The Syndicate

Congratulations Juliets & Lizzy!

That's definitely not the result I expected.

I voted for Llama because I just have a feeling he is bad.
I never liked his interaction with TH 2.0, because I felt he was trying to shift the thread in a direction to associate quiet TH with civvie status and vice versa. I personally didn't understand how one could feel good about someone going from very talkative to very quiet, even if in past games they have had quiet equal civvie. That adjustment just doesn't seem defend-able to me, it never did. So I think that they could potentially be teammates.
I've also had a feeling that every time I interact with Llama he tries to push something back on me.
Lastly, I know that he thinks it makes his case stronger but he often goes with cases for someone to be a Goblin or Smaug and I kind of feel like the 'or Smaug' part of the case could be because he is a Goblin and knows that the person under fire is not. I've seen people do that before, it's like in one mafia games when the baddies are searching for third-party roles. Some instances have read to me that he wants to support the suspicion of someone but ends up giving an explanation that does not fit a certain role so he later adjusts and says it could be either Smaug or baddie. I don't know how to else to explain it but it just doesn't feel genuine, and I outlined that earlier in the day phase when he said he agreed with Epi but in reality, he wasn't truly agreeing about Bullz being Smaug.

thellama73 wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:Like, this is really getting on my nerves.
I'm tired.

I guess you didn't really want to have a discussion after all.

Lol

Like, this is really getting on my nerves.
I'm tired.

thellama73 wrote:Rmember that time I quoted all the questions Dom had asked and pointed out that he never discussed anything, just solicited opinions?

And then remember how Dom turned out to be bad?

K4J, you keep saying you want to talk about things, but you never talk about things. You only question. You never conclude. You never make cases. Epig called you out on it and you got mad at him, but you still haven't actually said anything.

It's the exact same pattern of behavior Dom showed, and Dom was bad.

You want to have a discussion? I am listening. Discuss.

I have discussed quite a bit and made quite a few conclusions on who I think have been bad this game. My questions have been completely different from asking people who they are going to vote for and my questions have had reasons and discussions that would/did follow had the person answered them.

thellama73 wrote:

kneel4justice wrote: You're also allowed to have an actual discussion, but I guess you don't care to.

I'll get over it.

What would you like to discuss? I have time.

I wanted to discuss how you agreed with Epi? Or is it that you don't truly agree with him, you just suspect Bullz as well?

thellama73 wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:Epi: Bullz is Smaug.

Llama: Presents voting records that would imply Bullz is on the Goblin Team.

Bullz: Tells Epi there is no evidence and no reason for anyone to agree with him.

Llama: Says he agrees with Epi (who, might I remind you thinks that Bullz is Smaug).




K4J is not allowed to question the conflicting statements from Llama, even if just trying to provide logic or develop an understanding! K4J must be bad!

OK.

I am done.

You're allowed to question anything you like. I am allowed to think your questions reveal you as a baddie. It's a very laissez faire sort of system.

You're also allowed to have an actual discussion, but I guess you don't care to.

I'll get over it.

Epi: Bullz is Smaug.

Llama: Presents voting records that would imply Bullz is on the Goblin Team.

Bullz: Tells Epi there is no evidence and no reason for anyone to agree with him.

Llama: Says he agrees with Epi (who, might I remind you thinks that Bullz is Smaug).




K4J is not allowed to question the conflicting statements from Llama, even if just trying to provide logic or develop an understanding! K4J must be bad!

OK.

I am done.

thellama73 wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Oh and added to the vote list above is Bullz being the first vote for the extremely civilian INH.

I am confused. Do you think Bullz is Smaug? Why does Bullz voting for a civillian make him more likely to be Smaug than someone who voted for a mafia member?

I'm confused as to why you think I have to pinpoint a role to think someone is bad. Bad is bad.

If Epig believes the evidence points to him being one bad role, and I believe the evidence points to him being another bad role, the combination does NOT make him less likely to be any bad role. What do you care whether we get Smaug or a goblin, unless you are also a goblin?

Why must you come at everything I say rather than answer?
I am asking because you just replied to Bullz saying you agree with Epi and Epi is saying Bullz is Smaug, so I was trying to understand what was going on.

I can't even have a conversation with people this game. Why am I playing?

thellama73 wrote:Oh and added to the vote list above is Bullz being the first vote for the extremely civilian INH.

I am confused. Do you think Bullz is Smaug? Why does Bullz voting for a civillian make him more likely to be Smaug than someone who voted for a mafia member?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:RIP BN. Hopefully we shall avenge you!

Yeah, juliets. That's what I'm gathering from it as well. I'm hoping to go back and read up on splints and Bullz tomorrow to see if there's any merit to what Epig is saying.

Do you get to share with us what happened when you went in? I see you're not on the poll.

Snow Dog wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:So, do you think the poll is voting for someone we don't trust?

I think we should pick someone who has solved the riddle, since those who did not can't enter anyways.

Russtifinko wrote:

You must decipher the Runes in order to enter the Lonely Mountain

Personally, I'd feel a little better voting for someone I trusted. There is a lot of gold in there that I am not sure I want to give a shady character access to. However that person might also have to deal with Smaug.

Omg. Now I get a reply!
Sorry, I couldn't wait. I'm about to take my dog to the vet and won't be back.
I don't trust BWT, so I made him go in. I just assumed it was dangerous.

I don't understand, you have plenty of time to vote.

My mistake. I forgot that it was an extra long night.

fingersplints wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:So, do you think the poll is voting for someone we don't trust?

I think we should pick someone who has solved the riddle, since those who did not can't enter anyways.

Russtifinko wrote:

You must decipher the Runes in order to enter the Lonely Mountain

Personally, I'd feel a little better voting for someone I trusted. There is a lot of gold in there that I am not sure I want to give a shady character access to. However that person might also have to deal with Smaug.

Omg. Now I get a reply!
Sorry, I couldn't wait. I'm about to take my dog to the vet and won't be back.
I don't trust BWT, so I made him go in. I just assumed it was dangerous.

Well, I'll vote BWT to go in.

So, do you think the poll is voting for someone we don't trust?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Dwalin
Brother of Balin and one of the two eldest dwarves.
Because he is so old and wise, he is an experienced riddler. May receive hints to riddles during the game.

This made me wonder when INH said to not trust llama. I figured looking at his role might reveal something, but I've got nothing. Anybody think is means anything now, or is it still a boldfaced lie? Because I thought it was the latter at first, but now I wonder...

Linki: Bye bitch.

I'm not sure but It really isn't factoring into my opinion of Llama, I think it could just be INH being INH. If he really had info he should have mentioned being suspicious of Llama much earlier on and vaguely.

Dom wrote:

It was fun while it lasted. I snicker at you, Logan!

Can't wait to talk post-game!

Lol, good game!

Bullzeye wrote:Umm... Okay? That means Dom was a Goblin right, I'm not just crazy? Still not sure why he died though...

Wow. I am surprised!
It must suck to go down like that. But, yay! Props to Llama for suspecting him.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:So, what do people think of my last post to BWT?

I have been meaning to reread him. From memory his posts have struck me as infrequent, but generally reasonable. But I also feel he has been flying below the radar a little bit.

And the time he didn't fly under the radar was when he was insanified. Lol

I was required to post a certain number of times when I was insanified, or else I would be penalized. So yeah, that was the main reason I posted more often then.

Linki: I've seen games before where the posting curse changes slightly every time it's used. So it doesn't surprise me too much that it might have been different for you than Dom and myself.

Oh, okay.
Thanks, that makes a difference because it was a big part of why I suspected you. I was not aware that the powers could change nightly.

Dom wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Sometimes insanity curses come with a requirement that you post at least ten times in a day period. That may be what motivated his increased activity.

When I was insanified, I did not have to post a certain amount.

I did.

Really? I even asked if there was a requirement, and was told that there was not.

thellama73 wrote:Sometimes insanity curses come with a requirement that you post at least ten times in a day period. That may be what motivated his increased activity.

When I was insanified, I did not have to post a certain amount.

thellama73 wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:So, what do people think of my last post to BWT?

I have been meaning to reread him. From memory his posts have struck me as infrequent, but generally reasonable. But I also feel he has been flying below the radar a little bit.

And the time he didn't fly under the radar was when he was insanified. Lol

If INH flips bad, I bet you dollars to donuts that BWT is his teammate.

Interesting, I didn't notice any interaction from the two. Was there any?

fingersplints wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:So, what do people think of my last post to BWT?

I have been meaning to reread him. From memory his posts have struck me as infrequent, but generally reasonable. But I also feel he has been flying below the radar a little bit.

And the time he didn't fly under the radar was when he was insanified. Lol

Just looked at the votes and saw INH voted for Kyle, and realized that during his entire defense he really didn't speak about any suspicions, which is a classic baddie under fire move, so that is on it's way to convincing me to vote for him.

I also forgot to mention, I didn't like this from him, because I felt like this could have been a baddie trying to piggyback on a suspicion without doing much.

Dom wrote: He says he does, but a Nicki Minaj GIF and a vague post about who you agree with/voting for yourself in a baddie lynch is not exactly what I would call contribution.

I fixed it!

After seeing the tally, I'm voting for INH.

Oh, and BWT, but next to none have commented on that.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I was pretty sure I'd vote Snow today but every single one of INH's posts in the past few hours have made me want to vote him more and more. He's overreactive, blows things out of proportion, and generally kinda rude with it. He's getting my vote today.

Yeah, I'm sold as well, and I already have some ideas about who his teammates might be.

*Votes INH*

I had suspected INH very early on in the game but overtime I started wondering if it was just his personality that was making me suspicions. He is very reactive and sometimes it can come off as harsh, I just don't know if it has anything to do with his alignment. I want to be able to make up my mind and go with the feeling I had earlier on, but IDK. I am not sure where else my vote would go at this point. I guess I still find either Splints or you as shady, but I now have doubts on both of you.

So, what do people think of my last post to BWT?
It is hard for me to read INH because I think at this point it is personality under fire, regardless of alignment and IDK how to read that.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: K4J - I was all gung-ho to vote for him today, but some of his defenses are making me back off and wonder. Mostly because they seem really genuine to me. If he is bad, I think it's far more likely that he is a Town Goblin than Smaug.

WOW!
I'm so glad to hear you were gung-ho but didn't post a single thing about me throughout the day, when you were obviously reading! I would think someone who was gung-ho would surely have had input throughout the day, no?
It's quite obvious you were just going to be another bandwagoner near the end, and I am guessing you've backed off because you've seen quite a few people start to at least entertain the idea that my defenses were sincere.

thellama73 wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote: Llama, what are your thoughts on my case on INH, I am curious.

Another question?

It's always hard to tell with non-participants, especially erratic ones like INH. He could be a baddie laying low, he could have just gotten bored and wandered off. I am a little wary because of what happened with Vomps, but I find the fact that he was relying on a legitimate real life excuse that has now disappeared without a corresponding change in behavior suspicious.

You are right that he overreacted to the discussion about him. Then again, if there's anyone I expect to overreact, it's him.

I would consider tossing a vote his way if you feel strongly about it. I have to confess I am very confused today. Every time I think I have built a good case on a player, they come back with what sounds like a really honest defense, so I don't know where I'm voting yet.

But, I thought you suspected Dom?

Who says I don't?

I just thought it was weird that you would vote if he felt strongly enough if you yourself don't trust him.

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote: Llama, what are your thoughts on my case on INH, I am curious.

Another question?

It's always hard to tell with non-participants, especially erratic ones like INH. He could be a baddie laying low, he could have just gotten bored and wandered off. I am a little wary because of what happened with Vomps, but I find the fact that he was relying on a legitimate real life excuse that has now disappeared without a corresponding change in behavior suspicious.

You are right that he overreacted to the discussion about him. Then again, if there's anyone I expect to overreact, it's him.

I would consider tossing a vote his way if you feel strongly about it. I have to confess I am very confused today. Every time I think I have built a good case on a player, they come back with what sounds like a really honest defense, so I don't know where I'm voting yet.

But, I thought you suspected Dom?

thellama73 wrote:Your defense, having read it a couple more times, seems sincere to me, K4J. I am not saying I trust you or anything, but it is enough to make me look at other options.

Someone comment on my Dom post!

I'm glad someone is seeing it...now I just have to figure out if this means I feel better about you.....or if it doesn't. I don't want someone feeling better about me to cloud my judgement but I'm not sure at this point if a scum would be willing to risk dialing back on their suspicion just to start another one (Dom).

As for Dom, I really don't know. I hadn't seen anything that had me worried, but I get what you're saying in those quotes. It's just hard for me to read something like that and form an opinion when I had no truly ill feelings about him previously. I do honestly feel there was someone who bad who was trying to low-key help enforce the suspicion of me, and it is possible it could have been him but I am not quite sure. I may have to do a reread if I have time.

juliets wrote:i have to go ahead and vote and I have not studied the nuances of the posts back and forth between k4j and Epig, nor did i have time to read back on k4j like i had planned. I see there is some movement in his direction and it very well could be the right way to go I just haven't done due diligence.

I did however have time to look back at Kyle and I don't really see anything he has posted. I understand that he just replaced in but i would at least be asking questions based on the nice summary llama provided. Most of all though is the point Epig made about him replacing in for someone who is known not to send in pms (A Person) and then a Moria kill shows up immediately. Finally, I saw Kyle here today but he didn't respond at all to the points made about him, something I would expect from a baddie. At the very least wouldn't you as a civ come into the thread and ask for people to give you a chance since you just got here? So I'm voting tonight for Kyle. This is the best I could do voting early and i apologize to Kyle if some things get explored in the thread tomorrow that makes it clear you're not bad. As I said earlier, I won't be in the thread again before the lynch because I'll be driving home tomorrow.

I really don't know what to say, Juliets.
I appreciate that you didn't just come bandwagon on the vote for me without rereading or feeling secure in your decision, but you should know this is going to make you look bad, since (apparently ) Kyle isn't a threat until the night following tomorrows vote. But I feel like you wouldn't do this as scum because it would obviously get you looked into. IDK.

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:What bothers me is that so few people talk.

I've been asked before why Mafia win so often here at The Syndicate. Sometimes it's overpowered Mafia, but the more I play, the more I realize it's because civilians adopt the mindset that "as long as I'm not lynched, it's cool." And then these players just show up at the end of the phase, many of them having not studied- yes studied the nuances of the arguments, that they are ineffectual players.

Does anybody else have anything to say?

Indeed. This is why we get bandwagons, and why, as you pointed out, the first person to vote has an outside influence. It is indeed unfortunate.

I've tried to do a lot of vote analysis (and have maintained a careful spreadsheet to aid in doing so) but as we know, I have been just as ineffectual as the people who just show up and pile on. I am second guessing myself a lot. I am now worried that my original suspicions of Dom and MetalMarsh might have been right and that they are laughing at me in their btsc, but I just don't know.

I will also give K4J another reread before voting. I'm not eager to start another bandwagon for others to pile onto.

Yeah, see, I'm not the sort of person to give someone a pass just because he or she is "fighting." But I will say my case against k4j is something he can't defend himself from, and that's a shitty situation if- IF- he's good.

So k4j: Lead a lynch.

You make a case on someone. If that person if Townie Goblin, I will give up thinking you are bad.

Can you chill?
I mean no disrespect, but I am not playing to do what you say.
I am not here to impress you.

It's like you want to be in control and tell me what I need to do, I get it, that's your style, but it's not necessarily going to help you if you are a civvie. Let's say I am a civvie who genuinely thinks that a player is bad and I lead the lynch. Then you turn around and lynch me, that's 2 civvies down, and your plan doesn't work.

I am here to help get rid of baddies, which I think I have done a great job at this game. I am very contempt with what I have done this game and I will continue putting forth my opinions and trying to have discussion about them. I'm actually surprised at the amount of people who think I could be on TH's team or try to act like I didn't have any positive influence in his lynch, but whatever.

If 'leading' a lynch is being the first vote, I guess you're going to have to wait until I feel comfortable enough to vote because I am not going to read this post and say, ok! Here is my opportunity. That's not going to happen.

I'm not sure what you want from this, but I am not bad regardless and I am still waiting on you to reply to my replies if you truly think they make me bad.

Epignosis wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

kneel4justice wrote: I've addressed this.
You however, didn't care to respond.

Do you want me to respond?

cf., Day 1.

Yes I do.
I am not intimidated by you, you're wrong.

I like this response.

I'm going to read our exchange a third time, and then make up my mind about you.

Ok.

Epignosis wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Dom wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:It is a theory that has nothing to do with my behavior. So, whatever.

My theory of k4j was primarily predicated on TH's behavior, not k4j's. He gunned for him as TH1 but said nothing about him TH2.

I've addressed this.
You however, didn't care to respond.

Do you want me to respond?

cf., Day 1.

Yes I do.
I am not intimidated by you, you're wrong.

Epignosis wrote:

Dom wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:It is a theory that has nothing to do with my behavior. So, whatever.

My theory of k4j was primarily predicated on TH's behavior, not k4j's. He gunned for him as TH1 but said nothing about him TH2.

I've addressed this.
You however, didn't care to respond.

thellama73 wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:It is a theory that has nothing to do with my behavior. So, whatever.

Since when do cases have to be based on behavior? If there was a role that said "cannot be lynched" and we tried repeatedly and failed to lynch a player, it would be reasonable to assume they had that role, which would have nothing to do with their behavior.

There are other clues besides behavioral ones. Why did Smaug lay dormant until Night 3? My theory is that something woke him up. You are the only surviving person to receive a lot of votes prior to Night 3. I think it's reasonable to make the leap that taking all those votes woke you up and made you start protecting your treasure.

Ok.

It is a theory that has nothing to do with my behavior. So, whatever.

thellama73 wrote:

kneel4justice wrote: He wants to call me Smaug so badly, but he finds Epi's case strong? The one that focuses most on my interaction with TH?

I don't see what is inconsistent about this. There are two competing cases both painting you bad in different ways. Two cases is better than one, since if one is not true, the other still might be.

Your 'case' that I am Smaug is barely a case.

thellama73 wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I pointed out before that there is a chance K4J is Smaug, and I still think that is the case. Combined with Epig's case (which I find quite strong) I will probably vote for k4j today. The odds seem in favor of getting either a goblin or a dragon.

You find Epi's case strong? Which points, please.
Because I cannot understand how you think that I am Smaug when half his case is my interaction with TH.
It does not add up.

I don't think you are both Smaug and a Goblin, that would be absurd. I think Epig's case is strong based on your interactions with TH, and I think thta even if he is wrong there is a good chance you are Smaug, so there is a high probability of a good outcome by lynching you.

But you are playing both sides of me being Smaug and Goblin.
It just comes off like you are deadset on me being being bad and trying to push this lynch.

Dom wrote:So, K4J, which would you advocate?

Right now Llama because he is trying too hard to find me suspect.
He wants to call me Smaug so badly, but he finds Epi's case strong? The one that focuses most on my interaction with TH?

I think he is probably TH's teammate and doesn't want to rely on me being a Goblin because he knows it isn't true. I feel like he keeps grabbing at things to make me bad.

thellama73 wrote:I pointed out before that there is a chance K4J is Smaug, and I still think that is the case. Combined with Epig's case (which I find quite strong) I will probably vote for k4j today. The odds seem in favor of getting either a goblin or a dragon.

You find Epi's case strong? Which points, please.
Because I cannot understand how you think that I am Smaug when half his case is my interaction with TH.
It does not add up.

Although Splints sticking up for me, saying she used to get in trouble for not reading the roles gave me a pause because I'm not quite sure why a baddie would defend me on that subject, so I am slightly conflicted but I have to remember just because someone defends me doesn't mean they are civ and just because someone suspects me doesn't mean they're bad. But it did make me wonder a bit more if I was wrong.

Dom wrote:K4J, who do you think should go?

I have said multiple times, and I don't have a problem saying it again I just feel like when (some) people are asking me they're implying or giving off the idea that I haven't actually spoke on my suspicions.

Judging mainly by their interaction with TH or around TH, I would say that I am most suspicion of Llama and Splints.

I've spoke on Llama. I just didn't like how he thought a quiet TH was a better sign than a vocal TH. I thought it was trying to push the idea of his innocence, though of course he could just have been wrong.
With Splints, it was just the last minute vote for Snow that I found odd and I thought there was a good chance that Splints was trying to save TH.

kneel4justice wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

I don't know what you are talking about here. You were teammates with TH for a lot of that game. You may have caused him a bit of trouble in the beginning but you were hardly a pain for him. I feel like you are overstating this since most people here wouldn't know better about what happened that game.

I am not overstating anything, Splints.
I do think that I caused him some trouble in that game. As well as FZ, but I remember going against him for quite sometime.

And I would not even overstate something because people wouldn't know better when clearly if I was overstating something I would expect to be called our by either you or Juliets who played that game.

fingersplints wrote:

I don't know what you are talking about here. You were teammates with TH for a lot of that game. You may have caused him a bit of trouble in the beginning but you were hardly a pain for him. I feel like you are overstating this since most people here wouldn't know better about what happened that game.

I am not overstating anything, Splints.
I do think that I caused him some trouble in that game. As well as FZ, but I remember going against him for quite sometime.

juliets wrote: I thought Epig's case on k4j was also good. k4j has at least been responding and I need to go back over his responses to see how much of Epg's case they refute. I did read through them but did not consider them on a point by point basis. I think llama put in his 2 cents on this case - how about anyone else? Does is seem plausible or likely to be true to you?

Yeah, you do need to reread my responses because after those I do not see how anyone can view his case as good.

Epignosis wrote: There's something in your signature that belies all of this.

I made a choice as a person, there's no way I can defend that as a player.
CAH was my first time being mafia on this site so I tried to get a handle on the game better, IDEK if I actually tried until I had BTSC with TH.

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Also worth noting thta on Day 2, when K4J was in danger of being lynched, A Person (now Kyle) voted for INH, the only vote he took, in order to have no connection to the lynch.

Can you explain how that's relevant?

It's the behavior I would expect from one teammate when the other is taking heavy suspicion.

I just realized this has a flaw. If AP is a Moria like this evidence suggests, I cannot be on his team because there is only one Moria left but you are trying to make this connection happen.