The Syndicate

LoRab wrote:Kidnapped again. Meh.

I need to go back and check who mentioned me early on both times I was silenced, as I think it was perhaps purposeful.

I'm not bad. I may have unpopluar points of view and I may be stubborn as shit about them. But that's me being me. Yes, I voted INH late. Because that's when I got online. And I saw that there had been good points made about him. No, I hadn't mentioned him before. He was slightly pingy in the back of my brain for running for prefect and disappearing, but it was a dull and minor ping, and was never relevant enough (or pingy enough) to mention.

That seems to be the basic gist of the case against me. If there is anything else, let me know.

Matahari wrote:Hi Indi, welcome. I replaced in too, and I'm a bit more comfortable now, but still find myself researching posts constantly. Good luck to you.

I have found four players who did not seem eager to vote inactives. Quin, Sig (sorry Indi), Golden, and Lorab (in sideways fashion? Lorab suspected Glorf, I think, for mentioning inactives a lot, as though he was trying to point suspicion their way, but she also pointed out that he only mentioned voting them once, and she found this suspicious for some reason).

On the one hand, this is suspicious because we have turned up 2 bad inactives now, but on the other hand, there is more btsc than just bad teams. I also have a theory that Epignosis is not replacing the mafia inactives. I could be wrong there, of course, but I'm kind of stuck on that.

I'm still not completely well, my throat feels like someones been fishing around in there with a razor Nevertheless, I'll get back into the swing of things - not that there's been much thread content recently

DFaraday wrote:

LoRab wrote:Kidnapped again. Meh.

I need to go back and check who mentioned me early on both times I was silenced, as I think it was perhaps purposeful.

I'm not bad. I may have unpopluar points of view and I may be stubborn as shit about them. But that's me being me. Yes, I voted INH late. Because that's when I got online. And I saw that there had been good points made about him. No, I hadn't mentioned him before. He was slightly pingy in the back of my brain for running for prefect and disappearing, but it was a dull and minor ping, and was never relevant enough (or pingy enough) to mention.

That seems to be the basic gist of the case against me. If there is anything else, let me know.

I mean, I made a whole case on you before that wasn't about tunneling. Since it's absurdly long, I'll just link it here. The basic reason is in response to this train of events:

Glorf presents a case on Timmer
Lorab: That's a convincing case *votes Timmer*
Timmer turns out to be civ
Lorab: It was all a baddie ploy, Glorf is bad!

Going along with the case, then immediately (literally, her very next post) turning around and going after the guy who presented it when it turns out to be incorrect struck me as very shady, even more so now that we know Glorf was civ.

In addition, as I outlined in my earlier post, Lorab was not only tunneling TH, she was, in my opinion, twisting the facts to fit her case on him. The fact that she keeps saying the only case on her is for tunneling (as she also did here)only makes me more suspicious of her.

Scotty wrote: Wait, where was this canon? I don't think we know that at all. Did I miss something?

DFaraday wrote:

Scotty wrote: Wait, where was this canon? I don't think we know that at all. Did I miss something?

D'oh, you're right. Given that he voted decisively in MP's lynch and was killed by the Nanman, I just got it into my head that he was civ.

DFaraday wrote:

LoRab wrote:Kidnapped again. Meh.

I need to go back and check who mentioned me early on both times I was silenced, as I think it was perhaps purposeful.

I'm not bad. I may have unpopluar points of view and I may be stubborn as shit about them. But that's me being me. Yes, I voted INH late. Because that's when I got online. And I saw that there had been good points made about him. No, I hadn't mentioned him before. He was slightly pingy in the back of my brain for running for prefect and disappearing, but it was a dull and minor ping, and was never relevant enough (or pingy enough) to mention.

That seems to be the basic gist of the case against me. If there is anything else, let me know.

I mean, I made a whole case on you before that wasn't about tunneling. Since it's absurdly long, I'll just link it here. The basic reason is in response to this train of events:

Glorf presents a case on Timmer
Lorab: That's a convincing case *votes Timmer*
Timmer turns out to be civ
Lorab: It was all a baddie ploy, Glorf is bad!

Going along with the case, then immediately (literally, her very next post) turning around and going after the guy who presented it when it turns out to be incorrect struck me as very shady, even more so now that we know Glorf was civ.

In addition, as I outlined in my earlier post, Lorab was not only tunneling TH, she was, in my opinion, twisting the facts to fit her case on him. The fact that she keeps saying the only case on her is for tunneling (as she also did here)only makes me more suspicious of her.

Matahari wrote:Hi Indi, welcome. I replaced in too, and I'm a bit more comfortable now, but still find myself researching posts constantly. Good luck to you.

I have found four players who did not seem eager to vote inactives. Quin, Sig (sorry Indi), Golden, and Lorab (in sideways fashion? Lorab suspected Glorf, I think, for mentioning inactives a lot, as though he was trying to point suspicion their way, but she also pointed out that he only mentioned voting them once, and she found this suspicious for some reason).

On the one hand, this is suspicious because we have turned up 2 bad inactives now, but on the other hand, there is more btsc than just bad teams. I also have a theory that Epignosis is not replacing the mafia inactives. I could be wrong there, of course, but I'm kind of stuck on that.

Scotty wrote:You're welcome.

DFaraday wrote:

LoRab wrote:Kidnapped again. Meh.

I need to go back and check who mentioned me early on both times I was silenced, as I think it was perhaps purposeful.

I'm not bad. I may have unpopluar points of view and I may be stubborn as shit about them. But that's me being me. Yes, I voted INH late. Because that's when I got online. And I saw that there had been good points made about him. No, I hadn't mentioned him before. He was slightly pingy in the back of my brain for running for prefect and disappearing, but it was a dull and minor ping, and was never relevant enough (or pingy enough) to mention.

That seems to be the basic gist of the case against me. If there is anything else, let me know.

I mean, I made a whole case on you before that wasn't about tunneling. Since it's absurdly long, I'll just link it here. The basic reason is in response to this train of events:

Glorf presents a case on Timmer
Lorab: That's a convincing case *votes Timmer*
Timmer turns out to be civ
Lorab: It was all a baddie ploy, Glorf is bad!

Going along with the case, then immediately (literally, her very next post) turning around and going after the guy who presented it when it turns out to be incorrect struck me as very shady, even more so now that we know Glorf was civ.

In addition, as I outlined in my earlier post, Lorab was not only tunneling TH, she was, in my opinion, twisting the facts to fit her case on him. The fact that she keeps saying the only case on her is for tunneling (as she also did here)only makes me more suspicious of her.

Wait, where was this canon? I don't think we know that at all. Did I miss something?

Also, LoRab, kidnapped again eh? I could believe that, but I also am wary of kidnappings at this stage. I think you very well could be Nanman.

I do not suspect indiglo in the slightest right now because if she were a YT she would have killed someone last night. But YT didn't kill. Again.

I'm all for lynching an inactive at this point to eliminate the YT's (if they haven't been eliminated already, but I assume Epi would notify us of such). If the YTs have been eliminated, Mr. indie leader would take over and we haven't seen that yet.

Scotty wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

Scotty wrote: Wait, where was this canon? I don't think we know that at all. Did I miss something?

D'oh, you're right. Given that he voted decisively in MP's lynch and was killed by the Nanman, I just got it into my head that he was civ.

I mean I also think he was civ, but one can never be certain.



Zuo Ci doesn't like Dunny. Should we vote with him today? I could do that.

Hey @SLOONEI!! Where are you brother? I could vote you as well. I think the Nanman is someone that is talking, but is barely talking. Ya dig? Someone that could still have the mindedness to send in kills (of low posters, as Golden has pointed out). Ah, but here's the rub...they killed GOLDEN who was not a low poster. So maybe they're getting nervous.

If I had to vote right now, it would be for LoRab and Dunny. But I could just as easily vote for Sloonei.

Dom wrote:hi indi.

i'm not the greatest person to answer your questions. I've been very busy and just diong my best to keep my head above water. I've just been voting for whoever I think is bad. HOWEVER, I notice that you ask a lot of questions and have a certain level of ignorance in the game. Why, then, are you confident that nutella is civ?

Matahari wrote:Hi Indi, welcome. I replaced in too, and I'm a bit more comfortable now, but still find myself researching posts constantly. Good luck to you.

I have found four players who did not seem eager to vote inactives. Quin, Sig (sorry Indi), Golden, and Lorab (in sideways fashion? Lorab suspected Glorf, I think, for mentioning inactives a lot, as though he was trying to point suspicion their way, but she also pointed out that he only mentioned voting them once, and she found this suspicious for some reason).

On the one hand, this is suspicious because we have turned up 2 bad inactives now, but on the other hand, there is more btsc than just bad teams. I also have a theory that Epignosis is not replacing the mafia inactives. I could be wrong there, of course, but I'm kind of stuck on that.

nutella wrote:Whoops, missed the replacement, hi indi!
To answer some of your questions:
- Zuo Ci is a sock that posted a fair amount in the last day period and also voted. Interesting if he's still around today. IIRC Daisy's flipped role is the one that "summons apparitions" and someone had a theory that he was one such apparition? Or maybe the theory was that the other sock we encountered earlier (who only posted in Chinese) was that and Zuo Ci is from another role, but I don't remember.
- I don't quite understand your question about baddie recruitment. We know of an indie role that recruits, but we don't know about the baddie teams for sure -- though I have stated that I think it's a strong possibility that the YTs have recruiting ability since they started with fewer players than Nanman and are full of secrets. I think based on the wording of your question, unless you know something we don't about the baddie teams , you're referring to the indie role -- looks like he is limited to recruiting one warrior from each kingdom.
- We have been generally dueling the two top baddie suspects. There has been much discourse since the beginning of the game about the "winner" strategy given the winner gets a prize, and some players (notably Bass) have confidently volunteered themselves to duel, but we've been voting based on suspicion and have so far never had a shortage of candidates to pit against each other

Scotty wrote:You're welcome.

DFaraday wrote:

LoRab wrote:Kidnapped again. Meh.

I need to go back and check who mentioned me early on both times I was silenced, as I think it was perhaps purposeful.

I'm not bad. I may have unpopluar points of view and I may be stubborn as shit about them. But that's me being me. Yes, I voted INH late. Because that's when I got online. And I saw that there had been good points made about him. No, I hadn't mentioned him before. He was slightly pingy in the back of my brain for running for prefect and disappearing, but it was a dull and minor ping, and was never relevant enough (or pingy enough) to mention.

That seems to be the basic gist of the case against me. If there is anything else, let me know.

I mean, I made a whole case on you before that wasn't about tunneling. Since it's absurdly long, I'll just link it here. The basic reason is in response to this train of events:

Glorf presents a case on Timmer
Lorab: That's a convincing case *votes Timmer*
Timmer turns out to be civ
Lorab: It was all a baddie ploy, Glorf is bad!

Going along with the case, then immediately (literally, her very next post) turning around and going after the guy who presented it when it turns out to be incorrect struck me as very shady, even more so now that we know Glorf was civ.

In addition, as I outlined in my earlier post, Lorab was not only tunneling TH, she was, in my opinion, twisting the facts to fit her case on him. The fact that she keeps saying the only case on her is for tunneling (as she also did here)only makes me more suspicious of her.

Wait, where was this canon? I don't think we know that at all. Did I miss something?

Also, LoRab, kidnapped again eh? I could believe that, but I also am wary of kidnappings at this stage. I think you very well could be Nanman.



I do not suspect indiglo in the slightest right now because if she were a YT she would have killed someone last night. But YT didn't kill. Again.

I'm all for lynching an inactive at this point to eliminate the YT's (if they haven't been eliminated already, but I assume Epi would notify us of such). If the YTs have been eliminated, Mr. indie leader would take over and we haven't seen that yet.

Epignosis wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Epignosis- Will you announce when a team has been eliminated?

I never do that.

Matahari wrote:I'm a bit curious about Dunny. He beat INH who was a nanman warrior. The yt team has no warriors left, if my notes are right, and the nanman team has one warrior left. So, for Dunny to be bad, he would have had to be on the same team as INH, right? That's possible, I suppose. I forgot to check whether the indys have a warrior.

Epignosis wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Epignosis- Will you announce when a team has been eliminated?

I never do that.

indiglo wrote:

Matahari wrote:I'm a bit curious about Dunny. He beat INH who was a nanman warrior. The yt team has no warriors left, if my notes are right, and the nanman team has one warrior left. So, for Dunny to be bad, he would have had to be on the same team as INH, right? That's possible, I suppose. I forgot to check whether the indys have a warrior.

There appears to be 1 indy Warrior:

Lu Bu
Warrior
A most fearsome warrior, and rider of Red Hare.
By the third Night, Lu Bu must decide what faction he will fight for and achieve victory with. *Secrets*
Victory condition: Win with his aligned faction and survive.


So, if he's alive, I imagine he's no longer indy. No way of knowing which faction he'd side with.



Also, there is this indy:

Dong Zhuo
Leader
This notorious warlord has an entourage of bodyguards, protecting him always from assassination.
Cannot be Night killed. Inherits the Yellow Turban kill.
Victory condition: Last Man Standing.


I don't know if that description would make him hard to kill in a duel, or just simply refers to the fact that he can't be NKed. Interesting is that he inherits the Yellows kill. So... either there are inactive Yellows left, or he is also dead. But, wouldn't you all know if he were killed? Because duel losers are revealed, yes?

Matahari wrote: Dunny dueled INH, INH lost the duel. He was a Nanman warrior. If Dunny won, then I'm going to assume he was also a warrior, and they had the same odds of winning. If Dunny was a warrior, he would be a civ warrior, or he would be Jinhuan Sanjie, a warrior teammate of INH, or Lu Bu, alignment unknown. In the discussion about voting Dunny again, I'm thinking he has 2 shots at being a mafia warrior, and more chances of being a civ warrior. So- I'm not sure whether I want to vote him again. I don't know, maybe someone has good reasoning for selecting Dunny, and I will appreciate any input on decisions for dueling.

LoRab wrote:
Yes, I went back and forth on Glorf. I don't see how that makes me suspicious. I believed him, voted to lynch a civ; with that new knowledge, changed my mind about how I perceived the nature of his post. That's it, really.

And going after TH and continually listing reasons that I suspect him, even if they aren't the same as what you would find suspicious, is what I mean by tunneling. When I suspect someone, yes, most of their behavior I see as bad. And yes, I point out all sorts of things that other players don't see as suspicious. And yes, I do see that as tunneling. At least that's how I use the term. So, I apologize for forgetting part of your post.

You seem convinced that I'm bad, and I don't think I'm going to change your mind. You will see that you are wrong (unless you are falsely accusing me as a baddie).

Scotty wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I'm cool with voting inactive people.

It's not even that INH is inactive- he's participated for some time- he's just supposed to be someone that is leading the civ cause. That's what he advertised in being a prefect. JJJ was a good prefect, I am a good prefect, I don't think he is.

DFaraday wrote:

Matahari wrote: Dunny dueled INH, INH lost the duel. He was a Nanman warrior. If Dunny won, then I'm going to assume he was also a warrior, and they had the same odds of winning. If Dunny was a warrior, he would be a civ warrior, or he would be Jinhuan Sanjie, a warrior teammate of INH, or Lu Bu, alignment unknown. In the discussion about voting Dunny again, I'm thinking he has 2 shots at being a mafia warrior, and more chances of being a civ warrior. So- I'm not sure whether I want to vote him again. I don't know, maybe someone has good reasoning for selecting Dunny, and I will appreciate any input on decisions for dueling.

Why are you assuming that? For all we know, INH rolled a 1.

I'm considering a Dunny vote, especially given that Zuo Ci seems to feel pretty strongly about him.

indiglo wrote:

Dom wrote:hi indi.

i'm not the greatest person to answer your questions. I've been very busy and just diong my best to keep my head above water. I've just been voting for whoever I think is bad. HOWEVER, I notice that you ask a lot of questions and have a certain level of ignorance in the game. Why, then, are you confident that nutella is civ?

I am not confident that Nutella is civ. I am only confident in telling her that her suspicion of sig (and therefore of me) is wrong. Sorry if I was confusing in my wording!

indiglo wrote:Mata, that tip about looking at Epi's posts was extremely helpful. I have now lost several hours, but I do have a couple pages of notes that will likely prove useless! Hooray!


So, throughout the game, 3 Nans have lost duels and 2 Yellows. At most, that leaves 2 Nans (Jinhuan Sanjie - Warrior and Meng Huo- Leader) 1 Yellow (Zhang Jiao - Leader) to get through. Who knows if any of those were taken out via NK. (Plus the Indy Leader, IIRC.)


NK Analysis:
The Yellows (MP, SD, +YTLeader) took out the following people, in order:
SVS (Night 2, NKed by: entire Yellow team),
Soneji (Night 4, after MP died, NKed by: SD + Leader),
Reywas (Night 6, NKed by: SD + Leader)

The Nans (Wilgy, Marmot, INH, +NanWarrior and NanLeader) took out the following, in order:
JJJ (Night 2, after Wilgy & Marmot died, NKed by: INH + War. & Lead.),
Rico (Night 3, NKed by: INH + War. & Lead.),
TH (Night 4, NKed by: INH + War. & Lead.),
Glorf (Night 5, Nked by: INH + War. & Lead.),
Sorsha (Night 7, NKed by: INH + War. & Lead.),
Elo (Night 9, after INH died, NKed by: Warrior + Leader),
Golden (Night 10, NKed by: Warrior + Leader)



I noticed an interesting pattern regarding the duels when it comes to BassTheClever. He defeated 2 Wu/Civ Warriors in duels, DDL (after 2 rounds) and Russti (after 1 round). What I find interesting is that Russti had previously defeated 1 Nan Warrior (Marmot) after 2 rounds and 1 Yellow Strategist (MP) after 3 rounds.

There was a point I was going to make regarding that, but I have now lost it in the excruciating minutiae of this post.

I do feel like a couple of the days in particular may be worth me looking back on -
particularly Day 2 (Russti, civ warrior VS Marmot, baddie warrior),
Day 4 (Russti, civ warrior VS MP, baddie strategist)
and then Days 7 and 8 (7 - Bass, ? VS DDL, civ warrior; 8 - Bass, ? VS Russti, civ warrior).
I'm curious as to how those days shook out, who voted where, and why.

If anyone remembers any of those days, or has any additional input, feel free to share.

My brain is now mush, so I shall retire to the drawing room.

Quin wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I'm cool with voting inactive people.

It's not even that INH is inactive- he's participated for some time- he's just supposed to be someone that is leading the civ cause. That's what he advertised in being a prefect. JJJ was a good prefect, I am a good prefect, I don't think he is.

This is the argument I'm worried about within the INH wagon. Scotty, what was your thought process that lead you to the conclusion that he was bad because he wasn't 'leading' the civ cause? I realise you've been pushing him for a while, but this looks like a giant step back in the quality of your case against him.

Scotty wrote:

Quin wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I'm cool with voting inactive people.

It's not even that INH is inactive- he's participated for some time- he's just supposed to be someone that is leading the civ cause. That's what he advertised in being a prefect. JJJ was a good prefect, I am a good prefect, I don't think he is.

This is the argument I'm worried about within the INH wagon. Scotty, what was your thought process that lead you to the conclusion that he was bad because he wasn't 'leading' the civ cause? I realise you've been pushing him for a while, but this looks like a giant step back in the quality of your case against him.

I found his absence striking around day 3 or so, and gave him time to make cases and prove himself. I might be a little biased because he was a fellow prefect, but I didn't like his nonchalance. Added to the fact that he voted in tandem with MM just gave me blinders. It's like a couple of horses showing up to the horse race, except one has a peg leg and should have been put down and converted to dog food ages ago.

Do you think the lead up to getting INH looks like an inside job from me? I can't tell if that's what you're suggesting.

Quin wrote:I want to keep pushing for a Dom lynch. My thoughts against him haven't changed much from before, but they haven't been dismissed either. I've voted him the past three days and he hasn't looked twice. Are you ignoring me, Dom?

Scotty wrote:

Quin wrote:I want to keep pushing for a Dom lynch. My thoughts against him haven't changed much from before, but they haven't been dismissed either. I've voted him the past three days and he hasn't looked twice. Are you ignoring me, Dom?

Who would be your second vote if you had to vote now?