The Syndicate

Bullzeye wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I was just thinking I hope Snow wasn't going to get lynched, but I wasn't expecting such a good result to the lynch. So now who are we hunting for?

Grady twins, Delbert, Lloyd, Stuart?

I've never read or seen The Shining so I'm not actually familiar with the characters or plot, are we now basically looking for the 'baddie' characters? The whole secret win conditions thing makes it hard to tell who we actually need to get rid of.

I just sent this in a PM to someone, so it seems only fair to post it in the thread. There are no good or bad characters. There is only your win condition, and those who stand in the way of your achieving it.

Kate wrote:I would say Lloyd is probably the most dangerous out there now.

Maybe we should take a poll based on how we all feel about temperance.

I don't want to be in the maze.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I was just thinking I hope Snow wasn't going to get lynched, but I wasn't expecting such a good result to the lynch. So now who are we hunting for?

Grady twins, Delbert, Lloyd, Stuart?

I've never read or seen The Shining so I'm not actually familiar with the characters or plot, are we now basically looking for the 'baddie' characters? The whole secret win conditions thing makes it hard to tell who we actually need to get rid of.

I just sent this in a PM to someone, so it seems only fair to post it in the thread. There are no good or bad characters. There is only your win condition, and those who stand in the way of your achieving it.

besides Stephen King. he was a killer.

In true dumb girl in a horror movie fashion, I'm going to scream.

Snow Dog wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I was just thinking I hope Snow wasn't going to get lynched, but I wasn't expecting such a good result to the lynch. So now who are we hunting for?

Grady twins, Delbert, Lloyd, Stuart?

I've never read or seen The Shining so I'm not actually familiar with the characters or plot, are we now basically looking for the 'baddie' characters? The whole secret win conditions thing makes it hard to tell who we actually need to get rid of.

I just sent this in a PM to someone, so it seems only fair to post it in the thread. There are no good or bad characters. There is only your win condition, and those who stand in the way of your achieving it.

besides Stephen King. he was a killer.

Which is only bad depending on your point of view.

Keeping left. It actually worked for me in reality.

Hard to choose as I do all three simultaneously in real life, but I think I'm mostly in the mood for wandering randomly now.

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:
besides Stephen King. he was a killer.

Which is only bad depending on your point of view.

I really enjoyed Llama calling Stephen King a "hack writer" in the role descriptions.

I think I love King more as a pop culture guru than as the horror writer he has known for, but man, he just seems like a righteous dude.

Snow Dog wrote:Keeping left. It actually worked for me in reality.

Do you mind going into detail?

I chose keep left also. It seems like a scientific-minded thing to do, which I think is your best bet in a big ass haunted hotel or its grounds).

This question actually made me think of this video that aired like 10 years ago on ABC Fam. It's found footage that was discovered in the Catacombs of Paris. You don't know where you are, you drop your camera, and then your flashlight starts to flicker. Intense.

Wow! What an amazing result!

Was fun playing with you again, Dex.

I should have stuck with my original ping on him! Dammit. Sorry Snow. I really was feeling lost and wasn't expecting others to necessarily follow me. However, may that be a lesson -- mafia is all about trying to play out the game and win, and you can't do that if you have other people throwing a wrench in things and playing wacky games, trying to get lynched and refusing to vote. I seriously thought you were trying to pick up a style and play us all for fools where we didn't lynch you out of fear day after day, but I really had no idea if it was because of that or you knew you were going to survive, so I thought I might as well go for it.

So... now I suppose there are some others that apparently still need to go. I agree with whoever said that the bartender seems like a next most logical person to get lynched. The Grady twins and Delbert could be other possibilities.

Part of me thinks it's more complicated than that, but given that Jack was seemingly a main source of that complication, I think we'd be safe with that assessment.

Vompatti wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, here we are. Dex's explanation makes sense, Nev's explanation makes sense, I suppose, and Kate still hasn't come back to explain her vote. Vomps's vote is ADDITIONALLY unexplained and bothersome.

It may be bothersome to you but it certainly isn't unexplained. It was either you or epig and I voted for you.

Why was it either me or Epig? Last I checked, every single player was on that poll.

Vompatti wrote:Also, I'm not buying this:

MovingPictures07 wrote:However, I'm really at a loss. I don't want to vote any of this players because no one is really exhibiting behavior that indicates something strong about their alignment in a seemingly negative way, even though there are some weird decisions and lacks of explanation. But Snow Dog is apparently hellbent on not playing this game, and I can't be bothered to psyche myself out playing WIFOM with myself all day -- it's possible he's playing this whole thing just to screw with all of us just as much as it is that he benefits from being lynched.

votes Snow Dog

I don't know why Snowy would want everyone to know that he cannot be lynched, but assuming that he really cannot be lynched (which seems more likely to me than the opposite) it would be pointless to vote for him unless for some reason you don't want anyone lynched.

Even if there's a slight chance he's pulling a trick on us wouldn't you rather go for someone else at this point if you honestly wanted to lynch a baddie?

I wanted to lynch a baddie, I second guessed my read on Dex (fail), and I had nothing else -- so I had to make a decision and was willing to go with it.

Thankfully, all of this is pretty much moot now given how Dex flipped, but I wanted to express it nonetheless.

Kate wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Kate, did you ever explain your vote at all? I don't remember seeing a response to my question.

There isn't really much to explain. I had 15 kids at my house when I remembered I had to vote, so I grabbed my phone and looked at the poll. I remembered having some suspicion of Epi from earlier in the day over the grammar, discussion squashing talk and didn't remember having any of snow dog so I voted Epi.

I hadn't read the thread at that time and knew nothing about Snow's self vote. Not sure that would have made a difference, but I'm not positive, if I had time to read it through or not, which I didn't.

I think of that as a successful lynch. I also think that SK or the bartender would also be successful lynches so I'm not unhappy I voted where I did.

Thanks for your elaboration. I just was curious.

Kate wrote:

Vompatti wrote:Also, I'm not buying this:

MovingPictures07 wrote:However, I'm really at a loss. I don't want to vote any of this players because no one is really exhibiting behavior that indicates something strong about their alignment in a seemingly negative way, even though there are some weird decisions and lacks of explanation. But Snow Dog is apparently hellbent on not playing this game, and I can't be bothered to psyche myself out playing WIFOM with myself all day -- it's possible he's playing this whole thing just to screw with all of us just as much as it is that he benefits from being lynched.

votes Snow Dog

I don't know why Snowy would want everyone to know that he cannot be lynched, but assuming that he really cannot be lynched (which seems more likely to me than the opposite) it would be pointless to vote for him unless for some reason you don't want anyone lynched.

Even if there's a slight chance he's pulling a trick on us wouldn't you rather go for someone else at this point if you honestly wanted to lynch a baddie?

Maybe he's just trying to WIFOM us. If he is the role that can't be lynched it would be ridiculous for him to try to get lynched because he's setting himself up for a nk. If he wants votes for some other purpose that we are not privy to, and he is this blatent about it, he is also setting himself up for a nk if he gets them. My theory is that he is trying to appear to want votes so that we will all say "I"m not giving votes to anyone who's asking for them..." and then, he evades lynch. Thoughts on that?

This was exactly what was going through my mind.

Also, I'm wandering randomly because that's what I would totally do in real life.

Mongoose wrote: I chose keep left also. It seems like a scientific-minded thing to do, which I think is your best bet in a big ass haunted hotel or its grounds).

The guy who thinks science has all the answers dies in every horror movie or book ever.
I'm going to wander randomly and hope for good luck.

Incidentally, if we have to lynch somebody, I'd prefer that it was me.

Nevinera wrote:
Incidentally, if we have to lynch somebody, I'd prefer that it was me.

Why?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Nevinera wrote:
Incidentally, if we have to lynch somebody, I'd prefer that it was me.

Why?

Oh god noooo! No more vote mongering!

Also, please elucidate on why

Let's ponder on this RE: the twins.

They have BTSC together -- who hasn't been talking directly to each other in the thread?

Mongoose wrote:Let's ponder on this RE: the twins.

They have BTSC together -- who hasn't been talking directly to each other in the thread?

Very good question. Here's the thing... personally, anyway, I sometimes find it really hard to point out two people that have BTSC, especially this early on in the game, because they can adopt one among several strategies:

1. Avoid talking about each other as a suspicion in thread or responding to each other. Considering we're now on Night 2, this is possible.
2. Avoid talking about each other as a suspicion in thread, but have talked back and forth.
3. Have mentioned each other in passing and talked back in forth.

Sometimes teammates subtly defend one another when being discussed as suspicious, but then do not end up pursuing the votes (putting them off to another lynch), and instead vote for a different of several "suspects" to avoid killing off their own teamie. However, this depends totally on the circumstances AND on the players.

Not only that, but considering both of our lynches thus far and how the roles are set up, I'm not sure it'll be easy to surmise if two players in particular have BTSC. I personally haven't noticed anything. I could do a re-read of Day 2, but it is questionable how helpful it would be.

What might be a better point for suspicions is to figure out who has been exhibiting suspicious behavior and then perhaps make a connection thereafter. It's always easier to catch the other BTSCmate after one has been revealed... or so you would think (sometimes it doesn't quite work out that way).

I do think this is a good point of discussion, though, that being said. But unfortunately I'm not even sure about my reads on most players currently alive at this point. I am intrigued to get some more thoughts going around and discussion bouncing back and forth, however. S~V~S noted that she wasn't getting good feels from Bullz. Any way you can elaborate on this any more, S~V~S, and how strongly (or not) do you feel about this?

I'll have to mull this over and let my thoughts sit. What are you thinking?

I don't see how I was trying to get votes. Day 1 I refused to vote. Eventually voted myself to tie it with Epi.
Day 2 I refused to vote. Eventually voted Zany to save my ass. (Although of all the people he was my top choice for a vote anyway so, happy days)

I never once asked to be lynched or wanted to be.

Snow Dog wrote:I don't see how I was trying to get votes. Day 1 I refused to vote. Eventually voted myself to tie it with Epi.
Day 2 I refused to vote. Eventually voted Zany to save my ass. (Although of all the people he was my top choice for a vote anyway so, happy days)

I never once asked to be lynched or wanted to be.

LOL what?

Snow Dog wrote:Perhaps I will vote. For myself and commit suicide.

Not to mention nearly half of your posts throughout the game thus far are pretty much "I refuse to vote" or something pertaining to not wanting anyone to get lynched.

Not saying it necessarily makes you bad, but can't you at least see that?

Even if not, I won't argue with you on it. What are your current thoughts and/or suspicions?

EBWOP: Your behavior so far this game, Snow, was very much trying to bring on votes. When people say things like what I quoted above and "I refuse to vote" TWO days in a row (you did in fact say it again early on Day 2, despite your insistence otherwise and your subsequent vote), it is just asking for attention, at the least.

Bullz is a very forthright guy, and his remark about the definition of blendiness did not sound like him, tbh. So since I was not wanting to vote Snow since I thought he wanted to get votes, and I did not want to vote Vomp for being Vomp, I voted Bullz to remind him I was looking, and hoping he was nice, normal sane Bullz With my "gotta rush, posting from phone" vote, I did not expect him to get any more votes.

I only skimmed in the few minutes since I got home, will reread and post more in a few after catching up.

Linki~ um, yeah. You seemed to be trying to drum up suspicion, Snow.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Let's ponder on this RE: the twins.

They have BTSC together -- who hasn't been talking directly to each other in the thread?

What might be a better point for suspicions is to figure out who has been exhibiting suspicious behavior and then perhaps make a connection thereafter. It's always easier to catch the other BTSCmate after one has been revealed... or so you would think (sometimes it doesn't quite work out that way).

Can you elucidate a bit on why it is often easier to catch the orphaned twin?

Mongoose wrote:Also, please elucidate on why

MovingPictures07 wrote:Why?

I'm not allowed to explain the specifics, but the bottom line is that being lynched somewhat improves my chance of victory.
And I like winning :-)

S~V~S wrote:Bullz is a very forthright guy, and his remark about the definition of blendiness did not sound like him, tbh. So since I was not wanting to vote Snow since I thought he wanted to get votes, and I did not want to vote Vomp for being Vomp, I voted Bullz to remind him I was looking, and hoping he was nice, normal sane Bullz With my "gotta rush, posting from phone" vote, I did not expect him to get any more votes.

I only skimmed in the few minutes since I got home, will reread and post more in a few after catching up.

Linki~ um, yeah. You seemed to be trying to drum up suspicion, Snow.

Really? I'm actually surprised, an opinion I've always held doesn't sound like me That makes sense though I suppose and I assure you I'm still good old nice normal Bullzeye, sane at least in the context of this game.

FWIW I trust Snow for now after his role hint and will not be voting him despite odd behaviour unless anything comes up to disprove what I think I know.

Okay, I perhaps lied with you on arguing about it... because that's such a ridiculous assertion. Anyway, NOW I've said what I wanted to on the topic. I would appreciate it if you considered the point of view and also give your current thoughts otherwise.

I'll stop posting for now. Lol.

Linki with SVS, thanks for your thoughts!

Linki with Mongoose, lol. Okay, sure. Well, once you have one person lynched, it can be easy to go back and look at votes or posts and make possible assertions regarding who might have had BTSC with that player. Sometimes they can be easier to catch onto than others, again, depending on the circumstances of the game itself (how the roles are set up, complex or straightforward), the progress of the game (what day are we on? the earlier on, the harder it might be to make solid conclusions), the nature of the lynch itself (the closer it was, the more likely the teammate might have avoided throwing the person under the bus), and on the players involved (some are more risky than others). All of that being said, it is easier sometimes in practice and definitively in theory when you have something concrete to work off of to find connections rather than just shooting in the dark. Since we currently don't know who either of the twins is and given the game is on Night 2, the lynches weren't exactly telling as to who the Grady twins might be so far (at least I don't think so, considering we weren't focused on them... unless Snow or someone else similar taking heat is one of them, but I mean more so just thread focus-wise -- we were focused on Stephen King), etc. I personally feel like if I had to throw out a name for either of the twins right now I would be shooting in the dark. I need to think on this some more and maybe do some reading.

One thing I do find notable is that S~V~S and Kate haven't said a word to each other about each other so far this game. What that means I have no idea, but it is kind of interesting. They both can read each other insanely well. I'm sure I could think of other such similar things, but I wouldn't say anything immediately comes to mind as SUSPICIOUS or notable in that sort of way. Just observations that don't really tell much currently. But we still have some more time.

Okay, now I'm out of here. Need to eat and do other things. Be around later.

Holy crap, linki with Nev and Bullz. LOL. Thanks for the explanation, Nev, I realize now you said that earlier as well. I am intrigued. Bullz, your two cents are appreciated as well.

Bullzeye wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Zany Dex wrote:I think we are looking for someone who is being blendy. Looking at the lowest posters after BWT,

Nevinera 7
Bullzeye 8
vompetti 9

All have twice as many posts than BWT though.

There's a difference between low posting and being blendy IMO. Being blendy means to go along with others and not put yourself out there at all while low posting is just not having much to say.

Not gettingthe warm fuzzies from you, Bullz.

On phone @ work, will elaborate later, voting +ullz, don't wanna vote someone who looks to be trying for votes.

Unless it's the fact I've not posted much (which says nothing by itself) I don't see how that can be the case owing to the fact that I've not really had much to say

I have no idea who I want to vote, probably not Snow though for the reasons that others have mentioned.

This ^^

Becasue you are a person who can fool me really smoothly, I need to know where you are in most games, and try to find out early. This reaction makes me feel pretty OK.

Good catch on Dex, (Burn, Stephen King, burn~) any other suspicions? I have more in the way of good feelings than bad, tbh.

Linki~ yeah, you are pretty forthright, but you soften the edges nicely. Feel free to blush

Linki @ MP~ not sure about Kate, but I have seen nothing from her to comment on She and I can tend to get too paranoid about each other, we discussed that after a recent game, and I am trying not to overanalyze her any more than I do anyone else (except Bullz, lol)

MovingPictures07 wrote:Okay, I perhaps lied with you on arguing about it... because that's such a ridiculous assertion. Anyway, NOW I've said what I wanted to on the topic. I would appreciate it if you considered the point of view and also give your current thoughts otherwise.

I'll stop posting for now. Lol.

Linki with SVS, thanks for your thoughts!

Linki with Mongoose, lol. Okay, sure. Well, once you have one person lynched, it can be easy to go back and look at votes or posts and make possible assertions regarding who might have had BTSC with that player. Sometimes they can be easier to catch onto than others, again, depending on the circumstances of the game itself (how the roles are set up, complex or straightforward), the progress of the game (what day are we on? the earlier on, the harder it might be to make solid conclusions), the nature of the lynch itself (the closer it was, the more likely the teammate might have avoided throwing the person under the bus), and on the players involved (some are more risky than others). All of that being said, it is easier sometimes in practice and definitively in theory when you have something concrete to work off of to find connections rather than just shooting in the dark. Since we currently don't know who either of the twins is and given the game is on Night 2, the lynches weren't exactly telling as to who the Grady twins might be so far (at least I don't think so, considering we weren't focused on them... unless Snow or someone else similar taking heat is one of them, but I mean more so just thread focus-wise -- we were focused on Stephen King), etc. I personally feel like if I had to throw out a name for either of the twins right now I would be shooting in the dark. I need to think on this some more and maybe do some reading.

One thing I do find notable is that S~V~S and Kate haven't said a word to each other about each other so far this game. What that means I have no idea, but it is kind of interesting. They both can read each other insanely well. I'm sure I could think of other such similar things, but I wouldn't say anything immediately comes to mind as SUSPICIOUS or notable in that sort of way. Just observations that don't really tell much currently. But we still have some more time.

Okay, now I'm out of here. Need to eat and do other things. Be around later.

Holy crap, linki with Nev and Bullz. LOL. Thanks for the explanation, Nev, I realize now you said that earlier as well. I am intrigued. Bullz, your two cents are appreciated as well.

Thanks so much!

Hedgeowl: If you give a hoot, do you mind voicing your opinion on the twin shenanigans?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Okay, I perhaps lied with you on arguing about it... because that's such a ridiculous assertion. Anyway, NOW I've said what I wanted to on the topic. I would appreciate it if you considered the point of view and also give your current thoughts otherwise.

I'll stop posting for now. Lol.

Linki with SVS, thanks for your thoughts!

Linki with Mongoose, lol. Okay, sure. Well, once you have one person lynched, it can be easy to go back and look at votes or posts and make possible assertions regarding who might have had BTSC with that player. Sometimes they can be easier to catch onto than others, again, depending on the circumstances of the game itself (how the roles are set up, complex or straightforward), the progress of the game (what day are we on? the earlier on, the harder it might be to make solid conclusions), the nature of the lynch itself (the closer it was, the more likely the teammate might have avoided throwing the person under the bus), and on the players involved (some are more risky than others). All of that being said, it is easier sometimes in practice and definitively in theory when you have something concrete to work off of to find connections rather than just shooting in the dark. Since we currently don't know who either of the twins is and given the game is on Night 2, the lynches weren't exactly telling as to who the Grady twins might be so far (at least I don't think so, considering we weren't focused on them... unless Snow or someone else similar taking heat is one of them, but I mean more so just thread focus-wise -- we were focused on Stephen King), etc. I personally feel like if I had to throw out a name for either of the twins right now I would be shooting in the dark. I need to think on this some more and maybe do some reading.

One thing I do find notable is that S~V~S and Kate haven't said a word to each other about each other so far this game. What that means I have no idea, but it is kind of interesting. They both can read each other insanely well. I'm sure I could think of other such similar things, but I wouldn't say anything immediately comes to mind as SUSPICIOUS or notable in that sort of way. Just observations that don't really tell much currently. But we still have some more time.

Okay, now I'm out of here. Need to eat and do other things. Be around later.

Holy crap, linki with Nev and Bullz. LOL. Thanks for the explanation, Nev, I realize now you said that earlier as well. I am intrigued. Bullz, your two cents are appreciated as well.

I guess what I am scared about is that we suspect Person X or Person Y are the twins because we suspect BTSC, but what we are really picking up on is the BTSC rapport between Tony and the kid.

S~V~S wrote: Becasue you are a person who can fool me really smoothly, I need to know where you are in most games, and try to find out early. This reaction makes me feel pretty OK.

Good catch on Dex, (Burn, Stephen King, burn~) any other suspicions? I have more in the way of good feelings than bad, tbh.

Linki~ yeah, you are pretty forthright, but you soften the edges nicely. Feel free to blush

Linki @ MP~ not sure about Kate, but I have seen nothing from her to comment on She and I can tend to get too paranoid about each other, we discussed that after a recent game, and I am trying not to overanalyze her any more than I do anyone else (except Bullz, lol)

Honestly Dex was basically a lucky guess for me. What I said in my back and forth with him was the truth of it: Snow said there were ten minutes to vote, I panicked and voted for someone that I thought there was a half-decent reason to vote for without having thought it through as much as I'd have preferred to do, and it turned out to be one of the best options. I think we're in a similar place right now, I've got good feelings about a couple of players but nobody has seemed particularly evil or insane to me.

Linki Mongoose: Are Tony and the kid two roles? I'd assumed it was just the one, sort of an info-getting deal. The twins role says it's two players whereas the kid's (I can't even remember his name!) doesn't if I recall correctly.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Danny Torrance is his own role. They are listed separately.

Mongoose wrote:Yeah, I'm pretty sure Danny Torrance is his own role. They are listed separately.

Looking at the list Danny is a role but Tony doesn't seem to be

MP, now i am seeing your point, I am not a Grady Twin, or any kind of Grady. I do agree they are baddies, or most likely to be potentially baddies.

And quiet as I have been, I must say i have also not mentioned Dex at all until he died, Bullz until I voted for him, or pretty much anybody, not just Kate. So you may want to do a chart showing all the people who have not mentioned each other before using that as a litmus test, or as an indicator of guilt.

And she reads me better than i read her. Although shotgun voting like she did here is not associated in my mind with Bad kate, who is more careful. Civ Kate is braver that way.

Linki~ did we count the players/roles? I assumed it was 2 roles.

12 players, 12 roles counting Tony and Danny as one, not two.

S~V~S wrote:12 players, 12 roles counting Tony and Danny as one, not two.

Maybe Danny is sort of an info role and 'Tony' is just a game mechanic/storytelling thing? If we don't have an actual Tony role then I'm not sure what else might be the case.

That could be, because in the story, Tony was not an actual corporeal person existing in the present.

S~V~S wrote:That could be, because in the story, Tony was not an actual corporeal person existing in the present.

You know what, I am totally getting the Tony 'character' mixed up with the Dick character.

I did think Tony was a separate role, too, though. Kind of like the twins are one listing, but two roles. So maybe Bullz is right and it is an info sort of role?

Bullzeye wrote:

S~V~S wrote:12 players, 12 roles counting Tony and Danny as one, not two.

Maybe Danny is sort of an info role and 'Tony' is just a game mechanic/storytelling thing? If we don't have an actual Tony role then I'm not sure what else might be the case.

Sorry for not making this clear. Bullz is correct. Tony is just the name I give myself when handing out info to Danny.

Do you live in his mouth?

S~V~S wrote:Do you live in his mouth?

Sometimes

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Do you live in his mouth?

Sometimes

And somehow this thread just got even weirder...

S~V~S wrote:Bullz is a very forthright guy, and his remark about the definition of blendiness did not sound like him, tbh. So since I was not wanting to vote Snow since I thought he wanted to get votes, and I did not want to vote Vomp for being Vomp, I voted Bullz to remind him I was looking, and hoping he was nice, normal sane Bullz With my "gotta rush, posting from phone" vote, I did not expect him to get any more votes.

I only skimmed in the few minutes since I got home, will reread and post more in a few after catching up.

Linki~ um, yeah. You seemed to be trying to drum up suspicion, Snow.

I'll answer both you and MP here. I wasn't trying to drum up suspicion, honest. I was trying to avoid lynching someone I didn't want to without enough evidence. My suicide comment was I thought my best option at the time but on rethinking it I realised it was selfish. That it wasn't all about me. So call that an aberration out of frustration.

This is an odd game. No clear goodies or baddies. Almost everyone is in it for themselves and not a civ win. So every lynch is valid. Even though I am a good character I am a viable vote for some other character.

I just need to find who not to vote for. And I have a person already I will not vote for.

S~V~S wrote:MP, now i am seeing your point, I am not a Grady Twin, or any kind of Grady. I do agree they are baddies, or most likely to be potentially baddies.

.

As I said above. there are no baddies this game. We all seem to have our own win conditions.

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Bullz is a very forthright guy, and his remark about the definition of blendiness did not sound like him, tbh. So since I was not wanting to vote Snow since I thought he wanted to get votes, and I did not want to vote Vomp for being Vomp, I voted Bullz to remind him I was looking, and hoping he was nice, normal sane Bullz With my "gotta rush, posting from phone" vote, I did not expect him to get any more votes.

I only skimmed in the few minutes since I got home, will reread and post more in a few after catching up.

Linki~ um, yeah. You seemed to be trying to drum up suspicion, Snow.

I'll answer both you and MP here. I wasn't trying to drum up suspicion, honest. I was trying to avoid lynching someone I didn't want to without enough evidence. My suicide comment was I thought my best option at the time but on rethinking it I realised it was selfish. That it wasn't all about me. So call that an aberration out of frustration.

This is an odd game. No clear goodies or baddies. Almost everyone is in it for themselves and not a civ win. So every lynch is valid. Even though I am a good character I am a viable vote for some other character.

I just need to find who not to vote for. And I have a person already I will not vote for.

Thanks for explaining your train of thought. I'm not sure I necessarily agree, but your actions make more sense now.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Bullz is a very forthright guy, and his remark about the definition of blendiness did not sound like him, tbh. So since I was not wanting to vote Snow since I thought he wanted to get votes, and I did not want to vote Vomp for being Vomp, I voted Bullz to remind him I was looking, and hoping he was nice, normal sane Bullz With my "gotta rush, posting from phone" vote, I did not expect him to get any more votes.

I only skimmed in the few minutes since I got home, will reread and post more in a few after catching up.

Linki~ um, yeah. You seemed to be trying to drum up suspicion, Snow.

I'll answer both you and MP here. I wasn't trying to drum up suspicion, honest. I was trying to avoid lynching someone I didn't want to without enough evidence. My suicide comment was I thought my best option at the time but on rethinking it I realised it was selfish. That it wasn't all about me. So call that an aberration out of frustration.

This is an odd game. No clear goodies or baddies. Almost everyone is in it for themselves and not a civ win. So every lynch is valid. Even though I am a good character I am a viable vote for some other character.

I just need to find who not to vote for. And I have a person already I will not vote for.

Thanks for explaining your train of thought. I'm not sure I necessarily agree, but your actions make more sense now.

I also wanted to play a bit differently. Stop people having an easy read on me game to game.

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Bullz is a very forthright guy, and his remark about the definition of blendiness did not sound like him, tbh. So since I was not wanting to vote Snow since I thought he wanted to get votes, and I did not want to vote Vomp for being Vomp, I voted Bullz to remind him I was looking, and hoping he was nice, normal sane Bullz With my "gotta rush, posting from phone" vote, I did not expect him to get any more votes.

I only skimmed in the few minutes since I got home, will reread and post more in a few after catching up.

Linki~ um, yeah. You seemed to be trying to drum up suspicion, Snow.

I'll answer both you and MP here. I wasn't trying to drum up suspicion, honest. I was trying to avoid lynching someone I didn't want to without enough evidence. My suicide comment was I thought my best option at the time but on rethinking it I realised it was selfish. That it wasn't all about me. So call that an aberration out of frustration.

This is an odd game. No clear goodies or baddies. Almost everyone is in it for themselves and not a civ win. So every lynch is valid. Even though I am a good character I am a viable vote for some other character.

I just need to find who not to vote for. And I have a person already I will not vote for.

Thanks for explaining your train of thought. I'm not sure I necessarily agree, but your actions make more sense now.

I also wanted to play a bit differently. Stop people having an easy read on me game to game.

See, I get this. I haven't won nearly as many mafia games as people would think, considering how many I've played. In fact, my win to lose ratio is pretty bad.

However, it really annoys me when people do really counterproductive things like self-voting and refusing to participate at all in order for it to be hard for people to read them. Like, when you're going out of your way and start ruining the basic etiquette of the game so that no one can read you in the future instead of helping out your fellow civvies (assuming the person is civ; if they're bad, then they're just being a ridiculous baddie), then that's where the line is crossed, but that's just my opinion. Not even saying you did that, but your self-vote on D1 and your comments saying you were refusing to vote seemed to dance around that line for a bit there.

I still don't know what your intentions are this game, but I appreciate that you're willing to engage us in it, instead of coping out.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Bullz is a very forthright guy, and his remark about the definition of blendiness did not sound like him, tbh. So since I was not wanting to vote Snow since I thought he wanted to get votes, and I did not want to vote Vomp for being Vomp, I voted Bullz to remind him I was looking, and hoping he was nice, normal sane Bullz With my "gotta rush, posting from phone" vote, I did not expect him to get any more votes.

I only skimmed in the few minutes since I got home, will reread and post more in a few after catching up.

Linki~ um, yeah. You seemed to be trying to drum up suspicion, Snow.

I'll answer both you and MP here. I wasn't trying to drum up suspicion, honest. I was trying to avoid lynching someone I didn't want to without enough evidence. My suicide comment was I thought my best option at the time but on rethinking it I realised it was selfish. That it wasn't all about me. So call that an aberration out of frustration.

This is an odd game. No clear goodies or baddies. Almost everyone is in it for themselves and not a civ win. So every lynch is valid. Even though I am a good character I am a viable vote for some other character.

I just need to find who not to vote for. And I have a person already I will not vote for.

Thanks for explaining your train of thought. I'm not sure I necessarily agree, but your actions make more sense now.

I also wanted to play a bit differently. Stop people having an easy read on me game to game.

See, I get this. I haven't won nearly as many mafia games as people would think, considering how many I've played. In fact, my win to lose ratio is pretty bad.

However, it really annoys me when people do really counterproductive things like self-voting and refusing to participate at all in order for it to be hard for people to read them. Like, when you're going out of your way and start ruining the basic etiquette of the game so that no one can read you in the future instead of helping out your fellow civvies (assuming the person is civ; if they're bad, then they're just being a ridiculous baddie), then that's where the line is crossed, but that's just my opinion. Not even saying you did that, but your self-vote on D1 and your comments saying you were refusing to vote seemed to dance around that line for a bit there.

I still don't know what your intentions are this game, but I appreciate that you're willing to engage us in it, instead of coping out.

I am sorry you feel that way. And in a normal mafia game with a normal mafia team to combat I doubt I would behave so extremely. But the nature of this game, I though at least, allowed for it.

Or maybe I'm just playing with you still and I'm unlynchable.

Regarding the poll, I'd like to think if I was lost in a maze I'd do something smart like keep left, and maybe I'd even start out doing that, but honestly I'd probably end up just wandering aimlessly, or cheating and forcing my way through the hedges but that isn't an option so I guess I have to vote for the random wandering.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
One thing I do find notable is that S~V~S and Kate haven't said a word to each other about each other so far this game. What that means I have no idea, but it is kind of interesting. They both can read each other insanely well. I'm sure I could think of other such similar things, but I wouldn't say anything immediately comes to mind as SUSPICIOUS or notable in that sort of way. Just observations that don't really tell much currently. But we still have some more time.

I think she said she liked my avatar

Seriously though, how do you read someone in this game? Isn't it all kind of dumb luck? I don't really have an opinion on her because I can't tell her affiliation because from the way the game is explained she doesn't really have one, nor does anyone else. Here's my official read: I think she's a player with a role. I haven't seen any indication that she has a partner, and if she does, its not me. I am not a Grady twin. I don't want to be lynched.