The Syndicate

I said I'd let Syn clarify first, but since he didn't, my thoughts on his D8 vote were that he blundered it and voted BWT, but was thinking of Bullzeye, at least judging from his reasoning (dissertation issues, dropping in activity after a good first rounds).

Ricochet wrote:I said I'd let Syn clarify first, but since he didn't, my thoughts on his D8 vote were that he blundered it and voted BWT, but was thinking of Bullzeye, at least judging from his reasoning (dissertation issues, dropping in activity after a good first rounds).

Possibly.

Looking back at his posts I didn't see any cases done on Bullz, but I do see him laying into SVS on Day 6. The day after he had position 4. Which checks alignment.

I think it quite possible Syn saw that SVS was recruited (and bad?).

Bullzeye wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Whoa boy. I think I have something on Bugbzargy, but it would be a bit inopportune this phase, considering he has an advantageous day for himself due to position 1.

What say you? Shall we discuss it anyway?

Go for it. We can discuss away and lynch him tomorrow. Now that you've put it out there you kinda have to or he might kill you tonight just to be safe.

Bullzeye wrote:I'm really unsure of who to vote for today. Never got round to doing those reads I wanted to do but I have a bit of time now I suppose. I'm not sure if I think Synonym is bad - leaning towards no. I also think that the case on BWT is decent but it hinges around him being a baddie we can't lynch today anyway, so I'd rather try it tomorrow when he's actually vulnerable. Other than that... Not got much to say!

Bullzeye wrote:On reflection I am going to *vote for BWT today*. If he is Ubz and the lynch fails, at least we'll have more evidence on the case against him. Plus I'd rather see that than lynch someone who is probably still neutral.

What a rollercoaster!

Scotty wrote:Voted Pos. 4.

If we're going to focus on Ubz tomorrow (which I think we should) we don't want a lynch switch or a protect from him (plus mild consequences, whatever that entails). I think poison is, while not ideal, manageable.

Position 2 has Ubzulu's lynch switch. Last time Position 5 got picked, the Druidic Elder switched the lynch to DharmaHelper. Are you assuming Druidic Elder is on team Ubzulu?

Voting Position 4.

Scotty wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I said I'd let Syn clarify first, but since he didn't, my thoughts on his D8 vote were that he blundered it and voted BWT, but was thinking of Bullzeye, at least judging from his reasoning (dissertation issues, dropping in activity after a good first rounds).

Possibly.

Looking back at his posts I didn't see any cases done on Bullz, but I do see him laying into SVS on Day 6. The day after he had position 4. Which checks alignment.

I think it quite possible Syn saw that SVS was recruited (and bad?).

Could be. Perhaps just like Wilgy may have alichecked SVS after D4. In your opinion, do you think Wilgy's D5 looks like a plant on SVS, a plant on timmer or neither?

Problem is, if someone who said Ubteam is at 3 and Azteam is at 4 wob the contest, it means no baddies have been nightkilled, I think. So it wouldn't sound like SVS was a baddie hit.

What happened with the Judge toDay? It appears he stayed away from the vote progress completely.

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:Voted #2.

Why?

I like my position 2 power! I wouldn't mind 5, as well.

Tranq wrote:

Scotty wrote:Voted Pos. 4.

If we're going to focus on Ubz tomorrow (which I think we should) we don't want a lynch switch or a protect from him (plus mild consequences, whatever that entails). I think poison is, while not ideal, manageable.

Position 2 has Ubzulu's lynch switch. Last time Position 5 got picked, the Druidic Elder switched the lynch to DharmaHelper. Are you assuming Druidic Elder is on team Ubzulu?

Voting Position 4.

I'm not sure I understand what logic made you assume I think Elder is bad.

No, I've already said it appeared that Druidic Elder is good, seeing as he switched the lynch of Wilgy, a Caelia recruit.

Scotty wrote:

Tranq wrote:

Scotty wrote:Voted Pos. 4.

If we're going to focus on Ubz tomorrow (which I think we should) we don't want a lynch switch or a protect from him (plus mild consequences, whatever that entails). I think poison is, while not ideal, manageable.

Position 2 has Ubzulu's lynch switch. Last time Position 5 got picked, the Druidic Elder switched the lynch to DharmaHelper. Are you assuming Druidic Elder is on team Ubzulu?

Voting Position 4.

I'm not sure I understand what logic made you assume I think Elder is bad.

No, I've already said it appeared that Druidic Elder is good, seeing as he switched the lynch of Wilgy, a Caelia recruit.

But he switched it to DH, who based on game events seems pretty civvie too. Why assume Elder was saving one civ and not trying to kill the other? I'd frankly rather not hand that role that power again.

Ricochet wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I said I'd let Syn clarify first, but since he didn't, my thoughts on his D8 vote were that he blundered it and voted BWT, but was thinking of Bullzeye, at least judging from his reasoning (dissertation issues, dropping in activity after a good first rounds).

Possibly.

Looking back at his posts I didn't see any cases done on Bullz, but I do see him laying into SVS on Day 6. The day after he had position 4. Which checks alignment.

I think it quite possible Syn saw that SVS was recruited (and bad?).

Could be. Perhaps just like Wilgy may have alichecked SVS after D4. In your opinion, do you think Wilgy's D5 looks like a plant on SVS, a plant on timmer or neither?

Problem is, if someone who said Ubteam is at 3 and Azteam is at 4 wob the contest, it means no baddies have been nightkilled, I think. So it wouldn't sound like SVS was a baddie hit.

What happened with the Judge toDay? It appears he stayed away from the vote progress completely.

Keep in mind we're assuming MM isn't lying about winning that contest. After all, he did say he received a secret message on Day 1 of Watchmen just for shits.


linki @ timmer: but was DH a pretty civvie person at that point? I'm not so sure. What cemented it for me was the attempted failed NK that night.

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:Voted #2.

Why?

I like my position 2 power! I wouldn't mind 5, as well.

Is it a pretty position 2? Or a venomous one?

Do you care how the positions look for the game, or the civ game, at all, in choosing them?

Scotty wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I said I'd let Syn clarify first, but since he didn't, my thoughts on his D8 vote were that he blundered it and voted BWT, but was thinking of Bullzeye, at least judging from his reasoning (dissertation issues, dropping in activity after a good first rounds).

Possibly.

Looking back at his posts I didn't see any cases done on Bullz, but I do see him laying into SVS on Day 6. The day after he had position 4. Which checks alignment.

I think it quite possible Syn saw that SVS was recruited (and bad?).

Could be. Perhaps just like Wilgy may have alichecked SVS after D4. In your opinion, do you think Wilgy's D5 looks like a plant on SVS, a plant on timmer or neither?

Problem is, if someone who said Ubteam is at 3 and Azteam is at 4 wob the contest, it means no baddies have been nightkilled, I think. So it wouldn't sound like SVS was a baddie hit.

What happened with the Judge toDay? It appears he stayed away from the vote progress completely.

Keep in mind we're assuming MM isn't lying about winning that contest. After all, he did say he received a secret message on Day 1 of Watchmen just for shits.


linki @ timmer: but was DH a pretty civvie person at that point? I'm not so sure. What cemented it for me was the attempted failed NK that night.

Everyone except me said Ubteam 3 - Azteam 4 out in the open, that's what I meant. If a private PM won, it's a different matter.

Scotty wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I said I'd let Syn clarify first, but since he didn't, my thoughts on his D8 vote were that he blundered it and voted BWT, but was thinking of Bullzeye, at least judging from his reasoning (dissertation issues, dropping in activity after a good first rounds).

Possibly.

Looking back at his posts I didn't see any cases done on Bullz, but I do see him laying into SVS on Day 6. The day after he had position 4. Which checks alignment.

I think it quite possible Syn saw that SVS was recruited (and bad?).

Could be. Perhaps just like Wilgy may have alichecked SVS after D4. In your opinion, do you think Wilgy's D5 looks like a plant on SVS, a plant on timmer or neither?

Problem is, if someone who said Ubteam is at 3 and Azteam is at 4 wob the contest, it means no baddies have been nightkilled, I think. So it wouldn't sound like SVS was a baddie hit.

What happened with the Judge toDay? It appears he stayed away from the vote progress completely.

Keep in mind we're assuming MM isn't lying about winning that contest. After all, he did say he received a secret message on Day 1 of Watchmen just for shits.


linki @ timmer: but was DH a pretty civvie person at that point? I'm not so sure. What cemented it for me was the attempted failed NK that night.

Everyone except me said Ubteam 3 - Azteam 4 out in the open, that's what I meant. If a private PM won, it's a different matter.

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:Voted #2.

Why?

I like my position 2 power! I wouldn't mind 5, as well.

Is it a pretty position 2? Or a venomous one?

Do you care how the positions look for the game, or the civ game, at all, in choosing them?

Very much so!

Ricochet wrote:Everyone except me said Ubteam 3 - Azteam 4 out in the open, that's what I meant. If a private PM won, it's a different matter.

It wasn't a private PM that won it though, it was my first guess.

And no Scotty, I'd prefer to keep my prize a mystery. Sorry.

timmer wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Tranq wrote:

Scotty wrote:Voted Pos. 4.

If we're going to focus on Ubz tomorrow (which I think we should) we don't want a lynch switch or a protect from him (plus mild consequences, whatever that entails). I think poison is, while not ideal, manageable.

Position 2 has Ubzulu's lynch switch. Last time Position 5 got picked, the Druidic Elder switched the lynch to DharmaHelper. Are you assuming Druidic Elder is on team Ubzulu?

Voting Position 4.

I'm not sure I understand what logic made you assume I think Elder is bad.

No, I've already said it appeared that Druidic Elder is good, seeing as he switched the lynch of Wilgy, a Caelia recruit.

But he switched it to DH, who based on game events seems pretty civvie too. Why assume Elder was saving one civ and not trying to kill the other? I'd frankly rather not hand that role that power again.

But you'd rather hand a bad leader a way out of getting lynched by voting position 2?

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

timmer wrote:Voted #2.

Why?

I like my position 2 power! I wouldn't mind 5, as well.

Is it a pretty position 2? Or a venomous one?

Do you care how the positions look for the game, or the civ game, at all, in choosing them?

Very much so!

How so?

Scotty wrote:Keep in mind we're assuming MM isn't lying about winning that contest. After all, he did say he received a secret message on Day 1 of Watchmen just for shits.

That's a good point. I can't argue with that one.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Everyone except me said Ubteam 3 - Azteam 4 out in the open, that's what I meant. If a private PM won, it's a different matter.

It wasn't a private PM that won it though, it was my first guess.

And no Scotty, I'd prefer to keep my prize a mystery. Sorry.

Ahriman at 3!

Shit, if Syn checked on SVS and got a read on her as recruited, it could mean SVS was on team Ahriman.

Ricochet wrote: But you'd rather hand a bad leader a way out of getting lynched by voting position 2?

How so?

I can't properly answer either of these questions without revealing my role, etc. so suffice to say that I'm comfortable voting for Position 2.

While it's possible that SVS is unrecruited, I'd be flabbergasted if she were civ. I thought it likely she was bad, and didn't fault Caelia for making that shot.

But if MM is telling the truth, that puts cases on SVS from Wilgy and Syn out the window, as well as a bunch of others that had voiced concern with her off and on throughout the game.

I just don't know if I can trust MM at this point to base that huge change of thinking off of.

We might as well just lynch him tomorrow

Scotty wrote:While it's possible that SVS is unrecruited, I'd be flabbergasted if she were civ. I thought it likely she was bad, and didn't fault Caelia for making that shot.

But if MM is telling the truth, that puts cases on SVS from Wilgy and Syn out the window, as well as a bunch of others that had voiced concern with her off and on throughout the game.

I just don't know if I can trust MM at this point to base that huge change of thinking off of.

We might as well just lynch him tomorrow

I did not believe the information
Just had to trust imagination

Don't lynch me tomorrow though. I've finally made myself useful.

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote: But you'd rather hand a bad leader a way out of getting lynched by voting position 2?

How so?

I can't properly answer either of these questions without revealing my role, etc. so suffice to say that I'm comfortable voting for Position 2.

I don't see what answering those questions has to do with role revealing, I didn't ask anything that specific in nature. First question was more like testing whether you're really ok with a bad leader, namely Uzbekistan, receiving a position that allows him to possibly evade a lynch (for a second Day in a row, in fact). Second question was asked because your option strikes me as totally self-centered, according to your game credo, so I don't see how you can claim to have the other players' (let alone the civs) interest in your position choosing strategy.

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote: But you'd rather hand a bad leader a way out of getting lynched by voting position 2?

How so?

I can't properly answer either of these questions without revealing my role, etc. so suffice to say that I'm comfortable voting for Position 2.

I found timmer's role guys:

Ubzargan Unnihilator - Enemy of Uzbekistan

Position 1- Give Ubzargan an anal prolapse that makes him super embarrassed
Position 2- Give Ubzargan a 'Goochi-Goochi-Goo" which makes him laugh uncontrollably in thread
Position 3- Give Ubzargan an horrific STD based strictly on the plot of 'It Follows'
Position 4- Give Ubzargan a dank hipster alarm clock but remotely turn off his alarms at night so he misses an important meeting
Position 5- Give Ubzargan a bath. He hates baths!

Weird that you like position 2 out of those...I just wanna know what his Epic Challenge is.

Scotty wrote:

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote: But you'd rather hand a bad leader a way out of getting lynched by voting position 2?

How so?

I can't properly answer either of these questions without revealing my role, etc. so suffice to say that I'm comfortable voting for Position 2.

I found timmer's role guys:

Ubzargan Unnihilator - Enemy of Uzbekistan

Position 1- Give Ubzargan an anal prolapse that makes him super embarrassed
Position 2- Give Ubzargan a 'Goochi-Goochi-Goo" which makes him laugh uncontrollably in thread
Position 3- Give Ubzargan an horrific STD based strictly on the plot of 'It Follows'
Position 4- Give Ubzargan a dank hipster alarm clock but remotely turn off his alarms at night so he misses an important meeting
Position 5- Give Ubzargan a bath. He hates baths!

Weird that you like position 2 out of those...I just wanna know what his Epic Challenge is.

Epic Win Condition: Choose your favorite position and engage Ubzargan in that position.

Ricochet wrote:
I don't see what answering those questions has to do with role revealing, I didn't ask anything that specific in nature. First question was more like testing whether you're really ok with a bad leader, namely Uzbekistan, receiving a position that allows him to possibly evade a lynch (for a second Day in a row, in fact). Second question was asked because your option strikes me as totally self-centered, according to your game credo, so I don't see how you can claim to have the other players' (let alone the civs) interest in your position choosing strategy.

I really don't think I can expound too much on this, but my credo was to be neutral while neutral, and then to move along into eventually being on a team. Just as I said in the beginning that this was a sort of LMS game that would morph into a traditional mafia game, so too is my gameplay evolving with it. If others are reluctant to go with Position 2, that's cool with me, I'm just stating that based on a lot of things, I'm happy to go with Position 2.

Which position would you prefer? And why?

ETA:

timmer wrote:I really don't think I can expound too much on this, but my credo was to be neutral while neutral, and then to move along into eventually being on a team. Just as I said in the beginning that this was a sort of LMS game that would morph into a traditional mafia game, so too is my gameplay evolving with it. If others are reluctant to go with Position 2, that's cool with me, I'm just stating that based on a lot of things, I'm happy to go with Position 2.

Will you start playing like a civilian if you are recruited by civilian?

Will you start playing like a mafia if you are recruited by mafia?

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote:
I don't see what answering those questions has to do with role revealing, I didn't ask anything that specific in nature. First question was more like testing whether you're really ok with a bad leader, namely Uzbekistan, receiving a position that allows him to possibly evade a lynch (for a second Day in a row, in fact). Second question was asked because your option strikes me as totally self-centered, according to your game credo, so I don't see how you can claim to have the other players' (let alone the civs) interest in your position choosing strategy.

I really don't think I can expound too much on this, but my credo was to be neutral while neutral, and then to move along into eventually being on a team. Just as I said in the beginning that this was a sort of LMS game that would morph into a traditional mafia game, so too is my gameplay evolving with it. If others are reluctant to go with Position 2, that's cool with me, I'm just stating that based on a lot of things, I'm happy to go with Position 2.

Which position would you prefer? And why?

Correct. But I still don't see how your personal content for position 2 contents into it looking good for the overall play and for the civs' cause in particular, since you claimed to care.

I have already made an aim at Uzbarackistan toDay, so I don't endorse positions 2 and 5 for tomorrow, given that they could help him. I realize it has poison, curse and seemer, but position 4 is probably the best we can go with, in my opinion.

Correct, you don't see how. And I can't help you see without breaking rules. I'm not trying to convince people to vote for 2, you asked me why I picked it and I've been giving you the best answer I can. We can move on any time you're ready.

Scotty wrote:Voted Pos. 4.

If we're going to focus on Ubz tomorrow (which I think we should) we don't want a lynch switch or a protect from him (plus mild consequences, whatever that entails). I think poison is, while not ideal, manageable.

I agree with this. Voting 4

@MM, this is still mafia. Either I am civ and am acting accordingly as best I can, or I'm bad and faking it as best I can or I'm still unrecruited and complicating my gameplay for some reason. I stated long ago Ive been trying to get recruited, that my game is morphing shouldn't be to crazy a concept?

timmer wrote:Correct, you don't see how. And I can't help you see without breaking rules. I'm not trying to convince people to vote for 2, you asked me why I picked it and I've been giving you the best answer I can. We can move on any time you're ready.

I never implied you are trying to convince anyone to vote position 2. However, a position choice is still up for scrunity (even though, so far in this game, we haven't really made much of a hunt out of this); it can be civ-centered, it can be game-centered, it can be self-centered, it can have nefarious hidden intents etc.; acknowledging both that "my choice is in my best own interest" and that "my choice can help the game (or the civs) - and I know so" just didn't add up too well, in my view.

To make myself clear, since I personally don't have the interest for positions that can help a baddie leader to be chosen toNight, I'm going to be wary, at least, of players who gloss over this issue, in choosing those positions. I think you sort of did that, by saying you chose position 2 simply because it's of your liking. Of course, it can be a claim that your position can perhaps counter the downsides of that position. Such a claim, however, is of course up for scrutiny.

But I'm ok with leaving it at that.

RIP syn

Voting 4

Voting Fore four.



Let's get that Uzbaddie!

Scotty wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Whoa boy. I think I have something on Bugbzargy, but it would be a bit inopportune this phase, considering he has an advantageous day for himself due to position 1.

What say you? Shall we discuss it anyway?

Go for it. We can discuss away and lynch him tomorrow. Now that you've put it out there you kinda have to or he might kill you tonight just to be safe.

Bullzeye wrote:I'm really unsure of who to vote for today. Never got round to doing those reads I wanted to do but I have a bit of time now I suppose. I'm not sure if I think Synonym is bad - leaning towards no. I also think that the case on BWT is decent but it hinges around him being a baddie we can't lynch today anyway, so I'd rather try it tomorrow when he's actually vulnerable. Other than that... Not got much to say!

Bullzeye wrote:On reflection I am going to *vote for BWT today*. If he is Ubz and the lynch fails, at least we'll have more evidence on the case against him. Plus I'd rather see that than lynch someone who is probably still neutral.

What a rollercoaster!

Is it really such a stretch? I didn't want to vote Synonym because I didn't think he was bad (and I wasn't wrong) and I was too tired to go back through to find another suspect so I went with BWT. He was also the only other person at the time likely to be lynched.

timmer wrote:Voted #2.

@Roxy, one thing I've learned from our recent history is not rush to judgment, so I'm not even technically eyeing you yet, I'm just... intrigued. And I said you were wrong in my post, so I did essentially say I'm not bad, contrary to what you last said.

How am I "rushing to judgement" on Day 8? Its not like its Day 1. The first time I thought you were bad I posted and watched until the last lynch and now I am sure about my gut on you.

Also earlier I voted 4

I'll vote position 4 as well.

Scotty wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Scotty wrote:
So that really sucks.
I feel responsible in a way. I was first to vote him today. I think I've been at least mostly responsible for 2 straight mislynches. That looks very bad and I feel like a terrible player. RIP Syn. I'm sure he took hooourrrrs catching up this long game and he lasted shorter than me in my first sexual encounter.

There was definite cause for concern on his lynch. Reading back on some comments, there was such a drop off midday. That's either a good sign or a bad sign that something is up. Plus, the bandwagon yesterday comprised of Keeper of Ravens, SVS, Devin and DH.

I'm not leading any charges tomorrow (should I still be alive). I've obviously had a bad record this game. I'm gonna be a follower for at least tomorrow, which is strangely unlike me. But we can't afford to be wrong again.

That being said, I don't see a better lynch candidate than BWT, should we be able to. But am entertaining any and all options at this point.

Are you bad Scotty? As you admit, this is the second JTM player you've had a hand in lynching. You also play on JTM.

I see you tryin' to weed out the players who know you.

No. But now that you've pointed it out, that's suspiciously coincidental for sure.

Didn't you recently launch a case against TH for agreeing that his own actions were suspicious when called on them? Isn't that by your own metric something that baddies do??

I have to review the case on BWT. I wasn't really around for it yesterday.

No no Roxy, I'm not rushing to judge YOU, I wasn't saying you shouldn't rush to judge ME. And I can only suggest that you reconsider, because this is the second game in a row where you are wrong about me.

I'm not ruling out that there was seemer action in the last lynch.

Voting 4.

Scotty wrote:

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote: But you'd rather hand a bad leader a way out of getting lynched by voting position 2?

How so?

I can't properly answer either of these questions without revealing my role, etc. so suffice to say that I'm comfortable voting for Position 2.

I found timmer's role guys:

Ubzargan Unnihilator - Enemy of Uzbekistan

Position 1- Give Ubzargan an anal prolapse that makes him super embarrassed
Position 2- Give Ubzargan a 'Goochi-Goochi-Goo" which makes him laugh uncontrollably in thread
Position 3- Give Ubzargan an horrific STD based strictly on the plot of 'It Follows'
Position 4- Give Ubzargan a dank hipster alarm clock but remotely turn off his alarms at night so he misses an important meeting
Position 5- Give Ubzargan a bath. He hates baths!

Weird that you like position 2 out of those...I just wanna know what his Epic Challenge is.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Scotty wrote:

timmer wrote:

Ricochet wrote: But you'd rather hand a bad leader a way out of getting lynched by voting position 2?

How so?

I can't properly answer either of these questions without revealing my role, etc. so suffice to say that I'm comfortable voting for Position 2.

I found timmer's role guys:

Ubzargan Unnihilator - Enemy of Uzbekistan

Position 1- Give Ubzargan an anal prolapse that makes him super embarrassed
Position 2- Give Ubzargan a 'Goochi-Goochi-Goo" which makes him laugh uncontrollably in thread
Position 3- Give Ubzargan an horrific STD based strictly on the plot of 'It Follows'
Position 4- Give Ubzargan a dank hipster alarm clock but remotely turn off his alarms at night so he misses an important meeting
Position 5- Give Ubzargan a bath. He hates baths!

Weird that you like position 2 out of those...I just wanna know what his Epic Challenge is.

A wild Ublaragon has appeared. Laughing maniacally.

I think I will flee.

Canucklehead wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Scotty wrote:
So that really sucks.
I feel responsible in a way. I was first to vote him today. I think I've been at least mostly responsible for 2 straight mislynches. That looks very bad and I feel like a terrible player. RIP Syn. I'm sure he took hooourrrrs catching up this long game and he lasted shorter than me in my first sexual encounter.

There was definite cause for concern on his lynch. Reading back on some comments, there was such a drop off midday. That's either a good sign or a bad sign that something is up. Plus, the bandwagon yesterday comprised of Keeper of Ravens, SVS, Devin and DH.

I'm not leading any charges tomorrow (should I still be alive). I've obviously had a bad record this game. I'm gonna be a follower for at least tomorrow, which is strangely unlike me. But we can't afford to be wrong again.

That being said, I don't see a better lynch candidate than BWT, should we be able to. But am entertaining any and all options at this point.

Are you bad Scotty? As you admit, this is the second JTM player you've had a hand in lynching. You also play on JTM.

I see you tryin' to weed out the players who know you.

No. But now that you've pointed it out, that's suspiciously coincidental for sure.

Didn't you recently launch a case against TH for agreeing that his own actions were suspicious when called on them? Isn't that by your own metric something that baddies do??

I didn't launch a case because he was basically laying down in the street. He just happened to do so in response to my long-ish case. There's a difference there.
Agreeing with suspicious actions does not a baddie player make. I never said that.

Now come after me with a case and let's dance. I've been recently taking swing lessons.

LoRab wrote:I'm not ruling out that there was seemer action in the last lynch.

Voting 4.

Judging by the results of the team-numbers contest combined with calculations provided by Rico earlier, the result was legit.

4 seems to be the one with the least amount of uzbaprotection so I will go with it.

nutella wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'm not ruling out that there was seemer action in the last lynch.

Voting 4.

Judging by the results of the team-numbers contest combined with calculations provided by Rico earlier, the result was legit.

not necessarily. also, that's assuming mm is telling the truth about winning and that the numbers mm posted were the answer submitted (as opposed to sending a pm with different numbers).

Also, we don't know that a civie wasn't nk-ed at some point, which would equal the same numbers.

I'm just saying, I think it's dangerous to assume.

And his posts don't make sense to me in the context of having been recruited to the civie team.

For that matter, we I can't remember which lynches happened in a position with a seemer, but we don't actually know that a seemer role wasn't used to make someone appear neutral.

I'm ok with keeping in mind the seemer option, but at lower odds than a genuine result. The team count contest results have to do with this, but they're not 100% solid. Then again, why would the Host launch such a contest right away, that could ideally point out the real situation, if at the same time the last lynch perception would be screwed by a seemer's ability?

Also, there's this reaction by BWT prior to Syn's lynch that I now have in mind:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Does anyone else think the chances of Synonym appearing as a Seemer are realistic at all?

the hell. What inspired him to bring this up half an hour before EoD?

Ricochet wrote:Also, there's this reaction by BWT prior to Syn's lynch that I now have in mind:

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Does anyone else think the chances of Synonym appearing as a Seemer are realistic at all?

the hell. What inspired him to bring this up half an hour before EoD?

Yeah, and then right after that BWT said he tried to vote for himself. To uh, make things clearer for the rest of us.

Well that's a shit result

Voting for 4.