The Syndicate

13 voters out of 21? Oh my.

I overlooked Karin accidentally. After reading Katharina's posts, I agree that she seems like a very suspicious poster. I have to vote fast, so it's going to be for her.

Day 4

Who Deserves to Spend the Day with Colin Creevey?

Poll ended at Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:10 pm

Merga Bien
1
Alizon Device (13)
6%

Jennet Bierley
1
Dom (3)
6%

Alizon Device
1
Merga Bien (14)
6%

Mary Eastey
1
Jennet Bierley (4)
6%

Entjen Gillis
0
No votes

Sarah Good
0
No votes

Katharina Henot
0
No votes

Märet Jonsdotter
0
No votes

Anna Koldings
0
No votes

Barbara Kollerin
0
No votes

Malin Matsdotter
0
No votes

Kael Merrie
0
No votes

Rebecca Nurse
0
No votes

Alice Nutter
0
No votes

Margaret Pearson
6
Malin Matsdotter (5), Alice Nutter (6), Margarethe Reinberg (7), Entjen Gillis (10), Anna Koldings (11), Margaret Pearson (12)
38%

Anne Redferne
0
No votes

Margarethe Reinberg
0
No votes

Jane Southworth
0
No votes

Karin Svensdotter
3
Katharina Henot (9), Jane Southworth (15), Mary Eastey (16)
19%

Brita Zippel
0
No votes

Why won't people die? (Hosts/Mod/Deadies)
3
Lizzy (1), S~V~S (2), A Person (8)
19%


Total votes : 16

Maggie Pearson seemed fairly detached from all the recent ado going on at Hogwarts. ‘Tis ture she usually liked to keep to herself, but on this occasion it seemed like the news of the recently identified body struck her harder than she would have anticipated.

Once she reached the classroom where Defence against the Dark Arts was held, she yanked her robes straight and headed for a seat at the back of the class, where she busied herself with piling several hardcover copies of Plato’s works in front of him so she could avoid looking at others. When the whole, class was seated, substitute Professor Lockhart (yeah, that bloke!) cleared his throat loudly and silence fell.

‘Me, Gilderoy Lockhart… [blah]… and so to business.’ Margaret suddenly woke up after one hour and a half.

‘Now - be warned! It is my job to arm you against the foulest magic and creatures known to wizardkind!’

In spite of herself, Maggie leaned around her pile of books for a better look at the large covered cage, Lockhart had just lifted onto his desk.

‘I must ask you not to scream. It might provoke them.’

As the whole class held its breath, Lockhart whipped off the cover.

‘Yes’, he said dramatically. ‘Freshly caught Cornish pixies.’

‘What the…’ exclaimed Margaret.

‘Right then. Let’s see what you make of them!’ And he opened the cage.

It was pandemonium. The blue pixies shot in every direction like rockets. Two of them seized Margaret by the ears and lifted her into the air, while other two opened the window. Before she could realise what on earth was happening to her, the pixies took Margaret out the window, and dropped her on the hard ground that was the school’s back yard. She landed face first and broke into a hundred pieces.

Margaret Pearson has been lynched. She was Cho Chang.

It is now Night 4. You have 23 hours to send in your PMs.

RIP, I'm so sorry Margaret, and this makes me really wonder about the Sarah Good info.

And thanks for the on-time post Lizzy.

Goodbye Margaret

Do the night polls have any meaning?

And what is this info I am hearing about?

Oh man, that's the third Ravenclaw we've lost.

As for the poll, labor disputes... Snooze.

fiddlesticks! I can't believe I missed the vote. It was a horrible result too.

Merga Bien wrote: Do the night polls have any meaning?

Events management.

Karin Svensdotter wrote:fiddlesticks! I can't believe I missed the vote. It was a horrible result too.

You were probably going to vote Margaret too, am I right?

Merga Bien wrote:Goodbye Margaret

Do the night polls have any meaning?

And what is this info I am hearing about?

On multiple occasions, someone has stated that they "saw Sarah with the devil". Personally, I think it's them being controlled by someone else to say that. Margaret said it once, and someone else did as well, though I can't remember who.

Jennet Bierley wrote:

Merga Bien wrote:Goodbye Margaret

Do the night polls have any meaning?

And what is this info I am hearing about?

On multiple occasions, someone has stated that they "saw Sarah with the devil". Personally, I think it's them being controlled by someone else to say that. Margaret said it once, and someone else did as well, though I can't remember who.

So you think it's misinformation?

Mary Eastey wrote:

Jennet Bierley wrote:
Mary Eastey has given me the highest ping out of active players. Yes she was Lunafied yesterday, so she fell off my radar completely. However she was trying to spread discord among us about the professors not being pro-town. She's also had a vote on every single lynched player this game so far. If I don't decide to vote an inactive player, Mary would be my choice.

Look, I was wrong. I admit it. But, we still don't know the Teacher's win conditions. Obviously, I'm focusing more on Voldy and the Death Eaters. I still have a raised eyebrow towards the Teachers. Also, get your facts straight. I voted for Entjen on Day 3. Not Krystyna. Why are you spreading false facts about me?

I misworded my post. You have placed your vote on the vote leader each day, until today, when I happened to point it out.

Malin Matsdotter wrote:

Jennet Bierley wrote:

Merga Bien wrote:Goodbye Margaret

Do the night polls have any meaning?

And what is this info I am hearing about?

On multiple occasions, someone has stated that they "saw Sarah with the devil". Personally, I think it's them being controlled by someone else to say that. Margaret said it once, and someone else did as well, though I can't remember who.

So you think it's misinformation?

Yes. Margaret never followed it up or tried to argue for it, so I do believe that it is false. Though that is a hard case to make, because Margaret hasn't said much of anything. Coincidentally, Antonin Dolohov can cast the imperious curse on even nights, and Margaret made that post on Day 3. My hypothesis is that there is a connection there.

For those who aren't familiar with Harry Potter speak, the Imperious Curse allows the user to gain access into the mind of their target, and control their words and actions. Just to elaborate on my thoughts above. ^^^

Jennet Bierley wrote:

Merga Bien wrote:Goodbye Margaret

Do the night polls have any meaning?

And what is this info I am hearing about?

On multiple occasions, someone has stated that they "saw Sarah with the devil". Personally, I think it's them being controlled by someone else to say that. Margaret said it once, and someone else did as well, though I can't remember who.

Just playing devils advocate here ( ) but, you know, we ARE witches. It's the Muggles who think that conversing with the Devil is some kind of a problem, not us. Had the info said she was seen with Voldemort, that might be different.

This is why I wanted impressions of the thread in the form of synopses. What people choose to say and not to say says volumes, really, about them and the thread itself.

Random people have said that and people actually voted based on it?

*giant wars*

OK, just read Sarah Goods 8 posts. Six of them were puns on "Good", one was an "RIP" and another was "No time" and a self vote.

So if she IS talking to the Devil, he definitely has her tongue.

Also, I find wars more boring than labour strikes, rebellions and genocides.

shit sorry

i thought the vote ended tomorrow *doof*

Jennet Bierley wrote:

Malin Matsdotter wrote:

Jennet Bierley wrote:

Merga Bien wrote:Goodbye Margaret

Do the night polls have any meaning?

And what is this info I am hearing about?

On multiple occasions, someone has stated that they "saw Sarah with the devil". Personally, I think it's them being controlled by someone else to say that. Margaret said it once, and someone else did as well, though I can't remember who.

So you think it's misinformation?

Yes. Margaret never followed it up or tried to argue for it, so I do believe that it is false. Though that is a hard case to make, because Margaret hasn't said much of anything. Coincidentally, Antonin Dolohov can cast the imperious curse on even nights, and Margaret made that post on Day 3. My hypothesis is that there is a connection there.

I do not think that she was under the imperious curse.

OK, biting the bait. Why?

Rest in peace, Margy P. The gargoyle strikes sound way more boring than the other three.

Karin Svensdotter wrote:fiddlesticks! I can't believe I missed the vote. It was a horrible result too.

Who would you have voted for?

________________________________________________
I had forgotten what you all were talking about with the "Sarah Good with the devil" stuff so I went back to look. Here's all the votes that are related to votes for Sarah Good and/or votes for seeing people with the Devil.

From Day 1:

Anna Koldings wrote:Psyche.

Randomized Sarah Good.

Bridget Bishop wrote:I saw Agnes Sampson with the devil!

Anne Whittle wrote:

Anna Koldings wrote:Psyche. Randomized Sarah Good.

I will non-randomly follow your vote for Ms. Good. Four posts and she has used the word Good in every one. Subtle manipulation? Magically influencing us? I say she's up to no Good.

Votes Good for Bad

2 Good votes. One is stated to be random, the other one not so much. The "I saw ______ with the devil!" is Bridget's vote and appears to be unrelated.

Day 2:

Bridget Bishop wrote:I saw Alizon Device with the devil!

Katharina Henot wrote:[...snip...]I have a date today with a very handsome wizard so I must vote now.

People with an S in their name have won the lotto today so I'm voting Sarah Good.

Sarah Good wrote:No time. Voted me.

The "with the devil!" thing is Bridget again, so is officially unrelated to the voting Good stuff that's been happening. Katharina gives a nonsense reason for her vote, so it feels either forced or random. Sarah Good voted for herself on Day 2.

Day 3:

Margaret Pearson wrote:I want to make sure I won't miss the vote again, so I shall go ahead and vote now. Furthermore I'm not buying the whole Krystyna thing. Little owls told me that *Sarah Good* is the wicked among us.

Margy P is the only person to vote for Good on Day 3.

There were no votes for Good on Day 4.

So no one who voted for Sarah Good said anything about seeing her with the devil. However, all of the votes so far for Good this game have seemed pretty suspect, like they are forced or random. Votes for Good have happened on both even and odd days.

I cannot see why someone would use "that Sarah Good business" as a reason to vote for Margaret Pearson when others in the game have done basically the same thing she had.

Apologies for missing the vote, I got held up across the border

Gargoyle strikes sound boring as heck, but of course, it is important to remember that history in general is boooooooring and is only for nerds to involve myself in.

Involve THEMSELVES as in THEM and NOT ME because I AM SO COOL and not a nerd AT ALL B)

shit i almost blew my cover, can't let these nerds know that i'm secretly a nerd

i don't understand why margaret got so many votes suddenly out of nowhere today?

Just to be clear, this is the reason i voted Margared Pearson:

Margarethe Reinberg wrote:Wow where is everyone? I'm going to go ahead and vote Margaret. She's a low poster, she hasn't posted since Wednesday, and that stuff about Sarah Good was just weird, especially since we can't info dump.

The "stuff about Sarah Good" I was referencing did not include Bridget's comments about the devil because they were not about Sarah Good. I was specifically talking about

Margaret Pearson wrote: <snip> Little owls told me that *Sarah Good* is the wicked among us.

Merga Bien wrote:OK, biting the bait. Why?

I've said as much as I can say on the matter.
:/

Jane Southworth wrote:Rest in peace, Margy P. The gargoyle strikes sound way more boring than the other three.

Karin Svensdotter wrote:fiddlesticks! I can't believe I missed the vote. It was a horrible result too.

Who would you have voted for?

________________________________________________
I had forgotten what you all were talking about with the "Sarah Good with the devil" stuff so I went back to look. Here's all the votes that are related to votes for Sarah Good and/or votes for seeing people with the Devil.

From Day 1:

Anna Koldings wrote:Psyche.

Randomized Sarah Good.

Bridget Bishop wrote:I saw Agnes Sampson with the devil!

Anne Whittle wrote:

Anna Koldings wrote:Psyche. Randomized Sarah Good.

I will non-randomly follow your vote for Ms. Good. Four posts and she has used the word Good in every one. Subtle manipulation? Magically influencing us? I say she's up to no Good.

Votes Good for Bad

2 Good votes. One is stated to be random, the other one not so much. The "I saw ______ with the devil!" is Bridget's vote and appears to be unrelated.

Day 2:

Bridget Bishop wrote:I saw Alizon Device with the devil!

Katharina Henot wrote:[...snip...]I have a date today with a very handsome wizard so I must vote now.

People with an S in their name have won the lotto today so I'm voting Sarah Good.

Sarah Good wrote:No time. Voted me.

The "with the devil!" thing is Bridget again, so is officially unrelated to the voting Good stuff that's been happening. Katharina gives a nonsense reason for her vote, so it feels either forced or random. Sarah Good voted for herself on Day 2.

Day 3:

Margaret Pearson wrote:I want to make sure I won't miss the vote again, so I shall go ahead and vote now. Furthermore I'm not buying the whole Krystyna thing. Little owls told me that *Sarah Good* is the wicked among us.

Margy P is the only person to vote for Good on Day 3.

There were no votes for Good on Day 4.

So no one who voted for Sarah Good said anything about seeing her with the devil. However, all of the votes so far for Good this game have seemed pretty suspect, like they are forced or random. Votes for Good have happened on both even and odd days.

I cannot see why someone would use "that Sarah Good business" as a reason to vote for Margaret Pearson when others in the game have done basically the same thing she had.

I think this sums it up very nicely, tbh.

Anne Redferne wrote:i don't understand why margaret got so many votes suddenly out of nowhere today?

Because the baddies are running this game, methinks.

Margarethe Reinberg wrote:Just to be clear, this is the reason i voted Margared Pearson:

Margarethe Reinberg wrote:Wow where is everyone? I'm going to go ahead and vote Margaret. She's a low poster, she hasn't posted since Wednesday, and that stuff about Sarah Good was just weird, especially since we can't info dump.

The "stuff about Sarah Good" I was referencing did not include Bridget's comments about the devil because they were not about Sarah Good. I was specifically talking about

Margaret Pearson wrote: <snip> Little owls told me that *Sarah Good* is the wicked among us.

And why do you think that saying that about Sarah Good would have implied that Margaret P was bad?

In a game where people are being seen with the Devil, and Sarah is also taking votes for having the letter "S" in her name, I would not single the owl remark out as an "info dump". I have never played a game where dumps were allowed, and I have seen much more overt remarks pass muster. It also sounds less "dumpy" in context:

Margaret Pearson wrote:I want to make sure I won't miss the vote again, so I shall go ahead and vote now. Furthermore I'm not buying the whole Krystyna thing. Little owls told me that *Sarah Good* is the wicked among us.

She was right not to buy the whole Krystyjna thing, wasn't she?

She also said this on DAY ONE:

Margaret Pearson wrote:Voted for *Entjen* for deviously attempting to lure us into lynching the innocent Agnes.

I really wonder what the *secrets* in her role entailed? In 9 posts she managed to correctly call two civvies. Brilliant!

I will have some time to read today, and I have added a few names to the "must read" list, so it is likely I will take Maria Von Trapp (and Janes) advice and start at the very beginning.

Merga Bien wrote:

Margarethe Reinberg wrote:Just to be clear, this is the reason i voted Margared Pearson:

Margarethe Reinberg wrote:Wow where is everyone? I'm going to go ahead and vote Margaret. She's a low poster, she hasn't posted since Wednesday, and that stuff about Sarah Good was just weird, especially since we can't info dump.

The "stuff about Sarah Good" I was referencing did not include Bridget's comments about the devil because they were not about Sarah Good. I was specifically talking about

Margaret Pearson wrote: <snip> Little owls told me that *Sarah Good* is the wicked among us.

And why do you think that saying that about Sarah Good would have implied that Margaret P was bad?

In a game where people are being seen with the Devil, and Sarah is also taking votes for having the letter "S" in her name, I would not single the owl remark out as an "info dump". I have never played a game where dumps were allowed, and I have seen much more overt remarks pass muster. <snipt>

The comment struck me as odd. Also, remember that she was a low poster and had not been around since Wednesday until right before the vote by which time I had already voted. I think you may have misread me on the info dumping part. The game doesn't allow info dumping so I couldn't understand what she was doing. I was wrong, as any civv without info is likely to be many times in a game. Also, yes she was right about Krystyna.

Margarethe Reinberg wrote:

Merga Bien wrote:

Margarethe Reinberg wrote:Just to be clear, this is the reason i voted Margared Pearson:

Margarethe Reinberg wrote:Wow where is everyone? I'm going to go ahead and vote Margaret. She's a low poster, she hasn't posted since Wednesday, and that stuff about Sarah Good was just weird, especially since we can't info dump.

The "stuff about Sarah Good" I was referencing did not include Bridget's comments about the devil because they were not about Sarah Good. I was specifically talking about

Margaret Pearson wrote: <snip> Little owls told me that *Sarah Good* is the wicked among us.

And why do you think that saying that about Sarah Good would have implied that Margaret P was bad?

In a game where people are being seen with the Devil, and Sarah is also taking votes for having the letter "S" in her name, I would not single the owl remark out as an "info dump". I have never played a game where dumps were allowed, and I have seen much more overt remarks pass muster. It also sounds less "dumpy" in context:

Margaret Pearson wrote:I want to make sure I won't miss the vote again, so I shall go ahead and vote now. Furthermore I'm not buying the whole Krystyna thing. Little owls told me that *Sarah Good* is the wicked among us.

She was right not to buy the whole Krystyjna thing, wasn't she?

She also said this on DAY ONE:

Margaret Pearson wrote:Voted for *Entjen* for deviously attempting to lure us into lynching the innocent Agnes.

I really wonder what the *secrets* in her role entailed? In 9 posts she managed to correctly call two civvies. Brilliant!

I will have some time to read today, and I have added a few names to the "must read" list, so it is likely I will take Maria Von Trapp (and Janes) advice and start at the very beginning.

The comment struck me as odd. Also, remember that she was a low poster and had not been around since Wednesday until right before the vote by which time I had already voted. I think you may have misread me on the info dumping part. The game doesn't allow info dumping so I couldn't understand what she was doing. I was wrong, as any civv without info is likely to be many times in a game. Also, yes she was right about Krystyna.

I restored the original clip; it was easier than fixing the broken one.

My point was, though, that if the game does not allow info dumping, why did you single out Margaret P, when several people have done similar things? Why did *this* instance bother you to the exclusion of the others? I see quite a few things that have the appearance of info dumps to me. Have I not yet reached the part where they are explained? And Sarah Good, actually, has fewer posts than did Margaret P, and no discernable content whatsoever in her very few posts. So you in effect voted for one low poster for casting suspicion on an even lower poster.

I am not trying to pick on you; I am really trying to understand this thread (I see now why Jane said to just read it). Little Owls, people being seen with the devil, etc.

I am not as far as Day Three yet in my overall read; has it been determined how Khrystyjna was lynched instead of Entjen?

I understand you are just trying to understand Merga. The little owls statement just pinged me more than the others and added to the low poster and hadn't been here in days it added up to my vote. I didn't want to just randomly vote among the low posters so I went with someone who was a low poster and pinged me for another reason. It's early in the game, and that's really all there was to my vote.

Does anyone else think that people who have been leaden the lynches might be bad?

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:Does anyone else think that people who have been leaden the lynches might be bad?

Since lead is poisonous, that seems likely.

Very seriously, Malin, what do you think of Marets question? Typo aside? After doing some concentrated reading in this thread, I am coming to a similar conclusion.

Merga Bien wrote:Very seriously, Malin, what do you think of Marets question? Typo aside? After doing some concentrated reading in this thread, I am coming to a similar conclusion.

I assume the question was meant to be whether the people leading the lynches are baddies. Honestly, I don't know. I haven't particularly noticed anyone in particular "leading" the lynches. And while some baddies like to play a very active game of directing suspicion, I am getting the sense that we are seeing a very passive baddie team this time around, given how many people have so few posts.

Where there any lynch leaders you had in mind particularly?

I am saying the word "particular" too much.

RIP Margret.

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:Does anyone else think that people who have been leaden the lynches might be bad?

This is a fair question. Is there anyone in particular you have in mind?

Malin Matsdotter wrote:

Merga Bien wrote:Very seriously, Malin, what do you think of Marets question? Typo aside? After doing some concentrated reading in this thread, I am coming to a similar conclusion.

I assume the question was meant to be whether the people leading the lynches are baddies. Honestly, I don't know. I haven't particularly noticed anyone in particular "leading" the lynches. And while some baddies like to play a very active game of directing suspicion, I am getting the sense that we are seeing a very passive baddie team this time around, given how many people have so few posts.

Where there any lynch leaders you had in mind particularly?

I do have a few people who have gotten my attention. I read for a few hours this morning, and will again this evening. I cannot be targeted tonight, but others can, so I will not start a major discussion during the night. I mainly asked you that question since you seemed somewhat dismissive of her question; taking the time to reply, only to point out a typo, without actually commenting on a legitimate point she was making.

It caught my attention.

I went with giant wars.

Merga Bien wrote:I mainly asked you that question since you seemed somewhat dismissive of her question; taking the time to reply, only to point out a typo, without actually commenting on a legitimate point she was making.

It caught my attention.

I can be relied upon to comment on amusing typos whenever I see them, even if I have little else to add.

Voted for witch hunts.

I am going to vote Giant Wars.

Malin Matsdotter wrote:

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:Does anyone else think that people who have been leaden the lynches might be bad?

Since lead is poisonous, that seems likely.

You don't find my question has any merit to it?

I do.

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:

Malin Matsdotter wrote:

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:Does anyone else think that people who have been leaden the lynches might be bad?

Since lead is poisonous, that seems likely.

You don't find my question has any merit to it?

I do.

You can see my more detailed response above, but to be honest, I found it rather a trite thing to say. "Maybe the people getting civvies lynched are baddies." It's an obvious remark, but who are those people? It seems the kind of thing one might say in order to appear to be participating without really adding anything unique or of value.

Hey, you asked.

voted for gargoyle strike

Malin Matsdotter wrote:

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:

Malin Matsdotter wrote:

Märet Jonsdotter wrote:Does anyone else think that people who have been leaden the lynches might be bad?

Since lead is poisonous, that seems likely.

You don't find my question has any merit to it?

I do.

You can see my more detailed response above, but to be honest, I found it rather a trite thing to say. "Maybe the people getting civvies lynched are baddies." It's an obvious remark, but who are those people? It seems the kind of thing one might say in order to appear to be participating without really adding anything unique or of value.

Hey, you asked.

Actually, I thought it was an attempt, and rather a good one at that, to start discussing what has gone wrong in this game, and something HAS gone wrong. Your answer, on the other hand, I found to be quite the opposite. Ridiculing people has a chilling effect on discussion in my experience.