The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:This was a frustrating game because everyone thought I was bad right away, and even though I was bad, they thought so for the wrong reasons.

That is the common frustration of the foe. I feel that often.

"Damn it, they're right...but they're SO WRONG!"

You surviving twice was in this game is pretty damning though.

Yeah, there was no talking myself out of thta since it was the only mechanic that explained my survival.

Epignosis wrote:Dom, thellama73, DH, and S~V~S were a team? Holy shit.

Yeah, but Dom and I didn't get to talk to DH or SVS.

This was a frustrating game because everyone thought I was bad right away, and even though I was bad, they thought so for the wrong reasons.

Mister Rearranger wrote:How anyone could be reading DH as civ enough to trust him with some of these lynch manipulation powers is beyond me.

I trust DH completely. Everyone should vote for him.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:So is anyone going to be playing the live game tonight?

I'm confident that I will still be in the game next friday to participate.

Far be it from me
To Stand in the way
Of Unanimity
I vote myself today.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Mister Rearranger wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:If llama really is "Balls deep", he's just going to survive tomorrow's lynch too, at least by my estimate. Would it be more worth it to try and lynch him again, or pursue other options for now? I'm not too sure right now, but I'd like some more input.

And this is why night time is hiding time.

Ripiywg, Metalmarsh! I hope you'll continue to play other games here!

So yeah, I'm sticking with Llama fo sho today.

Nope, I'm done. This is stupid!

Now that you are dead
You have to post in red
Cheaters never get ahead
You'll wish you'd listened to what I said.

kneel4justice wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:
Anyway, he's the strongest candidate.

Thank you! That is very sweet.
I have to think quick on my feet
To dodge the arrows you lot fire
To send me to my funeral pyre.

Hm, maybe Instead of being a murderer, you should become a poet?!
Just a thought!

I'm a poet
I know it
Hope I don't blow it
Boo's forcing me to show it.

insertnamehere wrote:
Anyway, he's the strongest candidate.

Thank you! That is very sweet.
I have to think quick on my feet
To dodge the arrows you lot fire
To send me to my funeral pyre.

Go ahead and vote for me guys
But all your votes will end in ties
The card czar will decide the rest
And it will work out for the best.

insertnamehere wrote: I did the same thing. John seemed to be acting very weird, even for someone new to the site. And llama just seemed like regular Llama.
Hopefully we'll get Llama out tomorrow.

Don't vote for me. I am a nice, friendly llama.

Hedgeowl wrote:Ok, rereading your comment reywaS, no llama did not "survive" day 2 lynch, but he had the most votes and yet wasnt lynch, so someone appears to be protecting him.

It's probably DH, my best buddy.

kneel4justice wrote:OMG. Llama should be double dead!

That is a normative statement and outside the scope of positive economics.

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Pleased to see I'm still here. I don't know why I am, but I assume some kind (and rational) soul saved me. Thank you.

Why assume this on a Day 1 lynch?

What else was I to assume? I didn't save myself, so someone else must have.

If I die today, I would advice you guys to look for late voters for me as potential baddies.

I'm going to have to ask you guys to reconsider. I have no explanation for how I survived, but being a baddie isn't it. Boo has evidently not disclosed the full mechanics of the game.

AceofSpaces wrote:Gotta say, I'm not sure what to think about DH's and llama's bromance. I'll be keeping an eye on them too as we move forward.

If it's a bromance, it's an abusive relationship, since he voted to lynch me over Sorsha yesterday (or at least claims to have.)

DharmaHelper wrote:Would be dumb not to reveal it and have everyone acting without the whole story.

It would not be dumb if you are bad and trying to get me lynched.

DharmaHelper wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Also, I am inclined not to believe a word DH says, even though we are best friends.

You find it difficult to believe that it was a tie?

No, I find it hard to believe that you would so overtly reveal behind the scenes information truthfully. It is not in keeping with your character.

Also, I am inclined not to believe a word DH says, even though we are best friends.

Hedgeowl wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Voting now before I forget. For John, naturally.

No comments on the revelations? Ties, how you survived etc?

thellama73 wrote:The difficulty I'm having is that I can't explain how I survived. I looked over the roles again and I confess I don't see how it happened. I can only assume thta there are game mechanics I don't know about, which wouldn't surprise me coming from boo.

I guess the only thing I'll say is: doesn't the NK of FZ look a little too convenient? That is not something I ever would have done if bad, and it looked to me like a blatant attempt to make me look bad by targeting someone who had been a vocal critic of me.

Voting now before I forget. For John, naturally.

The difficulty I'm having is that I can't explain how I survived. I looked over the roles again and I confess I don't see how it happened. I can only assume thta there are game mechanics I don't know about, which wouldn't surprise me coming from boo.

I guess the only thing I'll say is: doesn't the NK of FZ look a little too convenient? That is not something I ever would have done if bad, and it looked to me like a blatant attempt to make me look bad by targeting someone who had been a vocal critic of me.

Well I don't like the looks of this one bit.

ebwop: I quoted the wrong post by John there. I meant to quote the one where he says I must be bad because I survived a lynch tie.

johns2jj wrote:I am voting llama unless something else changes my mind. I would rather vote someone less active but I don't have enough evidence for them yet. I am on the fence about lynching people who under participate.

I don't have a grudge against you, I just think your bad, and this post does you no favors.
1. There was no tie (that we know about)
2. Even if there was a tie, and the card czar got to break it, how does me surviving it make me bad? That is a non-sequitur.

S~V~S wrote: I do understand what people are saying about John~ and his last few responses seem more like there is some baddieism going on. But up to that point, I am not sure why llama was so sure, when in only his second game John behaves similarly to his prior game in which he gave a very good showing.

I was never "so sure." He was just my best guess on Day 1. His Day 2 posts have made me more confident that I was on to something though.

RIP FZ, even though you suspected me, I appreciated your dedication to the game. This is exactly what I was talking about how the best participants always die first.

FZ. wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Also, if it makes you feel any better, I am much more confident that I put my vote in the right place yesterday by selecting John (I know I changed it, but that was purely self-defense.) One of the things I find most suspicious is someone deliberately trying to craft their vote record to convey as little info as possible. I expect I will be voting for him again tomorrow.

Actually, it doesn't I don't see what you're seeing in John. How exactly is he crafting his vote record to do what you're suggesting he's doing?

Civvies use vote records to track down baddies. Whenever someone deliberately avoids allowing his vote record to provide useful information, as John outright stated he was doing, it smells of baddie tactics to me. Civvies vote for those they think are bad. Baddies vote in ways that cannot be used to track them down later.

Also, if it makes you feel any better, I am much more confident that I put my vote in the right place yesterday by selecting John (I know I changed it, but that was purely self-defense.) One of the things I find most suspicious is someone deliberately trying to craft their vote record to convey as little info as possible. I expect I will be voting for him again tomorrow.

FZ. wrote:Maybe I'm actually glad he wasn't lynched.

johns2jj wrote:

Flyin' High wrote:John, why did you decide to switch your vote to Aces, specifically?

I sort of feel like john showing back up in the thread after voting himself and receiving a second vote is indicative of being told in BTSC to come back to the thread...but his self-vote post uses the phrasing "don't know who to vote for yet", so I'm unsure.

It is night here and I was relaxing watching a movie so I decided to come back to the thread and check on it. I chose aces because I don't think anyone else will vote him and I won't be partially responsible for a civ death.

[/quote]

Intentionally voting for someone you don't think is bad because you know they won't get lynched is not my idea of helpful civ behavior. It's a way of avoiding accountability.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I know I'm a new face, but hey, I still find it odd that my name hasn't been thrown around at all today. Maybe it's because y'all are feeling me out as much as I'm doing to you? I also am used to playing much more aggressive players where regardless if you're new, you'll probably get pegged by someone.

Oh, and you're shifty.

Believe me, I would be perfectly happy for you to detract some attention away from me.

Pleased to see I'm still here. I don't know why I am, but I assume some kind (and rational) soul saved me. Thank you.

K4J, I don't know why you think me complaining about getting lynched early is a baddie tactic. No one wants to be lynched early, baddie or civ. Begging for one's life is a universal human trait when confronted with an angry mob who wants to kill you.

Regarding switching up play styles, I'll tell you what I told FZ. First, I am more busy this game than I was in Shawshank, so haven't had as much time to build up elaborate cases. Second, I am really making an effort to be less hotheaded in these games and not get angry at people as much. If you view self-improvement as a baddie strategy, by all means vote for me tomorrow. I hope others will be more sensible.

I changed my vote to Sorsha in a last desperate attempt to save myself.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Dom wrote:But there's a difference between someone who doesn't post a lot and someone who doesn't post content.

I understand what you are saying . I just think that everyone plays different and some people might be shy or whatever and shouldn't have to worry about posting a lot just so they don't get lynched.

By that same logic, I shouldn't have to alter my play style and become more quiet to avoid being lynched, but I do have to, although I can never actually bring myself to do it.

kneel4justice wrote: I don't think it has to be that way. I think if someone wants to survive they should fight harder. You are consistently doing things I find to be scummy behavior so for the time being, my vote is going on you.

How have I not fought? I have answered every suspicion leveled against me. What more can I do? I love this game, but one thing I hate about it is that the people who participate the most consistently get lynched first, while those who take the lazy approach and do nothing slide by without effort. You guys are new here, but anyone who has played with me in a few games can tell you how often I've been killed off early simply because my style is talkative, and yes, I find that frustrating. Who wouldn't?

FZ. wrote:Is it less than an hour until deadline?

Yes.

FZ. wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Oh well, it won't be the first time I'm lynched on Day 1 and it probably won't be the last

Appeals to emotion really work on me.

I wasn't trying to dissuade you. Just expressing the frustration at how often I get lynched early in these games.

Oh well, it won't be the first time I'm lynched on Day 1 and it probably won't be the last

FZ. wrote: @linki2: I have no idea llama. I'd like to think I would genuinely consider your reasoning, and make up my mind accordingly. If you now want to NO U me, I'm not going to hold it against you, because I think suspecting people who suspect you is legit, but it's not going to make me feel better about you

Thank you. I don't know how I feel about you yet, but I may well decide you're bad in the future, in which case I promise I will vote for you.

Vote for me if you think I'm bad, FZ, but ask yourself whether there was any vote I could have cast that you would not have pounced on as suspicious. I suspect the answer is no.

FZ. wrote:

Dom wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.

no response to hedge owl?


And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

It seems like you've fallen prey to confirmation bias. You think I am bad, so you are bending all the evidence to fit that theory rather than taking the evidence as it comes and evaluating it objectively. I see no reason to second guess JJ. He behaved this way last game and was bad, he is behaving the same way this game, so I think he might be bad here too. Add to that the fact that I always like to vote for low posers and self-voters, and I feel very good about my vote. Your pursuit of me is starting to seem a little forced.

FZ. wrote: We've both seen John play his first game in the Shawshank game, and he was a pretty awesome baddie, so I really don't think this is how a baddie John would act.

To my memory, this is pretty similar to how he played in Shawshank, actually.

Okay, time to vote. I think I will go for John. He has only posted once, self-voted and didn't respond to me calling him out. I don't like that.

FZ. wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:FZ, Kneel, and S~V~S are really making me suspicious for being so aggressive this early. I understand FZ and Kneel, because they are new, but I thought S~V~S should know better. So I'm voting for her. It's a Day 1 vote, it doesn't really mean a lot.

We tend to be quite aggressive from the get go where we come from. Some people say it backfires and we end up lynching civs. I disagree. Last game we played there, we were so close to lynching a baddie on the first day, only for someone to take their vote off at the last minute because they got scared it was a civ lynch. So I'm all for pushing people and questioning them from the start. I really don't see the point in talking if you do nothing but make sarcastic remarks. I'd rather just come back the next day.
If you just vote randomly, there's a higher chance of lynching a civ. I try to make my odds better. Sometimes it doesn't work, but then, I'm not doing any worse than lynching a civ randomly

I completely agree with this reasoning, which is why I have always opposed random and self-voting.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Addendum: Actually, I did think her silence on DH's eagerness to stop discussion was a bit out of character. But I wouldn't say she's been aggressive.

Wasn't that in the other game?

Yes, goshdarnit, these two games with the same player list and roughly the same vote times are confusing. I apologize.

Addendum: Actually, I did think her silence on DH's eagerness to stop discussion was a bit out of character. But I wouldn't say she's been aggressive.

I haven't noticed anything unusual from SVS this game either. I thought that was a bit odd.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: So you don't think anything of DH backing you up, or do you believe in the fairness too?

I already told you. DH and I are best friends. We will always back one another up.

Not that I don't believe you, but that's quite convenient to have someone there to vouch for you.

Yes, it is convenient. Maybe we're on a team!

FZ. wrote: I look forward to you making me feel I'm wrong too.
Last game even though you felt the same way about people doing things like self voting and posting like that, yet you didn't vote accordingly, which again seems like an easy way out.

I voet for the person I think most likely to be bad. While I don't like people who don't participate and think it can be good cover for baddies, if I have a better suspicion I will place my vote there instead. Right now, John is my best guess, but that's not to say it couldn't change, and my vote will go to the person I think deserves it at the time of voting.

Regarding me being calm, I lost my temper during the Shawshank game and I have been chastising myself ever since. I am trying to not get so emotionally involved this time, so I suspect that is what you're picking up on.