The Syndicate

zeek wrote:Makes sense. I don't know who to vote for. I might go SVS based on her flying the radar. Being around but no really discussing anything.

What do you think of Made?

Dom wrote:I find some of the points on Enrique to be valid. I do. However, I couldn't help but notice how hypocritical MP is being.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Enrique wrote:No. It's suspicious that he used it without any indication that he was around when it was used.

I waited until Day 1. But you, sir, are my greatest suspect.

Wow, I actually agree here.

So you agree-- Enrique is your greatest suspect.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Fair, I don't feel very strongly about this Enrique suspicion, but I do believe in it, and I do think he very well could be bad. I wouldn't have voted him if we couldn't change votes, but since we can, thought I might as well.

MovingPictures07 wrote: So now here you go trying to subtly push that my behavior was really forced and over the top, just like Dana, yet you're "not making any accusations"?

I don't buy it.

Am I bad or not, Enri?

Seriously?

Does anyone know how this post is suppose to be read, he never clarified what exact he felt was hypocritical.

Linki- I guess suspicion isn't the right word. She's playing in a way i've never seen nor that i understand, so i think we should critically view all moves she makes.

I understand what everyone on my list seems to be attempting, whether it's playing to their meta, or otherwise. With those not on my list, I have no idea. We learn nothing killing a quiet mafia, and even less doing the more likely; killing a quiet civvie. If given the choice to randomize or no lynch, no lynch simply makes more sense.

linki- ok, so no no lynch. The way i see it, Juliet, angles are how people are being perceived. so if someone,for example, wants to be seen as "manic", they'll avoid situations that make them appear otherwise.

Ugh, so many people not talking yet. I was really hoping we'd hear from Dom again because most of what he says is "I find some of the points on Enrique to be valid" here: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 187#p85187

and he hasn't really said much else.

Linki with Made, going to read this in a second

Made wrote:

Dom wrote:I find some of the points on Enrique to be valid. I do. However, I couldn't help but notice how hypocritical MP is being.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Enrique wrote:No. It's suspicious that he used it without any indication that he was around when it was used.

I waited until Day 1. But you, sir, are my greatest suspect.

Wow, I actually agree here.

So you agree-- Enrique is your greatest suspect.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Fair, I don't feel very strongly about this Enrique suspicion, but I do believe in it, and I do think he very well could be bad. I wouldn't have voted him if we couldn't change votes, but since we can, thought I might as well.

MovingPictures07 wrote: So now here you go trying to subtly push that my behavior was really forced and over the top, just like Dana, yet you're "not making any accusations"?

I don't buy it.

Am I bad or not, Enri?

Seriously?

Does anyone know how this post is suppose to be read, he never clarified what exact he felt was hypocritical.

Linki- I guess suspicion isn't the right word. She's playing in a way i've never seen nor that i understand, so i think we should critically view all moves she makes.

I understand what everyone on my list seems to be attempting, whether it's playing to their meta, or otherwise. With those not on my list, I have no idea. We learn nothing killing a quiet mafia, and even less doing the more likely; killing a quiet civvie. If given the choice to randomize or no lynch, no lynch simply makes more sense.

linki- ok, so no no lynch. The way i see it, Juliet, angles are how people are being perceived. so if someone,for example, wants to be seen as "manic", they'll avoid situations that make them appear otherwise.

Dom in fact clarified about that here: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 493#p85493

How does a no lynch make more sense, it gives the baddies an extra night to NK? And how do we learn nothing from killing a quiet mafia? That's not true. We get one mafia member down (yay math) and we could possibly learn information easily based on the way people vote.

I find it odd Made that you're only considering votes for people who are "high posters".

MovingPictures07 wrote:

zeek wrote:Makes sense. I don't know who to vote for. I might go SVS based on her flying the radar. Being around but no really discussing anything.

What do you think of Made?

I thought his back and forth with SVS was strange, but he didn't initiate it.

Made wrote:Linki- I guess suspicion isn't the right word. She's playing in a way i've never seen nor that i understand, so i think we should critically view all moves she makes.

I understand what everyone on my list seems to be attempting, whether it's playing to their meta, or otherwise. With those not on my list, I have no idea. We learn nothing killing a quiet mafia, and even less doing the more likely; killing a quiet civvie. If given the choice to randomize or no lynch, no lynch simply makes more sense.

I presume this is about SVS. So you're not suspicious of her, just confused by her play?
I agree you don't learn anything in those situations, but that limits us to lynching someone talkative and thats giving a pass to the people laying low.

Why do people vote for themselves? Is this some new fangled strategy with which I am not familiar?

I personally am confused by S~V~S's play so far but I'm not sure it makes her bad.

Yeah, the back and forth was strange, but IDK, when people try to argue those type of exchanges make people bad it just doesn't resonate with me because I don't see why baddies would do that.

Linki with Sabie: To whom are you referring, DF? And people generally shouldn't vote for themselves, it makes NO sense whatsoever. DF said he intended on switching his vote, and I definitely am not keeping mine on myself.

What thoughts do you have currently?

MovingPictures07 wrote:I personally am confused by S~V~S's play so far but I'm not sure it makes her bad.

Yeah, the back and forth was strange, but IDK, when people try to argue those type of exchanges make people bad it just doesn't resonate with me because I don't see why baddies would do that.

Trying to appear as though she's on her own, without help from anyone. She should have found that quote quickly. It's not much and I won't pretend it is, but I've had a bad vibe from her for a while. I don't have much else to go on.

zeek wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I personally am confused by S~V~S's play so far but I'm not sure it makes her bad.

Yeah, the back and forth was strange, but IDK, when people try to argue those type of exchanges make people bad it just doesn't resonate with me because I don't see why baddies would do that.

Trying to appear as though she's on her own, without help from anyone. She should have found that quote quickly. It's not much and I won't pretend it is, but I've had a bad vibe from her for a while. I don't have much else to go on.

That's fair, I just don't think I'll be voting for her, unless I have to save myself and it's the only way to do so. I do think her behavior has been strange, but it just hasn't struck me as bad.

I do have that little paranoid man in the back of my head wondering if both Made and S~V~S are bad because they both have been acting a bit strange and because of that exchange you reference, but that's pretty ridiculous and impossible to tell this early.

Speaking of which, if Enri is Epig's primary suspicion, what happened to his suspicion based off of that exchange?

Voting zeek for now.

I may have time to check in later, but I may be going out. If things are neck and neck between Eko and MP instead, I might be able to switch.

Ebwop: Sh*t, he changed his vote so now idk. :/

Now that sounds opportunistic.

Why zeek, MR?

And what do you mean about neck and neck between me and Enri?

Linki with Epig: Yeah, I agree.

Why are you voting for zeek MR?

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Dom in fact clarified about that here: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 493#p85493

How does a no lynch make more sense, it gives the baddies an extra night to NK? And how do we learn nothing from killing a quiet mafia? That's not true. We get one mafia member down (yay math) and we could possibly learn information easily based on the way people vote.

Son, i gotcha maths
In a random lynch we have a 12/31 chance of killing a mafia (assuming the hidden roles are indy/mafia)
in a no lynch we don't kill civvie. I've never participated in the lynching of a mafia and the earliest I've ever seen a mafia lynched was Enrique in Monty.
in voting an active player ( i didn't mean to imply i would only consider especially high poster), while there's a chance that all active posters are civvie, we (ideally) increase our odds because we have post to make our decision off of.

Based on the fact that there is no clear "Hey this person is totally mafia" that everyone agrees on, i feel we might actually nab one.

Also, thanks, misread Dom's post.

linki- MR, welcome to my radar, please have a seat as I evaluate your angles.

What the hell?

MR, care to explain your vote?

Made wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Dom in fact clarified about that here: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 493#p85493

How does a no lynch make more sense, it gives the baddies an extra night to NK? And how do we learn nothing from killing a quiet mafia? That's not true. We get one mafia member down (yay math) and we could possibly learn information easily based on the way people vote.

Son, i gotcha maths
In a random lynch we have a 12/31 chance of killing a mafia (assuming the hidden roles are indy/mafia)
in a no lynch we don't kill civvie. I've never participated in the lynching of a mafia and the earliest I've ever seen a mafia lynched was Enrique in Monty.
in voting an active player ( i didn't mean to imply i would only consider especially high poster), while there's a chance that all active posters are civvie, we (ideally) increase our odds because we have post to make our decision off of.

Based on the fact that there is no clear "Hey this person is totally mafia" that everyone agrees on, i feel we might actually nab one.

Also, thanks, misread Dom's post.

linki- MR, welcome to my radar, please have a seat as I evaluate your angles.

Yes, but in a no lynch, we learn absolutely nothing about anyone's alignment, and allow an NK to happen. Even if we lynch a civvie on D1, at least it might give us information on catching a baddie in the future. (which is exactly what you're saying, right?)

So I'm not sure I totally understand.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Why zeek, MR?

And what do you mean about neck and neck between me and Enri?

Linki with Epig: Yeah, I agree.

I actually thought zeek was the one being opportunistic with his vote for MP. Now I see he has changed it and I don't see anything wrong with an SVS vote.

I mean if it comes down to it, I feel more comfortable voting for Eko than you.

Apologies for the rush. I'm posting during a movie, haha.

Mister Rearranger wrote:I actually thought zeek was the one being opportunistic with his vote for MP. Now I see he has changed it and I don't see anything wrong with an SVS vote.

I mean if it comes down to it, I feel more comfortable voting for Eko than you.

Apologies for the rush. I'm posting during a movie, haha.

How the hell was I being opportunistic when HE scapegoated me just to stimulate conversation. Even he admits a vote from me would be fair given the circumstances.

juliets wrote:Epi since you are so good at picking out baddies I've been trying to piece together your suspicion of enrique but it would be more helpful if you could just give a short list of the things that have hit you about enrique. I was sure I wouldn't vote him but I want to make sure I understand why you are.

This is worded very differently than what you accidentally posted in Monty Python:

juliets wrote:I think I may have to retract my statement about not voting for zeek, enrique or mp. I am piecing together Epigs suspicion of Enrique and it holds more water than I thought. Epi you could make this easier by just listing the reasons you voted for him. Just a few key words even.

I am reminded of a certain evil dragon who piggybacked on my suspicions for several days, getting me to elaborate on them.

I don't want to make things easier. Why don't you tell me what you've pieced together about Enrique now that he has three votes?

I see Epignosis has replied to juliets. That's extremely opportunistic of him.

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epi since you are so good at picking out baddies I've been trying to piece together your suspicion of enrique but it would be more helpful if you could just give a short list of the things that have hit you about enrique. I was sure I wouldn't vote him but I want to make sure I understand why you are.

This is worded very differently than what you accidentally posted in Monty Python:

juliets wrote:I think I may have to retract my statement about not voting for zeek, enrique or mp. I am piecing together Epigs suspicion of Enrique and it holds more water than I thought. Epi you could make this easier by just listing the reasons you voted for him. Just a few key words even.

I am reminded of a certain evil dragon who piggybacked on my suspicions for several days, getting me to elaborate on them.

I don't want to make things easier. Why don't you tell me what you've pieced together about Enrique now that he has three votes?

Is that second quote from a different thread?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Made wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Dom in fact clarified about that here: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 493#p85493

How does a no lynch make more sense, it gives the baddies an extra night to NK? And how do we learn nothing from killing a quiet mafia? That's not true. We get one mafia member down (yay math) and we could possibly learn information easily based on the way people vote.

Son, i gotcha maths
In a random lynch we have a 12/31 chance of killing a mafia (assuming the hidden roles are indy/mafia)
in a no lynch we don't kill civvie. I've never participated in the lynching of a mafia and the earliest I've ever seen a mafia lynched was Enrique in Monty.
in voting an active player ( i didn't mean to imply i would only consider especially high poster), while there's a chance that all active posters are civvie, we (ideally) increase our odds because we have post to make our decision off of.

Based on the fact that there is no clear "Hey this person is totally mafia" that everyone agrees on, i feel we might actually nab one.

Also, thanks, misread Dom's post.

linki- MR, welcome to my radar, please have a seat as I evaluate your angles.

Yes, but in a no lynch, we learn absolutely nothing about anyone's alignment, and allow an NK to happen. Even if we lynch a civvie on D1, at least it might give us information on catching a baddie in the future. (which is exactly what you're saying, right?)

So I'm not sure I totally understand.

I'm not saying that? I'm saying by voting someone who's actually posting, we increase or odds of finding mafia because the vote was influenced by suspicion rather than completely random. I'd much rather one civvie die than two personally.
In reference to your second post, the only thing we learn when we kill a random is that their intent was genuine. If a civvie didn't post much on topic what did we learn?

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epi since you are so good at picking out baddies I've been trying to piece together your suspicion of enrique but it would be more helpful if you could just give a short list of the things that have hit you about enrique. I was sure I wouldn't vote him but I want to make sure I understand why you are.

This is worded very differently than what you accidentally posted in Monty Python:

juliets wrote:I think I may have to retract my statement about not voting for zeek, enrique or mp. I am piecing together Epigs suspicion of Enrique and it holds more water than I thought. Epi you could make this easier by just listing the reasons you voted for him. Just a few key words even.

I am reminded of a certain evil dragon who piggybacked on my suspicions for several days, getting me to elaborate on them.

I don't want to make things easier. Why don't you tell me what you've pieced together about Enrique now that he has three votes?

Is that second quote from a different thread?

Yes. Mistakenly posted in a different thread.

I'm going to try to sleep now. I'm not particularly comfortable with my vote but I have little else to go on.

Not pleased with the vote stuck on me so I'd ask MR to actually read the thread before the deadline is up. k thanks.

I may set an alarm to get me back up to see the lynch post. Laters.

Well in terms of enrique you offered this with no explanation other than later when you said Enrique had done something that you had done when you were bad. I guess that pertains to this post:

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 091#p85091


You said some of his posts didn't sound genuine.

And you said this:

Epignosis wrote:I am telling you to vote for Enrique. What do I have to gain from this?

If he is lynched and is bad, then I get Night killed.

If he is lynched and is good, then I get lynched.

Which is par for the course for me.

Vote for Enrique.

That's all I find so I am not compelled to vote for Enrique.

Mister Rearranger wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Why zeek, MR?

And what do you mean about neck and neck between me and Enri?

Linki with Epig: Yeah, I agree.

I actually thought zeek was the one being opportunistic with his vote for MP. Now I see he has changed it and I don't see anything wrong with an SVS vote.

I mean if it comes down to it, I feel more comfortable voting for Eko than you.

Apologies for the rush. I'm posting during a movie, haha.

Oh, okay then. Why would you feel more comfortable with an Enrique vote?

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epi since you are so good at picking out baddies I've been trying to piece together your suspicion of enrique but it would be more helpful if you could just give a short list of the things that have hit you about enrique. I was sure I wouldn't vote him but I want to make sure I understand why you are.

This is worded very differently than what you accidentally posted in Monty Python:

juliets wrote:I think I may have to retract my statement about not voting for zeek, enrique or mp. I am piecing together Epigs suspicion of Enrique and it holds more water than I thought. Epi you could make this easier by just listing the reasons you voted for him. Just a few key words even.

I am reminded of a certain evil dragon who piggybacked on my suspicions for several days, getting me to elaborate on them.

I don't want to make things easier. Why don't you tell me what you've pieced together about Enrique now that he has three votes?

Wow, this is really interesting.

juliets wrote:I think I may have to retract my statement about not voting for zeek, enrique or mp. I am piecing together Epigs suspicion of Enrique and it holds more water than I thought. Epi you could make this easier by just listing the reasons you voted for him. Just a few key words even.

Was the enlarged true or was it not true?

If it was true, then what did you piece together and why have you now said the following?

juliets wrote:That's all I find so I am not compelled to vote for Enrique.

Epignosis wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epi since you are so good at picking out baddies I've been trying to piece together your suspicion of enrique but it would be more helpful if you could just give a short list of the things that have hit you about enrique. I was sure I wouldn't vote him but I want to make sure I understand why you are.

This is worded very differently than what you accidentally posted in Monty Python:

juliets wrote:I think I may have to retract my statement about not voting for zeek, enrique or mp. I am piecing together Epigs suspicion of Enrique and it holds more water than I thought. Epi you could make this easier by just listing the reasons you voted for him. Just a few key words even.

I am reminded of a certain evil dragon who piggybacked on my suspicions for several days, getting me to elaborate on them.

I don't want to make things easier. Why don't you tell me what you've pieced together about Enrique now that he has three votes?

Is that second quote from a different thread?

Yes. Mistakenly posted in a different thread.

Yes I posted in the other game i was playing by mistake. I reposted in this game but decided not to retract my statement just yet. The post I had seen that caught my attention again was the one where you told us to vote for him. That's a pretty hard stance and made we want to look at what was behind it. I tracked down what I just posted but the evidence didn't persuade me.

I'm probably going to vote for someone not on any of these lists we've been discussing.

Made wrote: I'm not saying that? I'm saying by voting someone who's actually posting, we increase or odds of finding mafia because the vote was influenced by suspicion rather than completely random. I'd much rather one civvie die than two personally.
In reference to your second post, the only thing we learn when we kill a random is that their intent was genuine. If a civvie didn't post much on topic what did we learn?

Do we though, if most mafia members are hardly posting? I don't know, I still don't understand how you say "one civvie" v. two dying, but I understand the reluctance to contribute to a D1 civvie lynch.

By this logic though, we should never vote for someone who never posts because then what do we learn?

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:I think I may have to retract my statement about not voting for zeek, enrique or mp. I am piecing together Epigs suspicion of Enrique and it holds more water than I thought. Epi you could make this easier by just listing the reasons you voted for him. Just a few key words even.

Was the enlarged true or was it not true?

If it was true, then what did you piece together and why have you now said the following?

juliets wrote:That's all I find so I am not compelled to vote for Enrique.

This seems SO suspicious to me.

I might just vote juliets.

juliets wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epi since you are so good at picking out baddies I've been trying to piece together your suspicion of enrique but it would be more helpful if you could just give a short list of the things that have hit you about enrique. I was sure I wouldn't vote him but I want to make sure I understand why you are.

This is worded very differently than what you accidentally posted in Monty Python:

juliets wrote:I think I may have to retract my statement about not voting for zeek, enrique or mp. I am piecing together Epigs suspicion of Enrique and it holds more water than I thought. Epi you could make this easier by just listing the reasons you voted for him. Just a few key words even.

I am reminded of a certain evil dragon who piggybacked on my suspicions for several days, getting me to elaborate on them.

I don't want to make things easier. Why don't you tell me what you've pieced together about Enrique now that he has three votes?

Is that second quote from a different thread?

Yes. Mistakenly posted in a different thread.

Yes I posted in the other game i was playing by mistake. I reposted in this game but decided not to retract my statement just yet. The post I had seen that caught my attention again was the one where you told us to vote for him. That's a pretty hard stance and made we want to look at what was behind it. I tracked down what I just posted but the evidence didn't persuade me.

I'm probably going to vote for someone not on any of these lists we've been discussing.

But that doesn't require any "piecing together." I didn't lay down a bunch of mysterious comments or even make a huge case. I just told everybody what to do- no mystery there.

Yep, I voted juliets. She clearly contradicted herself and I believe she is lying. I can always change it if I feel something better comes up, but considering I already was finding JC's lack of wanting to form any opinion at all for herself really odd, I feel OK with this vote.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Yep, I voted juliets. She clearly contradicted herself and I believe she is lying. I can always change it if I feel something better comes up, but considering I already was finding JC's lack of wanting to form any opinion at all for herself really odd, I feel OK with this vote.

Ditto.

MP: I'm torn but that's day 1. I just don't get good vibes about the push for you. I'd rather pursue other options, but nothingis pinging me in the limited time I've had to read the game.

Ok, if you think it makes me bad - did you ever explain how it makes me bad, asking someone to help understand their own case and changing what they are saying in the thread - but if you do you lose a civ vote if I get lynched. I think I'm just a convenient target.

I'm at least taking my vote off Zeek right now, sorry for the confusion! I'll keep a vote on myself and hope I can come back in a bit to change it.

I've got to drive and celebrate my brother's bday and I don't know when I'll be back (likely after the voting for both games I'm playing), so thoughts and my vote:

1) Still don't see MP as bad. Don't really know why people are voting for him. I've read the thread (or at least most of it in the last hour, since I was stupid enough to leave myself 7+ pages to read) and saw a baddie-hunting MP. Plus, one's gotta feel bad for a guy who can't stay alive past the first day in sooooo many games :P

2) In my catching up, the "supatown" comment by Enrique (giving zeek the suspicious eye for using the term) really honestly pinged me, before I even saw what others said about it. I don't read his defense of the comment as genuine, either - he gave zeek the eye and called him suspicious, then backed off and tried to say "no, I wasn't witch hunting" and "why would I push a lynch for a random civilian?" If you weren't pushing towards a lynch or trying to garner suspicion, and you weren't witch hunting/weeding out suspicion, then what exactly were you trying to accomplish through that comment? Your explanations change with whomever is asking, and it's not consistent. This is the most suspicious thing to me so far.

I see other suspicions of other people popping up, but I really don't have time right now to look at that, as I've spent the last hour and a half piecing the above suspicion together from the last 7 damned pages to read (my fault, no one else's, I know). I gotta look at my other game really quick and then get on the road, so going ahead and voting Enrique.

juliets wrote:Ok, if you think it makes me bad - did you ever explain how it makes me bad, asking someone to help understand their own case and changing what they are saying in the thread - but if you do you lose a civ vote if I get lynched. I think I'm just a convenient target.

juliets wrote:Epi since you are so good at picking out baddies

Huh.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Made wrote: I'm not saying that? I'm saying by voting someone who's actually posting, we increase or odds of finding mafia because the vote was influenced by suspicion rather than completely random. I'd much rather one civvie die than two personally.
In reference to your second post, the only thing we learn when we kill a random is that their intent was genuine. If a civvie didn't post much on topic what did we learn?

Do we though, if most mafia members are hardly posting? I don't know, I still don't understand how you say "one civvie" v. two dying, but I understand the reluctance to contribute to a D1 civvie lynch.

By this logic though, we should never vote for someone who never posts because then what do we learn?

One civve in a night kill versus a night kill and a civvie lynch

Also, the only reason I brought up what do we learn thing was because it was a benefit you listed to voting randomly. Imo what we learn comes second in terms of importants to who we have a higher chance of killing.

You picked me out as a baddie in the last game we played and like this game, I was civ. I'm just one of those you can't read.

juliets wrote:Ok, if you think it makes me bad - did you ever explain how it makes me bad, asking someone to help understand their own case and changing what they are saying in the thread - but if you do you lose a civ vote if I get lynched. I think I'm just a convenient target.

juliets wrote:You picked me out as a baddie in the last game we played and like this game, I was civ. I'm just one of those you can't read.

These both sound really insincere to me.

Also, juliets, you clearly said you were "piecing together" the suspicion made against Enrique and it held more water than you thought, then you quickly backtracked and said you didn't find it to hold any substance. Additionally, Epig barely even talks about Enrique, it's not like there's an elaborate case that needs to be pieced together. It's just all so weird that you'd say that. I'm glad Epig brought the quote over here because seeing as though it was posted in Monty I wouldn't have seen it.

juliets wrote:You picked me out as a baddie in the last game we played and like this game, I was civ. I'm just one of those you can't read.

In the last game we played together, I was LMS. How does me trying to get you lynched in that game (when I didn't care about your alignment) mean that I can't read you?

Made wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Made wrote: I'm not saying that? I'm saying by voting someone who's actually posting, we increase or odds of finding mafia because the vote was influenced by suspicion rather than completely random. I'd much rather one civvie die than two personally.
In reference to your second post, the only thing we learn when we kill a random is that their intent was genuine. If a civvie didn't post much on topic what did we learn?

Do we though, if most mafia members are hardly posting? I don't know, I still don't understand how you say "one civvie" v. two dying, but I understand the reluctance to contribute to a D1 civvie lynch.

By this logic though, we should never vote for someone who never posts because then what do we learn?

One civve in a night kill versus a night kill and a civvie lynch

Also, the only reason I brought up what do we learn thing was because it was a benefit you listed to voting randomly. Imo what we learn comes second in terms of importants to who we have a higher chance of killing.

Oh, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying.

nijuukyugou wrote:I've got to drive and celebrate my brother's bday and I don't know when I'll be back (likely after the voting for both games I'm playing), so thoughts and my vote:

1) Still don't see MP as bad. Don't really know why people are voting for him. I've read the thread (or at least most of it in the last hour, since I was stupid enough to leave myself 7+ pages to read) and saw a baddie-hunting MP. Plus, one's gotta feel bad for a guy who can't stay alive past the first day in sooooo many games :P

2) In my catching up, the "supatown" comment by Enrique (giving zeek the suspicious eye for using the term) really honestly pinged me, before I even saw what others said about it. I don't read his defense of the comment as genuine, either - he gave zeek the eye and called him suspicious, then backed off and tried to say "no, I wasn't witch hunting" and "why would I push a lynch for a random civilian?" If you weren't pushing towards a lynch or trying to garner suspicion, and you weren't witch hunting/weeding out suspicion, then what exactly were you trying to accomplish through that comment? Your explanations change with whomever is asking, and it's not consistent. This is the most suspicious thing to me so far.

I see other suspicions of other people popping up, but I really don't have time right now to look at that, as I've spent the last hour and a half piecing the above suspicion together from the last 7 damned pages to read (my fault, no one else's, I know). I gotta look at my other game really quick and then get on the road, so going ahead and voting Enrique.

Interesting you say this, since Enri seemed genuine in his defenses to me. Maybe a revisit will be in order, but for now I definitely think juliets has been clearly inconsistent and she is doing a poor job trying to cover for it.

I'd be shocked if she flips civilian after her contradictory posts, to be honest.

Gotta go now, but be back later, before the lynch ends.

I don't like how fast everyone is hopping on Juliets. Juliets, why didn't you just post the original and- wait a second...What? I just reread the two post and they say pretty much the exact same thing?? Only difference is she didn't voice that she agreed with Epi? Are you guys kidding?

Made wrote:I don't like how fast everyone is hopping on Juliets. Juliets, why didn't you just post the original and- wait a second...What? I just reread the two post and they say pretty much the exact same thing?? Only difference is she didn't voice that she agreed with Epi? Are you guys kidding?

No.

They do not say "pretty much the exact same thing."

Should have voted and gone to bed hours ago but kinda glad I didn't because I wouldn't have known what to do then. This whole thing with Juliets looks quite suspicious, she almost seems to suck up to Epi with the whole 'since you're so good at picking out baddies comment'. It also makes it as though he's responsible for her vote and is the one who should be held accountable if she ended up voting for a civ. Not to mention she's basically saying she'll vote where someone else tells her to when there's no reason to really trust anyone that much yet. It just doesn't look good to me so I'm going to *Vote Juliets* and leave for the night.

Made i took out the line that i might have to retract my thought that enrique, mp and zeek were all good. I just decided not to post that line and otherwise left it intact. And I have no idea why that is baddie behavior. i knew Epi was there in the other thread and saw it because he pointed it out to me. So, I certainly wasn't trying to hide anything. And what would I be hiding, that I was starting to have doubts about enrique? I asked Epi a question about what he saw in Enrique so that was hardly a secret. I do not understand what about that makes me a suspect.

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epi since you are so good at picking out baddies I've been trying to piece together your suspicion of enrique but it would be more helpful if you could just give a short list of the things that have hit you about enrique. I was sure I wouldn't vote him but I want to make sure I understand why you are.

This is worded very differently than what you accidentally posted in Monty Python:

juliets wrote:I think I may have to retract my statement about not voting for zeek, enrique or mp. I am piecing together Epigs suspicion of Enrique and it holds more water than I thought. Epi you could make this easier by just listing the reasons you voted for him. Just a few key words even.

the same question exactly, different framing. One is just more aggressive towards you. Given, the framing posted this thread does conflict with comments she's made after the fact.
linki- bulleye just now made the strongest argument against juliet imo (allowing another play to be the reason she votes rather than personal suspicion)....Game starts soon... I'll vote from my phone before i walk in the stadium....