The Syndicate

My point was that you mischaracterized her post, like you mischarcterize my posts and anyone who suspects you posts.

Ah I thought it was tonight lol.

Golden wrote:I'd be willing to vote bubbles. It would actually be a pretty good test... if she is bad, and her team isn't gone, I think I've been wrong about glorfindel all along. If she isn't bad, then what we are losing is someone who has really been too busy to play in this game and so isn't really playing.

How do you feel about this, SVS?

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:I'd be willing to vote bubbles. It would actually be a pretty good test... if she is bad, and her team isn't gone, I think I've been wrong about glorfindel all along. If she isn't bad, then what we are losing is someone who has really been too busy to play in this game and so isn't really playing.

How do you feel about this, SVS?

I already voted. I would ask everyone else. I will say that that was the baddiest vote I have seen in, well, rather recently actually, but still it was pretty bad.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:I'd be willing to vote bubbles. It would actually be a pretty good test... if she is bad, and her team isn't gone, I think I've been wrong about glorfindel all along. If she isn't bad, then what we are losing is someone who has really been too busy to play in this game and so isn't really playing.

How do you feel about this, SVS?

I already voted. I would ask everyone else. I will say that that was the baddiest vote I have seen in, well, rather recently actually, but still it was pretty bad.

I'd have to agree.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:I'd be willing to vote bubbles. It would actually be a pretty good test... if she is bad, and her team isn't gone, I think I've been wrong about glorfindel all along. If she isn't bad, then what we are losing is someone who has really been too busy to play in this game and so isn't really playing.

How do you feel about this, SVS?

I already voted. I would ask everyone else. I will say that that was the baddiest vote I have seen in, well, rather recently actually, but still it was pretty bad.

I didn't mean for your vote specifically. I think I've done a bad job showing I'm civ because people don't believe I'm my read on glorfindel is genuine. If bubbles was lynched and came back bad, and her team wasn't dead, I'd be on board for a glorf lynch the day after and I'd admit I was wrong.

Or you're on Glorfindel's team and you know a Bubbles lynch will clear him, or give you an excuse to clear him at any rate.

But that's Mattesque speculation. I don't like Bubbles vote and I would be willing to vote there.

Golden wrote:I'd be willing to vote bubbles. It would actually be a pretty good test... if she is bad, and her team isn't gone, I think I've been wrong about glorfindel all along. If she isn't bad, then what we are losing is someone who has really been too busy to play in this game and so isn't really playing.

I'm sorry Golden, could you please clarify for me:
1) What you meant by "I think I've been wrong about Glorfindel all along." And
2) Precisely what you think lynching Bubbles will achieve?
Thanks.

IF bubbles is bad... and not the last member of her team.

THEN I will think I've been wrong about you.

Because bubbles vote did look like an attempted save.

DharmaHelper wrote:Or you're on Glorfindel's team and you know a Bubbles lynch will clear him, or give you an excuse to clear him at any rate.

But that's Mattesque speculation. I don't like Bubbles vote and I would be willing to vote there.

Somehow, I don't think me going 'see, I told you glorfindel is civ' would convince anyone.

S~V~S wrote:My point was that you mischaracterized her post, like you mischarcterize my posts and anyone who suspects you posts.

And to you S-V-S, for the second time today...

Glorfindel wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Let's let Juliets speak for herself. From my reading of her post she said that her first impression was that my performance this game and Star Wars were not similar and then qualified her opinion by saying the context of the two was different. She asked for others to offer their opinions and what happened? Nothing. Surprise, surpise...

Not a mischaracterisation of her post at all. Your strategy of continuoiusly misrepresenting my posts is really becoming quite tiresome.

wow i didnt expect to get a response so quick! no im not attempted to save glorfindel (i assume thats where you guys are going?) and i HAVE been on the thread the last week just not posting, i have been busy, trying to not be totally absent from the thread. hope that explains it. i doubt it will but oh well

Glorfindel wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Sorsha wrote: I agree with this about MP so I've changed my mind about voting him today. I'm guessing he's an inmate, I don't see him asking for lynch and letting either civ or mafia teammates down like that. Of course that could be what he wants us to think

What changed your mind? I've been asking for my lynch since before you changed it, so it can't be that.

I don't think you're bad and now that you are apparently cured you're more likely to help out/participate. I'd rather vote a low poster than you at this point. Bubbles has been lurking in the thread since I've been around today but not posting.

Sure if you want to put a vote on someone who's not getting lynched go right ahead.

Perhaps not my friend but given the choice of voting for players that I believe to be Mafia and those that I know aren't (my assumption on MP that I'd stated previously) I'll go for players that I think are Mafia EVERY time.

That's all well and good but sorsha has given no indication that she thinks bubbles is mafia so what's your point?

"The Duke of Norfolk: Damn it... Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship?
Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?"

A Man for All Seasons - Robert Bolt

This was an interesting post. So is this one.

Glorfindel wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Golden wrote:I really wouldn't object to a low/non-poster vote at this point. I remember in Bullets Over Broadway how much trouble that was giving the civilians in the end, having all these people still alive who weren't even there. With Equivocate, ekeknat, Bubbles, Bass and Floyd all being non-contributory, that number is high.

Chrysanthemums tawdrier maid nag.

This is the first remark you've made this Day phase my friend with which I concur...

To clarify, not necessarily THOSE low posters...

I'm REALLY not entirely comfortable with what I see here, Golden. There seems to be a focus in this game not so much on the low posters as it is on the newbies. To illustrate my point, take a look at the TS career posts of the players you named; Equivocate (5), ekeknat (78), Bubbles (195), Floyd (291) the only exception being Bass with a more impressive total of 1732 (despite the fact that I don't think they have posted since very early in the game). Look at the primary candidate for lynching last Day phase - it was me (again, <200 TS career posts) until MP's vote took off. And now there are people looking at Sprityo and while I haven't looked, I'll wager he's in the same boat.

While I agree that having 'non-active' players in the game is a bad thing (and I agree if they could be subbed that would be awesome) I don't see a lot of value in pursuing them at this point other than as you say, to simply thin the herd. I feel it would be more prudent to pursue those players that are somewhat more active and whose elimination is based on some perceived evidence/logic and whose departure may give us something to work with.

And this.

Glorfindel wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:By the way, if anyone were remotely interested in my take on the GTH process I'd be happy to contribute. I'm guessing that it would however be a complete waste of my time...

On the contrary. It would be an incredibly incredibly valuable thing imo.

Very well...

Bass_the_clever: Good (but deserves a closer look)
Bubbles: Good
Bullszye: Initially good (starting to have serious doubts)
Dharmerhelper: Probably OK
Dom: Not sure but I doubt pure Town
Golden: Town/Town-leaning independent
Glorfindel: Pure as the driven snow
Juliets: Good (pretty confident)
Ekeknat: Likely bad
Equivocate:
Lorab: Town/potentially independent
MacDougall: Good
Matt: Good/potentially independent
MetalMarsh89: Bad
Moving Pictures: Good (and misguided)
Sorsha: Good (but I'd want to look closer on this one)
Sprityo: Independent
S-V-S: Independent/bad
The Floyd73:
Turnip Head: Good (but seriously misguided)
Typhoony: Independent/bad

Bubbles wrote:wow i didnt expect to get a response so quick! no im not attempted to save glorfindel (i assume thats where you guys are going?) and i HAVE been on the thread the last week just not posting, i have been busy, trying to not be totally absent from the thread. hope that explains it. i doubt it will but oh well

What about SVS do you find suspect?

Glorfindel wrote:

S~V~S wrote:My point was that you mischaracterized her post, like you mischarcterize my posts and anyone who suspects you posts.

And to you S-V-S, for the second time today...

Glorfindel wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Let's let Juliets speak for herself. From my reading of her post she said that her first impression was that my performance this game and Star Wars were not similar and then qualified her opinion by saying the context of the two was different. She asked for others to offer their opinions and what happened? Nothing. Surprise, surpise...

Not a mischaracterisation of her post at all. Your strategy of continuoiusly misrepresenting my posts is really becoming quite tiresome.

I am sorry if you find me tiresome. I don't intend it, I just want ot get to the truth of things. I can't say as I did misrepresent, so we must agree to disagree, hrm?

Linki Bye Bubbles

Well god damn.

Golden wrote:IF bubbles is bad... and not the last member of her team.

THEN I will think I've been wrong about you.

Because bubbles vote did look like an attempted save.

OK, I confess - this really hurt. I've no idea of Bubbles' alignment and the fact that either way you'd link her alignment to mine over your own gut-read is frankly bitterly disappointing.

At this point, I'm not voting for Bubbles based solely on the fact that she defended me. If you can come up with something more conclusive, I'd consider it but until then I can't see that lynching her will necessarily prove anything at all.

Hello everyone, sorry I have been missing today. I had some things to do and then I fell asleep!

Let me try to clear up the game comparisons I did with Glorfindel. First, note that I was looking at three different games: this one, Star Wars, and Pikmin. I think the confusion on how I feel stems from the fact that the two sets of comments were about two different games comparing them to our current game.

The first game I talked about was Star Wars and I said I did not see the comparison. He seemed much more melt downish in Star Wars than in this game. I didn't say this the first time but since it has come up, it did appear he was spending his time defending himself though if being accused i think it's hard not to defend. But he sounded more defensive to me there than here. In terms of whether or not he was evasive I wasn't reading for that because it came up after I read the games to my recollection. Dom feels like - having been there - that the posts in Star Wars were not melt downy and that his game there was reminiscent of his game here.

The real eye opener was Pikmin. His posting in Pikmin was nothing like his posting here or Star Wars. He was straight to the point, there were no winding posts and the posts were short enough to read more in depth as I skimmed and he did not avoid things that I could see. My only caveat about that - and its a big one in my mind - is he wasn't under any pressure of being bad like he was in Star Wars and is here. So I don't know if I'm looking at someone who has a posting style that comes out when he's under pressure as in this game regardless of alignment or someone who has a drastically different posting style when he's good than when he is bad. That's why I asked others to read his posts and add their opinion as to what those games are telling us.

Also, a lot has happened since I posted my read on his games. I was not looking too close at content and that seems to be the reason many are suspecting Glorfindel now.

Typhoony wrote:Ehm, my voting record beats yours DF.
Not only have you not voted for a baddie, you have only voted civs. You have voted Scotty, sig, MP and sprityo. Given that, talking about voting records may not be the best look for you. Maybe focus on posts, see what you can find. And I'm looking forward to your findings!

As I said earlier, my reason for looking at you isn't about your voting record per se (although that's not helping), it's that you were one of the voters on what felt like a Mac bandwagon to save Sabie. Loads of people in this game haven't voted for the baddies, and I don't suspect any of them for it. But when I already have a reason to suspect someone, their voting record is another factor to consider.

Also, what's going on with Bubbles is pretty shifty too. It looks like another possible save attempt, but if so, a rather haphazard one.

Theonly person inthis thread less likely to save Sabie besides me is Typh. And DH. Maybe TH.

You get the point. I have only seen Typh actively save a teammate ONCE, and that was Juliets. The only time.

Glorfindel wrote:

Golden wrote:IF bubbles is bad... and not the last member of her team.

THEN I will think I've been wrong about you.

Because bubbles vote did look like an attempted save.

OK, I confess - this really hurt. I've no idea of Bubbles' alignment and the fact that either way you'd link her alignment to mine over your own gut-read is frankly bitterly disappointing.

At this point, I'm not voting for Bubbles based solely on the fact that she defended me. If you can come up with something more conclusive, I'd consider it but until then I can't see that lynching her will necessarily prove anything at all.

Meh, my own gut-read can be good sometimes but it can also be shite sometimes. I still wouldn't lynch you unless Bubbles came back bad. If Bubbles DOES come back bad... then I have to think a second time.

Yall remember that time me and Mac shat our pants trying to save our teammates in GoC? Fun times, that.

Yeah but they were playing.

S~V~S wrote:Yeah but they were playing.

True dat. I don't have time or patience for nonparticipating players. Teammates or otherwise.

S~V~S wrote:Theonly person inthis thread less likely to save Sabie besides me is Typh. And DH. Maybe TH.

You get the point. I have only seen Typh actively save a teammate ONCE, and that was Juliets. The only time.

Yet more meta, but okay, I'll take that into consideration. Thanks SVS.

DharmaHelper wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Yeah but they were playing.

True dat. I don't have time or patience for nonparticipating players. Teammates or otherwise.

Oh boy did we carry Motel Room though...

I am poisoned btw. What's that supposed to mean?

DH why did you kill Sorsha?

MacDougall wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Yeah but they were playing.

True dat. I don't have time or patience for nonparticipating players. Teammates or otherwise.

Oh boy did we carry Motel Room though...

I am poisoned btw. What's that supposed to mean?

It means you will die unless you find the antidote. MP was poisoned and found it somehow so there is hope.

I wasn't told I found the antidote but I wasn't required to do anything specific today.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

Golden wrote:I'd be willing to vote bubbles. It would actually be a pretty good test... if she is bad, and her team isn't gone, I think I've been wrong about glorfindel all along. If she isn't bad, then what we are losing is someone who has really been too busy to play in this game and so isn't really playing.

How do you feel about this, SVS?

I already voted. I would ask everyone else. I will say that that was the baddiest vote I have seen in, well, rather recently actually, but still it was pretty bad.

this tbh

Bubbles wrote:wow i didnt expect to get a response so quick! no im not attempted to save glorfindel (i assume thats where you guys are going?) and i HAVE been on the thread the last week just not posting, i have been busy, trying to not be totally absent from the thread. hope that explains it. i doubt it will but oh well

who are your teammates

DharmaHelper wrote:Well god damn.

what a wild ride

Glorfindel wrote: Thank you for saying those nice things about me and I'm sorry but the fact that you can see that and believe that I am bad in spite of that says more about how you see things than it does about me.

First off, my mind is not made up about you Glorf (can I call you Glorf?). That said, this sentence does not ring true to me at all. One can be nice, and charming, and cool, and all that and still be a lying baddie within the game. I'm reminded of my very first mafia game--I happened to be bad. A player who later became one of my closest friends, told me many games later that he felt horrible when he first made a post about me being bad--because I was nice (and because I'm a rabbi and the whole telling clergy that they are lying and evil felt off to him). One's personality in life, which naturally comes out in games, does not relate to the role that one has. All that to say is that SVS thinking you're a good addition to this site (and I agree with her), has nothing to do with suspecting you.

Bubbles wrote:i agree with golden don't think glorfindel is bad, seems genuine to me. voting S~V~S on his behalf

on a side note what is your username based upon glorfindel? it reminds me of lord of the rings

S~V~S wrote:*Teammate sends PM to Bubbles, "you have to get in here & vote, hurry up!!"*

They should have said to make it convincing.

What SVS said.

DharmaHelper wrote:Mkay so I'd be also willing to vote for Bubbles based on that post/vote alone.

I've been wiilling to vote for her (and did) since her post about how Dom is posting more than usual. Still waiting for an answer on that one.

S~V~S wrote: I already voted. I would ask everyone else. I will say that that was the baddiest vote I have seen in, well, rather recently actually, but still it was pretty bad.

This made me giggle. Thank you for that.

Bubbles wrote:wow i didnt expect to get a response so quick! no im not attempted to save glorfindel (i assume thats where you guys are going?) and i HAVE been on the thread the last week just not posting, i have been busy, trying to not be totally absent from the thread. hope that explains it. i doubt it will but oh well

I dno't believe that you've been following the thread. I do believe you have teammates. Not the good kind.

Also, @Bubbles: What prompted you to post and vote now, when that hasn't been a thing you've done in the past week, even though you have been paying attention? Why vote in this lynch? Why post now, all of a sudden?

Nice job Lorab. Maybe her teammates will tell her to come back and answer your questions - or maybe she'll read along for a week and then come back for your questions.

As stinky as Bubbles looks right now I can't imagine that all the baddie roles belong to newbies and chronic inactives.

juliets wrote:Nice job Lorab. Maybe her teammates will tell her to come back and answer your questions - or maybe she'll read along for a week and then come back for your questions.

A gal can hope.

I said a day or so ago that I was committed to my Team and would be to the end. I recognise my responsibility to them to do everything in my power to secure a win for our Team. As things stand right now, I don't believe there is any point to me continuing to post in this thread as it has become apparent to me that there is not a single person playing (with the possible exception of Bubbles) who is prepared to accept that I may be innocent. There has been some suggestion made this morning of a link between Bubbles' alignment and mine. I can assure you that there is no truth to this assumption whatsoever.

My point here is that as I see it, no one is listening (in truth, many of you stopped listening long ago). My issue is that you are all being deceived and there is nothing that I can do to convince any of you otherwise - but as I say, that's MY issue. You are going to believe what you want and at the end of the day, you will bear the consequences of the choices you make. I'm pretty satisfied that I've done everything in my power albeit to no avail. I think I'll be leaving this in your hands now. Vote for me. Vote for Bubbles. The choice is yours. If any of you realise the error of your ways before it's too late, let me know and if I'm able, I'll return to support you however I can. Good luck, Guys!

I am voting bubbles.

Am not and will not vote bubbles. Here's what I observe.

1. Bubbles comes in and posts because she hasn't in ages. Understandably without context and scummy looking ie. Bubbles posted like Bubbles.

2. Players looking for somewhere to point the finger react with incredulity as though this is an unusual thing for Bubbles to do.

3. Votes start being made towards Bubbles.

Bubbles was terribly mislynched (primarily by yours truly) in Star Wars. I won't repeat that again.

I am voting for Golden.

Glorfindel wrote:I said a day or so ago that I was committed to my Team and would be to the end. I recognise my responsibility to them to do everything in my power to secure a win for our Team. As things stand right now, I don't believe there is any point to me continuing to post in this thread as it has become apparent to me that there is not a single person playing (with the possible exception of Bubbles) who is prepared to accept that I may be innocent. There has been some suggestion made this morning of a link between Bubbles' alignment and mine. I can assure you that there is no truth to this assumption whatsoever.

My point here is that as I see it, no one is listening (in truth, many of you stopped listening long ago). My issue is that you are all being deceived and there is nothing that I can do to convince any of you otherwise - but as I say, that's MY issue. You are going to believe what you want and at the end of the day, you will bear the consequences of the choices you make. I'm pretty satisfied that I've done everything in my power albeit to no avail. I think I'll be leaving this in your hands now. Vote for me. Vote for Bubbles. The choice is yours. If any of you realise the error of your ways before it's too late, let me know and if I'm able, I'll return to support you however I can. Good luck, Guys!

I literally said in my post I hadn't made up my mind about you, yet. Did you not actually read my post and just assume my thoughts?

MacDougall wrote:Am not and will not vote bubbles. Here's what I observe.

1. Bubbles comes in and posts because she hasn't in ages. Understandably without context and scummy looking ie. Bubbles posted like Bubbles.

2. Players looking for somewhere to point the finger react with incredulity as though this is an unusual thing for Bubbles to do.

3. Votes start being made towards Bubbles.

Bubbles was terribly mislynched (primarily by yours truly) in Star Wars. I won't repeat that again.

I am voting for Golden.

Although you've threatened to do that a couple of times, I am surprised to see you follow through.

Want to give any reasons why?

Also, bubbles was terribly mislynched in Star Wars. Because she was playing her normal civilian game, which is to post more or less every day and vote on more of them than not. This has not been her pattern in this game. I had felt she was civilian until now even so.

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Am not and will not vote bubbles. Here's what I observe.

1. Bubbles comes in and posts because she hasn't in ages. Understandably without context and scummy looking ie. Bubbles posted like Bubbles.

2. Players looking for somewhere to point the finger react with incredulity as though this is an unusual thing for Bubbles to do.

3. Votes start being made towards Bubbles.

Bubbles was terribly mislynched (primarily by yours truly) in Star Wars. I won't repeat that again.

I am voting for Golden.

Although you've threatened to do that a couple of times, I am surprised to see you follow through.

Want to give any reasons why?

I think you are le bad guy.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Am not and will not vote bubbles. Here's what I observe.

1. Bubbles comes in and posts because she hasn't in ages. Understandably without context and scummy looking ie. Bubbles posted like Bubbles.

2. Players looking for somewhere to point the finger react with incredulity as though this is an unusual thing for Bubbles to do.

3. Votes start being made towards Bubbles.

Bubbles was terribly mislynched (primarily by yours truly) in Star Wars. I won't repeat that again.

I am voting for Golden.

Although you've threatened to do that a couple of times, I am surprised to see you follow through.

Want to give any reasons why?

I think you are le bad guy.

I'll take that as a no.

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Am not and will not vote bubbles. Here's what I observe.

1. Bubbles comes in and posts because she hasn't in ages. Understandably without context and scummy looking ie. Bubbles posted like Bubbles.

2. Players looking for somewhere to point the finger react with incredulity as though this is an unusual thing for Bubbles to do.

3. Votes start being made towards Bubbles.

Bubbles was terribly mislynched (primarily by yours truly) in Star Wars. I won't repeat that again.

I am voting for Golden.

Although you've threatened to do that a couple of times, I am surprised to see you follow through.

Want to give any reasons why?

I think you are le bad guy.

I'll take that as a no.

No, I would like to lynch you without giving you the opportunity to argue with it tbh.

Well, I finished my Bullz review and didn't find any connections to Sabie. He didn't really voice suspicions of Nero, but I only suspected him as trying to save Sabie, so that's not a notable finding to me. All in all, Bullz seems alright.

I'll try to look over Typh's posts tomorrow, but I'll be at work for most of the day.

"Ey Typh I'm not looking at you because of your voting record. Nah, I'm looking at you because of this Mac vote you made during the sabie lynch".
Yeah that sure does look like you're suspecting me because of my voting record df, so don't give me that bs. Good thing that you made all these throwaway votes during the baddie lynches huh?
Made the 3rd vote on Sig when Nero already had 6, put the 2nd vote on sprit when sabie already had 5, 2nd vote on sprit again when Floyd had 5. All in all you probably have the worst voting record in this game.

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Am not and will not vote bubbles. Here's what I observe.

1. Bubbles comes in and posts because she hasn't in ages. Understandably without context and scummy looking ie. Bubbles posted like Bubbles.

2. Players looking for somewhere to point the finger react with incredulity as though this is an unusual thing for Bubbles to do.

3. Votes start being made towards Bubbles.

Bubbles was terribly mislynched (primarily by yours truly) in Star Wars. I won't repeat that again.

I am voting for Golden.

Although you've threatened to do that a couple of times, I am surprised to see you follow through.

Want to give any reasons why?

I think you are le bad guy.

I'll take that as a no.

No, I would like to lynch you without giving you the opportunity to argue with it tbh.

Well, I would like to go a game as a civ where you don't suspect me, but I guess we can't all get what we want.

Here's one thing I will say though - if you go getting me lynched after I've had your back despite needing you lynched, the next time I need you dead I won't give a shit before trying to take you out.

I don't think you even think I'm bad. I think for you it's just sport.