The Syndicate

HamburgerBoy wrote:Sig not trusting you to follow Dom on the lynch does not imply there are others he would trust at the moment. He's just saying that he would rather look elsewhere for a vote, rather than jump on the bandwagon like Mac did (note: I'm not sure if Mac had actually jumped on the wagon by that point, just an example).

When I saw SVS's concession it immediately raised my eyebrows and put me in, "No, don't let that stand!" mode. Even if the wording was crappy, you frame it in the worst way, and ultimately "semantic jab" is just another way of saying word-twisting. When I read her post, I read it to mean "Dom is a good player, and I don't want to gamble because I don't trust Epi's scumdar". No statement on other players.

Fine, but I don't agree with your assessment: Both are Day 1 issues.

Why would sig say he doesn't trust me Day 1? Are there people sig trusts Day 1? If not, then the statement is saying more than it should: Why make it?

If you say someone is a valuable player, then you are implying there are others who are less valuable. If you say a menu item is expensive, it implies other menu items are less expensive. I don't get how that's difficult to understand.

I'm voting sig because bull and zebra have made some good points on him and he keeps putting the blame on other people, which looks suspicious.

He said it because he was asking for it. He wanted people to give their opinions on what they think of Dom, not your ability to read him. Metalmarsh gave sig the wrong answer by saying he trusts you (Kind of.), and the only other person to reply was Bullzeye who took his request and tried to use it as a case against him, since she was already going against sig even on day 1. Interesting that he makes the same argument against sig being made this day: sig making a mountain out of nothing, and that nothing ends up ballooning into a bandwagon anyways.

You're basically asking a question he can't answer; if someone simply asks anyone broadly for an alternative opinion, they can't go and name select players they want to hear from.

Luke11646 wrote:I'm voting sig because bull and zebra have made some good points on him and he keeps putting the blame on other people, which looks suspicious.

Who is he putting the blame on?

nutella wrote:Why were you two, Golden and Dom, so quick to jump on me for something that wasn't even explicitly a case on me, and why did neither of you mention Sorsha at all?

Because votes are changeable and in those games I like to be 'quick to jump on' whatever I see that I find convincing.

Would I have jumped on it as quick if votes were not changeable? No.

Also, because I already suspected you before Matt's case, and although I might not have jumped in with a vote so early in the day, you were still my first point of examination for today. And I think it's inaccurate to say Matt's case is on Sorsha not you. My read is that the case is that you and Sorsha are baddie teammates, but I find the statements about you more convincing... Sorsha could have been distancing, but it also could have been virtually random. The fact it didn't break the tie, however... I know how conspicuous it can feel to do that when bad, it's a real lose lose. Actually it's a lose lose when you are civ too.

This is a long way of saying that... before catching up on whats happened in the thread today, you are my top suspect. I see sig is taking some votes, but I don't know why yet. It's not like I'm determined you are bad... but I feel like you are a good place for a vote.

HamburgerBoy wrote:He said it because he was asking for it. He wanted people to give their opinions on what they think of Dom, not your ability to read him. Metalmarsh gave sig the wrong answer by saying he trusts you (Kind of.), and the only other person to reply was Bullzeye who took his request and tried to use it as a case against him, since she was already going against sig even on day 1. Interesting that he makes the same argument against sig being made this day: sig making a mountain out of nothing, and that nothing ends up ballooning into a bandwagon anyways.

You're basically asking a question he can't answer; if someone simply asks anyone broadly for an alternative opinion, they can't go and name select players they want to hear from.

I really don't understand you. Who is the first "he?" What is the "it" he was asking for? Who is the "she?" What question am I asking and why can't "he" answer it?

"sig said it because sig was asking for it. sig wanted people to give their opinions on what they think of Dom, not your ability to read Dom."

Sorry, that should be a he for Bullzeye, not a she.

Dom wrote: Golden, can you explain what I've been opportunistic on?

I feel that Mac is inconsistent at best or a liar at worst.

Separate post for addressing Mac now.

Your Mac suspicion.

But opportunistic does not necessarily mean insincere. All I meant to express was 'I can understand Mac's suspicion today, but not before that'. I don't think Mac is right about you.

And "it" being information from players whose reads he does trust.

Sorry, that was kind of a mess looking back. :P

HamburgerBoy wrote:"sig said it because sig was asking for it. sig wanted people to give their opinions on what they think of Dom, not your ability to read Dom."

Sorry, that should be a he for Bullzeye, not a she.

Assuming the "it" part of the puzzle is sig saying he doesn't trust me, no. He said this:

"I don't trust Epi enough to follow him on the Dom lynch. Could others who have played with Dom tell me if he is playing scummy right know?"

Why would he trust me Day 1? Would he trust anybody Day 1 to follow on a lynch?

"I don't trust that lawyer enough to handle my affairs."

Consider that statement. In saying it, there's an implication that there are lawyers the speaker would trust. If the speaker trusted no lawyers, then singling out the one lawyer makes no sense. The same idea applies here.

And by the way, by italicizing the word "would" in my question to sig, "Why would you trust me enough Day 1 to follow me on a lynch?" I am asking why he would trust me (or anyone) Day 1 enough to lynch someone.

I am noting that you are speaking for sig and explaining his intentions.

HamburgerBoy wrote:"Currently" just means "at present", which is clearly the case if we're talking about the most recent nightkill, even if it was only a single one. Not to mention that it assumes a scumteam made some kind of mandate that they are going to exclusively kill low-posters in the future; I seriously doubt a scumteam would be that inflexible. That case looks like a forced "scumslip" that rarely actually catches someone, and from what I can tell, people have a habit of doing it to sig with poor results. Note that Long Con, who flipped scum day 2, was going after sig for that.

I agree that sig gets lynched for scumslips too often.

I also don't think the word 'currently' is a scumslip, but I'll see what I think of sig as a whole when I see his responses. I would use the word 'currently', if I felt it was a trend that was existing on the site over several recent games.

MacDougall wrote:When did I say I wasn't saying that?

DFaraday is definitely scum. Him voting Sig makes that whole wagon look bad.

You never even answered my question from earlier.

HamburgerBoy:

Right now, what is your opinion of S~V~S?

That she acknowledged a change in style/strategy (especially here) is the thing that perked my ears the most so far, but in asking me you've made me realize that she hasn't said much this day so far. I can see her defense of him and change in tune (against lynching new players) from a town POV, both in that your read on Dom didn't sell me, and in that she might want to keep certain experienced players from a day 1 lynch just because it's player X. I haven't seen Dom before this game; is it the case that he doesn't play as often here anymore? Most of the things involving her seem to concern you and Dom.

Or, to give a gth read, I'd say town.

HamburgerBoy wrote:That she acknowledged a change in style/strategy (especially here) is the thing that perked my ears the most so far, but in asking me you've made me realize that she hasn't said much this day so far. I can see her defense of him and change in tune (against lynching new players) from a town POV, both in that your read on Dom didn't sell me, and in that she might want to keep certain experienced players from a day 1 lynch just because it's player X. I haven't seen Dom before this game; is it the case that he doesn't play as often here anymore? Most of the things involving her seem to concern you and Dom.

Or, to give a gth read, I'd say town.

"I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs." Full post here.

Look carefully. The first sentence talks about new people. After that, she only talks about low posters.

Not the same class of people.

S~V~S does not like lynching new people Day 1. Yet she lynched a new person Day 1.

That warrants discussion.

LoRab wrote:and I've taken a painkiller, so I should probably quit posting for the night.

I think LoRab posting on meds would be awesome.

But BANANA also only had two posts over day 1, a weak bandwagon against Matt F and "Oh come on get a sense of humour!". Dom had said a fair bit more, so I don't see any inconsistencies. She doesn't like lynching new players, but in this particular case she opted to. Clearly it was a change from previous games based on the reactions you guys had, and her posts explaining herself, but in the context of just this game I don't see any problems.

HamburgerBoy wrote:He said it because he was asking for it. He wanted people to give their opinions on what they think of Dom, not your ability to read him. Metalmarsh gave sig the wrong answer by saying he trusts you (Kind of.), and the only other person to reply was Bullzeye who took his request and tried to use it as a case against him, since she was already going against sig even on day 1. Interesting that he makes the same argument against sig being made this day: sig making a mountain out of nothing, and that nothing ends up ballooning into a bandwagon anyways.

You're basically asking a question he can't answer; if someone simply asks anyone broadly for an alternative opinion, they can't go and name select players they want to hear from.

Why is my answer wrong?

I like my burgers rare, so I'd rather you flip sooner than later HBOy.

Hamburgerboy

I lied, your not on the poll.

Oops, selective vision. I didn't see that he explicitly asked why you voted for Dom, since your answer would also address his general skepticism of Epi's post.

No wait, I think I just quoted the wrong post or merged the two in my mind or something, this is the question I meant:

sig wrote:I don't trust Epi enough to follow him on the Dom lynch. Could others who have played with Dom tell me if he is playing scummy right know?

Most people on the Dom bandwagon just deferred to Epi's judgment, without offering independent reasoning for why Dom was scum (until Mac tried forcing the thing between Dom and SVS and so on). So yes, you were forthright with your reason (you were following Epi).

I can see how sig talking about what the mafia is “currently” doing could be seen as a slip up. Looking back through his posts I noticed he spoke earlier about what the mafia might do. Sometimes players can’t help but talk about their role, in this case I can see it that perhaps sig can’t help but talk about his alignment. There are two voters for sig that make me hesitant to vote for him though:

Luke voted for sig and I’m getting strange vibes from that vote. Luke has posted very little in the way of suspicions so far, his day one vote was for Tranq and he questioned MM but never followed up with it. Did MM’s answer satisfy you Luke? Were you suspicious of MM and that’s why you asked him that or were you thinking that Epi was suspicious too and wanted to compare reasons? Or something else?

Right now I could see Luke’s vote as either A) a bandwagon from the opposite baddie team or B) distancing from a baddie teammate

Also a bit suspicious on the sig votes so far is from DF. He missed the first vote. That post is also really just echoing other players too, nothing original. His latest post seems a bit better and has some original thought in it so it lessens my suspicion of him a little bit, still a bit pinged by this vote though.

Tranq missed the vote yesterday but has managed to vote in each of the night polls. Night 0, Night 1

TinyBubbles has four posts so far. Here she wants timmer to post more (lol really?) More than what? At that point you both had two posts. I don’t know, maybe she heard talk about timmer in BTS and thought she’d prod him. Just seems a little odd seeing as he was then killed that night.

Here she seems to think that her track record of being civ in other games has anything to do with her alignment in this game

And here she votes for scissors which conveniently gets her off the poll today. I don’t know if the host handed out info about the night poll again or not but if he did it one night I imagine he did again last night.

At this point I'd be most likely to vote for one of these players, sig, luke and bubbles being higher priority.

I've caught up on all the sig stuff and... I think voting for sig is a bad idea.

I don't think the case is strong, and besides that it seems like more or less everyone is happy lynching him. The bandwagon is coming together far too easily. It doesn't feel right to me.

@Sorsha - the more you post, the more I feel like my initial instincts about you were wrong. You are feeling relatively townish to me at the moment.

@Mac - you remind me a little of talking heads mac, in that I can't quite get a read on what parts of what you are saying are serious and what parts are not. I don't think this is necessarily a bad sign for you (even though you were bad in that game) but I would like to get a clear sense of, I guess, the hierarchy of your suspicions, since you seem to be throwing a lot out there.

I don't agree with a lot of the votes going on in this day. A lot of the people who are taking a lot of discussion and votes I have an active civ vibe from. HBoy, SVS, Dom... I think all are civ.

Why I really think Nutella might be bad, though... just a hunch.

Golden wrote:I'm looking through ISOs to try and find some pings to actually work off and I'm getting a really clear picture.... so many people are not giving much, it's no wonder there is little to go on.

So, I'm going to ask some specific people some specific questions, and I really want these people to answer these questions. It's time to start generating content.

Bubbles, Canuck, dfaraday, Timmer, splints, rey?

Where are you guys? Are you civilian-aligned? Do you have any opinions on people you think are town? Do you have any opinions on who you think are bad?

Buglabush, Banana, Luke?

How are you finding this game so far? Are you finding anything confusing? Do you feel like you have a good idea of what to do? Do you have any opinions on specific people? Why are you all so quiet?

Tranq, Typhoony?

What is your perspective on the game so far? Do you see anything that you think is noteworthy? Is there a reason that you are not saying much, and if so what is that reason?

Nutella, BWT, Eloh?

You have been a little involved, but haven't said much to give me an idea of your perspective on things. Are you civilian aligned? If I claimed you were just trying to look involved, and not really being involved, would you call that a fair assessment? Who would be your biggest suspect right now?

I was paying careful attention to who answered what of the questions I posed each of them. Here was nutellas response to me:

nutella wrote:

Golden wrote: Nutella, BWT, Eloh?

You have been a little involved, but haven't said much to give me an idea of your perspective on things. Are you civilian aligned? If I claimed you were just trying to look involved, and not really being involved, would you call that a fair assessment? Who would be your biggest suspect right now?

I am catching up when I can, a couple times a day, and posting once per catch-up. So I am not putting a huge amount of effort into getting involved, but I'm also not deliberately holding back. I always find it hard to have many thoughts on Day 1. I suppoooose my biggest suspect is Bullz, sorta, kinda, just for lack of thoughts on other people at this point. But I can't vote for him. I'm a little curious about the Epi/Dom discussion (but Epi is also off the poll and idk if I'd be convinced to vote Dom). I am very confused by Buglabush and might consider a vote there.

It did not escape my attention that nutella did not answer one question... specifically "are you civilian aligned". It didn't bother me so much in the moment, but...

Then I called out bubbles for the same thing, that she had not answered that question, and nutella said...

nutella wrote:The Bubbles catch is interesting indeed. I don't feel like it merits a vote yet -- I'd like to see her response first.

The whole thing just irks me. Then Matt pointed out the stuff around the Sorsha vote. It all just adds up to a lot of shadiness from nutella, for me. Things that don't add up.

Golden wrote:

nutella wrote:Why were you two, Golden and Dom, so quick to jump on me for something that wasn't even explicitly a case on me, and why did neither of you mention Sorsha at all?

Because votes are changeable and in those games I like to be 'quick to jump on' whatever I see that I find convincing.

Would I have jumped on it as quick if votes were not changeable? No.

Also, because I already suspected you before Matt's case, and although I might not have jumped in with a vote so early in the day, you were still my first point of examination for today. And I think it's inaccurate to say Matt's case is on Sorsha not you. My read is that the case is that you and Sorsha are baddie teammates, but I find the statements about you more convincing... Sorsha could have been distancing, but it also could have been virtually random. The fact it didn't break the tie, however... I know how conspicuous it can feel to do that when bad, it's a real lose lose. Actually it's a lose lose when you are civ too.

This is a long way of saying that... before catching up on whats happened in the thread today, you are my top suspect. I see sig is taking some votes, but I don't know why yet. It's not like I'm determined you are bad... but I feel like you are a good place for a vote.

Alright, fair enough. I kind of fail to see how Sorsha and I could look like teammates, but okay, you are welcome to suspect me. I have nothing to hide

Sorsha is looking better to me with each post and I like her thoughts on Bubbles, Luke, and DF. I keep waffling back and forth on how I feel about Sig.

And then nutella comes right in and makes me doubt by agreeing with sorsha lol.

I will say... the problem I have this game is I'm getting a lot more civ pings than scum pings. Nutella is my biggest scum ping, but its much smaller than I feel I'd usually have by day 2.

nutella wrote:Alright, fair enough. I kind of fail to see how Sorsha and I could look like teammates, but okay, you are welcome to suspect me. I have nothing to hide

I don't think you look like teammates, either, but I wasn't convinced by the sorsha part of his case. I guess - well, as you'll see from above, I already had my eye on you.

For some reason that post of Golden's didn't show up on linki. Sorry I didn't answer your questions directly, I tend to ramble. I am civilian-aligned. The fact that Bubbles hadn't stated that she was civ was particuarly notable since that is her signature MO.


more linki. Makes you doubt what by agreeing with sorsha?

It makes me doubt my read on you. That post is the one I've got the best civvie vibe from you on.

Ah. Cool.

nutella wrote:The fact that Bubbles hadn't stated that she was civ was particuarly notable since that is her signature MO.

I completely agree with this. It's why I found bubbles suspicious and didn't really find it notable that you missed the question, at first. If it had pinged me the first time around I would have been saying I was suspicious of you at the time. It was only, all the things adding up together, you know what I mean?

I honestly don't know what to do with my vote today. Luke's vote for sig feels most bandwagonny, but it's not like a newbie vote worked out for us yesterday... not that I'm saying it wouldn't today. There is the possibility the banana vote was a save, but if so... I wonder if bugla is the likelier option than dom.

I think the Bubbles ping is reaching at best.

Epignosis wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:That she acknowledged a change in style/strategy (especially here) is the thing that perked my ears the most so far, but in asking me you've made me realize that she hasn't said much this day so far. I can see her defense of him and change in tune (against lynching new players) from a town POV, both in that your read on Dom didn't sell me, and in that she might want to keep certain experienced players from a day 1 lynch just because it's player X. I haven't seen Dom before this game; is it the case that he doesn't play as often here anymore? Most of the things involving her seem to concern you and Dom.

Or, to give a gth read, I'd say town.

"I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs." Full post here.

Look carefully. The first sentence talks about new people. After that, she only talks about low posters.

Not the same class of people.

S~V~S does not like lynching new people Day 1. Yet she lynched a new person Day 1.

That warrants discussion.

No, I really don't like to.

But if someone I don't think is bad based on the case being made against him, is tied with someone I do think could be bad, I will vote for the one I think is bad to save the one I think isn't, even if he is a nub. If it was not a forced scenario like that, I probably would not vote for the nub. But it was a tie vote,and making a tangent vote at that point is lame.

I have explained this 88 times, Lol. And you are skipping the "I thought he was bad" part to focus on my wording. You're wrong here, but knock yourself out.

HamburgerBoy wrote: and the only other person to reply was Bullzeye who took his request and tried to use it as a case against him, since he was already going against sig even on day 1. Interesting that he makes the same argument against sig being made this day: sig making a mountain out of nothing, and that nothing ends up ballooning into a bandwagon anyways.

When I voted Sig on day one, it was for a minor ping because I didn't have anything better to go on other than my trusty fallback of the day 1 low poster vote. The fact that Sig continued to make me even more suspicious of him is nothing to do with me, if he hadn't made the post that kicked off today's discussion I might never have voted for him again. You and he are the ones who've made mountains out of molehills.

Golden wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:"Currently" just means "at present", which is clearly the case if we're talking about the most recent nightkill, even if it was only a single one. Not to mention that it assumes a scumteam made some kind of mandate that they are going to exclusively kill low-posters in the future; I seriously doubt a scumteam would be that inflexible. That case looks like a forced "scumslip" that rarely actually catches someone, and from what I can tell, people have a habit of doing it to sig with poor results. Note that Long Con, who flipped scum day 2, was going after sig for that.

I agree that sig gets lynched for scumslips too often.

I also don't think the word 'currently' is a scumslip, but I'll see what I think of sig as a whole when I see his responses. I would use the word 'currently', if I felt it was a trend that was existing on the site over several recent games.

Take the word currently out of the post entirely. Then it just says the baddies are killing low posters. It still doesn't make sense because you can't infer a pattern from one point of data. It still looks suspicious IMO. It's not the fact he said currently that I find suspicious. It's the implications behind the post as a whole. I would encourage you to read sig and HB's responses, and also consider why HB is defending sig so hard if they aren't teammates.

I don't see how anyone could reasonably think Banana was bad, having never played with him ever before, and based on the sum of his contributions Day 1, which follow below:

NANANANANANA_BANANA wrote:I vote for Matt F because he has caused a lot of arguments for no good reason.

NANANANANANA_BANANA wrote:Oh come on get a sense of humour!

Yet my case on Dom was "bullshit," a description I am still contesting.

Well, I did, and I said so right after he made his vote post, Epi. Next post after he voted, i questioned it. It isn't like that vote came out of left field. Had I voted for BUG, that would have been different. But I voted for someone I had previously mentioned to save someone I thought was being mischaracterized. For the 89th time.

Of the two, I felt it more likely that Nanana was bad, so I put my money where my mouth was instead of pussing off and making a vote that would not matter.

And yeah, I think the case on Dom was bullshit.

Sorry so absent yesterday, I had family stuff, real estate stuff, Halloween stuff, drama stuff. Aside from D & D, I should be around most of today. I will get caught up to the thread this AM.

Not sorry for going to bed after reading a couple of posts yesterday. Not sorry one bit.


Mac, if you can't take the heat of, what I would consider, mild scrutiny from me, then you're either an extremely panicked civ or a baddie who can't take any suspicion at all.
I'm leaning towards the latter.

nutella wrote:

Golden wrote:Voting nutella, for an early placeholder. Matt, I think your case holds a lot of merit.

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:What are you seeing with nutella?

I think Matt F's case against her was well thought out and doesn't look all that great for her.

I'm sorry, what "case"? I think Matt's "case" was more condemning of Sorsha than of me, and his post here more or less confirms that:

Matt F wrote: Don't get me wrong, it wasn't just your vote for her. It was Sorsha's complete disregard to said vote that got me pinged on this whole thing. I find it curious that some players have looked at you for my case here, but nothing to say about Sorsha. And yes that is odd.

Why were you two, Golden and Dom, so quick to jump on me for something that wasn't even explicitly a case on me, and why did neither of you mention Sorsha at all? What in particular are you suspicious of me for? If it's about my vote for Sorsha, I have already responded to Matt explaining my end of things regarding the vote process. Neither of you acknowledged my response.

Because I think your vote on Sorsha can be seen as a distancing vote. I also HAVE expressed suspicion of Sorsha, so....

MacDougall wrote:It's not a personal insult when he is playing a bad guy in a a game. I am sure he is lovely.

To quote nutella from a game long ago: "Is your bike broken because you seem to be backpedaling awfully fast"
or something to that effect.

Sorsha wrote: Also a bit suspicious on the sig votes so far is from DF. He missed the first vote. That post is also really just echoing other players too, nothing original. His latest post seems a bit better and has some original thought in it so it lessens my suspicion of him a little bit, still a bit pinged by this vote though.

Making a vague post based off cursory glances of the thread while I'm still catching up is something I do a LOT, whether civvie or baddie. I think you know that by now, Sorsha.

And Mac, you voted for me? Okay then. If you want to actually address me at any point with something I can respond to, that'd be great.

I voted for Dom, AMA

Golden wrote:

nutella wrote:The fact that Bubbles hadn't stated that she was civ was particuarly notable since that is her signature MO.

I completely agree with this. It's why I found bubbles suspicious and didn't really find it notable that you missed the question, at first. If it had pinged me the first time around I would have been saying I was suspicious of you at the time. It was only, all the things adding up together, you know what I mean?

I honestly don't know what to do with my vote today. Luke's vote for sig feels most bandwagonny, but it's not like a newbie vote worked out for us yesterday... not that I'm saying it wouldn't today. There is the possibility the banana vote was a save, but if so... I wonder if bugla is the likelier option than dom.

Golden, you voted for Bubbles yesterday are you considering voting for her today? If so, for the same reason or is there something additional?

Mac, was it DF's quick vote that raised your antennae or is there something else about DF that causes you to place a vote there?

I'm having difficulty with today's vote. I havent found anyone that absolutely pulls me in. Floyd still hasn't answered my question from yesterday even though he's been on but that kind of vote didnt work out for me yesterday.

S~V~S wrote:If it was not a forced scenario like that, I probably would not vote for the nub. But it was a tie vote,and making a tangent vote at that point is lame.

Knowing that nutella made a tangent vote at a time when the leading candidates were at 4-4-4...what are your thoughts? (or have you already shared?)

Matt F wrote:

S~V~S wrote:If it was not a forced scenario like that, I probably would not vote for the nub. But it was a tie vote,and making a tangent vote at that point is lame.

Knowing that nutella made a tangent vote at a time when the leading candidates were at 4-4-4...what are your thoughts? (or have you already shared?)

No I did not weigh in on Nutella at all, I was pretty much afk most of the last day, I just got caught up this AM.

Actually, I don't think much of her vote in light of the fact hat she mentioned considering Buglabush for a vote more than once.

nutella wrote:

Golden wrote: Nutella, BWT, Eloh?

You have been a little involved, but haven't said much to give me an idea of your perspective on things. Are you civilian aligned? If I claimed you were just trying to look involved, and not really being involved, would you call that a fair assessment? Who would be your biggest suspect right now?

I am catching up when I can, a couple times a day, and posting once per catch-up. So I am not putting a huge amount of effort into getting involved, but I'm also not deliberately holding back. I always find it hard to have many thoughts on Day 1. I suppoooose my biggest suspect is Bullz, sorta, kinda, just for lack of thoughts on other people at this point. But I can't vote for him. I'm a little curious about the Epi/Dom discussion (but Epi is also off the poll and idk if I'd be convinced to vote Dom). I am very confused by Buglabush and might consider a vote there.

nutella wrote:

Epignosis wrote:"Pushing the Dom thing."

I have to pick someone to vote for. I have to have a reason for voting that person. I have to try to get that person lynched. Otherwise I'm just coming in and voting and not giving a toss.

nutella, what WOULD give you a clue as to my alignment? I'm curious.

I don't really have an answer to that. Different behaviors can make me suspect or trust players and it depends on the context of the game. I just usually don't have such reads/much material to base them on when it's still day 1.


Hmm, Dom suspects Sorsha, apparently because of her easy vote for him? I have to vote quite soon so I will look over that exchange and perhaps vote for either Sorsha or Buglabush. Feels like a really weak day 1 vote all around, I hope we get lucky.

That second quote was her first mention of Sorsha, and her next post was her vote post.

nutella wrote:Okay, I'm voting for Sorsha. Her early comments on Matt/Mac are confusing, and it looks like she tagged onto the Dom ping as an easy excuse not to vote for Matt or Mac (because she said she would if "nothing else came up"). She hedged around any actual reasoning for following Epi's lead. Now That's What I Call Opportunistic™!

But considering that she said she suspected Sorsha, in part, for voting Dom (who was one of the tied people) and that she had previously mentioned Buglabush as a possible place to put her vote (another person tied) does seem a bit off. Like the first Bug mention was just distancing since she voted for someone for their stance on Dom, but did not think enough of Dom HERSELF to counter Sorshas vote, or for Bug although she had brought him up already.

juliets wrote:

Golden wrote:

nutella wrote:The fact that Bubbles hadn't stated that she was civ was particuarly notable since that is her signature MO.

I completely agree with this. It's why I found bubbles suspicious and didn't really find it notable that you missed the question, at first. If it had pinged me the first time around I would have been saying I was suspicious of you at the time. It was only, all the things adding up together, you know what I mean?

I honestly don't know what to do with my vote today. Luke's vote for sig feels most bandwagonny, but it's not like a newbie vote worked out for us yesterday... not that I'm saying it wouldn't today. There is the possibility the banana vote was a save, but if so... I wonder if bugla is the likelier option than dom.

Golden, you voted for Bubbles yesterday are you considering voting for her today? If so, for the same reason or is there something additional?

I'm not considering a vote for bubbles today. She isn't on the poll.

Well stupid me!

DFaraday wrote:

Sorsha wrote: Also a bit suspicious on the sig votes so far is from DF. He missed the first vote. That post is also really just echoing other players too, nothing original. His latest post seems a bit better and has some original thought in it so it lessens my suspicion of him a little bit, still a bit pinged by this vote though.

Making a vague post based off cursory glances of the thread while I'm still catching up is something I do a LOT, whether civvie or baddie. I think you know that by now, Sorsha.

And Mac, you voted for me? Okay then. If you want to actually address me at any point with something I can respond to, that'd be great.

I almost didn't even include you on my list but since it was only one post that made me start feeling better I figure I'd still include you, just to be safe.

TheFloyd73's vote for BUGLABUSH stands out to me. Matt F brought up his vote here:

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Matt F wrote: However, I do have a question for you Floyd. You invited your friends to play in this game, yet you voted for Bug on Day 1. Why?

Anyone who votes for someone wth the excuse "he bad" is more than likely scum. Perhaps he's trying to (very vaguely) convince us that Zebra's scum.
At this stage, I'm not convinced that Zebra is on one specific side of the (civ-scum) spectrum (in other words, I'd call him neural). I'll need to re-read his posts.

Looks to me BUGLABUSH's post was a response to getting a vote from a2thezebra:

a2thezebra wrote:To BUGLABUSH it is.

BUGLABUSH wrote:I voted for a2thezebra because he bad

Floyd, i don't see how a no u-vote makes BUGLABUSH 'more than likely' bad. Could you elaborate on this? Looks like you two know each other irl so i'd understand a joke Day 1 vote, but given your response to Matt F, this doesn't appear to be that.

Good point Tranq. I have already been after Floyd for not responding to something I asked him so it will be interesting to see if he answers you either.

Luke11646 wrote:I'm voting for tranq because he hasn't made any comments and isn't doing anything.

Luke11646, on Day 1 you voted for me. Now, it's ok, everybody makes mistakes But can you explain why you decided to vote for me over other players who hadn't posted yet?