The Syndicate

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Sloonei acting like my "if they're not all bad who is the replacement baddie" question was confusing is a bad look knowing that Scotty was the secured kill during that final hour.

Sloonei wrote:Well that answers that question. Voting Glorfindel. Feeling fairly confident that Dom is one of his teammates. But then he's got another teammate.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Well that answers that question. Voting Glorfindel. Feeling fairly confident that Dom is one of his teammates. But then he's got another teammate.

What do you think we should do with this night kill choice? It's one thing to avoid me for fear of the protector; it's another thing to kill a guy that was being called a baddie by numerous people.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Well that answers that question. Voting Glorfindel. Feeling fairly confident that Dom is one of his teammates. But then he's got another teammate.

What do you think we should do with this night kill choice? It's one thing to avoid me for fear of the protector; it's another thing to kill a guy that was being called a baddie by numerous people.

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'm so sorry I missed the lynch vote. I expected to be able to get on this afternoon. But my uncle died today. And, to further complicate life, it's my cousin's Bar Mitzvah this weekend (said uncle's grandson). So, yeah--life is interesting.

I see the lynch as inconclusive. G-Man said earlier that we cannot infer anything from the language of survival and that it won't necessarily be consistent. So...yeah. I don't have any deeper thoughts at the moment.

I'm sorry for your loss

I do not think G-man said we can't infer anything from his posts. I think he said the opposite of that. All he said was that there won't be any major game mechanic reveals in his host posts like there were in Red vs. Blue, the earlier game I was referencing. After that, though, he confirms that there will be some information passed into the thread from these posts:

G-Man wrote:

Sloonei wrote:While we're on the subject of G-man's posts, I want to bump this post for fear that it's going to get buried:

Sloonei wrote:Something to keep in mind in this game will be G-Man's host posts. In his last game, Red vs. Blue, be made it clear that his story posts were not just there for flavor, but that they included real hints about the game and we were able to peace together some key game mechanics by analyzing them. That is something we should be keeping an eye out for in this game as well. I've not caught anything yet but if anyone else comes up with anything, shout it out.

Red vs. Blue was unique in that it was a closed setup. That allowed me to reference the secret mechanics that only certain roles knew about. In this game, all relevant mechanics are laid bare and there are no secret components to any roles. Night posts are more about flavor now than they were for RvB but there is some info to be gleaned from them. Probably not as much as you're speculating but there are and will be a few nuggets.

And I think the two failed lynches we've just seen reflect exactly that. INH's failed lynch featured a narrative about a lawyer entering a courtroom and persuading the jury not to convict him (Exactly what Silvertongue's role would do). Glorfindel's featured a rigged hanging mechanism and a chaotic survival, exactly what you'd expect from a baddie role that survives a lynch. I was confident INH was saved by Silvertongue, and now I am damn near positive that Glorfindel was one of the two survival roles.

G-Man wrote:

LoRab wrote:As I've said, we do not know that failed kills/non-lynches are written differently. I also realize we haven't asked the host. So:

@GMan: In this gme, are failed lynches because a player survives the first kill attempt written differently than a lynch being stopped by silvertongue? Similarly, are failed night kills written the same or differently, based on protection, block, or survival of first death attempt?

I reserve the right to be as specific or vague in each lynch and night post as I choose to be.

Dom wrote:I'm not bad but I honestly don't even care at this point.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:I'm not bad but I honestly don't even care at this point.

Why don't you care?

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:I'm not bad but I honestly don't even care at this point.

Why don't you care?

Non game reasons. I don't have the energy or desire to mount a defense. Lynch me if you want it might end the game

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:I'm not bad but I honestly don't even care at this point.

Why don't you care?

Non game reasons. I don't have the energy or desire to mount a defense. Lynch me if you want it might end the game

Will you at least respond to some of the questions that have been addressed to you?

Dom wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:I'm not bad but I honestly don't even care at this point.

Why don't you care?

Non game reasons. I don't have the energy or desire to mount a defense. Lynch me if you want it might end the game

Will you at least respond to some of the questions that have been addressed to you?

I guess. Could you just point them out to me?

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:I'm not bad but I honestly don't even care at this point.

Why don't you care?

Non game reasons. I don't have the energy or desire to mount a defense. Lynch me if you want it might end the game

Will you at least respond to some of the questions that have been addressed to you?

I guess. Could you just point them out to me?

I've asked you to clarify your suspicions of myself and Quin in more objective, less emotional language. I know you have explained it before, but I am not understanding the conclusions you are coming to or where you're drawing them from, and I would appreciate some help figuring it out.

Also if you're not bad then 2 of the remaining players after Glorfindel are bad. Which two? GTH reads are fine if that's all you are up for.

Dom wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:I'm not bad but I honestly don't even care at this point.

Why don't you care?

Non game reasons. I don't have the energy or desire to mount a defense. Lynch me if you want it might end the game

Will you at least respond to some of the questions that have been addressed to you?

I guess. Could you just point them out to me?

I've asked you to clarify your suspicions of myself and Quin in more objective, less emotional language. I know you have explained it before, but I am not understanding the conclusions you are coming to or where you're drawing them from, and I would appreciate some help figuring it out.

Also if you're not bad then 2 of the remaining players after Glorfindel are bad. Which two? GTH reads are fine if that's all you are up for.

I'll respond to the second part later.
My suspicion of you was rooted in your not listening to me, but I think since we've come to a greater understanding. I was nervous and suspicious of you because I wanted questions answers and I perceived you as not answering and holding different people to different standards.
Quinn is rooted in his mistruths about the origins of his suspicion of me. He began it with a falsehood. He has found reasons to continue it. He's more concerned with being right than lynching a baddie.

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'm so sorry I missed the lynch vote. I expected to be able to get on this afternoon. But my uncle died today. And, to further complicate life, it's my cousin's Bar Mitzvah this weekend (said uncle's grandson). So, yeah--life is interesting.

I see the lynch as inconclusive. G-Man said earlier that we cannot infer anything from the language of survival and that it won't necessarily be consistent. So...yeah. I don't have any deeper thoughts at the moment.

I'm sorry for your loss

I do not think G-man said we can't infer anything from his posts. I think he said the opposite of that. All he said was that there won't be any major game mechanic reveals in his host posts like there were in Red vs. Blue, the earlier game I was referencing. After that, though, he confirms that there will be some information passed into the thread from these posts:

G-Man wrote:

Sloonei wrote:While we're on the subject of G-man's posts, I want to bump this post for fear that it's going to get buried:

Sloonei wrote:Something to keep in mind in this game will be G-Man's host posts. In his last game, Red vs. Blue, be made it clear that his story posts were not just there for flavor, but that they included real hints about the game and we were able to peace together some key game mechanics by analyzing them. That is something we should be keeping an eye out for in this game as well. I've not caught anything yet but if anyone else comes up with anything, shout it out.

Red vs. Blue was unique in that it was a closed setup. That allowed me to reference the secret mechanics that only certain roles knew about. In this game, all relevant mechanics are laid bare and there are no secret components to any roles. Night posts are more about flavor now than they were for RvB but there is some info to be gleaned from them. Probably not as much as you're speculating but there are and will be a few nuggets.

And I think the two failed lynches we've just seen reflect exactly that. INH's failed lynch featured a narrative about a lawyer entering a courtroom and persuading the jury not to convict him (Exactly what Silvertongue's role would do). Glorfindel's featured a rigged hanging mechanism and a chaotic survival, exactly what you'd expect from a baddie role that survives a lynch. I was confident INH was saved by Silvertongue, and now I am damn near positive that Glorfindel was one of the two survival roles.

I was actually referring to this post:

G-Man wrote:

LoRab wrote:As I've said, we do not know that failed kills/non-lynches are written differently. I also realize we haven't asked the host. So:

@GMan: In this gme, are failed lynches because a player survives the first kill attempt written differently than a lynch being stopped by silvertongue? Similarly, are failed night kills written the same or differently, based on protection, block, or survival of first death attempt?

I reserve the right to be as specific or vague in each lynch and night post as I choose to be.

Which I think does say that we can't really infer anything.

Anyway, I am way too tired and slightly drunk after a night of Bar Mitzvah-ing, to think through much of anything. While I still have personal doubts about Glorf, I think that's fairly irrelevant at this point, because his lynch seems like a done deal. I do think we should be thinking beyond this lynch, though.

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm not bad but I honestly don't even care at this point.

Why don't you care?

Non game reasons. I don't have the energy or desire to mount a defense. Lynch me if you want it might end the game

Will you at least respond to some of the questions that have been addressed to you?

I guess. Could you just point them out to me?[/quote
I've asked you to clarify your suspicions of myself and Quin in more objective, less emotional language. I know you have explained it before, but I am not understanding the conclusions you are coming to or where you're drawing them from, and I would appreciate some help figuring it out.

Also if you're not bad then 2 of the remaining players after Glorfindel are bad. Which two? GTH reads are fine if that's all you are up for.

I'll respond to the second part later.
My suspicion of you was rooted in your not listening to me, but I think since we've come to a greater understanding. I was nervous and suspicious of you because I wanted questions answers and I perceived you as not answering and holding different people to different standards.
Quinn is rooted in his mistruths about the origins of his suspicion of me. He began it with a falsehood. He has found reasons to continue it. He's more concerned with being right than lynching a baddie.

What was this falsehood and how has he continued it?

Dom wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:I'll respond to the second part later.
My suspicion of you was rooted in your not listening to me, but I think since we've come to a greater understanding. I was nervous and suspicious of you because I wanted questions answers and I perceived you as not answering and holding different people to different standards.
Quinn is rooted in his mistruths about the origins of his suspicion of me. He began it with a falsehood. He has found reasons to continue it. He's more concerned with being right than lynching a baddie.

What was this falsehood and how has he continued it?

He started his suspicion of me based on Mac suspecting me (he didn't).
He found reasons to continue to suspect me.

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:I'll respond to the second part later.
My suspicion of you was rooted in your not listening to me, but I think since we've come to a greater understanding. I was nervous and suspicious of you because I wanted questions answers and I perceived you as not answering and holding different people to different standards.
Quinn is rooted in his mistruths about the origins of his suspicion of me. He began it with a falsehood. He has found reasons to continue it. He's more concerned with being right than lynching a baddie.

What was this falsehood and how has he continued it?

He started his suspicion of me based on Mac suspecting me (he didn't).
He found reasons to continue to suspect me.

In this context is unfair of you to dismiss everything else Quin has to say about you as "finding reasons to continue" suspecting you. What are those reasons he found? It sounds to me like he based his initial suspicion off of a dubious claim but it has since become something else. That is not something I would scum read a person for, at least not on the surface of it.

Dom wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:I'll respond to the second part later.
My suspicion of you was rooted in your not listening to me, but I think since we've come to a greater understanding. I was nervous and suspicious of you because I wanted questions answers and I perceived you as not answering and holding different people to different standards.
Quinn is rooted in his mistruths about the origins of his suspicion of me. He began it with a falsehood. He has found reasons to continue it. He's more concerned with being right than lynching a baddie.

What was this falsehood and how has he continued it?

He started his suspicion of me based on Mac suspecting me (he didn't).
He found reasons to continue to suspect me.

In this context is unfair of you to dismiss everything else Quin has to say about you as "finding reasons to continue" suspecting you. What are those reasons he found? It sounds to me like he based his initial suspicion off of a dubious claim but it has since become something else. That is not something I would scum read a person for, at least not on the surface of it.

I do not feel good about him. I think he is looknig for reasons I am bad rather than looking for baddies.

Dom wrote:I don't E gen know what to do. My suspects keep getting NKd

Dom wrote:SNIPPED

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm warming to the notion of Quin being bad. I'll explain later.

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm warming to the notion of Quin being bad. I'll explain later.

Please.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It should also be noted that Epignosis has done almost nothing over the last few days.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm warming to the notion of Quin being bad. I'll explain later.

Please.

Your voting record is arguably more uninspiring than anyone else's. You've been so focused on Dom for the last two or three day phases that it has left you less involved with other conversations. I agree with him on some level that your communication with him has been restrictive and closed.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It should also be noted that Epignosis has done almost nothing over the last few days.

Noted.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It should also be noted that Epignosis has done almost nothing over the last few days.

Noted.

Who's bad?

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm warming to the notion of Quin being bad. I'll explain later.

Please.

Your voting record is arguably more uninspiring than anyone else's. You've been so focused on Dom for the last two or three day phases that it has left you less involved with other conversations. I agree with him on some level that your communication with him has been restrictive and closed.

I don't think you can determine whether my voting record is good or bad when we haven't flipped a baddie since Eloh. We can come back to that when Glorf flips.

Quin wrote:Which conversations do you think I've been less involved with? As far as I remember I've been more involved in conversation than most people.

Quin wrote:My communication has been no means restrictive. I'm consistently giving him cues to engage with me in some aspect of conversation. Rehashing my case against him so he has something to talk about. He has chosen not to. That does nothing to quell my suspicion, and if it gives you the impression I'm being restrictive, you need to have another look.

Epignosis wrote:Glorfindel. I said that already.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Glorfindel. I said that already.

Assume he already flipped bad. Who are the other two on his team?

Separately, if he isn't bad, who is?

Epignosis wrote:as you've noted, I haven't done anything.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It should also be noted that Epignosis has done almost nothing over the last few days.

Noted.

Who's bad?

Glorfindel. I said that already.

Epignosis wrote:Has Glorfindel ever voted for a teammate? I can't recall a time he's ever done that.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Quin wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm warming to the notion of Quin being bad. I'll explain later.

Please.

Your voting record is arguably more uninspiring than anyone else's. You've been so focused on Dom for the last two or three day phases that it has left you less involved with other conversations. I agree with him on some level that your communication with him has been restrictive and closed.

I don't think you can determine whether my voting record is good or bad when we haven't flipped a baddie since Eloh. We can come back to that when Glorf flips.

I didn't say "bad". I said "uninspiring". That's because of your tendency to park your vote on players who aren't likely lynches. It could be stubbornness, or it could be evasion. We've had this conversation before in other games. It doesn't make you bad, but it's a convenient strategy when you are bad.

Quin wrote:Which conversations do you think I've been less involved with? As far as I remember I've been more involved in conversation than most people.

Instead of answering this I'll just give you some prompts.

1. Who are the two baddies other than Dom?
2. Which three players do you believe are least likely to be bad? Why?

1. Glorfindel and Epignosis. Glorfindel is either Jim Goose or Cundalini, and I think he's the latter, and Epignosis is a matter of my own PoE.

2. You and INH are cleared as far as I'm concerned. The host posts and INH's voting behaviours lead me to that conclusion. LoRab would be my third, the associations that Wilgy pointed out involving the relationship between her and Eloh do indicate that they are not teammates. Dom's argument furthers that opinion.

I would like you to answer the question I asked, pending you have the time.

Quin wrote:My communication has been no means restrictive. I'm consistently giving him cues to engage with me in some aspect of conversation. Rehashing my case against him so he has something to talk about. He has chosen not to. That does nothing to quell my suspicion, and if it gives you the impression I'm being restrictive, you need to have another look.

It's a matter of perception. Of course you don't think it has been restrictive. You're you.

My posts have cues to continue the dialogue. They are there, anyone could pick them up. Ironically, you think my case has been restrictive, yet you're entertaining Dom's case which is a regurgitation of 'he lied' even though I've already countered it.