The Syndicate

insertnamehere wrote:

timmer wrote:
It's day 1. You were in the small cluster of people who promoted the whole "let's say we're civs for the lie detector" thing. You also jumped a bit forcefully on Wilgy for my liking. Then there is Wilgy himself, whose posts haven't been great, either. But you, and the cluster who were involved with the lie detector thing, are all earning light mentions that could be read as a teammate making sure to namedrop you while simultaneously moving onto a civ target, while those mentioning Wilgy don't seem to be doing the same thing.

I've got virtually nothing, it's day 1, but if I've got multiple people who are all getting talked about the same level of weak, and one of them seems to have a "pass" current for some reason while others don't, that's where I invariably want to lean. I wouldn't even try to guess at the odds that either you or Wilgy are bad, but if one of you is, the way the posts are reading, I'd say it's you.

Again, Day 1, but that's as good as I'm going to get.

So to summarize...

- I wanted to help the civ lie detector.
- I find Wilgy suspicious, and believe him to be bad.
- People find me suspicious, but not as suspicious as other people.

If that's all you need to be convinced of someone's alignment, then there's a house up in Alaska I want to sell you.

Also, you keep mentioning "people" who were involved in trying to help the civ lie detector, which you seem to find suspicious for some reason, as mentioning me and then ignoring me. Whereas people who mention Wilgy seem to want to stick to Wilgy. Care to name some names instead of speaking in broad terms?

Timmer, I don't know your profession, but if I had to guess, I'd say you were an Olympic long jumpers with all these impressive leaps you keep making.

Matt wrote:@DB - I've already explained the difference, ISO me for the answer. At the same time, tho, I certainly don't clear sig or Wilgy for coming to my defense either.

@INH - Well I'd rather throw out random accusations and get things going instead of just sitting around twiddling my thumbs. But k, agree to disagree.

@SVS - The intention, at least from my end, is never to "be mean".

I was looking forward to coming in here and putting a vote on Splints but Scotty's post where he eggs me on about Wilgy defending me and then goes on to vote Goldy after sussing me for several days...hrm. I think that's weird and I don't like it.

Epi - If you were forced to vote for Scotty or FS who would you vote for?

Matt wrote:@INH - Well I'd rather throw out random accusations and get things going instead of just sitting around twiddling my thumbs. But k, agree to disagree.

timmer wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

timmer wrote:
It's day 1. You were in the small cluster of people who promoted the whole "let's say we're civs for the lie detector" thing. You also jumped a bit forcefully on Wilgy for my liking. Then there is Wilgy himself, whose posts haven't been great, either. But you, and the cluster who were involved with the lie detector thing, are all earning light mentions that could be read as a teammate making sure to namedrop you while simultaneously moving onto a civ target, while those mentioning Wilgy don't seem to be doing the same thing.

I've got virtually nothing, it's day 1, but if I've got multiple people who are all getting talked about the same level of weak, and one of them seems to have a "pass" current for some reason while others don't, that's where I invariably want to lean. I wouldn't even try to guess at the odds that either you or Wilgy are bad, but if one of you is, the way the posts are reading, I'd say it's you.

Again, Day 1, but that's as good as I'm going to get.

So to summarize...

- I wanted to help the civ lie detector.
- I find Wilgy suspicious, and believe him to be bad.
- People find me suspicious, but not as suspicious as other people.

If that's all you need to be convinced of someone's alignment, then there's a house up in Alaska I want to sell you.

Also, you keep mentioning "people" who were involved in trying to help the civ lie detector, which you seem to find suspicious for some reason, as mentioning me and then ignoring me. Whereas people who mention Wilgy seem to want to stick to Wilgy. Care to name some names instead of speaking in broad terms?

Timmer, I don't know your profession, but if I had to guess, I'd say you were an Olympic long jumpers with all these impressive leaps you keep making.

You are taking my Day 1 vote awful seriously, man. It's Day 1. What kind of case did you expect when you asked me to lay it out? You've got one vote.

DrumBeats wrote:Also, somebody should still link me to AoT mafia for the context on Wilgy. I tried to find it on my own, but could not.

insertnamehere wrote:To summarize, DrWilgy has voted to lynch civs with deliberately flimsy motives twice, one of which a clear NO U, while being sure to craftily insulate himself from any possible repercussions. He seems to float from poorly put-together train to poorly put-together train, and his one vote that goes against that was more or less a throw-away designed to score some free cred.

He's crafty, evasive as all hell, and the most suspicious person in the game.

Please at least consider him before you all go back to your tidy little lynch mobs and get rid of another civilian.

S~V~S wrote:

Not everything has to be done to help catch baddies.

So she could check one "X & Y are on a team" per night?

It seems to make more sense to let her feel her way through peoples posts than directing her where we would like her to go (directing, yeah that was what your post felt like). That just felt very seriously diversionary to me.

Quin wrote:
linki: if you find it best to leave Pams role alone, I won't press the matter anymore.

timmer wrote:@Quin, way back when I first posted to you regarding your posts, I was kind of touching on what SVS is saying. The things you were saying seemed to not be focused on baddie hunting, which bothers me. That IS the name of this game, no?

Quin wrote:

timmer wrote:@Quin, way back when I first posted to you regarding your posts, I was kind of touching on what SVS is saying. The things you were saying seemed to not be focused on baddie hunting, which bothers me. That IS the name of this game, no?

Don't get me wrong, my top priority is on baddie hunting. But at the same time, I wanted to create an advantage for town that may have come in handy at some point. We don't know what Dom has planned for this game, so I figured, why not use the resources we do have?

linki: I get what you're saying. I might be distracting myself, in hindsight. I'LL DO BETTER

DrumBeats wrote:

Matt wrote:@DB - I've already explained the difference, ISO me for the answer. At the same time, tho, I certainly don't clear sig or Wilgy for coming to my defense either.

@INH - Well I'd rather throw out random accusations and get things going instead of just sitting around twiddling my thumbs. But k, agree to disagree.

@SVS - The intention, at least from my end, is never to "be mean".

I was looking forward to coming in here and putting a vote on Splints but Scotty's post where he eggs me on about Wilgy defending me and then goes on to vote Goldy after sussing me for several days...hrm. I think that's weird and I don't like it.

Epi - If you were forced to vote for Scotty or FS who would you vote for?

You didn't explain the difference as much as explain what you perceive the reasoning behind your own to be.

Looking back at Quin, I'm not thrilled with his "What do you think of me" post to timmer. Why would a civ even be concerned over that? Additionally, though I like the idea behind his list, the three ideas he proposed seem to be wastes of the lie detector. I'm going to compile a list of things that I think would be useful for Pam to have available to lie detect, should she find no better options in my next post.

My vote is currently between Quin and Scotty rn.

Quin wrote:

timmer wrote:@Quin, way back when I first posted to you regarding your posts, I was kind of touching on what SVS is saying. The things you were saying seemed to not be focused on baddie hunting, which bothers me. That IS the name of this game, no?

Don't get me wrong, my top priority is on baddie hunting. But at the same time, I wanted to create an advantage for town that may have come in handy at some point. We don't know what Dom has planned for this game, so I figured, why not use the resources we do have?

linki: I get what you're saying. I might be distracting myself, in hindsight. I'LL DO BETTER

timmer wrote:@INH, I barely have any suspicion of you at ALL. It's day fucking ONE. But the "barely" I've got is just a hair more than I've got for anyone else. Or would you rather I lazily voted for an absentee player, or randomized? Which choice, from a baddie hunting pov, would have been the smarter choice?

I explained my reasons to you. I'm not going to go and pull 30 post quotes for a day 1 vote. It is what it is. Why you are reacting like this, on Day 1, is beyond me?

S~V~S wrote:

Quin wrote:

timmer wrote:@Quin, way back when I first posted to you regarding your posts, I was kind of touching on what SVS is saying. The things you were saying seemed to not be focused on baddie hunting, which bothers me. That IS the name of this game, no?

Don't get me wrong, my top priority is on baddie hunting. But at the same time, I wanted to create an advantage for town that may have come in handy at some point. We don't know what Dom has planned for this game, so I figured, why not use the resources we do have?

linki: I get what you're saying. I might be distracting myself, in hindsight. I'LL DO BETTER

This makes no sense. If she was to check mechanics, how would she let the thread know what she learned? She can't without exposing herself. Who wants her to expose herself? The baddies.

DrumBeats wrote:

Matt wrote:@DB - I've already explained the difference, ISO me for the answer. At the same time, tho, I certainly don't clear sig or Wilgy for coming to my defense either.

@INH - Well I'd rather throw out random accusations and get things going instead of just sitting around twiddling my thumbs. But k, agree to disagree.

@SVS - The intention, at least from my end, is never to "be mean".

I was looking forward to coming in here and putting a vote on Splints but Scotty's post where he eggs me on about Wilgy defending me and then goes on to vote Goldy after sussing me for several days...hrm. I think that's weird and I don't like it.

Epi - If you were forced to vote for Scotty or FS who would you vote for?

You didn't explain the difference as much as explain what you perceive the reasoning behind your own to be.

Looking back at Quin, I'm not thrilled with his "What do you think of me" post to timmer. Why would a civ even be concerned over that? Additionally, though I like the idea behind his list, the three ideas he proposed seem to be wastes of the lie detector. I'm going to compile a list of things that I think would be useful for Pam to have available to lie detect, should she find no better options in my next post.

My vote is currently between Quin and Scotty rn.

Quin wrote:
Not everything has to be done to help catch baddies.

insertnamehere wrote:

timmer wrote:@INH, I barely have any suspicion of you at ALL. It's day fucking ONE. But the "barely" I've got is just a hair more than I've got for anyone else. Or would you rather I lazily voted for an absentee player, or randomized? Which choice, from a baddie hunting pov, would have been the smarter choice?

I explained my reasons to you. I'm not going to go and pull 30 post quotes for a day 1 vote. It is what it is. Why you are reacting like this, on Day 1, is beyond me?

You're awfully touchy whenever someone tries to question your reasoning behind your votes...

I wonder why that is.

Oh, and votes are in fact changeable this game. If you still think your vote for me is justified, leave it. If you don't, remember that you can. Because all I've gotten from you is: "it wasn't a reeeeal suspicion, it was Day 1! You know what it's like in Day 1, nothing means anything!" If your defense of your vote consists mostly of cheap deflection and not actual rebuttals, maybe it isn't a very smart vote.

Also, what makes you not find Wilgy suspicious, if I may ask?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Quin wrote:
Not everything has to be done to help catch baddies.

I think this might be the first time I've ever been left speechless in a mafia game. I'm at a loss for words.

This also might be the easiest Day 1 vote I've ever had.

Votes Quin

S~V~S wrote:Well, Dude, that's a pretty controversial opinion, you must admit

Quin wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Quin wrote:
Not everything has to be done to help catch baddies.

I think this might be the first time I've ever been left speechless in a mafia game. I'm at a loss for words.

This also might be the easiest Day 1 vote I've ever had.

Votes Quin

If you think that was a baddie slip you need to have another go at reading it.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Quin wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Quin wrote:
Not everything has to be done to help catch baddies.

I think this might be the first time I've ever been left speechless in a mafia game. I'm at a loss for words.

This also might be the easiest Day 1 vote I've ever had.

Votes Quin

If you think that was a baddie slip you need to have another go at reading it.

That's not the point I got from it. What I got is that if you are a civ, then that's the most antithetical thing you could possibly believe if you want to do well in this game.

The most powerful tool the civs have is the lynch for a reason.

S~V~S wrote:Are you role claiming?

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Why not just vote for me then INH? Are there other options you are thinking of?

insertnamehere wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and vote Wilgy for reasons I've already gotten into.

Do I need to make that red or bold or something or other?

DrWilgy wrote:@all, I'm unsure why everyone thinks that I am speaking with confidence. I haven't even voted yet... If a suspicion rises that is more so than INH I'll vote there. The more INH and I exchange the worse I feel about him though.

I know that feeling, Wilgy.

Quin wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Are you role claiming?

Dom has given the okay for that statement. No rules are broken in saying it!

DrWilgy wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote: Hmm? Did I stutter? No, but it would be funny if you did. Me inserting "hmm?" is an expression of thought. Things that I'm building up or pondering in my head will be responded to by a "hmm?" Hmm.

When did I make a no you? When you accused me and Quin out of nowhere for no reason. I gave my reason for my suspicion on you INH. Your thoughts on it (referring to it as nonexistent) is interesting. Because I made a sarcastic jokey post about Matt, who I haven't actually said that I suspect, me and him must be on opposite teams, and we should lynch me to see if Matt is bad? That's based on such loose false reasoning that it just screams "I want to vote this guy, but I have to find some BS reason first." There's no actual logic or genuine thought behind it, so in my mind it registers as nonexistent. Why are you twisting my words now INH? Yes, I do think you are on opposite teams. I didn't read your humor as a teammate interaction and it was too in depth for it to feel like it was coming from a civilian.I never stated anything about lynching you to see if Matt is good or bad. I just think you are on opposite teams and I think that you are bad. It's actually really odd that you you stated that I wanted to lynch you. I didn't state that, nor have I even voted for you. Funny. You just voted for me, using the cheap useless reasoning that I didn't answer all of your questions, and therefore I = bad. This is another example of you concocting pointless traps that give you false easy justification to lynch civs.

Also, it's true that I'm playing like I did in AoT. That's on purpose. Why is this alignment indicitive? Because you were bad in AoT Mafia. So? I've been bad in other games with other styles as well. I'm sorry, I don't have any knowledge of your other games because I've only played with you once. So I'm basing my suspicion on what I know, rather than making great leaps. Also, you basically admit that you're playing the same exact game as your baddie AoT game, and you expect people to not see that as suspicious? What?Yup. Being in AoT mafia, you should know based on how I fooled Zebra that I purposely skew and force meta reads. Not relating these events is odd for someone analytical enough to catch me in a past game. what are you arguing here? That because I missed another possible argument against you, that I'm false in my logic? Not sure what you want to prove here.

indiglo wrote:I'm not crazy about how BWT jumped on Quin so quickly for that 1 statement. I'm not sure why SVS voted him either, I can't find in her ISO where she said when she voted him or exactly why.

I haven't been pinged by what Quin has said so far. But BWT for sure felt opportunistic to me, and not being clear when or why SVS voted him doesn't feel good either. I may be leaning towards a BWT vote here.




Damn, Colombia. I was just saying how much better the boys were looking out there with Tim Howard at the goal... and then that happened.

Quin wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Are you role claiming?

Dom has given the okay for that statement. No rules are broken in saying it!

DrWilgy wrote:Inh, why didn't you answer my question regarding fishing? I'm going to assume you mean that I didn't answer your question of who, other than you, I find suspicious. People who pinged me: Timmer and BWT.Odd, for your analytical self to miss that, then go ahead and vote for me. I figured a player like you would be the type to go through everything before voting if they were civ. Also, why did you drop our colored discussion? Did you not like me noticing you twisting my words?

As I said in my continuation of the colored discussion, you're using the cheap useless reasoning that I didn't answer all of your questions, and therefore I = bad. This is another example of you concocting pointless traps that give you false easy justification to lynch civs, and you did the same exact thing in AoT.

I guess what I'm saying is. I don't think this is the same INH that caught me in AoT.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Quin wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Are you role claiming?

Dom has given the okay for that statement. No rules are broken in saying it!

So in other words, yes?

S~V~S wrote:

indiglo wrote:I'm not crazy about how BWT jumped on Quin so quickly for that 1 statement. I'm not sure why SVS voted him either, I can't find in her ISO where she said when she voted him or exactly why.

I haven't been pinged by what Quin has said so far. But BWT for sure felt opportunistic to me, and not being clear when or why SVS voted him doesn't feel good either. I may be leaning towards a BWT vote here.




Damn, Colombia. I was just saying how much better the boys were looking out there with Tim Howard at the goal... and then that happened.

You think Quins list of mechanics questions for the LD is OK?

indiglo wrote:I'm not crazy about how BWT jumped on Quin so quickly for that 1 statement. I'm not sure why SVS voted him either, I can't find in her ISO where she said when she voted him or exactly why.

I haven't been pinged by what Quin has said so far. But BWT for sure felt opportunistic to me, and not being clear when or why SVS voted him doesn't feel good either. I may be leaning towards a BWT vote here.

indiglo wrote:Also INH, Wilgy I can no longer follow your multi-colored back-and-forth. Just an FYI. Doesn't mean you need to stop doing it, but I'm going to stop reading those, too many colors and such.

indiglo wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

indiglo wrote:I'm not crazy about how BWT jumped on Quin so quickly for that 1 statement. I'm not sure why SVS voted him either, I can't find in her ISO where she said when she voted him or exactly why.

I haven't been pinged by what Quin has said so far. But BWT for sure felt opportunistic to me, and not being clear when or why SVS voted him doesn't feel good either. I may be leaning towards a BWT vote here.




Damn, Colombia. I was just saying how much better the boys were looking out there with Tim Howard at the goal... and then that happened.

You think Quins list of mechanics questions for the LD is OK?

I don't think anything of his list of things for the LD.



link~ Also INH, Wilgy I can no longer follow your multi-colored back-and-forth. Just an FYI. Doesn't mean you need to stop doing it, but I'm going to stop reading those, too many colors and such.

indiglo wrote:I'm not crazy about how BWT jumped on Quin so quickly for that 1 statement. I'm not sure why SVS voted him either, I can't find in her ISO where she said when she voted him or exactly why.

I haven't been pinged by what Quin has said so far. But BWT for sure felt opportunistic to me, and not being clear when or why SVS voted him doesn't feel good either. I may be leaning towards a BWT vote here.




Damn, Colombia. I was just saying how much better the boys were looking out there with Tim Howard at the goal... and then that happened.

S~V~S wrote: Well you should be if you are not clear on why I voted for him

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

indiglo wrote:I'm not crazy about how BWT jumped on Quin so quickly for that 1 statement. I'm not sure why SVS voted him either, I can't find in her ISO where she said when she voted him or exactly why.

I haven't been pinged by what Quin has said so far. But BWT for sure felt opportunistic to me, and not being clear when or why SVS voted him doesn't feel good either. I may be leaning towards a BWT vote here.




Damn, Colombia. I was just saying how much better the boys were looking out there with Tim Howard at the goal... and then that happened.

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

DrWilgy wrote: Hmm? Did I stutter? No, but it would be funny if you did. Me inserting "hmm?" is an expression of thought. Things that I'm building up or pondering in my head will be responded to by a "hmm?" Hmm.

When did I make a no you? When you accused me and Quin out of nowhere for no reason. I gave my reason for my suspicion on you INH. Your thoughts on it (referring to it as nonexistent) is interesting. Because I made a sarcastic jokey post about Matt, who I haven't actually said that I suspect, me and him must be on opposite teams, and we should lynch me to see if Matt is bad? That's based on such loose false reasoning that it just screams "I want to vote this guy, but I have to find some BS reason first." There's no actual logic or genuine thought behind it, so in my mind it registers as nonexistent. Why are you twisting my words now INH? Yes, I do think you are on opposite teams. I didn't read your humor as a teammate interaction and it was too in depth for it to feel like it was coming from a civilian.I never stated anything about lynching you to see if Matt is good or bad. I just think you are on opposite teams and I think that you are bad. It's actually really odd that you you stated that I wanted to lynch you. I didn't state that, nor have I even voted for you. Funny. You just voted for me, using the cheap useless reasoning that I didn't answer all of your questions, and therefore I = bad. This is another example of you concocting pointless traps that give you false easy justification to lynch civs.I gave more reasoning than that. Continuing to state that I'm providing nothing isn't advancing this discussion. Please adress your twisting of my words.

Also, it's true that I'm playing like I did in AoT. That's on purpose. Why is this alignment indicitive? Because you were bad in AoT Mafia. So? I've been bad in other games with other styles as well. I'm sorry, I don't have any knowledge of your other games because I've only played with you once. So I'm basing my suspicion on what I know, rather than making great leaps. Also, you basically admit that you're playing the same exact game as your baddie AoT game, and you expect people to not see that as suspicious? What?Yup. Being in AoT mafia, you should know based on how I fooled Zebra that I purposely skew and force meta reads. Not relating these events is odd for someone analytical enough to catch me in a past game. what are you arguing here? That because I missed another possible argument against you, that I'm false in my logic? Not sure what you want to prove here.What I'm arguing here is that based on AoT mafia, and my interaction with Zebra within that game, you should know that meta has no determination of my alignment. I'm also pointing out that I think it's sketchy you didn't notice this.