The Syndicate

Absalom wrote:

Paul wrote:miss me?

Always.

i am glad i am making friends here

Paul, your list is people you say are not scum hunting. What do you think of the very low posters, like Pilate or Mary Magdelene? They are not scum hunting either.

Absalom wrote:Paul, your list is people you say are not scum hunting. What do you think of the very low posters, like Pilate or Mary Magdelene? They are not scum hunting either.

hmmm hard to say

less posts less content to judge

at least the people I named have been posting and shown they are here but still do not scum hunt

so my list is sort of arbitrary but it is d1 so you know it is hard to rank everyone especially with this many players

plus sometimes i like to focus on certain players more so to see how not only they respond but also other people

i also realize that scum can actively scum hunt like lot but i am not feeling any of those cases atm

i have already made my vote today it will be interesting to see how everyone talks and votes

i know i talk a lot (lol) but i try not to unless i have a reason to so you know i really do not think i have anything else to add atm

d2 will be more fun

wake me when d2

Trust me, when I have something to say I'll say it.

Paul wrote: wake me when d2

Why, do you not have a good night power to use?

Uzziah wrote:

Rahab wrote:

Uzziah wrote:I'm rooting for the scum.

Oh yeah?

Yeah.

Wifom. No one knows your meta so there's no reason to do it. Which means you have something to hide. I wouldn't mind lynching uzziah. Plus, as someone pointed out, maybe the horsemen voted apocalypse. Uzziah voted that way and I wouldn't be sad to see one leave if that were the case.

Absalom how am I backing down from it? I was clarifying a post. I'm still me darling whether is makes people annoyed or not hunny.

And Paul no one else really made me feel super strong enough Day 1 at that point to vote or talk about yet. Day 1s are always slow to start hunny.
Although, at this point I still want to vote Paul but I do think Uzziah's comment sounds like he's hinting to be a Horseman rather than Heathen. He has pretty big balls hunny to announce he's Heathen like that otherwise.

Balaam wrote:I bear no grudge against Paul at the moment, but the ruthless, unfeeling player in me thinks the best way to deal with an aggressive fisher like Paul is to put him to the test. Let's take him up on his three suspects and lynch one of them. He seems fairly confident that they are bad (though he threw up a smoke screen about not being 100% on anything). We can always call his bluff. If we lynch one of his top three and they're not bad, either Paul will cool it with the gunslinger rhetoric or the rest of us will know to take his words with a grain of salt.

What else do we really have to go on?

Hoooooo boy does this post raise some flags for me. it sounds like you know paul's 3 suspects aren't heathens so youre gonna help him lynch one so you can discredit his gut later.

Balaam wrote:For better or worse, I am an empirical observer. I don't care about pings and feelings. Nor do engage in "forcing it" as Paul has done. I simply wait for people to expose themselves to me. This occurs through patterns in voting, process of elimination, and patterns of defensive and supportive behavior in the thread. If I survive past Night 3, I'll let you know what I've come up with.

Cool sooo you're going to observe for the first three lynches and let everybody else do the hard work.. then join the fray once you've collected a bunch of ammunition on everybody
Got it
Whales love this tactic because if we don't find a heathen early they can run the show and turn on the Lord's disciples for the mistakes they've made
In a sock game I have no reason to trust that this is really how you play and I hope you don't do it. Play the game from the start.

Uzziah wrote:I'm rooting for the scum.

hi Vompatti *waves*

Mary Magdalene wrote:Oh wow, this is really hard. I'm not used to the avatars or names and I tried a quick catch up but my eyes are bleeding. It's hard to remember who posted what. I think I missed Samsons reasoning for his vote so I guess I'll start there.

Samson wrote:I am also voting for Samuel.

There are actually many female-identified socks in this game.

I guess I didn't miss it, it seems to not exist. Samson can you please explain why? Right now it just looks like you are coat-tailing.

Props for finding the easiest thing in the thread to question. You said this is where you were gonna start but it looks like its also where you ended. is there nothing else you want to discuss mary?

Martha wrote:Absalom how am I backing down from it? I was clarifying a post. I'm still me darling whether is makes people annoyed or not hunny.

And Paul no one else really made me feel super strong enough Day 1 at that point to vote or talk about yet. Day 1s are always slow to start hunny.
Although, at this point I still want to vote Paul but I do think Uzziah's comment sounds like he's hinting to be a Horseman rather than Heathen. He has pretty big balls hunny to announce he's Heathen like that otherwise.

Why would somebody hint that they're a horseman

Mary Magdalene wrote:Oh wow, this is really hard. I'm not used to the avatars or names and I tried a quick catch up but my eyes are bleeding. It's hard to remember who posted what. I think I missed Samsons reasoning for his vote so I guess I'll start there.

Woahh waitaminute Mary why does it matter if its hard to remember who posted what. I mean I get that. but did you find anything that was said to be suspicious? and if you did why didnt you just take a look at the name right above the post and quote it? This excuse feels fake. I get the feeling you only read the thread to stay caught up because it doesn't sound like you were actively looking to identify anyones alignment while you read.
There's something about Mary......

Jonah wrote:

Martha wrote:Absalom how am I backing down from it? I was clarifying a post. I'm still me darling whether is makes people annoyed or not hunny.

And Paul no one else really made me feel super strong enough Day 1 at that point to vote or talk about yet. Day 1s are always slow to start hunny.
Although, at this point I still want to vote Paul but I do think Uzziah's comment sounds like he's hinting to be a Horseman rather than Heathen. He has pretty big balls hunny to announce he's Heathen like that otherwise.

Why would somebody hint that they're a horseman

And more importantly, by what logic would anyone in their right mind associate the Horsemen with scum?

Jonah wrote:

Uzziah wrote:I'm rooting for the scum.

hi Vompatti *waves*

Hi!

Martha wrote:Absalom how am I backing down from it? I was clarifying a post. I'm still me darling whether is makes people annoyed or not hunny.

Never change hunny Im going to start doing this too sweetie and everyone will just have to deal with it pumpkin.

Also Paul, would you agree that I've caught one if not two scum for you? No need to thank me, it's all in a day's work.

Martha wrote:Absalom how am I backing down from it? I was clarifying a post. I'm still me darling whether is makes people annoyed or not hunny.

You totally broke character, which is not something I would have expected from someone who seemed to be committed to playing a sock role.

Uzziah wrote:Also Paul, would you agree that I've caught one if not two scum for you? No need to thank me, it's all in a day's work.

And who are the one or two scum that you've caught?

Wow, this Bible has quite a lot of text and names. It's hard to keep track of it all. I'm not really sure what my thoughts are on most people since I can't keep track of who's who and who's saying what about whom. I will hopefully have a chance to read more closely later and decide who I think is most suspicious.

Jonathan wrote:

Uzziah wrote:Also Paul, would you agree that I've caught one if not two scum for you? No need to thank me, it's all in a day's work.

And who are the one or two scum that you've caught?

Job is the one I'm sure of, the other one is not so obvious and will be confirmed later.

Hello! I'm here, sorry, I hadn't realized that the game started.

Just did a whirlwind catchup, and I think I'm going to follow Uzz's lead and vote for him, because I don't sympathize with Mafia-sympathizers.

WOW one post and voting already! Let the accusations fly.

I apologize for not being around much, reading now.

I just noticed that we are all sinners. Is there not one among us who has not sinned? (For the record, I thought I was pretty clean. My wife sinned a lot, and she got turned into a pillar of salt, but I came out fine. I was the only person in all of sodom who... well, I'll let you draw your own mind-picture).

I'm loving Jonah's posts. I did a reread of Job (just in case Uzziah actually finally had something to add). I don't see anything pertinent that would cause you to declare him scum Uzziah, care to elaborate at all?

Hello, Pilate, glad to see you have arrived.

Day 0 = useless. Moving onto Day 1.

Lot wrote:I did a reread of Job (just in case Uzziah actually finally had something to add). I don't see anything pertinent that would cause you to declare him scum Uzziah, care to elaborate at all?

Well for one the post above where he accuses me of having a wife in front of me, an obscure acronym which I had to look up in the dictionary, is such nonsense that if I wasn't a fan of logical phallasies I'd be facepalming so hard right now that my hand would be coming out the other side of Australia. Earlier he was very much against trying to figure out which sock is who, yet he clearly bases his judgement on whom I'm impersonating. Finally the subtlety of how he and Paul have been building the Martha case makes it obvious they're in the same team. And why is he so morbidly obsessed with horsemen anyway? Could it be because he's desperately trying to deny the fact that he is one? The same goes Paul, who himself is the biggest scum -- and for that I applaud and support him.

This is going to be very difficult, especially not knowing anyone by name. I will continue tomorrow.

Uzziah wrote:

Lot wrote:I did a reread of Job (just in case Uzziah actually finally had something to add). I don't see anything pertinent that would cause you to declare him scum Uzziah, care to elaborate at all?

Well for one the post above where he accuses me of having a wife in front of me, an obscure acronym which I had to look up in the dictionary, is such nonsense that if I wasn't a fan of logical phallasies I'd be facepalming so hard right now that my hand would be coming out the other side of Australia. Earlier he was very much against trying to figure out which sock is who, yet he clearly bases his judgement on whom I'm impersonating. Finally the subtlety of how he and Paul have been building the Martha case makes it obvious they're in the same team. And why is he so morbidly obsessed with horsemen anyway? Could it be because he's desperately trying to deny the fact that he is one? The same goes Paul, who himself is the biggest scum -- and for that I applaud and support him.

You just told Paul that you helped him find 2 scums. Now you're saying you're applauding and supporting him for being the biggest scum? Are you trying to help him find scum or are you trying to help him as a scum? How is that helping him if you're allegedly outing him? You're making no sense even for your twisted playing style.

Are you trying to be helpful or not? I have no problem lynching you.

I don't remember who asked this, but you can call me Jep or whatever it was you wanted.

I said that Paul and Lot could be trying to distance themselves after going at it for plenty of posts, where Paul said he thinks Lot is scum and just couldn't vote for him becuase he already has a vote, and Lot saying he wouldn't vote Paul because he's going to wait. Well, what do you know? Paul is already feeling better about Lot

Jonah wrote:

Mary Magdalene wrote:Oh wow, this is really hard. I'm not used to the avatars or names and I tried a quick catch up but my eyes are bleeding. It's hard to remember who posted what. I think I missed Samsons reasoning for his vote so I guess I'll start there.

Woahh waitaminute Mary why does it matter if its hard to remember who posted what. I mean I get that. but did you find anything that was said to be suspicious? and if you did why didnt you just take a look at the name right above the post and quote it? This excuse feels fake. I get the feeling you only read the thread to stay caught up because it doesn't sound like you were actively looking to identify anyones alignment while you read.
There's something about Mary......

I can't decide if I agree with you on this or suspect you for going for the obvious. Basically, you seem one of the more trust worthy here, but it seems a little too perfect.

My my, weren't we all chatty. Since Sunday is the day of rest for most of us, that makes sense. Alas it is my busiest day of the week.

I shall be toiling with the beasts of the field when this poll ends, but am fairly up to speed.

Pilate voted after only one post?

Pilate wrote:Hello! I'm here, sorry, I hadn't realized that the game started.

Just did a whirlwind catchup, and I think I'm going to follow Uzz's lead and vote for him, because I don't sympathize with Mafia-sympathizers.

WOW one post and voting already! Let the accusations fly.

Uzziah does not appear to have self voted? He did say he was rooting for the baddies, though, k? No flying accusations here, just wish i had your confidence.

Also, putting this in green, although it is kinda game related. I just want to say that I HATE the word "scum". I think it's nasty & rude. I realize that for some people that it is just a word for Mafia. But I find it offensive. Not asking people to stop saying it, but if you could notch it back a bit, I would appreciate it. The avatars make it hard enough, but having to read through countless posts talking about "scum" makes it hard for me to read this thread, it makes me cringe whenever I see it. I would much rather see "hunny" tbh.

Linki w/Jep, So do you think Paul, Lot & Uzziah are bad together?

Jephthah wrote:I said that Paul and Lot could be trying to distance themselves after going at it for plenty of posts, where Paul said he thinks Lot is scum and just couldn't vote for him becuase he already has a vote, and Lot saying he wouldn't vote Paul because he's going to wait. Well, what do you know? Paul is already feeling better about Lot

I think you are doing a very sly no u. I've called you out several times now, and you have neatly avoided addressing the substantive accusation I've levelled at you. Instead, you've just decided to go after me. I'm fairly certain you are going to be my vote today. I've mentioned this several times, and it hasn't really gotten traction, but I seriously encourage people to do a reread of Jephthah before they vote. I doubt you will regret it. I think he would be a very sound lynch option (not to mention, he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering.)

As for your quote above. It's kind of throw your hands up in the air stuff, because I don't even know how to address it. Let's just say that anyone with any decent mafia experience knows that such a distancing tactic would be really shite, it would only serve to draw a whole lot of attention to the connection, rather than actually creating distance. I said I was going to wait to vote because there were 48 hours left in the day and I was trying to draw Paul's attention to how ridiculously early his vote was. It's the kind of thing that shouldn't need to be said, but I felt I did need to say it to make it clear to Paul that I was calling him out.

Uzziah was firmly on my radar for a possible vote, but I'm now feel a lot better about him because his last post comes across as genuine to me.

Uzziah - assuming you are not pulling our legs, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt - wifom means wine in front of me, but actually what it REALLY means is trying to fake someone out, like 'you wouldn't do that if you were bad, but then you might do it if you were bad because other people would think you wouldn't do it if you were bad.' A good example of wifom is actually the post I just made above this one to Jephthah - when I said I wouldn't distance in the way he is accusing me of doing because it's a bad tactic (and the reason I throw my hands in the air is because it's hard to respond to his accusation as just about anything I say would come across as wifom - the only possible defence is 'I didn't do it, and I wouldn't do it'.). This acronym is not obscure for regulars of this site, it is used quite commonly, but I can definitely understand why it would come off as obscure if you aren't familiar with it.

I could care less who you are impersonating uzziah.

Lot, even though it is still wifom, I can see examples like what you referenced being a genuine appeal. I would take statements like that with a grain of salt, but it could be a true statement. The wifom uzziah is exhibiting, there is no reason whatsoever for it. The only reason you act that obviously bad is when you have a reputation for doing it and people look the other way. But since we know who no one is, statements like that are even more completely useless.

Lot wrote:No, you didn't say lynch. That's why I used the word imply. So, if you wouldn't lynch him, you would have us debating Paul's actions and following Paul's lead... for what? You clearly agree it proves nothing about Paul, since you've now clearly stated you wouldn't lynch him for being wrong. So what would you be trying to achieve? You want Paul to be quieter? Why? You think if Paul is wrong about one person, his words should no longer hold weight? What if he is right about the next one?

What would it achieve? I dunno, it would give us something to do instead of throwing around you-no-you accusations like we've been doing. Paul has a theory. If we don't test that theory, what else have we got to do? RSV is and has always been lame but we're more or less heading that way under the guise of weak suspicions based on tone.

Lot wrote:I honestly - and again, self-interest here probably plays a part - but I can't see any civilian reason for you to suggest that we just follow Paul blindly and then stop listening to him if he is wrong. But imagine, for instance, you know Paul is wrong about Samuel and me but right about Nicodemus, or about other people he might have mentioned but not pushed today - might it not be in your interests to lynch a civilian and discredit Paul in one go?

I'm not saying we stop listening to him altogether. It might just mean he actually puts a case together instead of fishing with the you-no-you crap. Maybe he'll actually get around to this once he's fished for a few days.

Lot wrote:I'm willing to listen to Gideon today, and take heed of the shot he made across my bow. He essentially vouched for you, and I'm willing to put a lot of trust in that for now. But I'm just saying - to me your idea looks like it can achieve nothing good, and didn't seem to me like a very civilian thing to say.

Gideon knows nothing about me and I know nothing about him. Must be a tone thing, which is funny since you and several others are tone reading me the opposite way.

Absalom wrote:Gideon's post is an implied BTSC if there ever was one, but I see nothing in the roles about civilian BTSC. Especially not on Day 1 before any night powers have been used. This would imply that he is either a Heathen or possibly a Horseman (not sure if they have BTSC). Am I missing something here? What other explanation is there for a vouch at this stage?

I do not have BTSC with anyone. I am a BTSC-less civvie.

Rachel wrote:

Balaam wrote: As an aside, I have been curious about the Day 0 poll. I can't help but wonder if one of the Horsemen voted for Apocalypse because that is their purpose in the Bible. Normally, one would suggest that the Horsemen would steer clear of voting Apocalypse because it would be to obvious- aka WIFOM. But over time, WIFOM gets so played out that players do the very thing they shouldn't do because it would otherwise seem to obvious. I'm not sure how sock logic plays into the circular logic of WIFOM but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Horsemen is among the eight who voted Apocalypse. If we come to understand them to be a threat, we can look there.

Balaam, for someone wary of circular logic/wifom you sure embrace it in the paragraph above.

I think I've just come to disregard the whole WIFOM issue more or less over the years. Everyone goes both ways when they're a baddie/scum/whateverthehellyouwannacallit. I still think at least one of the Horsemen voted for Apocalypse.

Paul wrote:

Balaam wrote:A little time off, some thinking, and this post:

Paul wrote:basically im being misunderstood b/c its d1 and there is almost nothing to go on so i created stuff to go on

i waited long enough for d1 i can't believe people deal with that

i also can't believe people are taking me so srs i am trying to hunt scum by fishing for reactions to the stuff i say how else do you hunt this early

...gives me a new perspective on Paul. I have not seen such an aggressive, relentless, button-pushing fisher in a long time but now Paul makes a lot of sense to me. Were you really suspicious of Samuel initially or did your lasting suspicion come from the reactions he gave you? After coming out the other side of this issue, it's going to be difficult for me to take you seriously when you go after someone. I will always have to wonder whether you really suspect someone or if you are just fishing for a reaction from them or anyone else.

While I respect your cowboy style of play, I can tell we're not kindred spirits and that may lead us to be at odds as this game progresses (assuming we're both alive come Day 2). For better or worse, I am an empirical observer. I don't care about pings and feelings. Nor do engage in "forcing it" as Paul has done. I simply wait for people to expose themselves to me. This occurs through patterns in voting, process of elimination, and patterns of defensive and supportive behavior in the thread. If I survive past Night 3, I'll let you know what I've come up with.

hey man I am glad

don't get me wrong i understand observation i just was trying to say that if no one made any bold moves during d1 that no information can be gathered

I guess I've just gotten used to Day 1 being a crapshoot over the years. Day 1 fishing ebbs and flows everywhere else I've played. The problem is that it usually comes down to meta anymore instead of real, in-game analysis.

Paul wrote:

Balaam wrote: As I mentioned earlier, I have a better understanding of Paul's tactics now. I have no read on him or anyone because I don't read people well. All I'm saying is give Paul's suspicions a go today and see what happens. If he's wrong, hopefully he'll dial it back a notch until we can get some empirical evidence. I never said anything about lynching him if he's wrong, just getting him to turn the dial back off of 11.

this is scummy, like, why can't you come up with your own opinions on who is scum

it should be obv that when I am speaking that everything that comes out onto the page is my opinion and that I am not infallible so I don't mean to sound like i am

i just like to be assertive at times b/c it gets more telling reactions

also you said something about never knowing whether i am serious with a suspicion or not

don't you always have that question about anyone if you are town? anyone could be lying to you about a suspicion at any time

I said I don't read people well. What more can I say? That is why I don't form opinions as early as some. And, sadly, I've been known to get strung along by people I thought I could trust. It's a character flaw of mine.

Jonah wrote:

Balaam wrote:I bear no grudge against Paul at the moment, but the ruthless, unfeeling player in me thinks the best way to deal with an aggressive fisher like Paul is to put him to the test. Let's take him up on his three suspects and lynch one of them. He seems fairly confident that they are bad (though he threw up a smoke screen about not being 100% on anything). We can always call his bluff. If we lynch one of his top three and they're not bad, either Paul will cool it with the gunslinger rhetoric or the rest of us will know to take his words with a grain of salt.

What else do we really have to go on?

Hoooooo boy does this post raise some flags for me. it sounds like you know paul's 3 suspects aren't heathens so youre gonna help him lynch one so you can discredit his gut later.

Nope. I'm like Master Sergeant Schultz, man. I know nothing.

Jonah wrote:

Balaam wrote:For better or worse, I am an empirical observer. I don't care about pings and feelings. Nor do engage in "forcing it" as Paul has done. I simply wait for people to expose themselves to me. This occurs through patterns in voting, process of elimination, and patterns of defensive and supportive behavior in the thread. If I survive past Night 3, I'll let you know what I've come up with.

Cool sooo you're going to observe for the first three lynches and let everybody else do the hard work.. then join the fray once you've collected a bunch of ammunition on everybody
Got it
Whales love this tactic because if we don't find a heathen early they can run the show and turn on the Lord's disciples for the mistakes they've made
In a sock game I have no reason to trust that this is really how you play and I hope you don't do it. Play the game from the start.

I'm sorry you feel the need to judge me over my playing style. This is how I choose to play a lot of game and how I choose to play this game especially because it is low on my list of priorities right now. But at least I'm here and engaging in discussion, which is more than almost half of the people in this game can say. I can pretend to be more like Paul if you'd like but I'd really just be talking out of my ass. I don't want to do that because God told me to be nice to my ass. Frankly, we all need to be nicer to our asses.


On a side note, I can't explain why but for whatever reason, Uzziah's avatar reminds me of this:

Damn, if I'd have broken that up like some of you guys do, I could have all but doubled my post count. Next time...next time...

Lot wrote:

Jephthah wrote:I said that Paul and Lot could be trying to distance themselves after going at it for plenty of posts, where Paul said he thinks Lot is scum and just couldn't vote for him becuase he already has a vote, and Lot saying he wouldn't vote Paul because he's going to wait. Well, what do you know? Paul is already feeling better about Lot

I think you are doing a very sly no u. I've called you out several times now, and you have neatly avoided addressing the substantive accusation I've levelled at you. Instead, you've just decided to go after me. I'm fairly certain you are going to be my vote today. I've mentioned this several times, and it hasn't really gotten traction, but I seriously encourage people to do a reread of Jephthah before they vote. I doubt you will regret it. I think he would be a very sound lynch option (not to mention, he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering.)

Says the man who willingly chose to live in the worst citty ever in terms of sinners and bad people...
I don't think I've avoided anything. I've told you or whoever it was that asked, that the fact I eyed someone for expecting a thougth through explanation for voting someone after 2 short posts, and that I thought Paul's tactics could be a legitimate way to look for baddies, did't mean I couldn't question him as well. I was questioning whoever I felt like and wanted to make sure what was driving him. If that makes me bad in your eyes, that's your problem, and I wouldn't trust your judgement of character if I were any of people you're trying to convince to read me. By all means, I hope they do. I've got nothing to hide

As for your quote above. It's kind of throw your hands up in the air stuff, because I don't even know how to address it. Let's just say that anyone with any decent mafia experience knows that such a distancing tactic would be really shite, it would only serve to draw a whole lot of attention to the connection, rather than actually creating distance. I said I was going to wait to vote because there were 48 hours left in the day and I was trying to draw Paul's attention to how ridiculously early his vote was. It's the kind of thing that shouldn't need to be said, but I felt I did need to say it to make it clear to Paul that I was calling him out.

That's just WIFOM and excuse me if I don't take your word for it and state what I think could be a potential baddie tactic

Isaac wrote:

Barnabas wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:Martha would be a good choice for a vote.

Is this really your only post?

Is it really not clear he posted from his real account instead of his sock? Even if you're new to the site, I don't think there are many characters called Rabbit8 in the Bible. I could be wrong though, I've never actually read it.

The Bible refers to me as God, Lord etc.....

Paul wrote:also on nicodemus he makes no effort to scum hunt and all he has said is over and over that he does not trust me

that on its own is fine but it is weird since i obv could have been an easy target today

I don't trust you.
Am I scum because of that?

Job wrote:

Uzziah wrote:

Rahab wrote:

Uzziah wrote:I'm rooting for the scum.

Oh yeah?

Yeah.

Wifom. No one knows your meta so there's no reason to do it. Which means you have something to hide. I wouldn't mind lynching uzziah. Plus, as someone pointed out, maybe the horsemen voted apocalypse. Uzziah voted that way and I wouldn't be sad to see one leave if that were the case.

I also wouldn't be sad to vote a horsemen out, but you seem awfully focussed on it.

Absalom wrote:

Martha wrote:Absalom how am I backing down from it? I was clarifying a post. I'm still me darling whether is makes people annoyed or not hunny.

You totally broke character, which is not something I would have expected from someone who seemed to be committed to playing a sock role.

You, amongst other people, were kind of mean to her about being in character, so what did you expect her to do?

Jacob wrote:Wow, this Bible has quite a lot of text and names. It's hard to keep track of it all. I'm not really sure what my thoughts are on most people since I can't keep track of who's who and who's saying what about whom. I will hopefully have a chance to read more closely later and decide who I think is most suspicious.

I can't wait to read it.

TBH I'm likely voting Rebecca, Job, or Abloom.

Eh, voted Rebecca.

I am not a heathen.

Samson wrote:I am not a heathen.

Hey Samson, why'd you vote Samuel?

I had a post questioning you in your absence but you posted right before me, so since you're here, I figured I'd keep it simple.

Jonah wrote:

Martha wrote:Absalom how am I backing down from it? I was clarifying a post. I'm still me darling whether is makes people annoyed or not hunny.

And Paul no one else really made me feel super strong enough Day 1 at that point to vote or talk about yet. Day 1s are always slow to start hunny.
Although, at this point I still want to vote Paul but I do think Uzziah's comment sounds like he's hinting to be a Horseman rather than Heathen. He has pretty big balls hunny to announce he's Heathen like that otherwise.

Why would somebody hint that they're a horseman

To specify what I meant dear, was who that is a follower of the Lord would say that? I think it's way to blunt to be a Heathen to shout that out so my thought hunny, was that maybe they are an independent? Why root for the Heathens? Maybe it's ane early attempt to say I will scratch your backs if you keep me safe and I get to the end? Who knows hunny but no one righteous would say that. That is what I meant.

The Lot/ Paul thing is interesting but I'm not convinced they are teammates so quickly. I do still want to vote for Paul, so if the dear goes maybe it will shed light to us on things.
Sorry hunny, you need Jesus. Votes Paul

Jephthah wrote:

Uzziah wrote:

Lot wrote:I did a reread of Job (just in case Uzziah actually finally had something to add). I don't see anything pertinent that would cause you to declare him scum Uzziah, care to elaborate at all?

Well for one the post above where he accuses me of having a wife in front of me, an obscure acronym which I had to look up in the dictionary, is such nonsense that if I wasn't a fan of logical phallasies I'd be facepalming so hard right now that my hand would be coming out the other side of Australia. Earlier he was very much against trying to figure out which sock is who, yet he clearly bases his judgement on whom I'm impersonating. Finally the subtlety of how he and Paul have been building the Martha case makes it obvious they're in the same team. And why is he so morbidly obsessed with horsemen anyway? Could it be because he's desperately trying to deny the fact that he is one? The same goes Paul, who himself is the biggest scum -- and for that I applaud and support him.

You just told Paul that you helped him find 2 scums. Now you're saying you're applauding and supporting him for being the biggest scum? Are you trying to help him find scum or are you trying to help him as a scum? How is that helping him if you're allegedly outing him? You're making no sense even for your twisted playing style.

Are you trying to be helpful or not? I have no problem lynching you.

I think Paul is playing well and deserves to win. Let him win, I dare you! And if you wish you lynch me even after my valuable contribution I have no problem with that, but I doubt that would help the civs at all. Furthermore I don't see why I even should be defending myself for successfully identifying at least two baddies at once, but then again I seem to be one of the few sane ones here, again.

I didn't have time to read anything this day cycle, so I am forced to randomize. I've voted for Barnabas

Unless Samson gives an answer I like as to why he voted Samuel he'll be my vote for the day.

Lot and Job, what WIFOM do you speak of regarding Uzziah? The impersonation? His rooting for baddies? His defense of Horsemen? Also, Lot, why do you feel better about him after his first consistent post.

That post (as well as his latest), incidentally, make me doubt he would be our Resident Shenanigans Man, because of the quantity of counter-reasoning he offered. But in case he did try to impersonate the abovementioned and dropped the act right away under pressure, that would make me feel a bit worse about him. Sockplaying as if new to the site is one thing, but sockplaying to impersonate someone else is up to no good. Nothing clear about that intention, of course, but it wouldn't make him less suspicious in my eyes.

Upon revisit, his reasoning in that post doesn't hold too well anyway. Job is bad because of Day 0 sockplay banter? Blergh. Job was clearly against meta hunting (to the point where he would want me and Ruth lynched for such attempts) and I don't think he was really basing judgement upon Uzziah for who he might be, but for his baddie rooting. Calling Job obsessed with horsemen feels like an awkward redirect, considering Uzziah's (serious or not) defense of their status in this game. Finally, back to baddie cheering (re: Paul). Ergh. Messy rebuttal.

Early-ish deadline, so I'll try to pop up as much as I can with more thoughts, then finally cast a vote. Samson doesn't look in the mood to defend his unreasoned, coat-tailed vote, so I could very likely vote for him. Uzziah still honorary spot on my stone list. I still don't like how Jeph flipped around Paul's vote and read on Samuel, only to argue he was playing with both sides (and also be the second one to make such a "lolz I was just fishing" switch, after Paul), but I confess it would feel a bit forced to say he's certainly bad for this.

@Ruth: Whilst I can understand why some of us, especially given that we're in the midst of the Champions game, would adopt (or intentionally sockplay using) the old mafia terminology, in particular the word "scum" for Mafia, I would also hope that we don't end up adopting it entirely past this game. It would be unlike us. If I happen to use it, I usually put it between " ", because it slightly doesn't feel right to me. It's a nasty word, indeed, for old-style players who also tend to be a bit (read: waaaaaaay) brasher in their games (just check the Champions games).

I saw uzziah worshiping the devil and associating with heathens, so I'm voting there.

Linki, the wifom is the statement he's rooting for the heathens to win.

Just noticed day phase ends like right after I get out of work, so I have to vote now or miss it.

Most likely voting Samson. Not because he followed Paul specifically, but because he has repeatedly dodged a question that has been brought up every, if not every other page. It should be easy to answer, but he refuses to do so and that pings heathen to me. Actually its not that he hasn't answered, its that he seems to be actively ignoring the question.

I don't really have any other reads besides that. I've always been terrible at day one

Job wrote:I saw uzziah worshiping the devil and associating with heathens, so I'm voting there.

Linki, the wifom is the statement he's rooting for the heathens to win.

*Flashback to Harry Potter Mafia tbqh*

I am wary of Cain so far. Day 0, vote threat against meta hunters. Day 1, "what's everyone getting worked up about" skim of the game. I anticipate him to be a low poster type of player, but also the kind that, recalling from a few recent games, has proven to be bad and lasted long enough in the game, whilst the others ignored him or bickered over dealing with him or not. Really don't like his Day 1 comment.

Mordecai wrote:Just noticed day phase ends like right after I get out of work, so I have to vote now or miss it.

Most likely voting Samson. Not because he followed Paul specifically, but because he has repeatedly dodged a question that has been brought up every, if not every other page. It should be easy to answer, but he refuses to do so and that pings heathen to me. Actually its not that he hasn't answered, its that he seems to be actively ignoring the question.

I don't really have any other reads besides that. I've always been terrible at day one

I agree with this. If Samson doesn't answer (within the next 90 minutes because I have to vote by then), I will vote for him.