The Syndicate

Hedgeowl wrote:Hell's Bells, that sucks. RIP Sorsha.

I am actually a bit surprised that people are still talking so strongly for SVS. If anything this vote makes me think she is more likely civ. the way the votes went down it doesn't look like anyone bothered to come to either of their defense. Sorsha had 5 votes to svs's 3 before Epi and I voted 4th and 5th to tie it. Since Sorsha flipped civ we obviously weren't protecting her and if Sorsha had teamies she probably wouldn't have voted herself. SVS voted Sorsha.

And I have to say I agree. I thought I addressed Ketermans points as brought to me via Blooper (who did not vote for me) but Keterman & Made seem to think I am public enemy number one based on my Day Zero vote to benefit someone who turned up...civ. And because I had suspicions that i dared to bring up, lol? When several people seem to be backing each other up, that could be a BTS tell. I didn't suspect Made for being silly, or posting funny, but for acting like he had BTS. This was reinforced when Dana came in and post for post defended him to me. How could anyone read my posts for anything but what they were?

If you want a paragraph by paragraph refutation, Keteman, you will get it after the night is over. But I think i have covered the points really well. I am not sure why Made thinks I am so bad, either. Either which way would have brought a dead civ yesterday.

Boogs, with Sorsha coming up civ, I see your point, but it does not make your vote less twitchy to me. You did not think I sounded frustrated as well? We were both frustrated, but I wanted to stay alive, and she did not.

Perhaps the baddies viewed it as a super bonus, Sorsha quitting, and me dead?

Crap, sorry Sorsha. I wish you'd put up more of a defense, the fact you just gave up only made me more sure you were bad.

For reference:


Who's a Liar and a Right Intrusive Prick?

Poll ended at Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:40 pm

Boogs
0
No votes

Bullzeye
0
No votes

Canucklehead
0
No votes

Dana
0
No votes

DharmaHelper
0
No votes

Elohcin
0
No votes

Epignosis
0
No votes

Hedgeowl
1
Roxy (9)
8%

Keterman
0
No votes

Made
0
No votes

MovingPictures07
0
No votes

nijuukyugou
0
No votes

nutella
0
No votes

Roxy
0
No votes

Sorsha
5
DharmaHelper (3), Sorsha (4), Bullzeye (6), S~V~S (8), nijuukyugou (11)
38%

S~V~S
5
Elohcin (5), nutella (7), Boogs (10), Epignosis (12), Hedgeowl (13)
38%

Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot (Host/Mod & non-players)
2
Mister Rearranger (1), Enrique (2)
15%


Total votes : 13

Epig, what a wonderful and useful contribution!

Bullzeye wrote:Epig, what a wonderful and useful contribution!

Gee, thanks.

Can I call "bullshit" on everyone saying that they wouldn't have voted Sorsha if she hadn't been awol??
Have you people never played mafia before? 9 times out of 10, anyone who puts up any kind of defense is immediately labelled as "too reactive" in their defense and thus suspicious and voted for, or "too practiced and careful" in their defense and thus suspicious and voted for, or "not convinving" (as if there would ever be anything they could say short of a role claim that would convince anyone) and thus suspicious and voted for, or.......the list goes on. Once someone has the sort of heat on them that Sorsha (and SVS, I guess?) did, then it is nigh impossible to turn that momentum around, in my experience, regardless of what sort of defense they do or do not attempt. Once people have an idea of who they want to lynch, they very rarely change their minds, despite whatever hemming and hawing and hedging they do in the thread

I'm not condemning people for voting based on their gut, or their initial suspicions of Sorsha (though I didn't share them), or whatever pings led them to suspect her. I self-consciously and admittedly 100% cast myself in the same boat as those who tend to stick to their initial instinct regardless of defenses that might be offered (I'm a stubborn asshole, what can I say? ). There's nothing wrong with that, it's a part of mafia (and a much bigger part of mafia than most people are willing to admit, methinks )..........but can we can it with the "Woe is me! If only she would have defended herself this never would have happened!" type nonsense??! That just reads as blame-shifting and self-indemnifying....which reads as baddie baddie baddie to me. So to all of you ladies and gents who doth protest too much.

Hey, that's a wide net for someone who didn't even vote.

Canucklehead wrote:Can I call "bullshit" on everyone saying that they wouldn't have voted Sorsha if she hadn't been awol??
Have you people never played mafia before? 9 times out of 10, anyone who puts up any kind of defense is immediately labelled as "too reactive" in their defense and thus suspicious and voted for, or "too practiced and careful" in their defense and thus suspicious and voted for, or "not convinving" (as if there would ever be anything they could say short of a role claim that would convince anyone) and thus suspicious and voted for, or.......the list goes on. Once someone has the sort of heat on them that Sorsha (and SVS, I guess?) did, then it is nigh impossible to turn that momentum around, in my experience, regardless of what sort of defense they do or do not attempt. Once people have an idea of who they want to lynch, they very rarely change their minds, despite whatever hemming and hawing and hedging they do in the thread

I'm not condemning people for voting based on their gut, or their initial suspicions of Sorsha (though I didn't share them), or whatever pings led them to suspect her. I self-consciously and admittedly 100% cast myself in the same boat as those who tend to stick to their initial instinct regardless of defenses that might be offered (I'm a stubborn asshole, what can I say? ). There's nothing wrong with that, it's a part of mafia (and a much bigger part of mafia than most people are willing to admit, methinks )..........but can we can it with the "Woe is me! If only she would have defended herself this never would have happened!" type nonsense??! That just reads as blame-shifting and self-indemnifying....which reads as baddie baddie baddie to me. So to all of you ladies and gents who doth protest too much.

Fine, except that's not what I've said. Her reactions were way over the top and she made no real attempt to defend whatsoever. This lead me to believe she was a frustrated baddie who'd been caught out and knew it. If she'd made reasonable responses and actively tried to defend/save herself. Sorsha made her choice. She chose to give up and that reflected badly on her. If she'd tried harder things may have gone differently.

Canucklehead wrote:Can I call "bullshit" on everyone saying that they wouldn't have voted Sorsha if she hadn't been awol??
Have you people never played mafia before? 9 times out of 10, anyone who puts up any kind of defense is immediately labelled as "too reactive" in their defense and thus suspicious and voted for, or "too practiced and careful" in their defense and thus suspicious and voted for, or "not convinving" (as if there would ever be anything they could say short of a role claim that would convince anyone) and thus suspicious and voted for, or.......the list goes on. Once someone has the sort of heat on them that Sorsha (and SVS, I guess?) did, then it is nigh impossible to turn that momentum around, in my experience, regardless of what sort of defense they do or do not attempt. Once people have an idea of who they want to lynch, they very rarely change their minds, despite whatever hemming and hawing and hedging they do in the thread

I'm not condemning people for voting based on their gut, or their initial suspicions of Sorsha (though I didn't share them), or whatever pings led them to suspect her. I self-consciously and admittedly 100% cast myself in the same boat as those who tend to stick to their initial instinct regardless of defenses that might be offered (I'm a stubborn asshole, what can I say? ). There's nothing wrong with that, it's a part of mafia (and a much bigger part of mafia than most people are willing to admit, methinks )..........but can we can it with the "Woe is me! If only she would have defended herself this never would have happened!" type nonsense??! That just reads as blame-shifting and self-indemnifying....which reads as baddie baddie baddie to me. So to all of you ladies and gents who doth protest too much.

In this instance I'm going to have to disagree. Sorsha caught some very real suspicion for posts that she made and rather than make any attempt at defending herself she said "OK guys w/e"

She laid down and took it, and that sort of thing is not something that I expect or want out of civvies. If she didn't want to play the game, then yes it is 100% her fault that she is no longer playing.

I don't even know how Canucklehead missed the vote when this was posted at 5:09pm EST:

Canucklehead wrote:Ummmmm.
What just happened with Sorsha?

Also, Bullz: I was totally on board with you being civvish until your last post, and then I got really confused. Why the heck are you asking the thread for their input on whether or not your voting strategy/choices are objectionable??! I have never seen that. I don't know if it makes me think you're bad, but it certainly makes me think you're odd....

Also, I still don't suspect Sorsha and I'm sad that she's frustrated. Bummer. I do think her quip to DH about "getting over it" was interesting, though, and would love to hear some more elaboration on that point from either of the involved parties....

But the excuse was:

Canucklehead wrote:Guuuuuuyyyyyyssss! I'm the absolute worst.

Sorry I missed the vote, super stressful work day for me made me completely forget that this vote was tonight.

Sad to see Sorsha (and her role) go. Rats.

That doesn't make sense.

Epignosis wrote:Hey, that's a wide net for someone who didn't even vote.

What does my (terriblehorriblenogoodverybad) forgetting to vote have to do with my opinion on other people's reaction to the lynch result?

linki: Why doesn't that make sense?

RIP Sorsha. I must say I am very confused by her response. I didn't realize she voted for herself so early. What would make a civ do that?

Jobs and other real life things can cause one to miss a vote, that's true. However, you were here posting soon before the vote ended. Maybe it's nothing.

But you know what isn't nothing? The fact that you haven't named one suspect of yours. Then, after missing the vote, you give the eye to everyone and his uncle. Also:

Canucklehead wrote:For what it's worth, I probably would've randomized in a coward like that when it comes to close votes.

Canucklehead wrote:Can I call "bullshit" on everyone saying that they wouldn't have voted Sorsha if she hadn't been awol?? /quote]

By saying you probably would've randomized, you are saying you probably would not have voted Sorsha. So are you calling bullshit on yourself there?

Epignosis wrote:Jobs and other real life things can cause one to miss a vote, that's true. However, you were here posting soon before the vote ended. Maybe it's nothing.

Definitely nothing.
I think your confusion might be because some assumptions about my work life that are incorrect? (which is totally fine, since you don't know me from Adam....for the record, I am not Adam).

Just so everyone is not bothered by my wildly inconsistent posting: I'm a grad student, in the stage of my PhD program where I am preparing for my comprehensive exams. I basically have no set schedule, and no parameters for "working", just a shitton of reading and thinking to do. I go to "work" (i.e. my carrel in the library) whenever I feel like it, I work from home when I feel like it. During my "work day" I often take many short (or not so short) breaks to give my mind a rest, and during those short breaks I do things like play mafia, or read stupid internet articles, or watch cat videos or.....you get the idea. Then, I go back to "work" (i.e. reading some pretty fucking dense and/or engaging shit). I often lose track of time. My "work" is exceptionally stressful right now because I am in the middle of the final stages of designing a course that I am teaching this Fall, and a lot of deadlines are coming up. In this vote situation, I was dicking around playing mafia for awhile, then getting back to work with the assumption I would remember to vote. I got engrossed in syllabus designing, and did not vote.
It was sucky of me, I'm sorry. For realzies.

Epignosis wrote: But you know what isn't nothing? The fact that you haven't named one suspect of yours. Then, after missing the vote, you give the eye to everyone and his uncle.

:lol: This is true. I had not named suspects prior to my rant.....because I didn't (and still don't) really have any suspects. I know you've not played with me before, but I am mostly a floater/follower/dance mindlessly along type player. I don't often have strong "suspects" on Day 1 (or Day 74, for that matter)
As for giving the eye, that was more a rhetorical flourish.....though maybe I will pencil the Sorsha over-regretters into my non-existent Book of Suspicious Activity.

Epignosis wrote: Also:

Canucklehead wrote:For what it's worth, I probably would've randomized in a coward like that when it comes to close votes.

Canucklehead wrote:Can I call "bullshit" on everyone saying that they wouldn't have voted Sorsha if she hadn't been awol??

By saying you probably would've randomized, you are saying you probably would not have voted Sorsha. So are you calling bullshit on yourself there?

I live my life in a constant state of calling bullshit on myself.

I wouldn't have voted Sorsha because I did not suspect Sorsha What I was calling out were peeps who suspected Sorsha enough to want to vote for her, then claimed that a hypothetical "defense" by her might have changed their minds. Bullz and DH and you and probably others disagree with the validity of me making such a callout. Ok.

DharmaHelper wrote: In this instance I'm going to have to disagree. Sorsha caught some very real suspicion for posts that she made and rather than make any attempt at defending herself she said "OK guys w/e"

She laid down and took it, and that sort of thing is not something that I expect or want out of civvies. If she didn't want to play the game, then yes it is 100% her fault that she is no longer playing.

Great way of putting it. People shouldn't just give up no matter what their allegiance. If you just quit and walk away you deserve to get lynched and if you do that as a civ people are perfectly within their rights to say they wish you'd tried to defend yourself.

Canucklehead wrote:
I wouldn't have voted Sorsha because I did not suspect Sorsha What I was calling out were peeps who suspected Sorsha enough to want to vote for her, then claimed that a hypothetical "defense" by her might have changed their minds. Bullz and DH and you and probably others disagree with the validity of me making such a callout. Ok.

Had you not noticed that I said several times before the lynch I was hoping to see a proper defense from Sorsha? Do you think I was just doing that for the good of my health? In my case, and probably others' too, a valid defense from Sorsha may have swayed me. She chose instead to walk out in a huff.

Bullzeye wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:
I wouldn't have voted Sorsha because I did not suspect Sorsha What I was calling out were peeps who suspected Sorsha enough to want to vote for her, then claimed that a hypothetical "defense" by her might have changed their minds. Bullz and DH and you and probably others disagree with the validity of me making such a callout. Ok.

Had you not noticed that I said several times before the lynch I was hoping to see a proper defense from Sorsha? Do you think I was just doing that for the good of my health? In my case, and probably others' too, a valid defense from Sorsha may have swayed me. She chose instead to walk out in a huff.

I had, in fact, noticed that. I am (occasionally) observant and (always) literate. :P
Honestly, Bullz, that just read to me (just as the post-lynch statements did) as pre-compensating. That could very well be an incorrect reading on my part, but that is the impression I got in the moment (which is why I asked you about your query to the thread on the issue of waiting to vote for Sorsha). It's not like I'm calling you a baddie or gunning to lynch you or anything, just pointing out what I noticed, and what is catching my eye. Also, you are not the only one my Rhetorically Flourishing Hairy Eyeball was directed at.....just the one to respond first to it. :P
It's OK if you think my "suspicions" are bogus. Not all of us can be devisers of Grand Unified Theories and Perfectly Coherent Suspicions. Some of us need to be the ones who just read along and point out dumb shit that, mistakenly or not, reads as odd to us. That's just how I play. Doing my part to maintain balance and order in the universe.

Edit for clarification: the "that" in my second sentence above ^^ refers to Bullz's pre-lynch statements about wanting to wait to hear from Sorsha, not to the quote I quoted....if that makes sense.

Canucklehead wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:
I wouldn't have voted Sorsha because I did not suspect Sorsha What I was calling out were peeps who suspected Sorsha enough to want to vote for her, then claimed that a hypothetical "defense" by her might have changed their minds. Bullz and DH and you and probably others disagree with the validity of me making such a callout. Ok.

Had you not noticed that I said several times before the lynch I was hoping to see a proper defense from Sorsha? Do you think I was just doing that for the good of my health? In my case, and probably others' too, a valid defense from Sorsha may have swayed me. She chose instead to walk out in a huff.

I had, in fact, noticed that. I am (occasionally) observant and (always) literate. :P
Honestly, Bullz, that just read to me (just as the post-lynch statements did) as pre-compensating. That could very well be an incorrect reading on my part, but that is the impression I got in the moment (which is why I asked you about your query to the thread on the issue of waiting to vote for Sorsha). It's not like I'm calling you a baddie or gunning to lynch you or anything, just pointing out what I noticed, and what is catching my eye. Also, you are not the only one my Rhetorically Flourishing Hairy Eyeball was directed at.....just the one to respond first to it. :P
It's OK if you think my "suspicions" are bogus. Not all of us can be devisers of Grand Unified Theories and Perfectly Coherent Suspicions. Some of us need to be the ones who just read along and point out dumb shit that, mistakenly or not, reads as odd to us. That's just how I play. Doing my part to maintain balance and order in the universe.

I see. I'm not particularly suspicious of you either, I just think you're generalising quite a bit here. I can only speak for myself of course, but I know I wasn't trying to 'precompensate' for anything. When I build a case on someone I actually want them to respond and try to poke holes in what I've said. If the best they can come up with is to get frustrated and give up then that doesn't help them. By doing that, in my opinion, Sorsha let the rest of the civs down.

Kindly explain, if you would Canucklehead, who your top suspect is out of the group you are referencing and why. If you are uncomfortable talking about that Night, no problem.

Just my opinion, but I've never seen a problem with discussing things at night. No baddie team I've ever been on has killed players for things they've said that same night, it was usually actions during the days previously that got people killed.

Limiting discussion to Day periods is something I don't care to do.

Kills the conversation really, if it can only take place at certain times.

Maybe there will be more fruitful discussion in a few hours though.

Let's hope so!

Nutella, given your last post of the Day phase, where do you stand on S~V~S?

I really don't know. I'm terrible at reading her. I'm definitely going to be keeping an eye on her.

Okay.

Epignosis wrote:Kindly explain, if you would Canucklehead, who your top suspect is out of the group you are referencing and why. If you are uncomfortable talking about that Night, no problem.

I have no probs talking at night. I am brave.

To answer your question: I did a re-read of the page or so before the lynch results were posted to try and sort out/revisit my thoughts on this. It turns out that unless I missed some (which is entirely possible because I really didn't try that hard), there were only three players who explicitly did (what I'm calling) the "deflect-y victim-blaming over-compensating" thing (yes, I've trademarked that. Don't try and steal it you bastards.). Here are the posts:

Roxy wrote:Too bad! I wish she had actually cared enough to respond instead of self voting. it prob would have made a difference. I do like the way Boogs is playiing like he put up some huge defense for Sorsha. Interesting take.

Keterman wrote:Now I'm especially pissed that I forgot to vote and especially pissed that she self-voted. A good defense wouldn't have been difficult for her, she could've saved herself pretty easily. I'm ready to see that "in-depth" defense SVS promised, some serious scumhunting from DH, and this Boogs and Roxy thing go somewhere where I can get a confident read on both of them.

Bullzeye wrote:Crap, sorry Sorsha. I wish you'd put up more of a defense, the fact you just gave up only made me more sure you were bad.

Of those three, Keterman didn't even vote for Sorsha so I guess technically he doesn't really fit into my GROUP OF SHAME, but I included him here anyway because the tone of his post (if not the actual circumstance) exemplifies the sort of thing I'm talking about......also, if I hadn't included him, my whole deal would've looked even sillier than it already is beginning to. :P

Anywho, between Roxy and Bullz, I guess I suspect Roxy a teeny bit more? She hasn't done anything else to raise my eyebrow this game (though I admitedly haven't gone through her posts because I'm lazy), but Bullz's responses to my post seem legit-ish, so.....she's the only one left?
I dunno.
The re-read didn't feel nearly as much like a chorus of really over-compensatory and disingenuous "OMG SORSHA WHY DIDN'T YOU DEFEND YOURSELF I TOTALLY WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED YOU BECAUSE I'M TOTALLY A CIVVIE WHO IS SO UPSETAHHHHHH" as my initial/in the moment read did. Reading it through this time, and in light of Bullz' and DH's responses, I was getting much more of a vibe of people being pissed-off from a meta-game level.

tl;dr: I suspect Roxy slightly more than Bullz, I guess. I don't suspect either of them very much. My "calling bullshit" post was probably hyperbolic, but it really DID seem odd to me when I was reading through in a rush last night.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but Roxy did not vote Sorsha either.

*checks poll*
Lulz. You are correct. This is what one gets for searching pages for keywords and not looking at things in context.

Quite all right.

My my my, what a night.

Really has been something else.

Wtf?

Roxy wrote:Wtf?

Sorry if I've confused you in any way.

That wtf was to Canuck who CLEARLY needs to read the thread instead of posting stuff that is not even true!
Then to qualify it by saying she is lazy is so laughable.

Roxy: I apologize that my mistake upsets you? I'll try not to make mistakes in the future? I'm not sure what the appropriate response to your post is.

^ (That wasn't meant I sound sarcastic, though on re-read it comes off that way. I actually am sorry if you're upset by my carelessness, Roxy.)

Canucklehead wrote:Roxy: I apologize that my mistake upsets you? I'll try not to make mistakes in the future? I'm not sure what the appropriate response to your post is.

I think Roxy takes umbrage with you calling her out based on a vote she didn't cast, as opposed to you making a mistake.

Basing a suspicion of someone off things that didn't happen tends to rub people the wrong way, in my experience.

Roxy wrote:That wtf was to Canuck who CLEARLY needs to read the thread instead of posting stuff that is not even true!
Then to qualify it by saying she is lazy is so laughable.

Thank you for the clarification.

Exactly DH.

Canuck if you are civ please read the thread. you never commented on my fase on Hedge and I will be making another on Boogs tomorrow. we need all civs to post thoughts and contribute to this upcoming lynch.
Also I am not upset?.

Haha fase=case

Upset? You could be. I'm not really paying attention.

DH: Lol, Ok. Fair. I can't really argue with that.

Linki: Rox: I'll admit to not paying a huggle amour of attention to this game yet, and then jumping in when I had a free moment and thought I saw something and neglected to do sufficient fact checking. I will attempt to do better but, as I mentioned, my brain is pretty occupied with stressy school stuff right now. Not an excuse, just an explanation.

...and Sorry for reading upsetsiness into a non-upset post.

Very good this game is.

Also lol @ "Huggle Amour." Sounds like a perfume sold in Diagon Alley.

While my primary suspect remains S~V~S, I find my ear opening to Roxy's perspective.