The Syndicate

LoRab wrote:Going to vote now, so I don't forget and so I don't miss voting if the thread gets locked. I'm voting Golden.. As I said before, not so much because I think he's been recruited to a baddie team, but because I don't think he is playing in the best interest of the civies.

Roxy wrote: unfurl - I am not seeing what others are. I do feel like you have been trying to get into the game but I think the set up leaves you at a loss because of your usual play style isn't really applicable in this type of game. You are right to say to llama that your game is usually full of contradictions. It is just your style especially in the early stages of a game.
One thing that does seem to be missing is your paranoic attitude and the questions that usually come about when you are in that "zone". I agree about Teeth but apparently Imma have to get out of lazy mode and pull quotes to get others to see what I saw. I really feel like you are Neutral atm.

DharmaHelper wrote:I'll hug anybody who asks for one

unfurl wrote:

S~V~S wrote:
Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

well this change things
I do not like missing votes, unless is an emergency that prevents me from do it
so I will place my vote in birdwithteeth11, this back in forth bewteen me and him has not changed my mind to not vote for him so far
if I changed my mind tomorrow, and the host let vote in the thread, then I guess that option may still be open

TinyBubbles wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'll hug anybody who asks for one

i want a hug!

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

unfurl wrote:

S~V~S wrote:
Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

well this change things
I do not like missing votes, unless is an emergency that prevents me from do it
so I will place my vote in birdwithteeth11, this back in forth bewteen me and him has not changed my mind to not vote for him so far
if I changed my mind tomorrow, and the host let vote in the thread, then I guess that option may still be open

Yes, we've had a lot of back-and-forth. But my vote was merely a placeholder in case the thread got locked (before I realized the thread can only be locked for a certain period of time, and not an entire day period).

What is it that I've said that made you not change your mind on me? Or was it more based off the fact that I voted for you again?

DharmaHelper wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'll hug anybody who asks for one

i want a hug!

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:Going to vote now, so I don't forget and so I don't miss voting if the thread gets locked. I'm voting Golden.. As I said before, not so much because I think he's been recruited to a baddie team, but because I don't think he is playing in the best interest of the civies.

This is a bit of a cop out. I don't disagree that the Golden Problem has become a distraction, but that doesn't mean the solution should be to remove him from the game. If you don't think he has been recruited by a baddie and you don't think he is a baddie recruiter, then I would assert that your vote might not be in the best interest of the civilians.

Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs. I've really started to change my feelings on this thought. I don't see how it's beneficial to go after someone who is potentially chaotic neutral when they're a potential civ recruit down the line, when I think there are people who are exhibiting baddie tendencies.....like wanting to vote for someone for being neutral and "playing an anti-civ game". Whatever that means.

Bullzeye wrote:

LoRab wrote: Asking someone openly to name whom they think is civ can only help the baddies. Especially in this game, where the baddies do not have a common target but are a common target, and that whole enemy of my enemy thing. I don't think this is a civ-friendly question, and I'm not sure Bass was playing a civ-friendly game, even if not recruited. Or at least wasn't seeming so with this post.

Does enemy of my enemy really apply as the baddies can't win together? Agree with the rest of your point though.

I think it does, as both civ teams want both baddie teams to be dead.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden, what is your immediate reaction to LoRab's vote for you and stated reason?

I concur entirely with your view, but feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

Before I voted for myself last night, you will see LoRab just said she found me suspicious (just a few posts beforehand). This is the post that pushed me over the edge into my self-vote. It made me feel as though it is hopeless me saying anything, because no matter what I say people will call me suspicious, and it was that post that made me feel like I would not be able to survive the lynch anyway.

So to have her come back the next day and say she does not think I'm bad, but then vote for me anyway because I am a distraction and having me alive is not in the towns interests... it's just disappointing for me and it's times like this that I feel like it does not matter how many words I use, I cannot get my points across.

LoRab wrote:You're making it increasingly more difficult to not suspect you. No, you're not unrecruitable. And I think the civies would be just as hesitatnt to recuit you as the baddies would be. Actually, I think the baddies would want you more at this stage. And, as the game goes on, nuetrals become more of a threat. We're far from there, but will get there.

And you think Epi wanted to recruit you? That is new info, so to speak, and seems extremely unlikely. And negates your entire idea of the 2 of you never being on the same team. You are starting to grasp at straws and I find it hard to find that as a civ thing to do. I did not suspect you until this post, but the ping has started, and is growing louder.

That was part of her post, but you should find it in her iso and read the whole thing including thread context.

I don't know if it makes lorab bad, but I do think it means she could be a neutral.

Prior to the post you quoted, I had been quite sympathetic to you. However, the more I read your posts, the more I found it difficult to be supportive. I do not say that I outright suspect you of being on a baddie team--I do not. But I do not think your game is pro-civ. And I do think that your posts last night started to sound like a cornered baddie, and that switched my thinking and made me start to look at your posts differently. And what I have read, more and more, does not seem pro-civ to me. And certainly not like a pro-civ Golden. So how would a pro-civ Golden be playing? How is his game so far not pro-civ? How is your game more civ-friendly than his?

And yes, I am neutral--like the vast majority of players. But I'm trying to play civ-friendly.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden, what is your immediate reaction to LoRab's vote for you and stated reason?

I concur entirely with your view, but feel like a hypocrite for doing so.

Before I voted for myself last night, you will see LoRab just said she found me suspicious (just a few posts beforehand). This is the post that pushed me over the edge into my self-vote. It made me feel as though it is hopeless me saying anything, because no matter what I say people will call me suspicious, and it was that post that made me feel like I would not be able to survive the lynch anyway.

So to have her come back the next day and say she does not think I'm bad, but then vote for me anyway because I am a distraction and having me alive is not in the towns interests... it's just disappointing for me and it's times like this that I feel like it does not matter how many words I use, I cannot get my points across.

LoRab wrote:You're making it increasingly more difficult to not suspect you. No, you're not unrecruitable. And I think the civies would be just as hesitatnt to recuit you as the baddies would be. Actually, I think the baddies would want you more at this stage. And, as the game goes on, nuetrals become more of a threat. We're far from there, but will get there.

And you think Epi wanted to recruit you? That is new info, so to speak, and seems extremely unlikely. And negates your entire idea of the 2 of you never being on the same team. You are starting to grasp at straws and I find it hard to find that as a civ thing to do. I did not suspect you until this post, but the ping has started, and is growing louder.

That was part of her post, but you should find it in her iso and read the whole thing including thread context.

I don't know if it makes lorab bad, but I do think it means she could be a neutral.

Honestly that post you reference, in this context, amplifies my concern and makes me outright suspicious of LoRab. She was verbally describing her own quest to find a reason to join the bandwagon against you, and continued in that direction with this most recent cop out vote. The highlighted pink text in there is a pretty literal example of this, and it is expressed in language that I find suspicious at face value. The highlighted orange text is a logical discrepancy and exemplifies a player interested in surface contexts and not deeper critical thinking. I don't think it's hard at all to associate your theorizing about the potential for Epignosis recruiting you with your prior insistence that it would be a bad idea to recruit me onto Epi's team, I'd kill him myself.

This seems like willful ignorance of the most important content in this discussion by LoRab, and a concerted effort to justify the easiest vote on the board.

I did not say last night that I thought he was recruited bad/bad recruiter. Actually, I make it pretty clear that I thought then as I think now that you are unrecruited. I think you are neutral, but not civ-friendly.

This is a game where we can change our votes--I don't think anyone stands out as likely on a baddie team. I am happy to change my vote if someone starts to seem actually bad or more detrimental to the civ cause. If I don't suspect anyone of being actually on a baddie team (which is what...4 to 6 players out of 32...not very good odds), then I believe that lynching a neutral who is not being civ-friendly to be the next best thing. I also have long had an innate distrust of neutral roles (which makes this stage of this game interesting in my brain).

Also, he literally asked to be lynched. With how much frustration he had building up, I honestly don't blame him. I've done it myself before when I got tired of defending myself and decided to just let the die be cast. Doesn't necessarily make him detrimental or anti-civ in my book.

Also, I'm not sure how that is hypocritical. And I had forgotten that at some point, in his many, many posts, he had thought that Epi wanted to recruit him. Perhaps, because I didn't suspect Epi in the first place, it didn't stick in my memory as his main point. And it is not a logical discrepancy--nor is it evidence of my being bad. One of Golden's main refrains has been that he didn't think he and Epi would ever be on the same team--it seems illogical to me that if that's why he had him killed/wanted him dead, then why would he go to thinking that Epi would cause the 2 of them to be on the same team. We think differently, that's fine. But it doesn't make me bad. Doesn't make you bad, either, for that matter.

And please don't tell me that I don't think deeply. I may notice really odd things in the thread, but that does not mean that I'm not thinking about them. Nor does it mean that I'm jumping on a bandwagon because I voted the same way as a few other people.

Golden wrote:Also, the fact that she was responding to a post in which I literally went out of my way to say "This is NOT new info" - because it was not, but it had been buried because people have (in my opinion) not been actually taking into account and considering a lot of the responses I've been making. That one is one of them.

I have taken a lot into account. It is exactly your responses, mainly in tone, that have made me suspicious of your intentions.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:lol MM voted for me. Maybe he's trying to tell me something.

Vote LoRab

Eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide. I am neutral, yes, but I am civ intentioned. My reasons for my vote may not mesh with the way you think through games, or the games you're used to, but it's how I think and how I play. I will even be nice since you're new and all and twirl for you.

linkitis: @Golden: That post sounded more honest than anything you've posted in a while. I will strongly consider (and probably take action on) changing my vote. I just need to figure out where to put it.

LoRab wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

LoRab wrote: Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

Ideally, yes. But I thought the vote ended tonight, so I felt I had to vote when I did. And I don't have any solid suspicions of someone who is actually on a baddie team right now. I'm more than willing to change my vote if that should change.

@JJJ: I don't make the assumption that a neutral player is playing a pro-civ game. In my own game play (and this is part of where my thinking on neutral players come from), I once literally handed the game to the baddie team in end-game and I have also played a civ-aligned game as a neutral. So I do not assume that other players are going to necessarily be helping the civs when they are neutral.

You and I clearly think differently and interpret the thread differently. Which is what keeps these games interesting. My posts are honest. My explanations of my thinking are sincere. You are not the first person ever to suspect me because I'm a little out there in my thought process at times. Rarely, if ever, do I say that I believe things that I don't believe (IRL as well as in games, for that matter...which can be interesting professionally, but I digress). I don't concoct suspicion or reasons for voting (unless I have info and need to create a case in order to convince people); I often just say what's on my mind and don't always filter my thoughts; and I frequently find things suspicious that no one else sees as off.

In this case, I'll probably move my vote off of Golden, because his most recent plea sounded authentic. And I've been in that place of not being able to deal with defense in the moment (both as a civ and as a baddie...and probably as a neutral or indie--I'm just remembering particular moments). But I'm not moving my eye off of him.

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

LoRab wrote:@TH: I reject the idea that lynching neutrals only helps baddies. Neutrals are exactly that--neutral. They can just as easily help baddies or civies. Sure, I'd rather lynch a baddie. But I don't have someone who fits that category. And a neutral who doesn't seem pro-civ is a better choice, to me, than not voting (and, again, thought the lynch ended today).

Wait--weren't you one of the folks saying that this wasn't a bad v civ game?

I asked a question about the difference between the civs and the baddies on Day 0, if that's what you're referring to.

This does not seem like asking a question. This seems like making a statement.

Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.

Vote: TH

Golden wrote:Going back to voting me.

Clearly I was stupid to think, briefly, that this day would turn out differently.

reywaS wrote:

Golden wrote:I would ask those who are less inclined to feel absolutely certain of me, like lorab and timmer, to consider giving me a pass today given I won't be around a whole lot more for robust conversation and defence. I ask this because I get the strong sense that (because I won't be around) I'm going to be the easy location for drive by votes at end of day.

It's ultimately up to you guys, but if you really want to lynch me more on a hunch or being the 'best option' than anything else, I'd really like if it can be on a day where I can have proper conversation around it, more than I'll be able to today.

Are you shitting me, Golden? So...give you a pass and lynch me instead...is that it?

For fuck's sake, man.

Actually, everyone please take Golden's advice and give him a pass because he isn't going to be around to defend himself anymore than he already is.

Seriously, lynch me. I really don't think that I was ready to come back to mafia yet...especially not in such a large game. I think I probably should have started with a small game. I'm getting way too worked up and seeing this post has really grated on my nerves.

Vote: reywaS and I urge the rest of you to do the same.

Golden wrote:I also have a dichotomy. I do not want to vote rey given how things have unfolded, but him choosing not to vote for me also gives me a chance of surviving, so I no longer want to vote for me...

I'll register a vote for Boomslang who I think warrants a decent amount of scrutiny. I think it possible he could be on mafia team two that killed G-Man.

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:So after days of saying I was sincere, now I am being intentionally false?

I probably would have bought the frame theory if you had not made that one post after Epi died. I believed then, and still believe now, with all my heart, that a baddie made that post.

Linki, I will cross that bridge when I come to it. But I don't think I will ever come to it. I doubt you will be lynched, you talked your way out of it. Then tomorrow I will be NKed probably, and it will be another attempt to frame poor Golden. And if you are lynched, I dont think you will come up good.

At some point, your choice to be stubborn and not engage has begun to feel to me like insincerity, yes.

And you still say, basically, you are hanging on to that one post - and that you would hang on to a single post while refusing to ever think about seeing it from another angle so stubbornly surprises me.

I tell you what, I'll do a bet with you. I tried to do this in RYM87 and sleepy wouldn't do it, he refused. Do what G-Man asked MP to do. Bet your mafia reputation on it. If, at the end of this game, the wash up makes it clear that I was neutral from the start up until Day 3, you will put in your signature "I staked my mafia reputation on golden being bad and I was wrong."

I, on the other hand, if I am bad, will post in my sig "S~V~S called me out, wouldn't back down, and was right."

The other part of this deal is, loser doesn't get to vote for the other one for the next five games we play together and loses their rights to claim they can read the other.

Deal?

unfurl wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

unfurl wrote: @ Spacedaisy
Im usually full of contradicitions , it does mean nothing to my alliance ever, Im weird person that is true, still it means nothing wheter Im good/bad/Neutral
Is very easy for people to think of me as bad, I dont express myself good enough for most people taste

I was fine with a lot of your response to Daisy except for this. So we shouldn't judge anyone based on what they say???

Let me see if I can be clearer
of course in a game people are judge based in what they said and their actions
Im still trying to get the hang ouf ot it, and she was saying that I was saying weird things, fyi, I always say weird things, or at least there is usually someone unfamiliar with me that vote for me, for me saying weird things, I blame my weird sense of humour, to me it sounded more like she suspected me because she thought I was being snarky and that was not my intention, so my response is dont judge me just based in the weird things (which is relative to each player to)

DrWilgy wrote:*Pokes head over the window seal, looks inside to see Golden vs. the world still happening, ducks down just as quickly as he appeared. Some scribbling is heard, and a note appears on the window seal, nobody seems to notice the note though.*

unfurl wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

unfurl wrote:

S~V~S wrote:
Linki, the poll can't be edited once people vote, the votes will be lost. So the hosts will have to decide if they want thread voting or to ask people who already voted to revote.

well this change things
I do not like missing votes, unless is an emergency that prevents me from do it
so I will place my vote in birdwithteeth11, this back in forth bewteen me and him has not changed my mind to not vote for him so far
if I changed my mind tomorrow, and the host let vote in the thread, then I guess that option may still be open

Yes, we've had a lot of back-and-forth. But my vote was merely a placeholder in case the thread got locked (before I realized the thread can only be locked for a certain period of time, and not an entire day period).

What is it that I've said that made you not change your mind on me? Or was it more based off the fact that I voted for you again?

It was more it the fact that you voted for me again, and the reasons behind it. that you keep saying things I did not say, I dont understand that even if you are neutral, why you would try to make it like I said other things, like I felt you are trying to twist things too

Roxy wrote:Teeth you are quick to call out Lorab but not your buddy MP. why? He is voting for Golden bc of his self vote. How is it any different than lorab?

MovingPictures07 wrote:I still think Golden needs to go so I'm still voting for him.

Roxy wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Penny for your thoughts?

I also just realized I have something like 15-20 of the 20 or so most recent posts. Makes me feel like I'm talking to myself.

Going to go on a walk and I'll be back.

reywaS wrote:Facts: Golden expressed sincere desire to see Epignosis killed. Epignosis is killed on night 1 by Azura.

How Golden and his new cheerleader MovingPictures come off to me:

"Hey, guys, look I know that I/Golden am/is responsible for Azura (A confirmed baddie) killing Epignosis when literally the only person going after Epig was Golden, but he's getting a bad rap and I think everyone just needs to trust the guy. I promise he's not bad. You're crazy for going after him. Actually, you read as bad to me because you aren't giving Golden a free pass."


It's insanity. lol

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I still think Golden needs to go so I'm still voting for him.

You seem to have pulled a 180 on this issue. What made you change your mind about Golden?

The self vote.

MovingPictures07 wrote:My vote isn't lazy. I still have defended golden and still am. I am voting for him to put him out of his misery. The self vote stuff has been just to lighten the mood of the thread but yeah everyone hear knows how I feel about self votes. That doesn't mean I can't see Golden's frustration as genuine.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:My vote isn't lazy. I still have defended golden and still am. I am voting for him to put him out of his misery. The self vote stuff has been just to lighten the mood of the thread but yeah everyone hear knows how I feel about self votes. That doesn't mean I can't see Golden's frustration as genuine.

The MP I know stops at nothing to slaughter baddies. This is not an example of that.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:DrWilgy, why should the players who received Day 1 votes be of special interest?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:My vote isn't lazy. I still have defended golden and still am. I am voting for him to put him out of his misery. The self vote stuff has been just to lighten the mood of the thread but yeah everyone hear knows how I feel about self votes. That doesn't mean I can't see Golden's frustration as genuine.

The MP I know stops at nothing to slaughter baddies. This is not an example of that.

You're entirely right, Jay.

What do you think that means?

DrWilgy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:DrWilgy, why should the players who received Day 1 votes be of special interest?

*Another note appears on the window seal*

not Azura, but Ubzargan. I'm dumb and got the baddies names mixed up in my head. Ubzargan was immune to lynch day 1, meaning there's a higher chance of hitting him if we vote for those who received a vote day 1.

Long Con wrote:Cast your vote in this poll, do not use the "parking spot" because you voted before. Ideally every player who had voted before would cast the same vote as when it had reset, and move one from there. We did not record the votes in order to add the two polls together. Every player should have voted for another player on this poll by the time it ends!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:DrWilgy, why should the players who received Day 1 votes be of special interest?

*Another note appears on the window seal*

not Azura, but Ubzargan. I'm dumb and got the baddies names mixed up in my head. Ubzargan was immune to lynch day 1, meaning there's a higher chance of hitting him if we vote for those who received a vote day 1.

They day ended early though, should we assume it was lynch immunity? I haven't thought so.

thellama73 wrote: Also, I don't like Lorab's reasoning on going after Golden. If she is advocating lynching neutrals, then in my view she is also playing an anti-civ game, the very thing she accuses Golden of.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

LoRab wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

LoRab wrote: Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.

Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?

Ideally, yes. But I thought the vote ended tonight, so I felt I had to vote when I did. And I don't have any solid suspicions of someone who is actually on a baddie team right now. I'm more than willing to change my vote if that should change.

@JJJ: I don't make the assumption that a neutral player is playing a pro-civ game. In my own game play (and this is part of where my thinking on neutral players come from), I once literally handed the game to the baddie team in end-game and I have also played a civ-aligned game as a neutral. So I do not assume that other players are going to necessarily be helping the civs when they are neutral.

You and I clearly think differently and interpret the thread differently. Which is what keeps these games interesting. My posts are honest. My explanations of my thinking are sincere. You are not the first person ever to suspect me because I'm a little out there in my thought process at times. Rarely, if ever, do I say that I believe things that I don't believe (IRL as well as in games, for that matter...which can be interesting professionally, but I digress). I don't concoct suspicion or reasons for voting (unless I have info and need to create a case in order to convince people); I often just say what's on my mind and don't always filter my thoughts; and I frequently find things suspicious that no one else sees as off.

In this case, I'll probably move my vote off of Golden, because his most recent plea sounded authentic. And I've been in that place of not being able to deal with defense in the moment (both as a civ and as a baddie...and probably as a neutral or indie--I'm just remembering particular moments). But I'm not moving my eye off of him.

I will consider this. But I still don't think it's in the civ's best interests (assuming those are your best interests) to want to go after neutrals who are anti-civ, when the main goal should be baddies.