The Syndicate

Epi, if you're determined to be wrong, be wrong. Good luck to you!

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:Another runaway. I like the people on it but not the fact of it. Pretty hard to keep it close now though.

What do you call this epi? Not an objection?

No. It's an observation followed by what you like followed by another observation.

No objection.

And regardless, the fact that it took it becoming a "runaway" before you saw fit to comment on it shows you had no objection when it really mattered.

I literally did not visit the site 'when it really mattered' to know there was something to comment on. I thought we had another 24 hours. Which I said at the time.

Let us count the ways you literally did not visit the site to know I had posted a large case against Snow Dog.

One.
Two.
Three..
Four.
Five.
Six.
Seven.
Eight.
Nine.
Ten.

That's literally ten posts you made since I said why Snow Dog was the best lynch. Then you gave this:

Golden wrote:The reason for suspicion of snow dog has eluded me (my phone wanted to call him snow god)

The reason for the Snow Dog suspicion eluded you? How? My post was the largest post of the Day.

Golden wrote:Another runaway. I like the people on it but not the fact of it. Pretty hard to keep it close now though.

If you genuinely wanted Snow Dog alive, you would not have left your objections until right before the deadline (if you consider this an objection). "Pretty hard to keep it close now though." Well, why didn't you try harder throughout those other posts to keep it closer?

Golden wrote:Anyway, seriously done this time. Hold me to whatever standard you like, think whatever you like. Vote for me if you want, you've not yet done it once despite suspecting me since day one. I'll continue to think that your suspicion is false.

The standard I'm holding you to is this one: Speak up about lynches you don't like before they happen, not after.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:Another runaway. I like the people on it but not the fact of it. Pretty hard to keep it close now though.

What do you call this epi? Not an objection?

No. It's an observation followed by what you like followed by another observation.

No objection.

So I heard you like to argue semantics

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:Another runaway. I like the people on it but not the fact of it. Pretty hard to keep it close now though.

What do you call this epi? Not an objection?

No. It's an observation followed by what you like followed by another observation.

No objection.

So I heard you like to argue semantics

I put the "man" in "semantics."

Epignosis wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:Another runaway. I like the people on it but not the fact of it. Pretty hard to keep it close now though.

What do you call this epi? Not an objection?

No. It's an observation followed by what you like followed by another observation.

No objection.

So I heard you like to argue semantics

I put the "man" in "semantics."

There's just not enough letters for me to tell you what I'm bringing to the table.

I'm following Epi's case against Golden. I think he's coming across as half-hearted in his opposition to a Snow Dog lynch. I don't recall him explaining why he thought the lynch was bad even after that initial post, which doesn't look good to me. 'Oh well, better luck next time' is the vibe I'm taking from that, and I don't like it.

Quin wrote:I'm following Epi's case against Golden. I think he's coming across as half-hearted in his opposition to a Snow Dog lynch. I don't recall him explaining why he thought the lynch was bad even after that initial post, which doesn't look good to me. 'Oh well, better luck next time' is the vibe I'm taking from that, and I don't like it.

And when I say this, I mean while Snow Dog was still alive. You know, when it mattered.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:Anyway, seriously done this time. Hold me to whatever standard you like, think whatever you like. Vote for me if you want, you've not yet done it once despite suspecting me since day one. I'll continue to think that your suspicion is false.

The standard I'm holding you to is this one: Speak up about lynches you don't like before they happen, not after.

Oh, but golden, it's not about your schedule. I don't care that you weren't there. I expect you to talk about in the middle anyway.

False. Bullshit. You don't care to listen.

@Golden

Just so you know, I read your responses as very similar to the game in which you were civ and called for a kill on Epi. You seem genuinely aggravated by him, which is a very civ look on you. Just my two cents. I was undecided on you until this exchange.

Spacedaisy wrote: @Golden

Just so you know, I read your responses as very similar to the game in which you were civ and called for a kill on Epi. You seem genuinely aggravated by him, which is a very civ look on you. Just my two cents. I was undecided on you until this exchange.

Exactly. As far as it concerns me, epi staunchly refuses to learn from his mistakes, lest I use them against him. I never will, because phoning it in always brings heat on you and let's your baddie teammates down as a result.

Golden wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote: @Golden

Just so you know, I read your responses as very similar to the game in which you were civ and called for a kill on Epi. You seem genuinely aggravated by him, which is a very civ look on you. Just my two cents. I was undecided on you until this exchange.

Exactly. As far as it concerns me, epi staunchly refuses to learn from his mistakes, lest I use them against him. I never will, because phoning it in always brings heat on you and let's your baddie teammates down as a result.

I can agree with this. I don't think Golden's the type of guy to half-ass a game as a *anything* strategy.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:Anyway, seriously done this time. Hold me to whatever standard you like, think whatever you like. Vote for me if you want, you've not yet done it once despite suspecting me since day one. I'll continue to think that your suspicion is false.

The standard I'm holding you to is this one: Speak up about lynches you don't like before they happen, not after.

Oh, but golden, it's not about your schedule. I don't care that you weren't there. I expect you to talk about in the middle anyway.

False. Bullshit. You don't care to listen.

You were there an hour after I posted my case. And many times after. Stop saying you weren't there. You were. I have shown it.

I'm not accusing Golden of half-assing anything.

I'm accusing him of not really caring that Snow Dog got lynched.

Also, fuck you LaMarcus Aldridge.

Epignosis wrote:I'm not accusing Golden of half-assing anything.

I'm accusing him of not really caring that Snow Dog got lynched.

No, you aren't even taking into account me half-assing things. You are accusing me of the exact opposite.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I'm not accusing Golden of half-assing anything.

I'm accusing him of not really caring that Snow Dog got lynched.

No, you aren't even taking into account me half-assing things. You are accusing me of the exact opposite.

Golden, why didn't you ever address my case on Snow Dog?

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:Anyway, seriously done this time. Hold me to whatever standard you like, think whatever you like. Vote for me if you want, you've not yet done it once despite suspecting me since day one. I'll continue to think that your suspicion is false.

The standard I'm holding you to is this one: Speak up about lynches you don't like before they happen, not after.

Oh, but golden, it's not about your schedule. I don't care that you weren't there. I expect you to talk about in the middle anyway.

False. Bullshit. You don't care to listen.

You were there an hour after I posted my case. And many times after. Stop saying you weren't there. You were. I have shown it.

You are a master logician epi. Let us all bow before your proof, bean dip man.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I'm not accusing Golden of half-assing anything.

I'm accusing him of not really caring that Snow Dog got lynched.

No, you aren't even taking into account me half-assing things. You are accusing me of the exact opposite.

I'm certainly not accusing you of full-assing anything. So I don't know what this means.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:Anyway, seriously done this time. Hold me to whatever standard you like, think whatever you like. Vote for me if you want, you've not yet done it once despite suspecting me since day one. I'll continue to think that your suspicion is false.

The standard I'm holding you to is this one: Speak up about lynches you don't like before they happen, not after.

Oh, but golden, it's not about your schedule. I don't care that you weren't there. I expect you to talk about in the middle anyway.

False. Bullshit. You don't care to listen.

You were there an hour after I posted my case. And many times after. Stop saying you weren't there. You were. I have shown it.

You are a master logician epi. Let us all bow before your proof, bean dip man.

"Bean dip man." Now it's mockery.

You said that you "literally" hadn't been on the site.

I showed that you were.

Are the time stamps wrong or something?

I'm not stooping to mockery. You were here. You said nothing in defense of Snow Dog. Why was that?

I did say something in defence of snow dog. I quoted it. You just chose to interpret it your own way.

I'm not engaging in defending myself against your 'proof'. I've been honest in all things, and today I'm wasting away my holiday to look at whatever you've said against me now. None of it makes you right that I'm bad because you're wrong. You think I couldn't do a point by point rebuttal if I were bad? Of course I could.

You telling me when I was here based on posts and time stamps is ludicrous. It's not hard to pop in for a minute here or there. I know when I was here. I'm me. The 'bean dip' thing isn't mere mockery - it's you once again telling someone else that you know more about their schedule than they themself do. You don't.

It doesn't matter how many ways you go around this, it amounts to the same thing. I came on half an hour before the lynch, and that's the first I ever expected snow dog to be lynched and it was a runaway, and I did what I could with what I had to push it in a different direction. Nothing you say or do changes that this is a fact. It's the truth - I don't have to spend time engaging you in time stamps to prove something I already know is true.

If you want to vote me, vote me.

Golden wrote:I did say something in defence of snow dog. I quoted it. You just chose to interpret it your own way.

I was in bed when you posted what you did. Almost everyone had voted. My interpretation of your post didn't exist because I had voted and gone to bed. It was after midnight here. Your defense came ten hours after I posted my offense. Why was that?

Golden wrote:I'm not engaging in defending myself against your 'proof'. I've been honest in all things, and today I'm wasting away my holiday to look at whatever you've said against me now. None of it makes you right that I'm bad because you're wrong. You think I couldn't do a point by point rebuttal if I were bad? Of course I could.

You telling me when I was here based on posts and time stamps is ludicrous. It's not hard to pop in for a minute here or there. I know when I was here. I'm me. The 'bean dip' thing isn't mere mockery - it's you once again telling someone else that you know more about their schedule than they themself do. You don't.

Once again, I don't care about your schedule. You said you "literally" weren't here. I showed you posting ten times. You literally were here. Stop lying Golden.

Golden wrote:It doesn't matter how many ways you go around this, it amounts to the same thing. I came on half an hour before the lynch, and that's the first I ever expected snow dog to be lynched and it was a runaway, and I did what I could with what I had to push it in a different direction. Nothing you say or do changes that this is a fact. It's the truth - I don't have to spend time engaging you in time stamps to prove something I already know is true.

If you want to vote me, vote me.

Why didn't you ever comment on my case? Third or fourth time I'm asking.

I'm just asking you questions, Golden, and you're being a heel. That's fine. But if you're good as you pretend to be, it'd be nice to know why you were around (and you were) and yet you said nothing about what I had to say about Snow Dog.

You literally said you don't give a rat's ass about my opinion the first time I ask you about it.

Some civilian you are if you are one.

I haven't even seen that your case exists. No, I was not 'around'. But you just keep going with that.

Golden wrote:I haven't even seen that your case exists. No, I was not 'around'. But you just keep going with that.

How did you miss it? You commented on many other things that Day.

Still somewhere in the Golden-Epig dialogue.

Golden, why do you want to lynch Soneji?

Epignosis wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:Another runaway. I like the people on it but not the fact of it. Pretty hard to keep it close now though.

What do you call this epi? Not an objection?

No. It's an observation followed by what you like followed by another observation.

No objection.

So I heard you like to argue semantics

I put the "man" in "semantics."

I put the antic in semantics.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:I haven't even seen that your case exists. No, I was not 'around'. But you just keep going with that.

How did you miss it? You commented on many other things that Day.

Because I wasn't around, epi! For fucks sake. It's not that hard to understand. If I posted sometime around there, I probably responded to one of the five most recent posts while taking a pee or something. I'm doing my best to contribute what I've got.

Let's not say I'm a crap civilian when I haven't managed to get a single one of my suspects lynched yet... once again you are just having a go at the amount of time I have to contribute and not the substance of those contributions.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Still somewhere in the Golden-Epig dialogue.

Golden, why do you want to lynch Soneji?

Because he has still done nothing to make me think he was being anything other than opportunistic and manipulative. I still think he is bad.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:I haven't even seen that your case exists. No, I was not 'around'. But you just keep going with that.

How did you miss it? You commented on many other things that Day.

Because I wasn't around, epi! For fucks sake. It's not that hard to understand. If I posted sometime around there, I probably responded to one of the five most recent posts while taking a pee or something. I'm doing my best to contribute what I've got.

Let's not say I'm a crap civilian when I haven't managed to get a single one of my suspects lynched yet... once again you are just having a go at the amount of time I have to contribute and not the substance of those contributions.

Then don't tell me you literally weren't on the site.

I posted a case at 2:12pm EST. You posted ten times and more after that.

Don't act like you didn't see it.

I read back a tiny bit but I do not have the timer or energy to read back on the 30+ pages I missed. I have not read since my last active post as Dom 1.0. I am not able to catch up.

Not a single one of you gave me any sort of summary. :suspicious:

But you had no problem discussing if you should lynch me again.
For this reason, Elohcin ist he single most suspicious player in this game. Quin and Golden are behind her.

Golden wrote:hmm - yeah, Dom subbing back in is a minefield. Should we presume he has no info? Probably best to infer nothing and make it off limits to discuss dons past life with him?

One thing we do know, Dom was not Olaf since Olaf killed.

@jack - what do you mean by 'Golden is following epi'?

You know I wasn't Olaf since I was Josephine. What the hell?

Why are people DETERMINED to make me bad????

Elohcin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Has anybody talked about this, or was there something terribly obvious that I missed?

Golden wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:I don't see the merit in the discussion.

I agree. It's arguing policy again. Let glorf be glorf.

Your eloquence has been rewarded, my friend

Ooooh, I see what you mean.

Hi Sir. This is interesting. It was Golden that also said we ought not talk about Dom's past life at all. Said we ought to make it "off limits" and "infer nothing" from it. I bet Dom came back bad and it's a team of him, Golden, and Sprit/Glor, and whoever else (I think there are four total...I'd have to look again).

you are bad.

Elohcin wrote:If Dom were on the poll, I would vote him. But alas...

Sir Epi, are the boys almost done with their pokemon battle?

.......
Why?
Why would you vote for me?

I have yet to see you give a reason-- which sis soemthing I am surprised no one has asked.

I read back to where DFaraday annoucned my replacement and I see no reason given.

Sorsha wrote:I'd like to have Dom catch up and let us know how he feels about what's going on. I really doubt he's going to be able to talk about his findings as the LD as Dom 1.0 but hopefully he can at least say if he genuinely suspects Quin or if it was a heat of the moment outburst before he was lynched. So not voting Dom today.

I cannot fully catch up.

Quin is likely bad because he didn't vote for me in my first lynch. It was a clear 'told you so" vote.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:i haven't read since the post from forever ago

someone catch me up pls i'm not reading.

No, Dom is literally not going to catch himself up.

Explain your tone, marmot.

Elohcin wrote:I've said this already. But the fact that he came back and is now quiet makes me think he had info and doesn't know how to act in the thread now as a baddie. Why would a busy-in-RL Dom agree to replace back in?

SEARCHING FOR ANY REASON FOR ME TO BE BAD
MY GOD


Eloh-- why am I bad?
Eloh-- why did you vote for me the first time?

I have seen the second question posited to you for you to only ignore it.
Why did you vote me? Please also tell me why I am bad now. I'd lvoe for you to try and come up with a reason that isn't "it's probably easy to lynch you in this game where the civs will listen to anyone and blindly lynch people because they are going to lose this game"

Ok, epi. I keep saying I'm done. This time I'm really done.

As I said ( to everybody) in the first place - I'll reiterate it now. The reason I said I'd stop responding to epi is that you can tell him the truth, exactly the truth, and if he has decided you are bad he will explain it away.

I told him I don't even know his case exists. This is the truth. I've not seen it. I only have his word for it. I'm sure he is not lying, but I haven't seen it with my own eyes. But he just explains this away as a lie. Why? Why would I lie about such trivial stuff? It doesn't matter to him. It only matters that he believes it.

He will claim he doesn't care about my schedule while trying to bring in time stamp discussions - how is that supposed to be reconciled?

The worst thing about it all is - I don't even know if he is bad. He's just as liable to tunnel on me this way when he's civ. So I re-engage, knowing in my heart of hearts it will change nothing, because I ultimately believe civs should try to convince other civs of their affiliation.

But it's not helping anyone or anything for me to continue engaging. If I could kill epi to get him out of my hair I would. Unfortunately I can't.

Dom, I misunderstood olafs role, and I was trying to prove you were good rather than the opposite.

Golden why did you vote for me before?

Dom wrote:Golden why did you vote for me before?

It had the appearance of info to me. In any event, me voting elsewhere would not have helped you.

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:Golden why did you vote for me before?

It had the appearance of info to me. In any event, me voting elsewhere would not have helped you.

Elaborate.

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:Golden why did you vote for me before?

It had the appearance of info to me. In any event, me voting elsewhere would not have helped you.

Elaborate.

I came along, saw about 8 votes on you with none on anyone else, and i think it was on Christmas Day for me so I couldn't read back. I didn't want to miss the vote. I would have voted soneji otherwise.

Dom wrote:Explain your tone, marmot.

Several players were discussing whether you'd catch up or not. I pulled the quote where you said you weren't going to.

Hey Epignosis, why don't we lynch Soneji?

Dom, if my vote for DDL was a 'told you so' vote, show me where the 'told you so' moment was in my posts.

Is it not more likely that I voted for DDL because I thought he was bad?

hey sig what's that about

Mr. Poe is on fire.

Quin wrote:hey sig what's that about

Town roles which might account for sig's night kill survival:

Violet Baudelaire – Violet is a brilliant inventor. She will create a new device every night and send it to a player of her choice.

Kit Snicket - SECRET

Scum roles which might account for sig's night kill survival:

Count Olaf – He is obsessed with the Baudelaire fortune, and will stop at nothing to get it. Olaf is a master of digsuise, so if role checked he will come back as a random civvie. SECRET

Esme Squalor – Esme is obsessed with fashion and high society. She won't allow herself to be lynched unless she gets at least two-thirds of the votes. SECRET

Carmelita Spats – Carmelita is a spoiled, obnoxious rich kid. Her wealth allows her to buy a player off every night. If that person attempts to target Carmelita, it will fail on the first attempt.

Indie roles which might account for sig's night kill survival:

THE VILLAGE OF FOWL DEVOTEES (2) – The Village of Fowl Devotees are a reclusive, authoritarian society with a strict code of laws. However, they are not actively malicious. They will win by surviving to the end. Each night the VFD has a block and a protect to use between them.

Ishmael – Ishmael is the leader of a peaceful island community. Every night he will attempt to recruit a player. He will have a 50% chance of bringing them into his fold. Ishmael's team will win if they outnumber the other living players at any point. He will also survive the first NK and lynch attempt on his life.

I kind of don't want to clear sig of being Count Olaf, although he was one of the front-runners in the lynch against Glorfindel. He replaced out, and I still refuse to believe that it's because he wasn't able to handle the pressure of being bad. He didn't do that in Mad Max even though he was suspected relatively heavily for the majority of the game.I read in another thread (or maybe it was this one) that Glorfindel had timing issues that kept him from signing up to games. If that's true for his reasons for subbing out here, I'm open to the possibility that he asked his team to bus him before subbing out.

Basically, I'm not ruling out Glorfindel and sig being teammates.

Sig isn't Carmelita, because the the guardians kill every even night, and I think sig pulling this stunt as a member of the Guardians is pointless and risky.

I have no reason to rule out or reinforce the idea of sig being indy.

Quin wrote:Dom, if my vote for DDL was a 'told you so' vote, show me where the 'told you so' moment was in my posts.

Is it not more likely that I voted for DDL because I thought he was bad?

Who'd you vote for yesterday? That might clarify my beef with you.

Quin wrote:hey sig what's that about

he hinted at this.

Dom wrote:

Quin wrote:Dom, if my vote for DDL was a 'told you so' vote, show me where the 'told you so' moment was in my posts.

Is it not more likely that I voted for DDL because I thought he was bad?

Who'd you vote for yesterday? That might clarify my beef with you.

Quin wrote:hey sig what's that about

he hinted at this.

I voted Eloh.

I'll have a look to see if I can find the post you're referring to.