The Syndicate

sig wrote:Elochin if it was all about me wht vote bwt first? This is all about you saving epi.

Someone trying to save someone is more likely to be a civilian than Mafia.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:That's annoying MP. If you can't devote the time to it, don't play. It's not fair to the rest of us.

I don't really need a lecture about not being able to play. I mainly signed up to help Llama fill the game, and it looked fun. I have time to play, but woke up later than I thought I would.

Why are you so concerned that Epi might be lynched?

So someone who isn't informed and hasn't read the thread casts a deciding vote for someone who has been keeping up and wants to participate. Thanks. I'll remember that.

I keep trying to post but the site keeps logging me out.

You haven't died yet.

If you do, and you are civilian, then that sucks and I'm sorry I cast the deciding vote. But I had to vote for someone.

Like I said, I'll remember this.

No need to make it personal. It isn't.

When did anything get personal?

got my lunch break late...

S~V~S wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I feel pretty good about Epi, and fairly neutral about sig.

Sloonei wrote:I do not see conclusive evidence that Fearless Leader knows or does not know who his teammates are, so to make a point about it either way strikes me as suspicious.

But since you voted for Epi, you feel it is LESS suspicious when sig mentions it, even though he brought it up first?

I am moving my vote to sig, this vote of Slooneis feels save-ish.

I did not find it suspicious when sig did it because it's more likely he simply failed to notice the condition in the scum roles. Epi staked an entire claim on Fearless Leader not knowing their teammates.

But you said that to make a point about it either way strikes you as suspicious; not that one is more suspicious than the other. And you did not mention this aspect of your thoughts at all when you voted for Epi. I still think this was a save vote. Although there is a lot of civ BTS here, I don't think you would have waited so long to put in a save for a civ.

It definitely was a save vote. I don't find the case against sig to be the least bit convincing.

So your thoughts on whether or not FL knows his teammates were a basic throwaway, since you actually DID suspect someone on one side of that debate, and you did not suspect anyone AT ALL on the other side of it. You just said that to say it?

No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.

Well, now you're still alive, Epi.

RIP sig. See you in Battle of the Hosts.

Damn.

Captain Peter “Wrongway” Peachfuzz - His votes never count for the option he selects, but will be moved to a random other option.

Got screwed by his own role Day 1.

I'm sorry sig.

Yowza, look what went down! Epi, my post where I stated my vote for you was simply a pun. (I won't judge if it was good or bad, but it was just a pun, and a way to post my vote in the thread. )

I am again reminded how much I hate day 1 lynches. I hope something bad didn't just happen, however most day 1 lynches are not roaring successes in my experience. I guess we'll see.

A couple of thoughts:

Just noticing (or thinking you've noticed) a connection between 2 players in the thread doesn't necessarily make them bad in this game. I can also understand why Eloh would try to save Epi - it's the reason Dex and I don't play mafia games together. I get too Mama Bear with him when he's in the game. (Not that she got Mama Bear, I just totally understand the instinct to stand up for your spouse.)

I guess we'll see where the chips fall shortly.


Linki - Looks like I better read the thread!

sig wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Long Con wrote:Does a tied vote make it more or less likely that a baddie will be lynched?

The answer is, it makes it less likely for a baddie to be lynched. As far as I know. It's like lining lynch victims up in a buffet for a baddie to carefully craft a simple vote that will ensure their teammate doesn't die.

I'll move my vote to sig. Sorry sig, I know you have had early-game troubles before, and I have defended you when the majority was taking Civ you down... but this is my biggest ping now.

Epi's point that the tiny not-all-BTSC baddies aren't performing some multi-save on Epi is also relevant, but that could mean other things as well.

*vote sig*

No you haven't

Yes, in the Champions Game, I denounced the suspicion of you and believed you were Civ.

sig wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Long Con wrote:Does a tied vote make it more or less likely that a baddie will be lynched?

The answer is, it makes it less likely for a baddie to be lynched. As far as I know. It's like lining lynch victims up in a buffet for a baddie to carefully craft a simple vote that will ensure their teammate doesn't die.

I'll move my vote to sig. Sorry sig, I know you have had early-game troubles before, and I have defended you when the majority was taking Civ you down... but this is my biggest ping now.

Epi's point that the tiny not-all-BTSC baddies aren't performing some multi-save on Epi is also relevant, but that could mean other things as well.

*vote sig*

Even if it is just two with the BTSC they still could have saved him, though I might be revising my thoughts. Your more likely mafia then any off the others I've named. Mafia LC always bandwagons onto me day 1, 2, or 3. Plus you voted for a player who didn't even show up before switching to me.

You are mistaken, I did not vote for BWT. My only vote before you was for Epi.

Linki: RIP sig.

Oh no! RIP Sig. That sucks.

Epignosis wrote:Damn.

Captain Peter “Wrongway” Peachfuzz - His votes never count for the option he selects, but will be moved to a random other option.

Got screwed by his own role Day 1.

I'm sorry sig.

From a hosting perspective, this probably makes Llama happy. A host likes for his roles to matter, and sig's role manifested in a spectacular, and tragic, way.

sig wrote:Elochin if it was all about me wht vote bwt first? This is all about you saving epi.

My vote on BWT was about saving Epi. I said as much. My vote for you was all about your behavior and the points brought against you. Those points were not brought against you until later in the day. THat is why I changed my vote then and didn;t vote for you first.

Okay, how did I miss all the linki? RIP Sig. You acted suspicious as hell though.

Sloonei wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I feel pretty good about Epi, and fairly neutral about sig.

Sloonei wrote:I do not see conclusive evidence that Fearless Leader knows or does not know who his teammates are, so to make a point about it either way strikes me as suspicious.

But since you voted for Epi, you feel it is LESS suspicious when sig mentions it, even though he brought it up first?

I am moving my vote to sig, this vote of Slooneis feels save-ish.

I did not find it suspicious when sig did it because it's more likely he simply failed to notice the condition in the scum roles. Epi staked an entire claim on Fearless Leader not knowing their teammates.

But you said that to make a point about it either way strikes you as suspicious; not that one is more suspicious than the other. And you did not mention this aspect of your thoughts at all when you voted for Epi. I still think this was a save vote. Although there is a lot of civ BTS here, I don't think you would have waited so long to put in a save for a civ.

It definitely was a save vote. I don't find the case against sig to be the least bit convincing.

So your thoughts on whether or not FL knows his teammates were a basic throwaway, since you actually DID suspect someone on one side of that debate, and you did not suspect anyone AT ALL on the other side of it. You just said that to say it?

No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.

Reading the roles though, I read Fearless Leader the exact same way Epi did.

Fearless Leader - Can send one message to Boris and Natasha each night. Survives his first death.

He doesn't have BTSC with them, and likely will only learn their identities by some code he tells them to use to identify themselves in the thread. (Well, that's what I would do.) He will probably identify himself to them tonight in his message (assuming he's present) and then Day 2 Boris & Natasha will identify themselves to him in the thread somehow. I don't see why it's odd to use explained game mechanics as a defense. It's actually (maybe?) one of the few defenses that is solid and makes sense. (Not saying Epi is civ, just that that defense doesn't ping me a bit. Not sure it's one I would use, because my brain works differently, but the defense itself isn't pingy to me.)

I didn't find that part suspicious at all. I think Epi is likely one of those players who analyzes the roles right away to try to see where things fit. Not all players play that way, and clearly sig is one who didn't in this game.

EBWOP:

PS, sorry for butting in on your back & forth.

Epignosis wrote:I wonder if sig will vote bwt to save himself.

In retrospect, this comment is terribly cruel.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Damn.

Captain Peter “Wrongway” Peachfuzz - His votes never count for the option he selects, but will be moved to a random other option.

Got screwed by his own role Day 1.

I'm sorry sig.

From a hosting perspective, this probably makes Llama happy. A host likes for his roles to matter, and sig's role manifested in a spectacular, and tragic, way.

I'm just glad I don't have to keep track of it anymore.

indiglo wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

S~V~S wrote:So your thoughts on whether or not FL knows his teammates were a basic throwaway, since you actually DID suspect someone on one side of that debate, and you did not suspect anyone AT ALL on the other side of it. You just said that to say it?

No. I don't know how you're drawing this conclusion. I think the way Epi went about drawing his conclusion to implicate sig was more suspicious than anything sig said. Sig, like I said, simply seems to have not noticed the configuration of the scum team. Epi then built his case around one side being true. I don't think sig was as reliant on the point. If I am wrong, please let me know. I found the case against sig to be unconvincing, and the making of the case to be more suspicious. Epi was at the center of that, and he had a fee votes already. He looked like a better option.

Reading the roles though, I read Fearless Leader the exact same way Epi did.

Fearless Leader - Can send one message to Boris and Natasha each night. Survives his first death.

He doesn't have BTSC with them, and likely will only learn their identities by some code he tells them to use to identify themselves in the thread. (Well, that's what I would do.) He will probably identify himself to them tonight in his message (assuming he's present) and then Day 2 Boris & Natasha will identify themselves to him in the thread somehow. I don't see why it's odd to use explained game mechanics as a defense. It's actually (maybe?) one of the few defenses that is solid and makes sense. (Not saying Epi is civ, just that that defense doesn't ping me a bit. Not sure it's one I would use, because my brain works differently, but the defense itself isn't pingy to me.)

I didn't find that part suspicious at all. I think Epi is likely one of those players who analyzes the roles right away to try to see where things fit. Not all players play that way, and clearly sig is one who didn't in this game.

I simply would not draw the conclusion that FL is unaware of their teammates' identities. Not having BTSC =/= not knowing who they are. All that we can see is that the scum team has a member that is excluded from the regular BTSC. I do not see this as a strong indictment on Epi, but I found it more suspicious that he was accusing a player of being suspicious for either being unaware of the setup or making an assumption about it, when at the very best he (Epi) was making the reciprocal of that exact same assumption. I also think, since he was emphasizing this point in his vote against sig, that he was stating it with much more conviction, which can be taken to mean either he studied the roles and came a strong conclusion, or he is privy to such information, meaning he's one of those bad guys.
This does not mean Epi is my strongest scum read, but voting anyone other than him or sig would have accomplished nothing, so I made my choice.

I assume that Fearless Leader doesn't know who Boris and Natasha are, but will have to connect with them via the message.

Is there precedent for a role like that on the Syndicate?

Sloonei wrote:Is there precedent for a role like that on the Syndicate?

Yep. Dune.

Fair enough.

DrWilgy wrote:

Scotty wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

Scotty wrote:You are no doctor, Wilgy.

Want to buddy up? It worked well for us last game!

Technically it worked for me... Not how I planned but worked well enough, so sure!

Lol

Ok who we voting for today?

Not sure yet. The giant smiley in Zebras 1st post makes me think she is bad... Happy Zebra is ebil Zebra!

I must errata this... It was not Zebra's 1st post that I saw.

Sig, I am sorry. I saw a vote that looked to be saving you, and not in an open civ kind of way. Which is my misreading of the situation.

Since sig flipped civ, my suspicions of Sloonei are pointless. Reading toomuch into if for the lose. Again, sorry sig.

Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

RIP sig.

Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

ok.

Ok you guys. I got up today at (after going to bed at 3 am because of closing for work) 8 am to start working. I got done at 2 am. It's now 3:15. I've had dinner and 2 beers.

Sig got lynched from some end lynch stuff I am too brain fried to process atm. I go in to work late tomorrow. I promise I will read the thread better and do a proper catch up.

Not gonna lie. At one point while I was trying to check out drivers tonight, one of them went "Look! She's having a Nam flashback." I was zoning out so hard. I'm sorry I'm the suck. Today was the roughest day of my week. Tomorrow night into wed sucks it a bit too but nothing like today.

Bea, they work you too hard!

Scotty wrote:RIP sig.

Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

ok.

Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.

Ok, first of all, Aesop and Son, you guys are out of control from the get-go. Wow.

Second, that's very classy of the baddies to kill BWT11. They could have left him to inevitably be lynched (or maybe modkilled?) for inactivity, but they took him out of the equation and now all the active players get to play the game for another round.

Long Con wrote:Ok, first of all, Aesop and Son, you guys are out of control from the get-go. Wow.

Second, that's very classy of the baddies to kill BWT11. They could have left him to inevitably be lynched (or maybe modkilled?) for inactivity, but they took him out of the equation and now all the active players get to play the game for another round.

You patting yourself on the back here?

I am voting Scotty because his Day 1 post history is all fluff, and his response to my vote yesterday seemed at first anxious, and then like a feigned attempt at a relaxed tone when I explained it to him. His response to say that I was "all over the place" on Day 1 seems a bit OMGUSy and like a shot at discrediting me in the thread in the event that I continue my case against him (which I am presently doing!).
I won't have time to interrogate him too much myself today, but I think he'd be a good place to look if anyone is interested.

Sloonei wrote:

Long Con wrote:Ok, first of all, Aesop and Son, you guys are out of control from the get-go. Wow.

Second, that's very classy of the baddies to kill BWT11. They could have left him to inevitably be lynched (or maybe modkilled?) for inactivity, but they took him out of the equation and now all the active players get to play the game for another round.

You patting yourself on the back here?

Are you implying that I'm hinting at Aesop or Boris?

Long Con wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Long Con wrote:Ok, first of all, Aesop and Son, you guys are out of control from the get-go. Wow.

Second, that's very classy of the baddies to kill BWT11. They could have left him to inevitably be lynched (or maybe modkilled?) for inactivity, but they took him out of the equation and now all the active players get to play the game for another round.

You patting yourself on the back here?

Are you implying that I'm hinting at Aesop or Boris?

No the other thing. Are you scum? You have to tell me if you are.

Oh Boris. Yes, you are Boris. Right?

Nailed it Aesop! Hilarious!!


@ llama - Were there any missing PMs?



RIP Bwt, I suppose, right? Would he be modkilled straight away? Or are the baddies actually classy this game?

Atm, I'm going to place my vote on MP. He ran through yesterday, and un-informedly went ahead and entered into the fray of the main discussion / lynch competition going on. If you don't have time to catch up, I think rather than trying to come down on a side, it would be better to not cast your vote into the heated mix. (It wasn't really heated, but I'm hoping I am at least making somewhat sense.) So just a reminder - civ votes count, and we should be careful how we use them. (Except for sig's.) Only baddies (and sig, this game) don't care who they vote for, because any dead guy is ok for them.

indiglo wrote: @ llama - Were there any missing PMs?

Yes, there were.

Hello Wilgy, nice vote.

thellama73 wrote:

indiglo wrote: @ llama - Were there any missing PMs?

Yes, there were.

Probably bwt.

What is the reason for asking about missing PMs?

Sloonei wrote:Oh Boris. Yes, you are Boris. Right?

Oh, no... no I am not. Not Aesop either, for the record. But I probably shouldn't say too much about who I'm not, because each claim inches closer to violating Rule 3: No role claiming or role outing. Given the civilian BTSC in this game, this one is important. Modkills will be the fruit of violation.

Who do you think is Boris? Or his buddies?

Upon seeing the kill, I was transported back to another llamagame, Frisky Dingo, in which the Mafia consciously took out people who were not participating or were not participating much.

The mafia team there consisted of Cookie, S~V~S, Russtifinko, Movingpictures07, and ika.

Only two of those are present here. You'd have to ask yourself if either of them would employ the same rationale for kills as before.

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:RIP sig.

Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

ok.

Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.

Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.
Let's go through your voting yesterday:
Golden: because golden.
Ninja: to better learn to spell her name, or something.
Zebra: OMGUS, after (maybe sarcastically) calling her civ
Ninja: because you don't think zebra is "Gus", whoever that is.
Elo: because she cast a lazy vote and is dismissive of zebra.
Scotty: because I was lurking and my tone was light.

If you're calling me out for being jokey and fluffy on day 1, what were all those votes for then? Because if they were serious, you're digging for gold in the Arctic.
Only your Elo vote even looked like a serious case being made. If you were serious at all in day 1.

It's not even a NO U, though you've definitely stood out to me because of your final vote.

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:RIP sig.

Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

ok.

Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.

Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.
Let's go through your voting yesterday:
Golden: because golden.
Ninja: to better learn to spell her name, or something.
Zebra: OMGUS, after (maybe sarcastically) calling her civ
Ninja: because you don't think zebra is "Gus", whoever that is.
Elo: because she cast a lazy vote and is dismissive of zebra.
Scotty: because I was lurking and my tone was light.

If you're calling me out for being jokey and fluffy on day 1, what were all those votes for then? Because if they were serious, you're digging for gold in the Arctic.
Only your Elo vote even looked like a serious case being made. If you were serious at all in day 1.

It's not even a NO U, though you've definitely stood out to me because of your final vote.

You forgot one:

Sloonei wrote:Voting for Epignsosis because I feel like being a part of this action.

Whoop. Thanks Epi

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:RIP sig.

Sloonei was all over the place in his day 1, and I am looking at him for day 2. I am not as suspicious about Elo, because if Epi were actually bad, would she really make such an egregious save attempt for all to see on day 1?

sabie12 wrote:Oops I thought I had more time. Work was crazy I ended up having to go in early.

ok.

Please tell me why my all-over-the-placeness looks bad while I put a vote on you.

Because you looked like a Jack Russell terrier.
Let's go through your voting yesterday:
Golden: because golden.
Ninja: to better learn to spell her name, or something.
Zebra: OMGUS, after (maybe sarcastically) calling her civ
Ninja: because you don't think zebra is "Gus", whoever that is.
Elo: because she cast a lazy vote and is dismissive of zebra.
Scotty: because I was lurking and my tone was light.

If you're calling me out for being jokey and fluffy on day 1, what were all those votes for then? Because if they were serious, you're digging for gold in the Arctic.
Only your Elo vote even looked like a serious case being made. If you were serious at all in day 1.

It's not even a NO U, though you've definitely stood out to me because of your final vote.

I never voted for Golden. Golden is not playing in this game. How could I have voted for Golden?
I voted niju as an early pressure vote and zebra as a joke. Everything else was a serious effort to contribute to the poll. How can you say that I did not apprar to put any thought or effort into my votes for you and Epi when I have more posts explaining my reasoning for both of those than anything else, I think. I was "all over the place" because that's just the way the day went down. I woke up and had a couple hours to make a decision, so I went about doing that as best I could. I think my posts and my votes are a pretty good representation of my thought process during the day, but you seem to be only looking at the quantity of votes I cast rather than the quality of anything I said or did.