The Syndicate

I'm voting for Thebe who consorted with Zeus and had an ancient Greek City and a Jupiter moon named after her.

Europa was calling to me so I picked that one

Katharina Henot wrote:I have no info and I love an underdog. Not sure if I'll be around when the poll closes. so I'm going with thebe

Likewise.

Voted Ganymede to keep it a five horse race.

Well... they were all tied a second ago but looks like Brita might have had the same idea as me

TIES YAY

TIES BOO

I like everything all even stevens as well.

I wanted to vote Thebe but I missed the poll by a few minutes.

The quest for the third of the Deathly Hallows has ended. The participation was a tad low, but we were expecting that. Thank you to all those who showed interest and submitted their brilliant works.

After careful deliberation, we've reached a verdict. The winner of the Cloak of Invisibility is the author of the following piece of work:
(also, the power went out as I was posting this! Zupah :\)

Night 2

Which one of Jupiter's Moons has more impact on your life?

Poll ended at Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:39 am

Io
4
Krystyna Ceynowa (3), Anna Koldings (8), Margaret Pearson (10), Rebecca Nurse (19)
20%

Europa
3
Barbara Kollerin (5), Märet Jonsdotter (9), Entjen Gillis (14)
15%

Ganymede
4
Sarah Good (4), Alice Nutter (7), Brita Zippel (16), Jane Southworth (17)
20%

Callisto
4
Anne Redferne (2), Karin Svensdotter (6), Malin Matsdotter (12), Mary Eastey (18)
20%

Thebe
3
Katharina Henot (11), Margarethe Reinberg (13), Jennet Bierley (15)
15%

Sailor Moon (Hosts/Mod/Deadies)
2
Lizzy (1), Roxy (20)
10%
Total votes : 20

This is an outrage.

wait... there was a quest? i missed the first post about that :0

oh... invisible text... brilliant :0

Katharina took what she thought would be her last look at Hogwarts and turned to into the growing gloom of the forest. She kept playing the recent events over and over in her mind, like a toddler who knows how to press play on the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse dvd menu screen. Katharina knew she couldn't stay at school, it had become far too dangerous.

Shivering as she held her wand high to see the path in front of her, she came to a sudden halt. An unnatural chill seemed to fill the air, filling Katharina with a sense of unease. The light from her wand, which had only moments ago been able to dispel the growing gloom of nightfall, now seemed completely ineffective at piercing the encroaching darkness. Katharina could only take a few small, tentative steps forward when her fear erupted to a blinding panic.

Without another thought, she turned and bolted back towards the castle, tripping and ripping her way through the underbrush, unsure of what or why she was running from. Just as the trees were thinning out, Katharina's foot caught a tree root and she fell hard. Her wand, who's light had been her only small comfort up until now, flew from her hand as she attempted to catch herself, and flickered out. Katharina immediately started scrambling around the forest floor, picking through fallen branches and leaves, desperate to regain the small piece of mind she still had when her fear suddenly swelled to a crescendo. The air around her seemed to turn to ice, petrifying her and killing all hope she would ever see light or anything happy again. Sudden, terrible realization dawned as she began to succumb to final, crippling despair.

The dementor wasted no time and began to feed on its victim, hovering just above Katharina's cowering body. Katharina's strength gave out, but her luck had not. As she fell onto her back, her hand fell on a familiar stick. Katharina summoned the remainder of her will and flailed her wand at the air above her.

"EXPECTO PATRONUM"

She was just able to stay conscious long enough to see a cloud of silver explode over her, finally illuminating the black veiled figure as it retreated back into the depths of the woods.

Katharina Henot has survived a kill attempt by Voldemort and the Death Eaters.

it's now Day 3, you have 48 hours to lynch someone.

glad no one died. Fair warning guys I won't have Internet access for about 24 hours. sorry players and hosts! <3

"But my bad insanivid ... ...."

1

Sorry sis, what was that? Say again?

"Oaesdgrjni Sapphire "

2

Nice to see no one died.





I did a quick reread and this stood out to me a lot. A lot of fear mongering. Eessentially saying that about 1/4 of the civvies could defect to the Death Eaters.

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:I think some people are looking at things wrong. I also think at least one of you is doing it intentionally.

The Malfoys are not good people, and while Draco is currently listed as what some may be inclined to think of as 'civvies', the header only says 'Students'. As has been pointed out, there are no win conditions posted.

Voldemort and team have the only NK, assuming the Teachers are baddies as a result is, for anyone familiar with the story, absurd (Snape being a possible exception). Those roles (and Voldemorts Army for that matter) do not have stated BTSC. I believe the VA do, but I am somewhat doubtful the teachers do.

In my opinion, it is likely Lucius is a recruiter, specifically trying to find Draco and bring him (and perhaps all, or some of, Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy) into the fold, either with VA, or as a second and related group. Alternately, I can see him being a traitor role to the VA, which is what I am hopeful of, but in a game this size with the numbers being what they are, the way I see it that is unlikely.

As for Agnes, she survived a lynch, but maintained suspicion. I am of the opinion she was not Harry Potter, because we know Voldemort has Horcruxes in play, and therefore I expect that role to survive at least a single NK. I think targeting her, with the reasonable assumption the protector would not use (important to note they are limited in this game) it on her, was to check and see if she was indeed HP. Since she died, her being Harry is unlikely, and I believe VA know it to not be the case because I think Voldemorts role includes information on the Horcruxes.

As for her actual role, there are still two roles (Justin and Cho), that I am quite confident are what we can consider to be civvie that could explain her D1 survival, she could have been a teacher (and therefore imo probably, although we have no guarantee, civvie aligned), or she could have been Draco or Crabbe, in which case, as far as I'm concerned, we might still be better off without her. Or her survival could have been a result of a prize from D0, although at this point with all the role possibilities for lynch survivals, I'm inclined to doubt that.

As for useful information, Mary, Bridget, and Entjen, based on posts since D2 started, are the candidates for my vote as of now. Between the three of them, I think there is some intentional misinformation being spread, and while I seriously doubt more than one of them is VA, I do expect I will be voting for one of them today. Hopefully further discussion (and host clarifications, I'm interested to know if we'll get explicit win conditions, but if we do I would have follow up questions) will make it more clear which of the three I should go with.

Märet Jonsdotter wrote: I did a quick reread and this stood out to me a lot. A lot of fear mongering. Eessentially saying that about 1/4 of the civvies could defect to the Death Eaters.

"It's very true."

3

Mary Eastey wrote:

Märet Jonsdotter wrote: I did a quick reread and this stood out to me a lot. A lot of fear mongering. Eessentially saying that about 1/4 of the civvies could defect to the Death Eaters.

"It's very true."

3

What does this mean?

Yeah, sister Mary. Do give a well-detailed, elaborate explanation

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:

Mary Eastey wrote:"So, if they are a baddie team, why don't they have an NK? And what about the fact that they are each head of houses, and all of the students are evenly divided between the houses? That has to mean something, right?"

This is speculation, but I think each of the teachers can recruit someone from their house to their team. They have to search for them every night. So yes, they may not have an NK, but I think that they could probably lower the amount of civvies drastically.

Those numbers don't make any sense. If every teacher recruited someone, and they are baddies, that would result in 12 baddies total. You're pushing things that aren't likely. Mafia teams have kills. You use not knowing the teachers alignment as a reason they are bad, but we don't have the alignment for any role, and there are no grounds to believe the teachers are bad (once again, I'd say Snape is a possible exception, perhaps some kind of solo baddie).

We KNOW that Lucius is searching for Draco each night. We don't know what happens if he finds him, but we do know neither he or Draco are anything that could be considered good people, and Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy are worse. You're trying to force role alignments that are consistent with a standard layout, not alignments that make real sense, and not alignments that are supported by what little we do have to go on.

She literally says that somehow, civvies are worse. If this isn't fear mongering, I don't know what is.

Big time.

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:

Mary Eastey wrote:"So, if they are a baddie team, why don't they have an NK? And what about the fact that they are each head of houses, and all of the students are evenly divided between the houses? That has to mean something, right?"

This is speculation, but I think each of the teachers can recruit someone from their house to their team. They have to search for them every night. So yes, they may not have an NK, but I think that they could probably lower the amount of civvies drastically.

Those numbers don't make any sense. If every teacher recruited someone, and they are baddies, that would result in 12 baddies total. You're pushing things that aren't likely. Mafia teams have kills. You use not knowing the teachers alignment as a reason they are bad, but we don't have the alignment for any role, and there are no grounds to believe the teachers are bad (once again, I'd say Snape is a possible exception, perhaps some kind of solo baddie).

We KNOW that Lucius is searching for Draco each night. We don't know what happens if he finds him, but we do know neither he or Draco are anything that could be considered good people, and Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy are worse. You're trying to force role alignments that are consistent with a standard layout, not alignments that make real sense, and not alignments that are supported by what little we do have to go on.

She literally says that somehow, civvies are worse. If this isn't fear mongering, I don't know what is.

Big time.

Except it's been confirmed that teachers are independents, not baddies. So unless you want to tell me you think a game with 20 non baddies vs. 4 baddies makes sense, then more have to have that potential, and Slytherin has a history of being evil (Point in case: all 4 baddies were).

That's not fear-mongering, that's the reality of the situation, if you don't want to accept it, than that's on you.

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:
We KNOW that Lucius is searching for Draco each night. We don't know what happens if he finds him, but we do know neither he or Draco are anything that could be considered good people, and Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy are worse.

Except it's been confirmed that teachers are independents, not baddies. So unless you want to tell me you think a game with 20 non baddies vs. 4 baddies makes sense, then more have to have that potential, and Slytherin has a history of being evil (Point in case: all 4 baddies were).

That's not fear-mongering, that's the reality of the situation, if you don't want to accept it, than that's on you.

....you literally said that Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy-- roles to which we have zero confirmed indication that are recruitable (we have that indication on Draco) are worse than Lucius.

A Person wrote:Night 2

While the actual post will be posted later, Katharina Henot has survived a kill attempt by Voldemort and the death eaters.

it's now Day 3, you have 48 hours to lynch someone.

Hey now! That wasn't nice.

I'm happy that no one died.

1

Rebecca Nurse wrote:Yeah, sister Mary. Do give a well-detailed, elaborate explanation

"Rebecca MOM!"

4

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:
We KNOW that Lucius is searching for Draco each night. We don't know what happens if he finds him, but we do know neither he or Draco are anything that could be considered good people, and Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy are worse.

Except it's been confirmed that teachers are independents, not baddies. So unless you want to tell me you think a game with 20 non baddies vs. 4 baddies makes sense, then more have to have that potential, and Slytherin has a history of being evil (Point in case: all 4 baddies were).

That's not fear-mongering, that's the reality of the situation, if you don't want to accept it, than that's on you.

....you literally said that Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy-- roles to which we have zero confirmed indication that are recruitable (we have that indication on Draco) are worse than Lucius.

"I completely agree, maybe things will vote accordingly."

5

Quiet day so far. Where is everyone?

I'm checking in occasionally, waiting for Krystyna's response regarding why s/he said Crabbe, Goyle and Pansy were worse than Lucius or Draco. I was hoping s/he would have responded by now.

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:
We KNOW that Lucius is searching for Draco each night. We don't know what happens if he finds him, but we do know neither he or Draco are anything that could be considered good people, and Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy are worse.

Except it's been confirmed that teachers are independents, not baddies. So unless you want to tell me you think a game with 20 non baddies vs. 4 baddies makes sense, then more have to have that potential, and Slytherin has a history of being evil (Point in case: all 4 baddies were).

That's not fear-mongering, that's the reality of the situation, if you don't want to accept it, than that's on you.

....you literally said that Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy-- roles to which we have zero confirmed indication that are recruitable (we have that indication on Draco) are worse than Lucius.

Go read the books and tell me they aren't.

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:

Märet Jonsdotter wrote: ....you literally said that Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy-- roles to which we have zero confirmed indication that are recruitable (we have that indication on Draco) are worse than Lucius.

Go read the books and tell me they aren't.

Maybe in the thread you should differentiate what you're getting from the books versus what are you deducing from the thread. Not all of us have read all the books so can't tell where you're getting you're info unless you specify.

Katharina, who do you think might have tried to kill you last night?

Krystyna, do you believe that Draco and the other Slytherin students are baddies, or do you just want us to be wary of the possibility they could be? What do you think of your vote for Bridget yesterday, now that we know her role? Do you stand by your reasoning?

Jennet Bierley wrote:Quiet day so far. Where is everyone?

What are your thoughts today, Jennet?

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:
We KNOW that Lucius is searching for Draco each night. We don't know what happens if he finds him, but we do know neither he or Draco are anything that could be considered good people, and Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy are worse.

Except it's been confirmed that teachers are independents, not baddies. So unless you want to tell me you think a game with 20 non baddies vs. 4 baddies makes sense, then more have to have that potential, and Slytherin has a history of being evil (Point in case: all 4 baddies were).

That's not fear-mongering, that's the reality of the situation, if you don't want to accept it, than that's on you.

....you literally said that Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy-- roles to which we have zero confirmed indication that are recruitable (we have that indication on Draco) are worse than Lucius.

Go read the books and tell me they aren't.

Yes, because every Mafia game bases itself purely on the books. By this logic, Snape-- along with the rest of the professors-- are secret civvies.

Honestly, Crabbe accidentally kills himself, and Ron and Hermione save Goyle. Yes, in the books they end up being pretty shitty, but saying they're worse than a devoted Death Eater that only really regretted it because Voldemort didn't hold him in high regards anymore is pretty weird.

Jane Southworth wrote:Katharina, who do you think might have tried to kill you last night?

Krystyna, do you believe that Draco and the other Slytherin students are baddies, or do you just want us to be wary of the possibility they could be? What do you think of your vote for Bridget yesterday, now that we know her role? Do you stand by your reasoning?

Jennet Bierley wrote:Quiet day so far. Where is everyone?

What are your thoughts today, Jennet?

You know, I've been trying to figure out who I could have ticked off but my mind is kinda drawing a blank. I voted for sarah yesterday and mary easty day 1 but neither of those two players were ever in much danger of actually being lynched.

I'm wondering if I was targeted specifically because it's harder to draw connections to the death eaters as far as "who would try to kill you?" If that makes sense at all?

Jane Southworth wrote:Katharina, who do you think might have tried to kill you last night?

Krystyna, do you believe that Draco and the other Slytherin students are baddies, or do you just want us to be wary of the possibility they could be? What do you think of your vote for Bridget yesterday, now that we know her role? Do you stand by your reasoning?

Jennet Bierley wrote:Quiet day so far. Where is everyone?

What are your thoughts today, Jennet?

I think that Draco, at least, is recruitable, and I think the other 3 are more likely to have the potential of being anti-civvie than any of the professors (once again, with Snape being a possible exception).

I think she wanted votes, and intentionally got lynched pulling a move that shouldn't be used by civvies. I think it was a poor civvie play that was always going to end in her lynch, and I think she knew that. Why, when as a civ RBer she was one of the few roles that had the potential to help lockdown the baddie NK (there is no nightly protect that we know of. the cloak could do it moving forward, but we do not know that), she would have made that play, I have no idea, but then, I don't think that play ever makes sense for a civ to pull, so that doesn't help.

Bridget being a civvie was always a possibility, I just wasn't convinced that it was likely, and even though she was, she was not doing anything that was going to help civvies. Intentionally getting yourself lynched as a civvie so that people who vote for you because you decided to act like a baddie then get lynched as well, is a terrible idea, and I'll always take the risk of lynching a person who pulls it, because even as a civvie I don't want them around hurting the civvie chance of winning the game. So yes, I stand by my vote, and I'll vote the exact same way in every situation like it in future games, because it is behavior that results in the game not being fun. I'd go so far as to say the only thing worse than a non-participant is a participant intentionally pulling crap like that that they should know is going to hurt their team. If and when I'm lynched, then lets face it, whatever reasons people give, the Bridget result will be a large reason for votes (whether directly or indirectly. I said things that would also get votes because of Bridget, and wouldn't have been said if D2 hadn't been a waste of time because of her), the thing people should keep in mind is that the play Bridget made, supposedly to help the civvies, is responsible for it.

Question about big book/movie spoiler for anyone that has read/seen them all:

Why do people keep saying Snape could be bad? I thought he was a shifty-acting guy that ended up being good and saving the day in the last book? I'm expecting him to be a very powerful good guy in this game.

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:

Jane Southworth wrote:Katharina, who do you think might have tried to kill you last night?

Krystyna, do you believe that Draco and the other Slytherin students are baddies, or do you just want us to be wary of the possibility they could be? What do you think of your vote for Bridget yesterday, now that we know her role? Do you stand by your reasoning?

Jennet Bierley wrote:Quiet day so far. Where is everyone?

What are your thoughts today, Jennet?

I think that Draco, at least, is recruitable, and I think the other 3 are more likely to have the potential of being anti-civvie than any of the professors (once again, with Snape being a possible exception).

To clarify, that wasn't he point I made. I made the point that the professors would essentially be civvies by your reasoning. In addition, Goyle and Pansy both do not have secrets. Draco and Crabbe do. Why the insistence that they are all the same? What do you "know"? I would imagine roles with secrets would have more potential to be bad than roles without, however, you say that two roles without secrets are worse than a confirmed, full out, baddie. Riddle me that.

Rebecca Nurse wrote:Question about big book/movie spoiler for anyone that has read/seen them all:

Why do people keep saying Snape could be bad? I thought he was a shifty-acting guy that ended up being good and saving the day in the last book? I'm expecting him to be a very powerful good guy in this game.

Because sometimes people who are likable or ultimately good need to be bad for the sake of balance. I do not personally advocate such speculation, but I find it far less suspicious than speculation that Pansy and Goyle (especially) are "worse" than a team of baddies.

Rebecca Nurse wrote:Question about big book/movie spoiler for anyone that has read/seen them all:

Why do people keep saying Snape could be bad? I thought he was a shifty-acting guy that ended up being good and saving the day in the last book? I'm expecting him to be a very powerful good guy in this game.

Dumbledore isn't a role, so things there could play out differently.

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:

Jane Southworth wrote:Katharina, who do you think might have tried to kill you last night?

Krystyna, do you believe that Draco and the other Slytherin students are baddies, or do you just want us to be wary of the possibility they could be? What do you think of your vote for Bridget yesterday, now that we know her role? Do you stand by your reasoning?

Jennet Bierley wrote:Quiet day so far. Where is everyone?

What are your thoughts today, Jennet?

I think that Draco, at least, is recruitable, and I think the other 3 are more likely to have the potential of being anti-civvie than any of the professors (once again, with Snape being a possible exception).

To clarify, that wasn't he point I made. I made the point that the professors would essentially be civvies by your reasoning. In addition, Goyle and Pansy both do not have secrets. Draco and Crabbe do. Why the insistence that they are all the same? What do you "know"? I would imagine roles with secrets would have more potential to be bad than roles without, however, you say that two roles without secrets are worse than a confirmed, full out, baddie. Riddle me that.

Rebecca Nurse wrote:Question about big book/movie spoiler for anyone that has read/seen them all:

Why do people keep saying Snape could be bad? I thought he was a shifty-acting guy that ended up being good and saving the day in the last book? I'm expecting him to be a very powerful good guy in this game.

Because sometimes people who are likable or ultimately good need to be bad for the sake of balance. I do not personally advocate such speculation, but I find it far less suspicious than speculation that Pansy and Goyle (especially) are "worse" than a team of baddies.

"To clarify, that wasn't he point I made. I made the point that the professors would essentially be civvies by your reasoning. In addition, Goyle and Pansy both do not have secrets. Draco and Crabbe do. Why the insistence that they are all the same? What do you "know"? I would imagine roles with secrets would have more potential to be bad than roles without, however, you say that two roles without secrets are worse than a confirmed, full out, baddie. Riddle me that. "

I do think the professors are essentially civvies, or at least 3 out of the 4.

And you are wrong, Draco has no secrets stated in his role. If he has no marked secrets, but Lucius is searching for him and therefore a role that does have secrets has some kind of interaction with at least one role that has no marked secrets. Therefore, that same role, or others, could have interaction with any other role (for example, I think it is highly likely that even though Harry has no marked secrets, that there is interaction between that role and Voldemort's because of Voldemort's secrets).

Once again, I will point you to the numbers of the game.

We know the teachers are independents, and what makes the most sense is that they are all or mostly some kind of civ-friendly indy.

Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, and Ravenclaw students are all trustworthy, imo.

That's 12 students + 3 or 4 teachers that I think are civ or civ-aligned, 15 or 16 out of 24 roles total.

It seems likely to me that Lucius either recruits Draco to the deatheaters when he checks him, or he finds Draco and then betrays his team.

If he recruits Draco to VA, that still only gives us 5 baddies. 19v5 still doesn't seem right to me. But lets say Snape is less predictable than that, and make it 18v5v1. Better, but I'm not convinced yet. So yes, of the 3 remaining, I expect at least one of them would go with Draco, or then become recruitable after Draco was. 17v6v1 maybe. Maybe the teachers can only with students from their house, but my problem there is, while yes, it is easy to look up, only some student roles specify which house they are from, so for people not familiar with the books or movies, if that's what the teachers win conditions were, I at least would have put the house each student is in in every single role to keep those things straight for those people. Since that isn't the case, I don't think that's the most likely win condition of the teachers, so I'm willing to trust more than 1 of them.

So, lets say of the 16 students, 2 of them are recruitable, Draco and one other Slytherin. Crabbe is the only one with secrets, so maybe it's him and he knows it. But if it's one of the other 2 (or Draco/Lucius/the team as a whole get to choose which of them to recruit when Draco is), they presumably wouldn't even know they can be recruited. Because of all of that, all 4 of those roles concern me, because I don't know that their intentions line up with mine, whereas I am comfortable saying that students and (most) teachers do probably have the same intentions, hunting down VA.

Because of all that, yes, I want Voldemort, Bellatrix, Dolohov, and Lucius dead the most, but if we lynch any of the Slytherin students, specifically Draco, then that will be at the very least a neutral result in my view.

I'm hoping we won't go after the Slytherin students until we know for sure, but I think a neutral + result is a good way to look at it, indeed.

I think it is reckless and irresponsible to assume evil on the part of the Slytherin students. It is not the Hogwarts spirit. The sorting hat and the professors never assumed that Slytherins were automatically bad in the books. It would be unfair for us to do so now.

Malin Matsdotter wrote:I think it is reckless and irresponsible to assume evil on the part of the Slytherin students. It is not the Hogwarts spirit. The sorting hat and the professors never assumed that Slytherins were automatically bad in the books. It would be unfair for us to do so now.

Actually, during the Battle for Hogwarts, Slytherin students are not brought in to fight with the rest of the school, and put with the young students, because they are not trusted. During that entire year, they also help the Death Eater's that were put in charge of the school torture other students.

Krystyna Ceynowa wrote:

Malin Matsdotter wrote:I think it is reckless and irresponsible to assume evil on the part of the Slytherin students. It is not the Hogwarts spirit. The sorting hat and the professors never assumed that Slytherins were automatically bad in the books. It would be unfair for us to do so now.

Actually, during the Battle for Hogwarts, Slytherin students are not brought in to fight with the rest of the school, and put with the young students, because they are not trusted. During that entire year, they also help the Death Eater's that were put in charge of the school torture other students.

This is racism of the Slytherin people! Dumbledore is always for us, he is an asshole!

6

I thought it was already cleared up that the students were civvies?

A Person wrote:Also, the only group that had btsc initially was the baddie team. Whether anything has changed, who can say?

I'm not sure why there is still this much debate going on?

damn wrong quote.

anyways I feel like this is distracting from talking about who is suspicious.

@Hosts, with Alizon replaced, are you still looking to replace any other players?

I think we have a baddie team with at least some players lying low, so I want to look at missed votes.

Missed D1: Merga Bien; Alizon Device; Märet Jonsdotter; Kael Merrie; Karin Svensdotter
Missed D2: Merga Bien, Alizon Device, Entjen Gillis, Anna Koldings, Rebecca Nurse, Margaret Pearson, Anne Whittle

Merga has missed both votes, posted only 4 times. The first 2 posts were fluff, the third was apologizing for not being around much and a vote, the fourth was saying she would be around even less for the next few days (was made D2), but would then be back. So that's a pass until D4 for me to give her a chance to follow through with being around more.

Alizon has been replaced now, and can't be lynched today.

The rest of the missed votes are one time missers. I'm less concerned with a missed vote D1 than I am D2, so that brings me to people who missed the vote D2. Will go through the rest as the are listed.

Entjen: To start, her last post said she'll be gone for a day, so I guess I shouldn't expect a response for a while. Anyways:

This post: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 664#p57664, seems very inconsistent to me.

In the first bit she wrote, she says, "Read through everything. I haven't had time to go back through the roles and everything to find the explanation that some seem to be eluding to. I don't have the roles memorized yet so it takes me a bit of back and forth to get a grasp on what is going on." So there's difficulty keeping things straight, fair enough, in a sock game.

But, in the same post she was responding to:

Jane said to Entjen, "So now you don't want to read back to find your own suspicions because... because you interpreted my post as snarky? The intention of my post was to better understand where you were coming from and which things were important to you and why they were important to you. But if all you saw was snark, and a chance to try and twist it around into suspicion of me, and an excuse to not go back and sort through your own suspicions... well that's your prerogative I guess. But I was simply trying to understand your thoughts."

The response is, "Ok here is why it seemed snarky to me. You take a couple of sentences of mine then at the bottom put something like "so to recap" you don't remember anything and the like. I fail to see why anyone needs to "recap" a couple sentences with a couple more. Everyone is fairly capable of reading them themselves.
It does scream of snark to me, and it's not that I don't want to sort through my own suspicions but when I take something as snarky I'd rather not try to sort through the posts at that time."

Now, here's my problem. What is a role description? A couple of sentences. What did Entjen say before? "I don't have the roles memorized yet so it takes me a bit of back and forth to get a grasp on what is going on."

Alright, so when another person wants to keep something straight because it's difficult to keep track of everything, that is snark. When Entjen has the same problem, it's ok? Keep in mind, you a bit further back, there's more from Entjen about how she is having trouble keeping track of things (posts/names, the same stuff Jane decided to recap in order to help herself remember as far as I can tell).

Now, go further back: Does anyone else see the snark that Entjen did? Because I don't. That seems like trying to make up some suspicion built around nothing to me. Strike 1.


Moving backwards, to Day 1, we have this:

Entjen Gillis wrote:

Agnes Sampson wrote:

Entjen Gillis wrote:I voted Agnes. Had to vote now :/ sorry. I'm far from confident about her, but i don't like some of her responses this past day
and better you then me

Your responses leave something to be desired as well. Plus you are not reading when I say I WILL NOT BE LYNCHED:

I guess you thought nothing of lets say Bridget for jumping on your post and voting me? I ill guess not.

I'm not sure why I should trust you when you say you won't be lynched. I don't know your role, and what am I supposed to do anyways... Just let myself get lynched instead? I know I am a civvie, I can't say the same for you.

I plan on looking at everyone who jumped on all sides of this discussion. And the ones who didn't contribute for that matter. There is more than one baddie to find.

The second part of her response bothers me. So much of what she says tends towards being direct, but this isn't. I suppose it seems to me like a way to avoid talking about Bridget or any other player specifically, and keeping things in broad strokes.

Going forward again from D1, there was the early D2 stuff where she expresses her surprise at Agnes being NKed, pushes the idea of the teachers being a proper baddie team, and in general discusses things that are not suspicions or useful to tracking down a player to vote for.

But then she says (in this post: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 539#p57539): "There is a lot of discussion going on, but it's a lot about roles and little about the players. We still got some time this day but I know I need to start figuring out who I think it most suspicious now. This is all very distracting :P".

Now, she is right the discussion had not been about players, but in that same post, her first thought was, "Really we do need to be given some win conditions. Because I'm not even sure what the purpose of the game is at this point. What do we do "

So she isn't sure who she be looking for, because she has no conditions, but she also wants us to stop trying to figure out what the conditions are find someone suspicious, but without having actual grounds for considering them suspicious apparently? I'm going to go ahead and call that Strike 2.

And then, after all that, we get:

Entjen Gillis wrote:damn everyone I am really sorry for missing the vote. I don't even know who I would have voted for in the end. I don't know why I thought I had more time then I had

I really don't like that. Not only are you shrugging off responsibility for missing the vote, you aren't even adding to the discussion (which you previously complained about) to say where your vote would have gone had you bothered to vote. That's Strike 3.

In the interest of keeping things to a readable size, I'm going to come back to the remainder of the Day 2 non-voters if looking at them I find anything more compelling than all this.

But, looking at it all together, I think Entjen is bad. There is a great deal of placing responsibility on other people while taking none herself, complaining about things but participating in them almost exclusively anyways, and there's just this lack of consistency in how she is posting that, and this is admittedly is all gut, makes me think she has BTSC, and sometimes we're seeing her post while discussing outside the thread, and sometimes we're seeing just her quick thoughts that aren't going through the BTSC filter.

Linki: Ah, and speak of the devil, while I putting this together she returned. And posted more things that go right along with what I find concerning about her.