The Syndicate

a2thezebra wrote:I think he wants us to think that he wants to be lynched so he can cruise his baddieness all the way to endgame. Fuck that.

Black Rock wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I'm voting for you because you're using your post count to control the direction of the thread, and you're using your attitude as an excuse for any suspicious things you might happen to say. Your wrap-up post above seems like a genuine effort, but in the greater context of your ISO it can't be trusted as genuine. And your gimmick seems to have even fooled some of the players. Black Rock for instance made the point that as a baddie you wouldn't have a decent reason to call so much attention to yourself. I know the reason. To get as many people as possible to think just that, that you wouldn't be so "reckless" as a baddie to perform the way you have. I'm not perfect but I like to think I'm pretty decent at being able to tell the difference between civ WIFOM and mafia WIFOM, and you reek of the latter.

I was trying to stay out of the WIFOM of it all, your point is valid and maybe I shouldn't just chalk it up to crap non-baddie behaviour. He does make me want to vote him for his crap posts.

Black Rock wrote:Exactly. Something like deciding to call me a baddie before the game started.

Ricochet wrote:I'm sorry am i to believe policy lynches aren't rude but my successful tactic is?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Voted LoRab for no reason.

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I'm sorry am i to believe policy lynches aren't rude but my successful tactic is?

I'm not the one to argue this point with. I hate the "policy" lynch thing. They are rude. Your tactic is not successful. Just crap.

Draconus wrote:Does Ricochet talk too much? Does he appear to be an attention craving ho... prostitute? Am I going to vote for him? Is MM the number 1 Day 1 policy lynch on the syndicate? Am I joking because I actually want to vote for Rico?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote: The phrasing of the reply "Post count or mention count have nothing to do with it", to me, indicates that there is something gimmicky behind the behavior, but post/mention count are not it.

MacDougall wrote:Okay well your curse seems to not be stopping you quoting posts. So quote the thread evidence.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Voted LoRab for no reason.

I like your line of reasoning.

Ricochet wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I'm sorry am i to believe policy lynches aren't rude but my successful tactic is?

I'm not the one to argue this point with. I hate the "policy" lynch thing. They are rude. Your tactic is not successful. Just crap.

You didn't criticise Fuzz voting Wilgy, Wilgy voting Fuzz, Mac policying Matt, Matt policying MM and so on.

You aren't consistent in hating the policy lynch thing.

Draconus wrote:Does Ricochet talk too much? Does he appear to be an attention craving ho... prostitute? Am I going to vote for him? Is MM the number 1 Day 1 policy lynch on the syndicate? Am I joking because I actually want to vote for Rico?

I wouldn't lynch LoRab toDay. Maybe tomorrow. She might be right about me, after all...

juliets wrote:Lorab

MacDougall wrote:Llama

Black Rock wrote:
It's true, I haven't paid attention to them near as much. I went at Mac about policy lynching Matt in another game. It did not end well for me.

Draconus wrote:MM, do you want to vote for yourself with me?

Ricochet wrote:Still wondering if JJJ is lying about all this, just to save zebra.

Ricochet wrote:

Black Rock wrote:
It's true, I haven't paid attention to them near as much. I went at Mac about policy lynching Matt in another game. It did not end well for me.

So you admit it!

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Black Rock wrote:
It's true, I haven't paid attention to them near as much. I went at Mac about policy lynching Matt in another game. It did not end well for me.

So you admit it!

Yes, I admit that you have been distracting me and are continuing to do so.

Ricochet wrote:All I'm reading in juliets' post is I'm following Mac's, Epig's and Sorsha's train of thoughts.

juliets wrote:

Ricochet wrote:All I'm reading in juliets' post is I'm following Mac's, Epig's and Sorsha's train of thoughts.

Yes, that is exactly what i am saying. Is there something wrong with that? Sometimes people post their thoughts to persuade others and whether or not that was their intent, I was persuaded to look hard at Lorab as a result of those posts. That's how the game works.

Ricochet wrote:To wrap up for now:

I don't care much about sig vs Dharma. Seems civ on civ. Or pleb on pleb.

I wish Fuzz and Wilgy would stop fighting and be friends, like I asked in my vocaroo. Your votes are going to waste, if you keep it up.

I don't agree with Epignosis dismissing my valuable work that ended up with four (4) confirmed baddies, but that seems (oops) like a cool post he wrote. I'mma follow his vote on LoRab...

Then again, I don't know if LoRab is bad, so...

If anything, Dom looks the opportunistic one now, because with only 4 posts, his comeback was "ew catching up" and coattailing Epig's case.

MacDougall wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Unvote
vote MacDougall

So that test didn't work.

Thinking about Rico now... How could Ricochet be scum? It makes no fucking sense. He is playing sooooo whack, he is seemingly trying to get votes cast on him, and that's not a scum role imo. I think he might be my World Reborn role, or something like it. Where I had a win con of getting shit tons of votes on me and was a cop, and lynchproof etc. I was indy.

He smells indy as fuck to me.

Black Rock wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

sig wrote:I see, I wouldn't' say it appears contributory at all, minus my one line about Llama. I mean the entire post was basically about Zebra and a book series. I have however, made a few on topic posts. Not many, but when I saw something worth pointing out I did. Which was mainly the video thing, besides that I can't think of anything else big. This phase has been fast with lots of pages, but a good portion doesn't seem to be note worthy. So the fact you point out one fluff post of myself when several people have fluff posts or almost no posts is strange.

If you actually read your post, it isn't contributory. However at a glance the size of the post makes it seem as though you have something to say. If people skim, or do not read it at all, their immediate impression is "Sig is posting big posts, he must be in the thick of things" which is untrue.

Are you two arguing the same point?

I'm clarifying. Sig admits that the content of his post is not and does not look to be contributory. I'm saying that by virtue of it being a sizeable post, with quotes, etc, it looks contributory at first glance regardless of the actual content.

Do you find him more suspicious because he agrees with you?

I find his posts about it odd, and suspicious.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:METALMARMOT

Ricochet wrote:

juliets wrote:

Ricochet wrote:All I'm reading in juliets' post is I'm following Mac's, Epig's and Sorsha's train of thoughts.

Yes, that is exactly what i am saying. Is there something wrong with that? Sometimes people post their thoughts to persuade others and whether or not that was their intent, I was persuaded to look hard at Lorab as a result of those posts. That's how the game works.

Buuut LoRab was also "persuaded" by others and she is the one you are suspecting, "persuaded" by others.

Hmmmm-etc-mmm?

juliets wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

juliets wrote:

Ricochet wrote:All I'm reading in juliets' post is I'm following Mac's, Epig's and Sorsha's train of thoughts.

Yes, that is exactly what i am saying. Is there something wrong with that? Sometimes people post their thoughts to persuade others and whether or not that was their intent, I was persuaded to look hard at Lorab as a result of those posts. That's how the game works.

Buuut LoRab was also "persuaded" by others and she is the one you are suspecting, "persuaded" by others.

Hmmmm-etc-mmm?

I don't understand your point. If Lorab was persuaded by others what does that have to do with me being persuaded by others that she could be bad? Persuasion is at the root of this game, i expect a lot of people to be persuaded. And just as a reminder, I want to hear or see Lorab's response to the allegations before making any decisions.

Dom wrote:Llama, why did you dismiss DH rather than take issue with the content of the post?

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote:Llama, why did you dismiss DH rather than take issue with the content of the post?

I don't actually know what you're referring to here. Can you be more specific?

juliets wrote:Ricochet I'm not getting into a long boring nobody will read it discussion with you over whether it's possible for me to be persuaded. In Lorabs case she was not specific about what others had said that caused her suspicions. In my case I was specific. And calling me a potential baddie does not scare me in the lease because i know I am civ.

thellama73 wrote:top suspect.

Ricochet wrote:Llama, have you cursed JJJ?

Also, my green color may lose its intensity if you keep dismissing me as jokey.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

sig wrote:I see, I wouldn't' say it appears contributory at all, minus my one line about Llama. I mean the entire post was basically about Zebra and a book series. I have however, made a few on topic posts. Not many, but when I saw something worth pointing out I did. Which was mainly the video thing, besides that I can't think of anything else big. This phase has been fast with lots of pages, but a good portion doesn't seem to be note worthy. So the fact you point out one fluff post of myself when several people have fluff posts or almost no posts is strange.

If you actually read your post, it isn't contributory. However at a glance the size of the post makes it seem as though you have something to say. If people skim, or do not read it at all, their immediate impression is "Sig is posting big posts, he must be in the thick of things" which is untrue.

Are you two arguing the same point?

I'm clarifying. Sig admits that the content of his post is not and does not look to be contributory. I'm saying that by virtue of it being a sizeable post, with quotes, etc, it looks contributory at first glance regardless of the actual content.

Do you find him more suspicious because he agrees with you?

I find his posts about it odd, and suspicious.

He doesn't agree with me.

thellama73 wrote:If I had the power to curse people, does anyone think I wouldn't have used it on Rico? Come on.