The Syndicate

Matt wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Matt wrote:Holy crap, I think my theory is full of it. Just looked over the polls, and I didn't realize there was a tie in the last Night poll, so we have no idea which won.

I'm seeing position 4 getting 8 votes to position 5 getting 7 votes, unless I need to clean my eyesockets.

Uh really? I'm seeing them both get 6 votes. Is it possible the entire poll isn't showing up on my screen?

lolololololololo

trust da sheetman, man

That's kind of messed up.

For Simon and Gar, I have MM, DH, Boom, BR, Llama, and Niju

For Thelma and Louise, I have Golden, Mac, Dom, Epig, Juliets, and 3J.

Who am I missing? And why doesn't it show everyone if I'm missing people???

So you expected to see question curse happen again, because of position 4, but instead we have Tranq posting Brangelina stuff (except in replies to me....). Is the question curse actually a random curse? Is Tranq faking it?

Also, what the hell, civvie peeps, voting position 4 again... Just because zebra died shouldn't mean it's off-limits....

Matt wrote:That's kind of messed up.

For Simon and Gar, I have MM, DH, Boom, BR, Llama, and Niju

For Thelma and Louise, I have Golden, Mac, Dom, Epig, Juliets, and 3J.

Who am I missing? And why doesn't it show everyone if I'm missing people???

You should... open image in a new tab...?

Sim and Barf: MM, DH, BOOM, BR, LLM, DRAC, SORS, NINJ

Thelma and Louise: GOLD, MAC, DOM, EPIG, JUL, JJJ and bloody you!!!!

Matt wrote:That's kind of messed up.

For Simon and Gar, I have MM, DH, Boom, BR, Llama, and Niju

For Thelma and Louise, I have Golden, Mac, Dom, Epig, Juliets, and 3J.

Who am I missing? And why doesn't it show everyone if I'm missing people???

The poll screencap I posted in the poll thread shows the entire vote. Perhaps it is your monitor? I looked at it on my phone, and on my work computer and I could see it both ways.

I'm confused. Help me out here, Rico.

Day 3.0 was when Boomslang was question cursed, correct? So he would've had to have been cursed on Night 2, and the position on Night 2 would've depended on the poll for Night 1, correct?

Argh. I don't even know if what I'm saying makes sense.

Also, does anyone know why the complete polls might not be showing up for me? Cuz really, I frequently look at polls in games and I'd like to fix this lol.

Linki - That's weird. And Lol @ me voting Thelma and Louise.

Matt wrote:I'm confused. Help me out here, Rico.

Day 3.0 was when Boomslang was question cursed, correct? So he would've had to have been cursed on Night 2, and the position on Night 2 would've depended on the poll for Night 1, correct?

Argh. I don't even know if what I'm saying makes sense.

Also, does anyone know why the complete polls might not be showing up for me? Cuz really, I frequently look at polls in games and I'd like to fix this lol.

Linki - That's weird. And Lol @ me voting Thelma and Louise.

Well, I'm lost. Walk me through your story. When did you challenge or expected Boom to be cursed? When did Boom post question-cursey-like posts or responded to your challenge or whatevs. Correct...I think. Yeah, if you are cursed on N2 (and hence post like a cursedman on D3)and the curse is a position power, it means the ability to curse was determined by the N1 polls.

"Open image in a new tab". Did. you. try. it.

Cool shit, Rico, thanks. That worked!

Who knows how many incorrect polls I've been looking at since I came back for Talking Heads?

So, on the Night 1 poll, option 5 won thus position 5 would've been used on Day/Night 2 against Boomslang for Day 3.0 if the question curse is a position power. Have we had any other position 5 day/nights?

Holy crap!

So the Night 2 poll, position 5 won again. Therefore the position for Day/Night 3 would've been 5 again, thus someone should be cursed with questions today, on Day 4, right?

Maybe my theory is still intact! Too bad I had to mention it before the last three non-posters posted, though.

If Wilgy, bea, and motel all post today with statements in their posts, I'm moving my vote back to Boomslang.

Matt wrote:Cool shit, Rico, thanks. That worked!

Who knows how many incorrect polls I've been looking at since I came back for Talking Heads?

So, on the Night 1 poll, option 5 won thus position 5 would've been used on Day/Night 2 against Boomslang for Day 3.0 if the question curse is a position power. Have we had any other position 5 day/nights?

Position 5 won N2 poll as well, so D3.0 was a position 5er.

Not sure if that translates into Night 3 being a position 5er, because of the two-Day sequence. Confusing use of numbers is confusing.

Here's what I think of JJJ's Llama-Dom post.

Lorab did defend Dom and accuse Llama surrounding the "suspish" comment. This may indicate a baddie teammate in Dom, but I think it's more likely to be a buddying attempt with Dom because he's not on her team.

As for Llama, the sprinkled distancing is thick enough to mean something.

Like I said, I'd go for Llama. I'm not so convinced that Dom is bad. We just have to drink to the good times and hope, my friend.

Linki: My theory says Night 2 was on Position 1. The facts state that Lorab controlled the Position that night, so we don't know which Position we were in.

Oh snap. Does that mean Lorab controlled the verdict on the Night 2 poll to pick her own position for Day/Night 3? So maybe there shouldn't be a question curser today.

I still think it's odd that Boomslang, of all people, kind of took a poke at my "Super Secret Theory", but I suppose I'll chalk that up to coincidence.

Ok, I have to study, so here is a walkthrough of the nightpoll/position situation, if taken at face value:

Night 0 was an "any other position" situation for any position power (see Zebra's role, clarified).
Night 0, position 4 won
Day 1 and Night 1, position 4 enabled
Night 1, position 5 won
Day 2 and Night 2, position 5 enabled
Night 2, position 5 won, BUT we already mislynched two civilians, so it's highly likely LoRab forced a position; due to Kubrick's reveal, it's susceptible she forced position 1
Day 3.0, position ? enabled
--- Day 3.5, no position enabled? (speculating here)---
Night 3 (ugh), position 4 won
Day 4, position 4 enabled

When I return from studying, I want suggestions on what my 5K post should be. Don't worry, it'll be disappointingly bland or normal, but you can afford to dream.

Matt wrote:Oh snap. Does that mean Lorab controlled the verdict on the Night 2 poll to pick her own position for Day/Night 3? So maybe there shouldn't be a question curser today.

I still think it's odd that Boomslang, of all people, kind of took a poke at my "Super Secret Theory", but I suppose I'll chalk that up to coincidence.

I thought at first that you were making it all up in order to flush some baddies out somehow. Seemed like an interesting plan, fun to try. Maybe you should look at Boomslang's poke in that light - if he believed there was something to it...? That might be far-fetched though, and coloured by the fact that I already suspect him. It's really nothing new.

Ricochet wrote:When I return from studying, I want suggestions on what my 5K post should be. Don't worry, it'll be disappointingly bland or normal, but you can afford to dream.

Tell us your favorite fruit.

Long Con wrote:Like I said, I'd go for Llama. I'm not so convinced that Dom is bad. We just have to drink to the good times and hope, my friend.

At face value I think llama has been more suspicious, and there's a more overt connection to be observed between he and LoRab than there is with Dom. So I agree. Some have asserted that they could both be baddies, but I think this is unlikely given LoRab's treatment of them. It looks to me like an attempt to buddy Dom (and make him look bad after her flip) while distancing from llama. It reminds me a lot of the MacDougall/DrWilgy dynamic from Talking Heads, when Mac pretended to pursue Doc's lynch as a manner of distancing and protected Diiny in the process (not his team mate).

I can only vaguely understand why some people have labeled Tranq as a top suspect. Here's my concern with him as the lynchee:

Entering this phase and in it's earliest hours there were at least two significant cases in discussion (Long Con's against me and mine against llama/Dom). If a baddie team wants to evade those cases (from your perspectives you can freely include the case against me, from mine it's distinctly the llama/Dom case), then who could be an easier guy to bandwagon than Lurker King Tranq? These are being labeled as "pressure votes", but I find myself doubting they all really are -- they're meant to stay there through the buzzer.

If Tranq is bad then I grant this is patently wrong. I just don't think there's much of a case against Tranq -- only annoyance at his post count.

I think lynching Tranq has a good chance of taking out a baddie as well. I'm just saying this to spur on Tranq, it's not my real feelings. It's not time to lynch a lurker yet. Soon though. It's got to be sure.His behaviour is similar to other times I have seen him bad - he likes to plot behind the scenes more than hang out in the thread.

The tally deadline is in 5 hours and I'm going to be asleep in about 3. C'mon y'all get this thread moving. Even if Tranq gets lynched, let's not allow the baddies to have the night off. This is where the pressure is supposed to happen.

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Okay, caught up. I'm still feeling bad about DH, so I am placing my vote there for now, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if anyone has the inclination to.

This reads like a bunch of nothing. You already concluded D3.5 by place a left-field vote, based of vibes, which completely extinguished four previous days (two Day phases) of cases, debates, leads you made or had. Now, your "catching up" = "nothing happened, voting vibes again".

Who would you vote for if you could, and why?

I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.

Matt wrote:Thanks Sorsha/Llama. And haha, no not this time Sorsha

Wilgy and Tranq - please post, thank you!

No

thellama73 wrote:I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.

I might agree with you regarding DH. If you understand the case on you, does that mean you also understand how it applies to Dom? With that in mind, what do you think of Dom?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:When I return from studying, I want suggestions on what my 5K post should be. Don't worry, it'll be disappointingly bland or normal, but you can afford to dream.

Tell us your favorite fruit.

Clementines.

WOWIE 5K!!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I can only vaguely understand why some people have labeled Tranq as a top suspect. Here's my concern with him as the lynchee:

Entering this phase and in it's earliest hours there were at least two significant cases in discussion (Long Con's against me and mine against llama/Dom). If a baddie team wants to evade those cases (from your perspectives you can freely include the case against me, from mine it's distinctly the llama/Dom case), then who could be an easier guy to bandwagon than Lurker King Tranq? These are being labeled as "pressure votes", but I find myself doubting they all really are -- they're meant to stay there through the buzzer.

If Tranq is bad then I grant this is patently wrong. I just don't think there's much of a case against Tranq -- only annoyance at his post count.

Not only that.

D1: Rico (hi )
D2: Sig
D3: pileup on LoRab
D3.5: FZ, simply at my request
D4 so far: requesting me to tell him again who to vote for

Long Con wrote:I think lynching Tranq has a good chance of taking out a baddie as well. I'm just saying this to spur on Tranq, it's not my real feelings. It's not time to lynch a lurker yet. Soon though. It's got to be sure.His behaviour is similar to other times I have seen him bad - he likes to plot behind the scenes more than hang out in the thread.

Funny thing is, on mobile, your attempt is fail, because I could see the whole thing without having to quote it.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Okay, caught up. I'm still feeling bad about DH, so I am placing my vote there for now, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if anyone has the inclination to.

This reads like a bunch of nothing. You already concluded D3.5 by place a left-field vote, based of vibes, which completely extinguished four previous days (two Day phases) of cases, debates, leads you made or had. Now, your "catching up" = "nothing happened, voting vibes again".

Who would you vote for if you could, and why?

You. You have an entire quote of mine there, as to why.

thellama73 wrote:I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.

What do you not understand about "the case of Tranq"?

Ricochet wrote:Not only that.

D1: Rico (hi )
D2: Sig
D3: pileup on LoRab
D3.5: FZ, simply at my request
D4 so far: requesting me to tell him again who to vote for

Werd, it's not the best voting behavior. I have to ask though: does Tranq give a flying eff who he votes for? If the answer is no, is that a baddie trait? WIFOM I guess. I'm just used to seeing baddies give some fraction of a crap.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Not only that.

D1: Rico (hi )
D2: Sig
D3: pileup on LoRab
D3.5: FZ, simply at my request
D4 so far: requesting me to tell him again who to vote for

Werd, it's not the best voting behavior. I have to ask though: does Tranq give a flying eff who he votes for? If the answer is no, is that a baddie trait? WIFOM I guess. I'm just used to seeing baddies give some fraction of a crap.

Why wouldn't it, in theory, suit a baddie to not give a crap who to vote for, if they have a good window for it? (such as playing the "intentional ambiguous card" or, say, "the Vompatti code of play")

Ricochet wrote:Why wouldn't it, in theory, suit a baddie to not give a crap who to vote for, if they have a good window for it? (such as playing the "intentional ambiguous card" or, say, "the Vompatti code of play")

Well yeah, I guess Vompatti does exist. I also just remembered my baddie team mate in the Champs Tournament Finale (Zack) doing basically nothing but exist and vote randomly before he was replaced. So there is some precedent.

I don't think it's the best case on the table. He'll get lynched eventually though.

I also have reservations about the ease with which these 5 votes have landed on Tranq, and the last two are from players I don't have much trust for.

If, somehow, the civ performance dips, I don't think later will be a better moment to test out if Tranq is suited with bull or not. I don't believe in FZ.'s "last baddie standing" method, either, obviously. Not saying I'm 100% of the belief this EoD should be all about Tranq - my percentage is [Secrets] - but yeah.

Ricochet wrote: What do you not understand about "the case of Tranq"?

I don't understand why people think he's bad.

LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA

THELLAMA73

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.

I might agree with you regarding DH. If you understand the case on you, does that mean you also understand how it applies to Dom? With that in mind, what do you think of Dom?

I didn't miss this, JJJ! I was going back to read a little before responding. Just give me a second.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA

THELLAMA73

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.

I might agree with you regarding DH. If you understand the case on you, does that mean you also understand how it applies to Dom? With that in mind, what do you think of Dom?

Okay, I haven't really paid much attention to either Lorab or Dom this game. I admit that I missed Lorab's baddieness when others saw it. I wish I had seen it too. My interactions with Dom, as far as I remember, mainly consist of him vaguely suspecting me and me trying to rebut. This is memory, though, so I may be missing something.

A lot of people have focused on my use of the word "suspish". I don't remember using it, but okay. I get why some people might feel that I picked it up from a teammate and it's a slip, but I'll remind you that I have played a lot of mafia games here and have heard a loit of varied language. I certainly picked it up from somewhere, but it wasn't this game, because - spoiler alert - I have no teammates this game.

It's certainly possible that Dom is bad. Lynch him if you like. But I am keeping my vote on DH for now.

thellama73 wrote:Okay, I haven't really paid much attention to either Lorab or Dom this game. I admit that I missed Lorab's baddieness when others saw it. I wish I had seen it too. My interactions with Dom, as far as I remember, mainly consist of him vaguely suspecting me and me trying to rebut. This is memory, though, so I may be missing something.

A lot of people have focused on my use of the word "suspish". I don't remember using it, but okay. I get why some people might feel that I picked it up from a teammate and it's a slip, but I'll remind you that I have played a lot of mafia games here and have heard a loit of varied language. I certainly picked it up from somewhere, but it wasn't this game, because - spoiler alert - I have no teammates this game.

It's certainly possible that Dom is bad. Lynch him if you like. But I am keeping my vote on DH for now.

I don't think the word "suspish" is remotely suspicious on its own power. But I do think it's interesting that confirmed baddie made the conscious decision to treat you and Dom very differently for the same silly thing -- that word. I think she blatantly exposed one of you two as her team mate. If it's not you then it must be Dom. Do you find my reasoning faulty?

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote: What do you not understand about "the case of Tranq"?

I don't understand why people think he's bad.

Why don't you think he's bad for why people think he is?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Addressing the top part of Dom's post, I lol'd.

Me too.

Sorry Dom, I didn't even notice the dark red text.

It's okay.

thellama73 wrote:I didn't miss this, JJJ! I was going back to read a little before responding. Just give me a second.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA LLAMA

THELLAMA73

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I don't really understand the case on Tranq. I understand the case on me, but I disagree with it. So I'm voting the person I think is bad. Sue me.

I might agree with you regarding DH. If you understand the case on you, does that mean you also understand how it applies to Dom? With that in mind, what do you think of Dom?

Okay, I haven't really paid much attention to either Lorab or Dom this game. I admit that I missed Lorab's baddieness when others saw it. I wish I had seen it too. My interactions with Dom, as far as I remember, mainly consist of him vaguely suspecting me and me trying to rebut. This is memory, though, so I may be missing something.

A lot of people have focused on my use of the word "suspish". I don't remember using it, but okay. I get why some people might feel that I picked it up from a teammate and it's a slip, but I'll remind you that I have played a lot of mafia games here and have heard a loit of varied language. I certainly picked it up from somewhere, but it wasn't this game, because - spoiler alert - I have no teammates this game.

It's certainly possible that Dom is bad. Lynch him if you like. But I am keeping my vote on DH for now.

Why did you not comment on JJJ's case?

wtf I totally didn't say llama is suspish for picking suspish out of the baddie chatbox.

Frankly, if llama thinks my case is "you said the word 'suspish'", and he claimed to understand that case...

Then I rest my case.

Baddies right now:

juliets said earlier that Tranq's quiet start to this game reminded her of his town game in AWR (prior to his conversion/resurrection). I decided to investigate.

Tranq - A World Reborn

On one hand, juliets is right that Tranq did not post very much during his town lifespan. Through four days and nights, he posted around 10-15 times. That's very comparable to his productivity in this game. Then when he was resurrected to a different faction, his posting rate jumped significantly and he finished the game with over 200 posts.

That's not the best indicator for this lynch. However, I will say that though his post count was low, the content of those posts was definitely thicker in AWR than it has been in this game. He seemed to give half a crap in that game, which is half a crap more than he has given in this one.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Through four days and nights, he posted around 10-15 times.

Actually it was 31 times. My eyeball guessing needs work.

I'm here. Sorry, was really busy this day phase. Not sure the next will get better.

Going to catch up

JJJ what do you make of llama's Day 3.1 vote for LoRab? Between llama and Dom, who do you think is more likely to be LoRab's teammate? Do you think both of them are?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Baddies right now:

For some reason, if I'd imagine someone in that chair, the way he's playing, it'd be Wilgy.

Tranq wrote:JJJ what do you make of llama's Day 3.1 vote for LoRab? Between llama and Dom, who do you think is more likely to be LoRab's teammate? Do you think both of them are?

He voted for LoRab on Day 3.0. I don't think it counts for much because his vote came before the flood of late voters made her a truly viable lynch. At the time of llama's vote it was not a likely result. On Day 3.5 he voted for DharmaHelper.

I don't think both Dom and llama are. I think LoRab treated them the way she did specifically because only one of them is her team mate. It was a mistake on her part, but we have to decide whether it was Dom or llama that was exposed. I think llama is more suspicious and more connectable to LoRab than Dom is. Nobody has given me any reason to believe my reasoning might be off on this case, and I can't think of one that satisfies me. So I'm as confident as I could reasonably hope to be right now that my vote is in the right place.
I'm terrified.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Through four days and nights, he posted around 10-15 times.

Actually it was 31 times. My eyeball guessing needs work.

I'm inclined to change my vote but I'm not sure yet to who. Maybe llama but I want to re-read him first.