The Syndicate

Oh hey, apparently I'm a public enemy now. Go figure

reywaS wrote:So, Made, just to be clear, you are saying that you were logged into the chat before, during, and after the time Roxy cleared it?

I had the window open, but I was out tabbed, I received a warning saying I was about to be kicked, but I wasn't kicked until way later.

thellama73 wrote:

Made wrote:Good morning all!

If llama found my "I doubt the other team has this" commentweird, why wouldn't he mention it during chat.

As a matter of fact, I did mention it in the chat. I said something along the lines of "Do you know that because your teammates told you?" after you had finished all the posts we previously talked about. I saw no point in dwelling on it there, though, since I was trying to win a contest.

Gusbfjebfuwhfuvuwjfisbwhcjebg BUT YOU DENIED THAT EARLIER WHAT?????? YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID YOU DIDNT REMEMBER SOMEONE SAYING THAT I WAS PUT ON THE DEFENSIVE/ ANYONE QUESTIONED ME ABOUT IT BEFORE I DENIED BTSC.
WHAT???
*Flounders*

thellama73 wrote: He immediately followed this up with a bunch of posts saying things like "not that I would know."

Are you even doe???

thellama73 wrote:

Made wrote: few things wrong with that.

1. someone said something to the tune of "you would know" right after I said that, which is why i said I wouldn't actually know.
My memory is that all your posts came rapidly in a row with no one else talking in between. But memory is fallible.

Now if everyone would get off my dick now, and call this for what it is, bullshit.

lol

Made, were you talking about the script in the alleged slip up? Because that's what I thought this was all about, but llama keeps denying it, without telling me what the hell you were talking about then. I don't know, that seems like an important part of the case to me? Why isn't it clear yet?

And will anyone vouch for Made's answer? 12 people in your chat, and no one remembers what Made was talking about?

I have now address both the script and the "strategy" has llama has refered to it.

4 people were in chat, on of them might (bwt) not of been there when it happened. Juliet remembers my one of the comment, but what happened after that Juliet doesn't recall. I said someone questioned me, llama said no one said anything before I began defending myself.

That's lunch, seeya round 5pm est

No, I get that. That's definitely an inconsistency on llama's part, and it's really weird that Juliets can't remember anything.

Still weird that there was no one around to vouch for you tho? BWT, do you remember any o this? It's basically Made's word vs llama's at this point.

Enrique, we did not have 12 people in chat. We had me, llama, made and then later bwt and MP. I don't even remember llama's question though it sounds like a logical thing to ask so I don't really doubt it so I don't remember the answer either. As for what Made was talking about I can't say. I took it as a general comment but maybe he meant the script. It's just impossible for me to even guess what was in his mind without being able to re-read the dialogue.

On a slightly different subject, I would at least like to know where our other players were on our team, except for SVS and Long Con because we knew in advance they wouldn't be participating. We had a touch, tough time with just 3 of us for most of the time. I'm not saying I would vote for one of these people, for now I would just like to hear why they weren't there. MR, I would like to know why you were there and then never came back.

linki: it is absolutely not weird that I dont remember some things.

What is weird Juliets is that no one knows any of what happened. Made's story changed, llama's story changed. Just what the hell happened over there? You say that, right, it makes sense for llama to ask the question. Well the thing is he denied that at first in the post Made just quoted. Now why would he do that? Can you think of any reason other than to try to bury Made? I know I can't.

What kind of general comment do you think Made was making, too? Because "I doubt the other team ____" isnt't much of a statement on its own. It makes sense to me that he'd be talking about the script, which was the original story shared on this thread. If it was about the script, then he was wrong, and it doesn't say anything about any BTSC he ay have. If not, well then somebody should come forward and explain what that was all about. BWT? MP? Anyone?

I still say using the chat as evidence is a bad idea, we only have secondhand accounts, and I don't trust Made or Llama. We also have no way of knowing whether or not having BTSC means you are a baddie in this game, because we don't know of there is anyone else who has it. Stories are going to change because people are drawing from memory, and everyone knows that memories are rewritten when recalled, they are just going to keep changing every time they post their accounts.

Those memories are kinda vital here, AP, that's the deal Buuut then, llama's memories are just whatever will get Made lynched. Next thing you know, Made confessed to being a baddie in the Nudgers BTSC.

So yeah llama's looking pretty bad right now. Feel a bit more confident saying that now. I think he's bad and I'll probably vote for him.

MovingPictures07 wrote:One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.

I don't know if I'd call that suspicious. Extraneous, maybe, but it doesn't ping me one bit.

What I do find a little suspish about Epi has been his lack of participation. I know he was on and off during the competition cooking dinner, but he's still been doing a lot of lurking (he's online now) and only a little of posting.

Oh, and he gave me a middle finger.

Enrique wrote:What is weird Juliets is that no one knows any of what happened. Made's story changed, llama's story changed. Just what the hell happened over there? You say that, right, it makes sense for llama to ask the question. Well the thing is he denied that at first in the post Made just quoted. Now why would he do that? Can you think of any reason other than to try to bury Made? I know I can't.

What kind of general comment do you think Made was making, too? Because "I doubt the other team ____" isnt't much of a statement on its own. It makes sense to me that he'd be talking about the script, which was the original story shared on this thread. If it was about the script, then he was wrong, and it doesn't say anything about any BTSC he ay have. If not, well then somebody should come forward and explain what that was all about. BWT? MP? Anyone?

Enrique, I thought he denied making a post right after Made made his comment but before made the other comments. When I go back and look at what llama said, that's what I get out of it.

My memory is what it is. Right now I'm not leaning for voting for Made or llama. Made because I went and read sections of Misfits mafia and he was seemingly scattered and just posted odd things, definitely implying he was Virtue when he was really a civ. That can easily be a newbie style. As for llama, I think he's sincere in what he's reporting and in what his feelings are about it. I don't know where that leaves me in terms of a vote, I'll have to figure it out over the next day and a half.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.

I don't know if I'd call that suspicious. Extraneous, maybe, but it doesn't ping me one bit.

What I do find a little suspish about Epi has been his lack of participation. I know he was on and off during the competition cooking dinner, but he's still been doing a lot of lurking (he's online now) and only a little of posting.

Oh, and he gave me a middle finger.

School started again so that is why, I suspect.

juliets wrote:As for llama, I think he's sincere in what he's reporting and in what his feelings are about it. I don't know where that leaves me in terms of a vote, I'll have to figure it out over the next day and a half.

But if you think he is sincere, why would you vote for him? Sincerity is usually a sign of a civvie, to a reasonable extent.

A Person wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.

I don't know if I'd call that suspicious. Extraneous, maybe, but it doesn't ping me one bit.

What I do find a little suspish about Epi has been his lack of participation. I know he was on and off during the competition cooking dinner, but he's still been doing a lot of lurking (he's online now) and only a little of posting.

Oh, and he gave me a middle finger.

School started again so that is why, I suspect.

I'm bored. We don't start school until September 29th.

Well just how convenient is it that he always leaves himself open to interpretation like that? Reminds me of I didn't actually hesitate, that was a lie, I just wanted to see how people reacted.

Sincere is the last thing I would call llama right now tbh.

Enrique wrote:Sincere is the last thing I would call llama right now tbh.

Please don't think that is my statement. I (briefly) explained my thoughts on llama on the previous pagehere, which don't correlate with that.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

juliets wrote:As for llama, I think he's sincere in what he's reporting and in what his feelings are about it. I don't know where that leaves me in terms of a vote, I'll have to figure it out over the next day and a half.

But if you think he is sincere, why would you vote for him? Sincerity is usually a sign of a civvie, to a reasonable extent.

I wouldnt. Thats what I was saying - I don't lean toward voting llama or made.

I see Dana is reading the thread, probably catching up, we did talk a lot yesterday

Dana, if you're reading this, give us a bit of what you're thinking. Where do you stand on any of the stuff going on? If you had to vote right now, who would it be for? Do you have anything else to add?

juliets wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

juliets wrote:As for llama, I think he's sincere in what he's reporting and in what his feelings are about it. I don't know where that leaves me in terms of a vote, I'll have to figure it out over the next day and a half.

But if you think he is sincere, why would you vote for him? Sincerity is usually a sign of a civvie, to a reasonable extent.

I wouldnt. Thats what I was saying - I don't lean toward voting llama or made.

Disregard, I did not notice the NOT before that statement in your post.

Enrique wrote:Those memories are kinda vital here, AP, that's the deal Buuut then, llama's memories are just whatever will get Made lynched. Next thing you know, Made confessed to being a baddie in the Nudgers BTSC.

So yeah llama's looking pretty bad right now. Feel a bit more confident saying that now. I think he's bad and I'll probably vote for him.

The problem I am having with this is why would llama go out of his way to sabotage Made's game? Especially so early in the game and when he could very easily be called out on it?

First step was getting dirt on anyone, Made just happened to have the chatroom incident. We were asking for names and suspicious behavior in the chatrooms, and llama vs Made was the first to pop up. This is valid.

But then he wouldn't stop. To me, Made is completely exonerated of at least the original accusations. But llama knows he's got something good, and Made is the likeliest victim of today's lynch. So he won't back down. He obviously didn't expect to be called out on his changing story, I don't know, because he forgot he made that first post? But it still happened. To me it makes a lot more sense to be suspicious of llama for that, than of Made for saying Roxy cleared the chatroom 8 seconds before he checked? Like, does the latter even make any difference? I seriously don't get why anyone is calling it baddie behavior. w/e.

I don't trust llama. I definitely don't trust his judgement. It's gonna take A LOT of convincing to make me vote for Made and not him.

Before anybody else comments on this. Completely exonerated might be taking it too far. But I still don't buy the case against him at all.

Made wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Made wrote:Good morning all!

If llama found my "I doubt the other team has this" commentweird, why wouldn't he mention it during chat.

As a matter of fact, I did mention it in the chat. I said something along the lines of "Do you know that because your teammates told you?" after you had finished all the posts we previously talked about. I saw no point in dwelling on it there, though, since I was trying to win a contest.

Gusbfjebfuwhfuvuwjfisbwhcjebg BUT YOU DENIED THAT EARLIER WHAT?????? YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID YOU DIDNT REMEMBER SOMEONE SAYING THAT I WAS PUT ON THE DEFENSIVE/ ANYONE QUESTIONED ME ABOUT IT BEFORE I DENIED BTSC.
WHAT???
*Flounders*

That's not at all true. I never denied that I said something to you. What I denied was your claim that you only made excuses AFTER someone said "you would know."

This is the order of events:
1. You made an assumption about the other team.
2. You hastily retracted your statement with a bunch of hemming and hawing about how you didn't know.
3. I asked you if you got your information from your teammates.

Your claim transposes events 2 and 3. That's what I was arguing against.

Enrique wrote:No, I get that. That's definitely an inconsistency on llama's part.

It's not. Read what I write and all confusion will disappear.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.

I don't know if I'd call that suspicious. Extraneous, maybe, but it doesn't ping me one bit.

What I do find a little suspish about Epi has been his lack of participation. I know he was on and off during the competition cooking dinner, but he's still been doing a lot of lurking (he's online now) and only a little of posting.

Oh, and he gave me a middle finger.

You may notice that I stay logged in all day. If keeping up with the thread in sips at work so I don't have 15 pages to guzzle when I am at home is the same thing as "lurking," so be it. If naming my top suspect and stating why I find him suspicious is a "lack of participation," I don't know what to say.

And of course MP finds my suspicion of him "odd."

Enrique wrote:Well just how convenient is it that he always leaves himself open to interpretation like that? Reminds me of I didn't actually hesitate, that was a lie, I just wanted to see how people reacted.

More lies from Enrique the lying liar. I never changed my story. I never hesitated. I said "someone said something suspicious in chat." Moments later, I said what it was. It was not a hesitation. It was a deliberate strategy to bait the hook before reeling it in.

I think the baddies are taking advantage of the fact that we can't repost from the chat to create confusion and cast doubt on my memory. I am very confident of my memory, and what Made has said is not true. Enrique wasn't even there so I don't know why he thinks he knows what happened.

1. someone said something to the tune of "you would know" right after I said that, which is why i said I wouldn't actually know.

My memory is that all your posts came rapidly in a row with no one else talking in between. But memory is fallible.

Well maybe if you cleared things up from the beginning? No mention of you asking any questions here. It's just telling Made "Nope, I have no idea what you're talking about." You could've very easily avoided this confusion if it was what you claim. But I guess what's important is making Made look guilty.

Enrique wrote:

1. someone said something to the tune of "you would know" right after I said that, which is why i said I wouldn't actually know.

My memory is that all your posts came rapidly in a row with no one else talking in between. But memory is fallible.

Well maybe if you cleared things up from the beginning? No mention of you asking any questions here. It's just telling Made "Nope, I have no idea what you're talking about." You could've very easily avoided this confusion if it was what you claim. But I guess what's important is making Made look guilty.

Because that is not what Made asked. He claimed he was responding to a point made by "someone else." That is untrue. In pointing that out, I felt no need to go over everything else I said in the entire chat.

thellama73 wrote:

Enrique wrote:Well just how convenient is it that he always leaves himself open to interpretation like that? Reminds me of I didn't actually hesitate, that was a lie, I just wanted to see how people reacted.

More lies from Enrique the lying liar. I never changed my story. I never hesitated. I said "someone said something suspicious in chat." Moments later, I said what it was. It was not a hesitation. It was a deliberate strategy to bait the hook before reeling it in.

Wait, I'm lying now? Do you really not think my interpretation is valid at all? I call bullshit. Last time I brought this up you said it was just an act to get reactions, so I'm not sure why you're calling me out this time.

I think the baddies are taking advantage of the fact that we can't repost from the chat to create confusion and cast doubt on my memory. I am very confident of my memory, and what Made has said is not true. Enrique wasn't even there so I don't know why he thinks he knows what happened.

I don't know what happened, and I'm definitely not gonna just take your word for it.

Because that is not what Made asked. He claimed he was responding to a point made by "someone else." That is untrue. In pointing that out, I felt no need to go over everything else I said in the entire chat.

I've made my point.

thellama73 wrote:

Made wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Made wrote:Good morning all!

If llama found my "I doubt the other team has this" commentweird, why wouldn't he mention it during chat.

As a matter of fact, I did mention it in the chat. I said something along the lines of "Do you know that because your teammates told you?" after you had finished all the posts we previously talked about. I saw no point in dwelling on it there, though, since I was trying to win a contest.

Gusbfjebfuwhfuvuwjfisbwhcjebg BUT YOU DENIED THAT EARLIER WHAT?????? YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID YOU DIDNT REMEMBER SOMEONE SAYING THAT I WAS PUT ON THE DEFENSIVE/ ANYONE QUESTIONED ME ABOUT IT BEFORE I DENIED BTSC.
WHAT???
*Flounders*

That's not at all true. I never denied that I said something to you. What I denied was your claim that you only made excuses AFTER someone said "you would know."

This is the order of events:
1. You made an assumption about the other team.
2. You hastily retracted your statement with a bunch of hemming and hawing about how you didn't know.
3. I asked you if you got your information from your teammates.

Your claim transposes events 2 and 3. That's what I was arguing against.

In regards to llama's accusations of Made, and this post here.

I did a reread of llama's accusations of Made from the beginning of the day. There are no inconsistencies between then and now; everything seems to stack up. Here is llama's first post with a transcription of what happened.

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Interesting. I was only in the chatroom for like less than a minute, lol, so I can't say I know what you're talking about, but that's intriguing. I presume you don't want to elaborate on it just yet or else you would have in that post anyway?

I'll elaborate. I'm not scared. Made said something along the lines of "I doubt the other team will be doing what we're doing" referring to our strategy. He immediately followed this up with a bunch of posts saying things like "not that I would know. Actually I have no idea what they're up to." and so on. Not exact wording as we're not allowed to paste from the chats and I don't remember the exact words anyway.

To me, this looked like a slip, indicating that he knew what the other team was up to, followed by an attempt to cover it up.

Bonus, if we lynch Made and I am right, we can narrow down his teammate to one of the six or seven people active in the Winker chat.

thellama73 wrote:

Made wrote: few things wrong with that.

1. someone said something to the tune of "you would know" right after I said that, which is why i said I wouldn't actually know.
My memory is that all your posts came rapidly in a row with no one else talking in between. But memory is fallible.

2. from what i understand, implying i do know what the other team was doing probably would be considered BTSC.

3.You're assuming their are only Mafia Teams.
I'm not assuming that, which is why I said it looked like you had BTSC, not it looks like you are mafia. Still, if you're going to take that route, what evidence can we ever use to lynch somebody? It is a more reasonable assumption to make that "X has BTSC, so is probably mafia" than "X has BTSC, but we don't know anything about the mafia this game, so let's leave him alone." In a game with so little information, we have to make a few reasonable assumptions.

So these first two posts pretty much stack up with llama's most recent one. I'm not saying that llama's story is 100% accurate (because it's still subjective), but he's stuck to it this whole time. Made on the other hand has not exactly done that. Between being untruthful and avoiding questions, he's looked far more guilty than llama has up to this point.

Also to note, juliets and SVS have made statements that support llama's story, not Made's.

You know what the best part is?

None of this means Made has BTSC.

Now, now boys.

I think Llama has been very consistent. I also believe Mades defense. Therefore I am moving on from this.

Reading other things now.

Epignosis wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.

I don't know if I'd call that suspicious. Extraneous, maybe, but it doesn't ping me one bit.

What I do find a little suspish about Epi has been his lack of participation. I know he was on and off during the competition cooking dinner, but he's still been doing a lot of lurking (he's online now) and only a little of posting.

Oh, and he gave me a middle finger.

You may notice that I stay logged in all day. If keeping up with the thread in sips at work so I don't have 15 pages to guzzle when I am at home is the same thing as "lurking," so be it. If naming my top suspect and stating why I find him suspicious is a "lack of participation," I don't know what to say.

Gotcha. I'm still used to aggressive Rob, not off-topic one, which is what I've seen from you this game. Outside of pointing a finger at MP, your posts have not been contributing.

Epignosis wrote:And of course MP finds my suspicion of him "odd."

There's an OMGUS if I ever saw one.

Black Rock wrote:Now, now boys.

I think Llama has been very consistent. I also believe Mades defense. Therefore I am moving on from this.

Reading other things now.

Thank you! I am sick of talking about this. I have said everything I have to say on the issue, and I have no new information, so I welcome the chance to move on and discuss other things.

Enrique wrote:You know what the best part is?

None of this means Made has BTSC.

Sure, sure...

So who are you gonna vote for then?

If I had to vote right now, as I said earlier, it would be for llama. We'll see.

Enrique wrote:If I had to vote right now, as I said earlier, it would be for llama. We'll see.

I thought you had no idea whether I was good or bad? What happened to that?

lol I changed my mind? New stuff came up? I've made several posts about it?

Are you even reading the thread?

Christ on a cracker. I'm only on page 9 of 13.....
Sorry, people. You all got nutty and went on posting sprees while I was off in the real world....

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.

I don't know if I'd call that suspicious. Extraneous, maybe, but it doesn't ping me one bit.

What I do find a little suspish about Epi has been his lack of participation. I know he was on and off during the competition cooking dinner, but he's still been doing a lot of lurking (he's online now) and only a little of posting.

Oh, and he gave me a middle finger.

You may notice that I stay logged in all day. If keeping up with the thread in sips at work so I don't have 15 pages to guzzle when I am at home is the same thing as "lurking," so be it. If naming my top suspect and stating why I find him suspicious is a "lack of participation," I don't know what to say.

Gotcha. I'm still used to aggressive Rob, not off-topic one, which is what I've seen from you this game. Outside of pointing a finger at MP, your posts have not been contributing.

I made a few off-topic posts on Day 0. I made (at most) one off-topic post Day 1. If that makes me "off-topic Rob," very well. If remaining focused on my suspect rather than commenting on everything means my "posts have not been contributing," then my middle finger remains raised in your general direction.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:And of course MP finds my suspicion of him "odd."

There's an OMGUS if I ever saw one.

It is?

Epignosis wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:One other thing I find odd is Epig's declaration that my joking statement that I'm bad often and I'm sick of it is the most suspicious thing that's been said in the thread. I'm curious if he still thinks that is the case.

I don't know if I'd call that suspicious. Extraneous, maybe, but it doesn't ping me one bit.

What I do find a little suspish about Epi has been his lack of participation. I know he was on and off during the competition cooking dinner, but he's still been doing a lot of lurking (he's online now) and only a little of posting.

Oh, and he gave me a middle finger.

You may notice that I stay logged in all day. If keeping up with the thread in sips at work so I don't have 15 pages to guzzle when I am at home is the same thing as "lurking," so be it. If naming my top suspect and stating why I find him suspicious is a "lack of participation," I don't know what to say.

Gotcha. I'm still used to aggressive Rob, not off-topic one, which is what I've seen from you this game. Outside of pointing a finger at MP, your posts have not been contributing.

I made a few off-topic posts on Day 0. I made (at most) one off-topic post Day 1. If that makes me "off-topic Rob," very well. If remaining focused on my suspect rather than commenting on everything means my "posts have not been contributing," then my middle finger remains raised in your general direction.

I have no response.

Epignosis wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:And of course MP finds my suspicion of him "odd."

There's an OMGUS if I ever saw one.

It is?

In my mafia experience, an OMGUS can range anywhere from a retaliatory vote to an inexplicable accusation.

"There's an OMGUS if I ever saw one" is an empty thing to say if "an OMGUS can range anywhere from a retaliatory vote to an inexplicable accusation."

This thread is crazier that a sh*t house rat! I can't keep up I kind of get the feel Enrique is being a little too cray cray defensive which now is starting to give me a small ping. That's just me. I honestly keep (from where I am caught up at) finding Llama to not necessarily be pingy atm on his side of his argument. But the thing that is literally crazy CRAZY is no one can get this story straight about the supposed chat with Made. Is it something you CANT reveal that transpired, or is it something all of the players don't honestly remember that were in there? Either way, Llama seems to be very confident about it so I'm not sure. This is an insane Day 1 because I've always seen no suspects typically until all this lol. Mercy. This kitty needs a catnap.

It's not that I'm cray cray defensive, Boogs, it's that I'm right

Enrique wrote:It's not that I'm cray cray defensive, Boogs, it's that I'm right

I'm now completely lost. Enrique, I can vouch that made said what llama said he said that caused this conversation to start. I don't remember llama asking a question back to him. I'm sure you've already said this but can I have it again: what do you think llama is lying about? I have no idea whether llama is bad or good and I'm not "defending" him I'm just reporting what I saw.