

where the hell is Samuel

bbl

It's my gut feel about you. Am I reading in to your posts? A lot! There ain't any other way to catch a heathen on day 1.

It seems to me that you are one to remove the speck from others eyes while having a log in your own. You did twist words.

And I have to admit, it doesn't help to see you say incorrect things as facts like 'lot is scum' on day one. Let's stick to what you and I both know is the truth here - you THINK I'm scum, not 'lot is scum'.

If you are genuinely new here, welcome and I hope you are ok with a baptism of fire (is that a biblical reference?) I'm just not buying it right now - I have a couple of people in mind for who you might be and I think you are trying to play a game with the thread.

Paul wrote:I don't understand why I would wait to cast my vote I am proud of my vote

Go not forth hastily to strive,
Lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof,
When thy neighbour hath put thee to shame.

Absalom wrote:I'm glad it's day 1. Now we can get moving. Despite Paul's early vote, I actually feel good about him. I also feel good about Nicodemus. That leaves.... a lot of other people. I don't know, maybe it's just his name, but Cain dropping in with only two posts, one of which was an accusation and a vote threat is something I noticed. That, and Balaam seems to be coming off a tad hostile.

I disagree about Paul. I think he's intentionally trying to draw attention, and steer the conversation of the thread. If anything he is my strongest suspect thus far and likely to receive my vote.

Paul wrote:im not twisting any words man i wanted d1 to start so I started it

i still think you're scum and you read into my posts stuff that isn't there

I am happy you did.

I don't understand why everyone is making such a big to-do over such a thing. It's like they don't want anything to happen.

These are my issues with Paul. The first being that I do not think he means to take the hunt for heathens seriously. During and throughout Day 0 he names a number of suspects, myself included. I feel as though he is just naming names, to appear helpful and civ. I also think that he is saying so much, without actually saying anything new at all. Repeatedly posting "Samuel is scum" or the like, for example. As I stated, I think Paul is just throwing names out to throw names out. His hasty early vote makes it easy for him to avoid any accountability, and to have an excuse to pardon himself from legitimate discussion. These are for you, Paul:

He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: But he that is †hasty of spirit exalteth folly.

Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man.

What the heck is up with Paul and why is he so convinced Samuel is bad? Looks like he's reading way too much into that one post. I wouldn't mind if he said he was voting mostly-randomly or that he just had a gut feeling, but he's acting so 100% convinced and it's pretty annoying TBH.

Absalom wrote:I'm glad it's day 1. Now we can get moving. Despite Paul's early vote, I actually feel good about him. I also feel good about Nicodemus. That leaves.... a lot of other people. I don't know, maybe it's just his name, but Cain dropping in with only two posts, one of which was an accusation and a vote threat is something I noticed. That, and Balaam seems to be coming off a tad hostile.

How could you possibly feel good about another player this early in Day 1?

Certainly an interesting start. At first I felt relatively ok with Paul's vote, but now I'm working my way through the details. He certainly did let us know that he'll vote right away for a suspect and he delivered that with brio. Samuel's opener could definitely be read as "scum", especially to a newbie, but I'm really not sold on it yet. I personally took it as the check-in banter and witty sock referencing that most of us did during sign-ups and Day 0. Waiting to hear from Samuel.

As for the rest from Paul, I suspect a culture clash between his way of playing and ours, but it's too early to tell how we'll truly get along. He calls players scum first, reasons second - first time (on Samuel) not before being asked to reason, then (on Lot) he reasons right away, which may be a bit of "fine tuning" on his behalf tbh. His reasonings are a mixed bag so far, some points looking like decent reads, others either reading too much into or simply poor as such - for instance, calling Samuel sus for his avatar (if he really mean it, of course; otherwise...wut); or shooting down Lot for saying "he'd consider voting" as a way of wagoning - in which case he might be unfamiliar that it's mostly an expression some of us use when debating over suspicious players throughout the course of the Day, especially when votes are not changeable, thus we literally save the voting part for last (that's my take on the issue, but I also think it's very little to accuse Lot of). Not to mention he says he "found one scum" in Lot, apparently forgetting he already called Samuel as well, which would make two, in his view. Very, very confusing.

Paul wrote:so b/c you agree or disagree with me or my vote that makes me town or scum? interesting

Is there an option other than town or scum?

I don't get why ye sinners are giving Paul a hard time I mean he's trying to identify those who are not doing our Lord's will and you're all turning on him like a bunch of pharisees. We don't have rvs on this site so he's doing what he can to gauge reactions. leave him alone I say and let him do the Lord's work. he's an easy target today because he's not playing like the rest of us but that doesn't make him a heathen. we should be accepting of those who are not like us

I notice Jephthah started Day 1 by finding Paul's vote tactic agreeable, lashing a bit (imo) at Balaam for questioning Paul's reason for voting Samuel, then suddenly considering, like several others, that Paul "hastily wasted" his vote and questioning himself Paul's reason for voting Samuel. For why?

Absalom also said something about many people randomizing or self-voting on Day 1 which pinged me a bit, because it is certainly not common practice over here (or, if it happens, it certainly doesn't go by without raising suspicions).

Rachel wrote:

Deborah wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Paul wrote:who actually thinks Ruth is scum right now show of hands

The only people who know are the Heathens.

There are two sets of baddies in the game (unless you think The Four Horsemen are civ?). I find it interesting that instead of saying "only the baddies know" you said "the Heathens". Is that because you are a Horseman and thus you without realizing it subtracted your group from your comment? Or maybe you are both Heathens and only said the one baddie group for that reason?

The Lord is watching, Rachel.

Deborah, we do not know the Horsemen's win conditions. They appear, to me, to be an indie team. If they were just another baddie team, then I doubt their win condition would be secret. I think you are reading far too into what I have posted and far too little into what the post has and has not.

well okay Deborah but you don't think a buncha hillbillies named Conquest War Famine and DEATH don't need to be delivered unto Hell? There's 34 roles in this game and only 5 heathens so if all it takes to win is getting rid of five assholes this game would be too easy. I don't think it matters as far as suspecting people but if we lynch a horseman you're not gonna see me crying over it.

I won't cry over a dead horseman either, but to be fair, they will only unleash plagues upon heathens because the sovereign are raptured before their coming.

I don't have a good impression of Lot, I think he is trying to intimidate Paul and squash discussion. As well as find out people's identities, let people be.

I still don't like belshazar in particular for that reason and to a lesser extent Ruth.

Jonah wrote:I don't get why ye sinners are giving Paul a hard time I mean he's trying to identify those who are not doing our Lord's will and you're all turning on him like a bunch of pharisees. We don't have rvs on this site so he's doing what he can to gauge reactions. leave him alone I say and let him do the Lord's work. he's an easy target today because he's not playing like the rest of us but that doesn't make him a heathen. we should be accepting of those who are not like us

I like this content from Jonah. He seems open minded.

You like me less than Ruth even though she pushed harder for flushing new players?

Belshazzar wrote:Certainly an interesting start. At first I felt relatively ok with Paul's vote, but now I'm working my way through the details. He certainly did let us know that he'll vote right away for a suspect and he delivered that with brio. Samuel's opener could definitely be read as "scum", especially to a newbie, but I'm really not sold on it yet. I personally took it as the check-in banter and witty sock referencing that most of us did during sign-ups and Day 0. Waiting to hear from Samuel.

As for the rest from Paul, I suspect a culture clash between his way of playing and ours, but it's too early to tell how we'll truly get along. He calls players scum first, reasons second - first time (on Samuel) not before being asked to reason, then (on Lot) he reasons right away, which may be a bit of "fine tuning" on his behalf tbh. His reasonings are a mixed bag so far, some points looking like decent reads, others either reading too much into or simply poor as such - for instance, calling Samuel sus for his avatar (if he really mean it, of course; otherwise...wut); or shooting down Lot for saying "he'd consider voting" as a way of wagoning - in which case he might be unfamiliar that it's mostly an expression some of us use when debating over suspicious players throughout the course of the Day, especially when votes are not changeable, thus we literally save the voting part for last (that's my take on the issue, but I also think it's very little to accuse Lot of). Not to mention he says he "found one scum" in Lot, apparently forgetting he already called Samuel as well, which would make two, in his view. Very, very confusing.

This post feels wishy washy without asking any specific questions like you wanna stay on the fence but still act like youre discussing things. I got my eye on you Shazzy

Job wrote:I won't cry over a dead horseman either, but to be fair, they will only unleash plagues upon heathens because the sovereign are raptured before their coming.

I don't have a good impression of Lot, I think he is trying to intimidate Paul and squash discussion. As well as find out people's identities, let people be.

I still don't like belshazar in particular for that reason and to a lesser extent Ruth.

Far from it - I think exactly the opposite about finding out people's identities. I don't like that Paul is going to such pains to seem like he isn't from this site. And Paul and Ruth were my two original suspicions precisely because they seemed to be the two going to such pains to find out people's identities.

Plus, what part of what I've said has squashed discussion? I think I've hopefully added to it? I don't think I have really shut down anyone's angle on anything - just provided my own opinions. If anything, I've been a little surprised by how many people have tried to squash discussion of Paul - where they could be saying 'I don't suspect Paul' they instead try and make it out to be unkind and suggest we leave him be... I find that much more discussion squashing.

The point on Jephthah was interesting, I think I need to go back and read his posts again.

And I agree that the horsemen are a threat. I don't know that I share Job's faith that the faithful would be spared their wrath.

Belshazzar wrote:You like me less than Ruth even though she pushed harder for flushing new players?

Yes, for posts like this one. Your tone sounds more insincere, manipulative and condescending.

wake me when Samuel shows up

Jonah wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:Certainly an interesting start. At first I felt relatively ok with Paul's vote, but now I'm working my way through the details. He certainly did let us know that he'll vote right away for a suspect and he delivered that with brio. Samuel's opener could definitely be read as "scum", especially to a newbie, but I'm really not sold on it yet. I personally took it as the check-in banter and witty sock referencing that most of us did during sign-ups and Day 0. Waiting to hear from Samuel.

As for the rest from Paul, I suspect a culture clash between his way of playing and ours, but it's too early to tell how we'll truly get along. He calls players scum first, reasons second - first time (on Samuel) not before being asked to reason, then (on Lot) he reasons right away, which may be a bit of "fine tuning" on his behalf tbh. His reasonings are a mixed bag so far, some points looking like decent reads, others either reading too much into or simply poor as such - for instance, calling Samuel sus for his avatar (if he really mean it, of course; otherwise...wut); or shooting down Lot for saying "he'd consider voting" as a way of wagoning - in which case he might be unfamiliar that it's mostly an expression some of us use when debating over suspicious players throughout the course of the Day, especially when votes are not changeable, thus we literally save the voting part for last (that's my take on the issue, but I also think it's very little to accuse Lot of). Not to mention he says he "found one scum" in Lot, apparently forgetting he already called Samuel as well, which would make two, in his view. Very, very confusing.

This post feels wishy washy without asking any specific questions like you wanna stay on the fence but still act like youre discussing things. I got my eye on you Shazzy

That's how I do things, I'm slow on verdicts. Ain't gonna change just because we seem to be clashing mafia styles.

Lot wrote:

Job wrote:I won't cry over a dead horseman either, but to be fair, they will only unleash plagues upon heathens because the sovereign are raptured before their coming.

I don't have a good impression of Lot, I think he is trying to intimidate Paul and squash discussion. As well as find out people's identities, let people be.

I still don't like belshazar in particular for that reason and to a lesser extent Ruth.

Far from it - I think exactly the opposite about finding out people's identities. I don't like that Paul is going to such pains to seem like he isn't from this site. And Paul and Ruth were my two original suspicions precisely because they seemed to be the two going to such pains to find out people's identities.

Plus, what part of what I've said has squashed discussion? I think I've hopefully added to it? I don't think I have really shut down anyone's angle on anything - just provided my own opinions. If anything, I've been a little surprised by how many people have tried to squash discussion of Paul - where they could be saying 'I don't suspect Paul' they instead try and make it out to be unkind and suggest we leave him be... I find that much more discussion squashing.

The point on Jephthah was interesting, I think I need to go back and read his posts again.

And I agree that the horsemen are a threat. I don't know that I share Job's faith that the faithful would be spared their wrath.

Can you provide examples of where Paul has tried to determine identities? I don't remember it and people blend together a little bit.

Anyway, shouldn't matter what site people are from. It isn't a strategy to appear foreign. Lynch someone if they're scum and don't if they aren't. Site = irrelevant.

Fair enough though I actually don't mind your response, it makes me feel a little better.

Paul wrote:wake me when Samuel shows up

Now now, don't get slothful.

basically im being misunderstood b/c its d1 and there is almost nothing to go on so i created stuff to go on

i waited long enough for d1 i can't believe people deal with that

i also can't believe people are taking me so srs i am trying to hunt scum by fishing for reactions to the stuff i say how else do you hunt this early

also im not trying to steer the thread i am just hunting scum I am not telling any of you not to hunt scum or how to hunt or whatever

I was catching up and I only am getting weird vibes from Paul also. I'm not sure if the doll is just used to a different website like he claims, or is simply trying to put on a show. I'm personally leaning toward fakeness. Every post almost is "scum" this or that.... It's kind of like to me I'm so good and righteous of the Lord. Honestly, I think that Paul may not even be really from a different website at all and even that is fake. I just don't like the way I've seen his behavior.... I don't think his ways are of the Lord. Now, if Paul does get the votes today and shows bad, I would look at Absalom next personally as an ally because of defending him. I most likely will vote Paul though.

Samuel is scummy for not being here yet

vote for me then Martha im not afraid of you or anyone at least I am trying

Paul wrote:vote for me then Martha im not afraid of you or anyone at least I am trying

Sweetie calm down. You don't need to be afraid. I'm just saying you're being way too crazy dear and your behavior seems forced. It's making you seem very suspicious and fake hunny.

To be clear, I don't trust the horsemen. I'm just stating what I know about the bible and communicating my first preference is to lynch heathens. I certainly wouldn't be upset over their death.