The Syndicate

Canucklehead wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Spoiler: show

Canucklehead wrote:I'd be willing to switch my vote to Juliets for sure. Forgot that she had been the top (and only) name on my suspect list.:.

Day 4: Says she would switch to juliets for being her only suspect. Bad look. Why would she not vote her originally, how could she forget her one and only suspect, and what made her suddenly not interested in lynching Luke anymore?

It's a bit disingenuous to say that I avoided those questions, MM. The grammar of your post (addressing the questions in the third person rather than the second) casts them as rhetorical questions for you audience to consider, not actual questions for me to answer. Had you wanted answers from me, specifically, why did you not address the questions to me, specifically?
This looks like some opportunistic ret-conning on your part, MM. Trying to make me look badder than I already look by suggesting I am avoiding questioning. I am not avoiding questions, I just don't consider rhetorical questions to be ones that are looking in good faith for answers. Those questions, as posed, don't care about answers; they are concerned only with planting seeds of doubt in the readers mind, because the answer already implied in the question is "because Canuck is a baddie".
That's not a question, that's sophistry.

Now that I've pointed them out to you as questions directed at you, will you answer them?

Only if you first admit that you never really intended them as direct questions requiring a response.

I did mean to ask them to you, but I did a poor job of showing that, I'll admit that.

Matt F wrote:

LoRab wrote:Voted mac--my post reminded me of how suspicious I find him. I realize he likely won't be lynched this round, but putting a vote there as a statement of suspicion.

I'm comfortable with a juliets lynch, which seems to be where the thread is heading right now. K-nuk, also--I don't really trust indies, so...

Help me vote MM? I think he's a baaaaaaad indy.

I would love to hear more about this.

Sorsha wrote:TH do you... Or anyone else think that Tranq was Drezenstein and the reason TH is back is because Tranq died? Or was I the only one getting that vibe from the night post?

I was told as soon as I was "killed" that I would be brought back at the end of the Day, so if Tranq was Drezenstein, it's just a coincidence. It's possible that Drezenstein obtained a benefit from his experiment on me, but nothing changed for me other than I was taken out of the game for a Day and now have to deal with the subsequent doubt about it.

Got any theories as to the identity of Dr Dre, TH?

Golden wrote:Got any theories as to the identity of Dr Dre, TH?

None that I'm willing to pursue at this time, but I have my eye on a few peeps.

Sorsha wrote: @LoRab- thanks for your post on Mac. I agree he has been doing some suspish things but I don't think voting for him is the great st idea at this point.

Why not?

Turnip Head wrote:

Sorsha wrote:TH do you... Or anyone else think that Tranq was Drezenstein and the reason TH is back is because Tranq died? Or was I the only one getting that vibe from the night post?

I was told as soon as I was "killed" that I would be brought back at the end of the Day, so if Tranq was Drezenstein, it's just a coincidence. It's possible that Drezenstein obtained a benefit from his experiment on me, but nothing changed for me other than I was taken out of the game for a Day and now have to deal with the subsequent doubt about it.

Ok thanks! There goes that theory, I thought we were done with him.

LoRab wrote:

Sorsha wrote: @LoRab- thanks for your post on Mac. I agree he has been doing some suspish things but I don't think voting for him is the great st idea at this point.

Why not?

I don't know what his intentions are with trying to draw votes, if he's getting some sort of benefit from it or something... I'm not sure. I don't feel like he's being pro-civ though so I'd have no problem voting for him but I would only do so on a day that I think he'd actually get the most votes.

Voting Juliets

Sorsha wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Sorsha wrote: @LoRab- thanks for your post on Mac. I agree he has been doing some suspish things but I don't think voting for him is the great st idea at this point.

Why not?

I don't know what his intentions are with trying to draw votes, if he's getting some sort of benefit from it or something... I'm not sure. I don't feel like he's being pro-civ though so I'd have no problem voting for him but I would only do so on a day that I think he'd actually get the most votes.

gotcha.

I'd be willing to place my vote on Juliets, but I'm not sure some of the people on her wagon are suspicious to me.
I'd rather not lynch Cancuk today.

I think DF brought up some good points about Floyd and would be willing to pursue that lynch at some point.

Why is MM getting votes is there a case on him or just lack of posting about in game stuff?

@Epi why are you voting for Drac I didn't see your reasoning?

LoRab wrote:

Matt F wrote:

LoRab wrote:Voted mac--my post reminded me of how suspicious I find him. I realize he likely won't be lynched this round, but putting a vote there as a statement of suspicion.

I'm comfortable with a juliets lynch, which seems to be where the thread is heading right now. K-nuk, also--I don't really trust indies, so...

Help me vote MM? I think he's a baaaaaaad indy.

Can you summarize the case?

Hold that thought. Just for a bit.

sig wrote:I'd be willing to place my vote on Juliets, but I'm not sure some of the people on her wagon are suspicious to me.
I'd rather not lynch Cancuk today.

I think DF brought up some good points about Floyd and would be willing to pursue that lynch at some point.

Why is MM getting votes is there a case on him or just lack of posting about in game stuff?

@Epi why are you voting for Drac I didn't see your reasoning?

I think I got votes because I started participating.

sig wrote:@Epi why are you voting for Drac I didn't see your reasoning?

Something about a link between myself, Luke, and Buglashithead.

Draconus wrote:

sig wrote:@Epi why are you voting for Drac I didn't see your reasoning?

Something about a link between myself, Luke, and Buglashithead.

That doesn't quite do it justice.

sig - Buglabush and Luke were calling each other btsc partners in the thread. Luke was lynched, was mafia. Before Luke was lynched, Drac didn't seem to want to lynch him.

I don't think I quite did it justice either, I'm sure Epi can tell you more when he's here.

If he responds. He still hasn't responded to my defense post.

Also, I was reluctant on 4.1 because of the quick succession of votes on Luke immediately following my vote. After the nutella lynch, though, I moved my vote back to Luke and left it there.

I am heaps pro civ.

MacDougall wrote:I am heaps pro civ.

You're a what?

Heaps pro civ.

Just replying to sorsha and LoRab who seem to think I am some kind of bad guy. I am heaps civ.

Turnip Head wrote:Speaking of completely ignoring the points raised against you...

Typhoony wrote:There is a case on me? All I see is a bunch of my posts quoted with a "You're weirding me out".

Your "case" was serious?

For reference, here is his case.
You quote 5 posts where I talk about juliets (2 of which were spurred on because you asked me to talk about her, 2 of which were because I wanted to look indepth at juliets, as I've done with Bubbles and nutella before).

You then say this:

nub wrote:There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.

These are observations. There is no accusation. There is no question. Hell, later on you even say that your opinion of me is reliant upon juliets.

Which points (plural, please. You said points, give me multiple things) in your case against me would you like me to respond to TH? Come on, let's have some fun here.

For the record, I will not vote juliets. I do not think she is bad. I looked at her posts in the Champions game epi linked. When she was put under pressure, never did she go into panic mode like she did in this game. She made multiple long winded catch-uppy like posts talking about everything that had been going on, and she didn't seem to go to that much trouble in this game.
I see a lazy juliets who asks a shitload of questions to blend in, I see a juliets who mixes things up, who is iffy and uncertain, a juliets who seems disinterested at times. If she had teammates I don't think she would be playing like this.

MacDougall wrote:I am heaps pro civ.

Sounds like an STD

MacDougall wrote:Just replying to sorsha and LoRab who seem to think I am some kind of bad guy. I am heaps civ.

Well, gee. That totes convinces me.

And pro-civ is not civ. Are you claiming indy now, too?

Typhoony wrote:You then say this:

nub wrote:There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.

These are observations. There is no accusation. There is no question. Hell, later on you even say that your opinion of me is reliant upon juliets.

Which points (plural, please. You said points, give me multiple things) in your case against me would you like me to respond to TH? Come on, let's have some fun here.

The underlined is specifically what I wanted you to comment on. Which you have just now done.

Typhoony wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Speaking of completely ignoring the points raised against you...

Typhoony wrote:There is a case on me? All I see is a bunch of my posts quoted with a "You're weirding me out".

Your "case" was serious?

For reference, here is his case.
You quote 5 posts where I talk about juliets (2 of which were spurred on because you asked me to talk about her, 2 of which were because I wanted to look indepth at juliets, as I've done with Bubbles and nutella before).

You then say this:

nub wrote:There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.

These are observations. There is no accusation. There is no question. Hell, later on you even say that your opinion of me is reliant upon juliets.

Which points (plural, please. You said points, give me multiple things) in your case against me would you like me to respond to TH? Come on, let's have some fun here.

For the record, I will not vote juliets. I do not think she is bad. I looked at her posts in the Champions game epi linked. When she was put under pressure, never did she go into panic mode like she did in this game. She made multiple long winded catch-uppy like posts talking about everything that had been going on, and she didn't seem to go to that much trouble in this game.
I see a lazy juliets who asks a shitload of questions to blend in, I see a juliets who mixes things up, who is iffy and uncertain, a juliets who seems disinterested at times. If she had teammates I don't think she would be playing like this.

Lol no.

Linki: Yes I am indy civ scum.

Turnip Head wrote:

Typhoony wrote:You then say this:

nub wrote:There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.

These are observations. There is no accusation. There is no question. Hell, later on you even say that your opinion of me is reliant upon juliets.

Which points (plural, please. You said points, give me multiple things) in your case against me would you like me to respond to TH? Come on, let's have some fun here.

The underlined is specifically what I wanted you to comment on. Which you have just now done.

That's not a point raised against me.

Hey LoRab. Why are you voting for me when I won't be lynched? You just hiding your vote from a definite scum lynch? Cool.

Typhoony wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Typhoony wrote:You then say this:

nub wrote:There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.

These are observations. There is no accusation. There is no question. Hell, later on you even say that your opinion of me is reliant upon juliets.

Which points (plural, please. You said points, give me multiple things) in your case against me would you like me to respond to TH? Come on, let's have some fun here.

The underlined is specifically what I wanted you to comment on. Which you have just now done.

That's not a point raised against me.

If you say so... does that mean it's not worth responding to?

If you wanted me to let you know where I stand on juliets, you should've asked.

That makes no sense. Are you incapable of having a discussion about it unless I word it as a question?

I am going to *Vote Canuck* based on the things I said about her in earlier posts. I think her indy claim is suspicious at best.

It actually makes quite a lot of sense TH.

What you underlined was in the middle of your post, worded as an observation in a post that was only observations.

Well I've certainly been put in my place. Next time I'll know better.

I agree. Let that be a lesson!

MacDougall wrote:Hey LoRab. Why are you voting for me when I won't be lynched? You just hiding your vote from a definite scum lynch? Cool.

I explained why I was voting for you when I voted.

And I don't know that anyone is a "definite scum lynch." I vote based on whom I find suspicious.

I would actually urge everyone who is still waffling to read juliets' post in the Champions game, because they are genuinely different from her posts in this game.

link to her posts in the Champions game

I would urge typhoony to self vote.

Typhoony wrote:I would actually urge everyone who is still waffling to read juliets' post in the Champions game, because they are genuinely different from her posts in this game.

link to her posts in the Champions game

If I wanted your opinion about juliets, I would have asked.

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Just replying to sorsha and LoRab who seem to think I am some kind of bad guy. I am heaps civ.

Well, gee. That totes convinces me.

And pro-civ is not civ. Are you claiming indy now, too?

He's probably bad.

└(◉◞౪◟◉)┘

Turnip Head wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I would actually urge everyone who is still waffling to read juliets' post in the Champions game, because they are genuinely different from her posts in this game.

link to her posts in the Champions game

If I wanted your opinion about juliets, I would have asked.

You should actually read her posts in the Champions game and see if you consider them the same.

Then, I will be the one to ask you about YOUR opinion on juliets

Typhoony wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I would actually urge everyone who is still waffling to read juliets' post in the Champions game, because they are genuinely different from her posts in this game.

link to her posts in the Champions game

If I wanted your opinion about juliets, I would have asked.

You should actually read her posts in the Champions game and see if you consider them the same.

Then, I will be the one to ask you about YOUR opinion on juliets

I'm going to.

Dom wrote:

LoRab wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Just replying to sorsha and LoRab who seem to think I am some kind of bad guy. I am heaps civ.

Well, gee. That totes convinces me.

And pro-civ is not civ. Are you claiming indy now, too?

He's probably bad.

Yeah probs

I am going to start night killing my own teammates if this game doesn't get less boring.

Wow.

MacDougall wrote:I am going to start night killing my own teammates if this game doesn't get less boring.

There you go kids two scum confirmed.

MacDougall wrote:There you go kids two scum confirmed.

Cool use of the meme.

This juliets bonfire lynch party is dead. I might go to the canucklehead one.