The Syndicate

EBWOP, I think Golden went along with it since he trusted Sorsha. She had been making feints at Bass for several days.

I have no idea what to make of that ^^

What did Mac claim that his role did?

I feel like half this game has been played behind the scenes and I've barely been a part of it

Now that I think about it, I believe the Amnesiac Psycopath was a role that LC claimed to remove from the game a few days before the game started.

What he claimed was complex and involved taking votes intentionally. He proposed a plan that was wildly inappropriate as well involving getting"cred" with baddies. And I think saying anymore would be toeing the line,a line I don't want to toe with LC. Mac is dead now, but noone else that was there is.

I thought he was incredibly dangerous & full of shit even before I saw that picture. I think if he was a secret role, it was that role ^^

Linki, I missed that. But the whole "secret role " angle made that seem plausible to me, and it still does. Maybe he removed it,or maybe he "removed it". The guy still claimed to be a secret role

I could totally see Mac having a role that needed to get votes; he played that shtick for a long time while he was alive.

I still think there's more evidence for Golden being bad than Sorsha, but I'm willing to vote Sorsha today and reevaluate Golden tomorrow. In any case I would prefer not to die today. My protector is voting that way too, so maybe he knows something.

Sorsha

Turnip Head wrote:After thinking on it more, you're right, I should not have even said anything The drunk is strong in this one. Help the civs Obi-Marmot, you're our only hope.

I only said it because I want to picture the terror in the baddies' eyes as their best laid plans go to shit by getting the facts wrong It's basic mathematics.

Why does everyone think you're protecting SVS, Marsh?

I meant, "Who told you this?" :P

I don't know what you're insinuating. I read the thread. I was trying to figure out what Sorsha and Golden have been referring to. They say they want to lynch SVS but they need to lynch you first.

Then there's this post by Golden:

Golden wrote:

Tranq wrote:

Golden wrote:If you believe SVS killed you today, I also think MM is the right choice for a lynch.

You can't be serious

You do know MMs role, right? Or believe you do?

and this one

Golden wrote:

Tranq wrote:I don't think anyone paying attention to the thread can be in doubt of MM's role.

Did you read the conversation i just had with Sorsha?

You mean... about how we get some circle and then double back on SVS later?

I would be up for that too... who do you think is the best first lynch if we go circle first...

The thing is... if SVS is trickster, and with MM in the field... I could see it being 3 v 3 right now, and one team has a potential serial killer. Thats why I think going that way isn't a bad idea. I wouldn't advocate then immediately lynching SVS the next day... its a tight needle to thread.

also this post

Tranq wrote:Cabal? Yes.
MM's role? No. The game can perfectly end with a civ win and with MM still being alive. MM wouldn't win, but the game would end

and this one

Tranq wrote:I don't think anyone paying attention to the thread can be in doubt of MM's role.

Did you read the conversation i just had with Sorsha?

And all of Tranq's posts about his plan for the Circle will get rid of you and then SVS.

Dom wrote:

Tranq wrote:

Dom wrote:

Tranq wrote: - lynch a role nobody needs dead

The only way you don't need his role dead is if you are Cabal.

Wrong. Read the roles :P

@ Hosts: Would the civvies need the Tarnished Golem dead if he chose a baddie as his watched over player?

No, I think you need to read the roles.

Having reread the roles, i stand by my point
We need a Circle lynch today. Dom, please explain your thought process on your vote in light of LC's confirmation and the question i asked you here: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 60#p204938

Turnip Head wrote:Tranq, you think Lorab is bad, and that Wilgy's flip was Trickster influenced... which team do you think Lorab is on, and which team is the Trickster on? Lorab is the only player I can see negatively benefiting from a Tricky Wilgy flip. Do you think the Trickster changed Wilgy's alignment to make Lorab look bad?

I'm not convinced on LoRab being bad. I wouldn't put money on it at this point. I see several scenarios in which LoRab could be civvie. I see several scenarios in which LoRab could be bad. My opinion on her largely depends on which why she ends up voting today. I also didn't say Wilgy's flip was Trickster influenced, i said it could be. Because it could be. Wilgy didn't sound like his civvie self at all, plus he was revealed as having a role that could've easily prevented his own lynch. I'm considering all options.

Turnip Head wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Tranq wrote:@ Hosts: Would the civvies need the Tarnished Golem dead if he chose a baddie as his watched over player?

No team needs the Tarnished Golem dead to win. He mimics the Win Condition of the player he's watching over, but doesn't technically join their team.

Is this the answer you were looking for Tranq? No we don't need the Golem dead. I suppose we can ask him nicely to not kill anyone and lose the game for himself.

Wait, i thought the Golem is protecting you? How would he lose the game if you claim to be civ?

Also i don't see how any of this Mac Secret Role stuff is relevant to today's lynch

Tranq wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Tranq wrote:@ Hosts: Would the civvies need the Tarnished Golem dead if he chose a baddie as his watched over player?

No team needs the Tarnished Golem dead to win. He mimics the Win Condition of the player he's watching over, but doesn't technically join their team.

Is this the answer you were looking for Tranq? No we don't need the Golem dead. I suppose we can ask him nicely to not kill anyone and lose the game for himself.

Wait, i thought the Golem is protecting you? How would he lose the game if you claim to be civ?

You're twisting the conversation. You asked what would happen if he's protecting a baddie. I do think the Golem is protecting me, but I guess everyone else thinks he's protecting SVS

Well, Timmer voted you on Day 10. Maybe we should test your theory by asking the Golem to NK Timmer tonight?

Tranq wrote:

Golden wrote:Sorry - I haven't put very much eye on this thread recently, I've been too focussed on the other game. My bad. I'm going to try and get back into this one shortly. It's just that the other has been taking a lot of my energy.

Jesus. Here i think we're in a possibly LYLO situation and you're off playing other games

Where do you think your vote is going to?
What do you think of the Golem protecting TH? :P

I'd really prefer an MM vote - but if I can't get it going I'm going to vote TH.

At this point, I tend to think TH really believed the golem was protecting him, but the theory isn't sound, to me. I think he is protecting SVS.

My preferred order would be MM -> TH -> Timmer (assuming lynching TH gets timmer off the poll) and then figuring out if its SVS and what we need to do to do it. In this time we should have time to figure out Lorab, Dom, Sorsha and you.

I'm not quite as worried about lylo as you are clearly, I feel like we have to play it smart to pick off both teams, its the possibility of a serial killer and its extra kill that is an extra factor outside of the town and lynches that I've most worried about right now.

Tranq wrote:Well, Timmer voted you on Day 10. Maybe we should test your theory by asking the Golem to NK Timmer tonight?

Testing the theory would require us to lynch neither MM or TH, so I'm not in support of that.

Turnip Head wrote:He said he was "more or less 100% sure" Bass was bad; as I've been harping on, what does that even mean?

It has a very plain meaning. I gave you a link to both the definition, and then I explained exactly what I meant and why I said it. The fact you are still harping on it does not look good for you, in my opinion.

S~V~S wrote:EBWOP, I think Golden went along with it since he trusted Sorsha. She had been making feints at Bass for several days.

No, in that case it wasn't Sorsha. It was all my own process of elimination, genuinely, as I put in the thread.

G9 - I'm almost certain splints was responsible for that, but I think it was a cursecrafter item.

S~V~S wrote:Mac claimed to be a secret role. He explained how a hidden role worked, which involves another player, and is not important or anything I think LC would be OK with me discussing, but it was plausible, and I was not the only one to be told this. After G9 blew up, I checked the map, and hit the magnifying glass, and it took me to the hosts photobucket for Mafia. I got nosy, and in the middle of the role pictures for the game was this:



Amnesiac Psychopath. This is NOT the role he claimed to be.

NOT a friendly looking guy, and not in the role list. And I got the impression Sorsha trusted him, and she got pretty upset when he died. So there was that too.

Well that explains why the golem killed Mac. I didn't trust Mac, I felt he would have sold us down the river, but I think Sorsha got upset because there was a circle of trust and they started killing each other. I did have mixed feelings about it.

@SVS - how do you feel about tranq?

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:He said he was "more or less 100% sure" Bass was bad; as I've been harping on, what does that even mean?

It has a very plain meaning. I gave you a link to both the definition, and then I explained exactly what I meant and why I said it. The fact you are still harping on it does not look good for you, in my opinion.

If you think it's possible that you can be "more or less" 100% sure about something, then you're the one who doesn't understand the phrase. I did not need the definition, I know what it means. You're using it wrong because those two things are mutually exclusive. You either think something is 100% true or you don't. It's basic mathematics.

More likely, I think you used "100%" to get people to think you had info, and then said "more or less" to give yourself an out. If you wanted us to think you weren't sure, you would have used a percentage less than 100. You used 100% several times that Day.

No, TH, I didn't need to get people to 'think' I had info.

I WAS SURE. I was wrong, but I was sure.

I explained very precisely exactly what I meant at the time.

It's only you who has continued to ignore that, and make fun of me, and poke at the fact Bass and Matt were both civvies. Well, it's not a defence that is going to dissuade me from believing you are team circle. I can't possibly be wrong about everyone.

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:EBWOP, I think Golden went along with it since he trusted Sorsha. She had been making feints at Bass for several days.

No, in that case it wasn't Sorsha. It was all my own process of elimination, genuinely, as I put in the thread.

G9 - I'm almost certain splints was responsible for that, but I think it was a cursecrafter item.

Did I miss speculation that someone else was responsible for G9? I thought everyone knew I was responsible for that and had figured out what I was trying to do with that square. Btw thanks for not inviting me to my own party, Golden

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:He said he was "more or less 100% sure" Bass was bad; as I've been harping on, what does that even mean?

It has a very plain meaning. I gave you a link to both the definition, and then I explained exactly what I meant and why I said it. The fact you are still harping on it does not look good for you, in my opinion.

If you think it's possible that you can be "more or less" 100% sure about something, then you're the one who doesn't understand the phrase. I did not need the definition, I know what it means. You're using it wrong because those two things are mutually exclusive. You either think something is 100% true or you don't. It's basic mathematics.

More likely, I think you used "100%" to get people to think you had info, and then said "more or less" to give yourself an out. If you wanted us to think you weren't sure, you would have used a percentage less than 100. You used 100% several times that Day.

I did not get the impression he had info fwiw.

Golden wrote:

Tranq wrote:Well, Timmer voted you on Day 10. Maybe we should test your theory by asking the Golem to NK Timmer tonight?

Testing the theory would require us to lynch neither MM or TH, so I'm not in support of that.

Testing the theory wouldn't require TH to be alive. It was a joke anyway.

Golden wrote:I'm not quite as worried about lylo as you are clearly, I feel like we have to play it smart to pick off both teams, its the possibility of a serial killer and its extra kill that is an extra factor outside of the town and lynches that I've most worried about right now.

I admit i might be getting paranoid here But yeah, i think today is Circle or lose tbh. At this point i actually think TH might stop/survive a lynch again:

Turnip Head wrote:I was poisoned on night 1 but after assembling a few pieces of an item I was able to construct an apparatus that could keep me safe.

If this is true, TH using an apparatus to keep him safe, then that means the Circle could potentially still have the Lich's 1x lynch stop.
I'm actually thinking Timmer is the Lich at this point. He voted a poisoned TH to "save himself" and used his 1x lynch stop to stop the TH lynch. Which would mean TH still has this apparatus that could keep him safe. It's also possible he lied about this apparatus, i guess.

@ LoRab: Does the list of items include an item that sounds like the one TH claims he used?

S~V~S wrote:

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I don't know if Tranq is stupid enough to kill someone on the same square as he is, but I am not. Even if I had a kill, which I don't.

So Dom, who told you about MMs role?

Weren't you after TH for using Wifom????

Did you ever answer this Dom; who told you about MMs role?

The person who recruited me.

Long Con wrote:

Tranq wrote:@ Hosts: Would the civvies need the Tarnished Golem dead if he chose a baddie as his watched over player?

No team needs the Tarnished Golem dead to win. He mimics the Win Condition of the player he's watching over, but doesn't technically join their team.

Now, if their protected player is dead...

The Tarnished Golem wins when its watched-over player wins. If its watched-over player dies, the Tarnished Golem may kill every other night, any target, and wins only by killing the ones it holds responsible, and surviving until the end. Immune to poison.

So... you think the baddies are gonna take out SVS so the Golem can kill them? Are you seriously suggesting they are that stupid?
No, they'll leave her alive. So we have to lynch SVS. In order to do that without losing unnecessary civs, we have to lynch the Golem.

Tranq wrote:Also i don't see how any of this Mac Secret Role stuff is relevant to today's lynch

It isn't. SVS is scrambling.

Read my posts, Dom. I said the Circle could NK MM, not NK SVS.
Why didn't you reply to the question i asked here: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 60#p204938

- The Circle could NK MM. Let's say they have no other targets other than MM, why wouldn't they NK him? I guess if they had no other targets they could try to NK you again
- We could lynch SVS as the very last baddie and end the game with MM still alive.

Neither of these are fool proof ideas but at the very least i want to reduce Circle numbers until Timmer appears on the poll again.

I think you're Circle, fwiw. I think Matt was right about you. I don't expect you to change your vote. You clearly aren't considering any option other than not lynching a Circle today

Tranq wrote:Read my posts, Dom. I said the Circle could NK MM, not NK SVS.
Why didn't you reply to the question i asked here: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 60#p204938

- The Circle could NK MM. Let's say they have no other targets other than MM, why wouldn't they NK him? I guess if they had no other targets they could try to NK you again
- We could lynch SVS as the very last baddie and end the game with MM still alive.

Neither of these are fool proof ideas but at the very least i want to reduce Circle numbers until Timmer appears on the poll again.

I think you're Circle, fwiw. I think Matt was right about you. I don't expect you to change your vote. You clearly aren't considering any option other than not lynching a Circle today

But... why would they, if they have the numbers? Why wouldn't they avoid it? Put it on the civvies until they have numbers?
I am FAR more sure that SVS is bad than anyone you're suggesting.

I am going to vote MM.

I have a feeling it isn't going to go that way, but I think it is the right vote. I'm just not around enough to properly participate today or at the moment in general. It's very frustrating given the game state.

If it goes TH's way, then I'm also very happy with that. I would, however, be very disappointed if this lynch was pushed in a direction other than one of those two.

I'm going to try and pop in towards end of day, but it just isn't easy at the moment. I'm really sorry it is the crappiest timing. But at least I think the options for going forward are clear, and it is really just a debate about which one is the best/most urgent for today. I do think the lynch poll could end up being rather telling.

So you think lynching someone who you don;t need dead to win is cool? Host verified?

My entire concept of you has changed, tbh.

Those of you that have item lists; have you heard of "warping potion"?

Tranq wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Tranq wrote:@ MM: How realistic do you think the odds of a Sorsha lynch are today? I'd say pretty low, and i'm not even fully convinced she's bad atm. Vote TH if you want to lynch a Circle member.

Which reminds me. Golden, did you learn anything from your backtracking of Sorsha?

You keep telling me I can't win, yet you want me to do what you say?

I said if you want to lynch a Circle. If you'd rather see yourself lynched today, well that's up to you

LoRab wrote:I agree it makes more sense to lynch circle. But I also don't think we can depend on them to kill who we want to.

What makes you think that I'm circle?

Timmer has atleast 2-3 teammembers left. If it isn't Sorsha, then given his behavior Dom would make the most sense and as i think you and Dom are on the same team, that means you aswell. It's also possible you are civ and wrong about Dom. Or you are Circle and are playing him. Either way, my suspicion of you isn't set in stone and you helping to lynch a Circle member today could clear things up.

You said you agree it makes more sense to lynch Circle today. Where do you think your vote is going to?

In light of Matt's flip, what do you think of the Dom vs Matt stuff?

Itis also possible that I'm civ and right about Dom, lol. As I've said, I think Dom is civ aligned. I know I am a civ. Anyway, I will likely vote TH. I fee like he's talking in circles and that he is missing things in the thread and coming to conclusions that just don't make sense (like that he's the one being protected by gollum--which really makes little logical sense) which doesn't seem in character for him. I feel like he's spewing whatever comes to mind in hopes of saving himself.

As for Matt and Dom, I think they both got caught up in the argument, to be honest. I think they were both talking at the other without really listening and that it clouded both of them from seeing reality. And both suffered from remembering what they wanted to remember instead of what the conversation between them had been (which was probably somewhere between the 2 perceptions). I also think they were somewhat baiting each other into reactions, whether intentionally or not.

Tranq wrote:@ LoRab: Does the list of items include an item that sounds like the one TH claims he used?

Most of the names are fairly ambiguous. A couple of them seem like things that could be combined with others, but maybe not--I'd think one would need to find recipe or something in order to do that. I know there is a poison cure, but that doesn't seem to be what TH is saying.

Although taking a look at them now to answer your question, I remembered that there is a seemer type object (it has seemer in the name...don't know if I can legally name items or not). Which means that there could be more than one player who has been lynched and did not appear as they truly are. I had, quite honestly, completely forgotten that.

Voted TH

I think it makes a lot of sense actually. Mac voted for me and died right afterwards. As far as I can tell, looking at voting records and Mac's post history, Mac never voted for SVS, so the Golem could not have killed Mac if he's protecting SVS.

If there's one silver lining to being lynched today, it's that the Golem should have plenty of good targets after my role is revealed.

Good luck civvies

S~V~S wrote:So you think lynching someone who you don;t need dead to win is cool? Host verified?

My entire concept of you has changed, tbh.

Those of you that have item lists; have you heard of "warping potion"?

I'm still down to vote for Golden if you are. Funny how I'm the one accused of spewing nonsense. Golden hasn't made sense in days

S~V~S wrote:So you think lynching someone who you don;t need dead to win is cool? Host verified?

My entire concept of you has changed, tbh.

It's a straw man argument to say I don't need him dead to win. My win condition does not need him dead to win. However, I believe in practice I almost certainly will not win unless he is dead. I have to be alive to win, SVS.

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:So you think lynching someone who you don;t need dead to win is cool? Host verified?

My entire concept of you has changed, tbh.

It's a straw man argument to say I don't need him dead to win. My win condition does not need him dead to win. However, I believe in practice I almost certainly will not win unless he is dead. I have to be alive to win, SVS.

this.

Calling it a fancy name like "straw man" or whatever jargon does not change that you are voting for someone who is no threat to you just because. You aren't paying attention.

Hiding behind strategy terms does not make it better tbh. If you think I am bad, have some balls and vote for me. But voting for MM becasue he trusted you and told you the truth about his role sucks.

S~V~S wrote:Calling it a fancy name like "straw man" or whatever jargon does not change that you are voting for someone who is no threat to you just because. You aren't paying attention.

Hiding behind strategy terms does not make it better tbh. If you think I am bad, have some balls and vote for me. But voting for MM becasue he trusted you and told you the truth about his role sucks.

#1) Why so snide? As you said before, it doesn't suit you well.
#2)

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

So, yeah. I understand that technically, MM does not need to die for a civ win, but in practice-- he does.

Aww why you vote me TH?

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Calling it a fancy name like "straw man" or whatever jargon does not change that you are voting for someone who is no threat to you just because. You aren't paying attention.

Hiding behind strategy terms does not make it better tbh. If you think I am bad, have some balls and vote for me. But voting for MM becasue he trusted you and told you the truth about his role sucks.

#1) Why so snide? As you said before, it doesn't suit you well.
#2)

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

So, yeah. I understand that technically, MM does not need to die for a civ win, but in practice-- he does.

I was talking to Golden, actually. I missed the Linki. And I did not think i was being snide; and if you think I have been being snide, you don't know me as well as I thought you did. I think Golden is misguided, and I am somewhat upset about that, but I don't think "snide" is fair. And yeah, strawman is the kind of thing Llama & Epi pepper their posts with. So I know what it is. I would not expect you to defend it.

S~V~S wrote:

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Calling it a fancy name like "straw man" or whatever jargon does not change that you are voting for someone who is no threat to you just because. You aren't paying attention.

Hiding behind strategy terms does not make it better tbh. If you think I am bad, have some balls and vote for me. But voting for MM becasue he trusted you and told you the truth about his role sucks.

#1) Why so snide? As you said before, it doesn't suit you well.
#2)

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

So, yeah. I understand that technically, MM does not need to die for a civ win, but in practice-- he does.

I was talking to Golden, actually. I missed the Linki. And I did not think i was being snide; and if you think I have been being snide, you don't know me as well as I thought you did. I think Golden is misguided, and I am somewhat upset about that, but I don't think "snide" is fair. And yeah, strawman is the kind of thing Llama & Epi pepper their posts with. So I know what it is. I would not expect you to defend it.

Posts like this only make me more sure you're bad. You're attempting to use emotion to manipulate me into backing off you. You've done it in this game before.

So if I am rude,I am being snide, and if I am nice I am bieng manipulative?

Gotcha

S~V~S wrote:So if I am rude,I am being snide, and if I am nice I am bieng manipulative?

Gotcha

Not really the argument I made, but sure.

Why'd you try and kill splints last night?

I didn't

Killing people on the same square would be suicidal.

Waits for Dom to say *WIFOM*

S~V~S wrote:I didn't

Killing people on the same square would be suicidal.

How suicidal would it really be?
As you said, WIFOM.

S~V~S wrote:I didn't

Killing people on the same square would be suicidal.

Only if they survive...

I mean that *is* WIFOM, SVS. We don't know who else was around. Maybe you had no other kill targets. To say that you would never attempt to kill someone in the same square as you... how could you as a civvie know for sure that you as a baddie would never do that? And why did you get on my case for using WIFOM to defend myself, but when you do it it's okay?

Um, bodies are still lying around. Leaving bodies behind you would be lame. Plus there are ways to know who was on what square.

The thing that disturbs me most about this game is the stupid things I am being accused of doing. Seriously, guys.

S~V~S wrote:Um, bodies are still lying around. Leaving bodies behind you would be lame. Plus there are ways to know who was on what square.

The thing that disturbs me most about this game is the stupid things I am being accused of doing. Seriously, guys.

Oh trust me, I know all about that this game

Honestly, every time i turn around someone accuses me of doing something seriously stupid ha ha.

Svs double dipped her chip in the salsa.

I don't think SVS is being snide or rude. I think she is protecting someone who she has every reason to protect, good or bad, and I don't blame her for it.

I do, however, think it is an emotional appeal to say it is mean for me to vote MM like its a betrayal of trust. I understand that perspective, but it kind of sucks. If I believed SVS was a civ, I'd never have to do it. I'm voting MM because I perceive him to be a threat.

SVS, it would be ballsy to just vote for you - but not very sensible. I would feel crap if someone else was getting lynched because people read me as bad. If that's how you are feeling about my suspicion, then I get it. But I have to make the move I think is right, aside from that. I don't particularly want to lynch MM, but I feel like it is necessary for my chances of winning.

Also - I don't think anyone was killing splints from any square other than the one she was on, so... I mean if it wasn't you, SVS, what are the options? Tranq?