The Syndicate

Oh, I misread what you were saying Jay. I totally was just chilling the whole game, did nothing and just tried to place as civ friendly votes as possible. After I sent my guesses in, I promptly forgot them all and never tried to influence the game at all. Maybe if I had it would have turned out differently for me, lol.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Super neato. Good game baddies and Daisy.

Thanks for a huge effort, Rico. You wrote as many words in this game as I did. I enjoyed reading your novels; they were a lot of fun.

I did not win.

Voting rabbit for obvious reasons.

I have gone back over Gman's posts because I am trying to ascertain if somehow his check got redirected. I believe he may have received my role name instead. I cannot divulge it, clearly. Earlier I was willing to be lynched because I did not feel I deserved a win, but my concern me is that the numbers may be getting a little grim. I can't stop you from voting for me, but it wouldn't be in the civs best interest because I can win with anyone and it would waste a lynch.

That is funny that you called that a veiled defense of me because that particular post irked me because it basically was like, well a self vote is the least civ thing you could do. It felt like a soft accusation to me at the time.

I'm putting my vote on Scotty at the moment, seems from the interactions and from the exchanges with Elo that he is a likely teammate.

Wilgy why were you trying to get Epi to doubt you?

Let's recap:

Wilgy: I'm the jailer, but I only role block, Gman is bad

Wilgy: JK, I'm not the jailer! Scotty is bad

Wilgy: I lied I'm the jailer and I block and protect. Scotty is bad.

WTF is going on? Come someone please explain something to me in such a way that would actually help me to place an informed vote here? Clearly there has been something in all this craziness that has led Wilgy and Jay to believe Scotty is bad but I don't get it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Scotty wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:I lied. I'm not the jailer. Scotty just gave himself away though.

Gman check SVS tonight. That will determine whether we vote rabbit or her. The only possible baddie after that is Epi and daisy.
Oh did I now? By doubting GMan or are you channeling Matt-level conspiracy?
Hah, I get it now. Yeah you goofed.

Oh well though, I figured it was you anyway. Good game, sir.

What do you get? Please explain because I feel really lost right now. How did Scotty goof?

Wilgy... wut?

I am not understanding what just happened and your theory makes no sense. In order for what you are saying to be the case there would have to be a protector and a role block. And why do you think G-man was lying about his check last night?

I am so very lost now.

If there was someone who protected G-man last night, wouldn't you expect them to come out and say so when they saw that the lack of kill was making G-man look suspicious?

Please explain your thoughts here because I think I missed something.

Does your jailing someone only act as a role block or does it protect the person you are jailing as well.

You did not listen to what I said. I don't have a role power, I only have an Indy win con. I am by definition vanilla.

I'm pretty sure I can't tell you my role's name as per the rules given to us by Rico. Let me check with him to see what I can say before I go forward with anymore info. I hesitated to outright claim this earlier given our sites propensity for lynching Indy roles because they don't trust them, but I think now the info can be helpful to figuring out who can be trusted.

I am going to claim something that hopefully will help you narrow some options down. I am an Indy. I do not have a role power, I had a set of win conditions I had to fill out at the beginning but I don't have any ability to do anything to anyone and I have no vested interest in either side winning nor do they need me dead. It is for this reason I disbelieve the Scotty Indy peek and have implied this a coupl times already I the game. Two Indy roles in such a small game seems odd to say the least, plus Scotty has vehemently denied it. You can probably eliminate the idea of an Indy power role, it seems unlikely to me given what I shared.

Perhaps I am just understanding it differently.

per faction?

Does that sound concerning to anyone else?

I've read every post in this thread, I've been keeping up.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:G-Man, I think the most likely players to miss that post are S~V~S and Daisy.

I'm also not sure Quin kills Polo after he'd been giving me a little crap for defending Polo.

G-Man, whaddya think of Scotty's denial of your indy peek?

You make too many assumptions Jay. I saw the post, but I believed it to be in the best interest of G-man not to draw attention to it. I also saw his post where he stated clearly that INH was a bad idea for a lynch. Just because I don't advertise what I saw doesn't mean I didn't see it. If I was bad, G-Man would already be dead and likely you too. Also, I'm not certain that G-Man is the real cop or that there even is a cop. His claim about Scotty being indy does not add up for me. Regardless, Elo has conceded her baddie status and I don't see any reason to vote somewhere else.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Elohcin wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:
G-Man wrote:Boy, this day just gets stranger and stranger. Eight votes spread over seven people, including a Sadness style self-vote? This doesn't give me much hope.

2.25
I'm not sad. I'm just aware my attention is going somewhere else at the moment so I can't adequately choose a better option for right now.
Love you SD, but I can never see a reason to vote oneself. You have at least a slim chance at catching a baddie by voting someone other than yourself if you are civ.

2.12
You don't have a civ peek on Daisy.

Oh Elo, Day 1 had me thinking you were civ, well played my dear, well played. But you are not the cop, and this looks like an attempt to stop anyone from believing the cop. It makes my heart sad for being so wrong about you. You did play well, you fooled me. I'm sorry for it upsetting you, but I must vote you.

G-Man wrote:Boy, this day just gets stranger and stranger. Eight votes spread over seven people, including a Sadness style self-vote? This doesn't give me much hope.

2.25

I'm not sad. I'm just aware my attention is going somewhere else at the moment so I can't adequately choose a better option for right now.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm at least a little moved, Daisy. I'm willing to reconsider; I'm not sure you handle this with quite the same esignation if you're bad.

Sorry if I seemed arrogant. Just trying to make things happen however I can.

I don't think you are an arrogant person Jay. I felt like it was a baiting kind of arrogant and it just rubbed me wrong in the moment. But I wasn't upset then or now. I'm voting myself right now because I'm in the heat of getting my own game rolling. I mean really, if it comes down to it and you all want to lynch someone and it has to be me, better me than someone who is more active.

I should clarify, I am caught up to wherever we were at 3:00 AM last night. I even started ISOs, but got too tired after reading through just Wilgy and decided to go to bed instead.

My only conclusion was that Wilgy looked shady. But no more shady than he normally does. So I don't have a read either way on him. I found the way he acted during the lynch to be questionable. He pushed for people willing to lynch Vomps yet voted no lynch. He said he was happy with Vomps being lynched because of the reasons others were saying (Vomps seemed more invested) yet at the last minute he tried to see if he could get some SVS votes. It just seems off, but Wilgy always seems off. I don't know.

Feel free to lynch me. My game just began so my engagement probably won't be getting better. I have been keeping up with this thread, but frankly I did not participate in the fake peek claiming nonsense or the ensuing conversation because I think Jay's assumption about people's motivations are just that, assumptions. And he had a very arrogant baiting tone that I didn't feel like engaging with at the time. I was not and am not upset, I just felt zero desire to be part of it.

Lynch me if you please, but it will get you nowhere. But better me than someone participating I suppose.

Oh god, we aren't unknowingly playing mulholland drive are we...

Quin wrote:Do you not think voting and making a case for someone you were actually suspicious of would be a better use of your vote than just voting Vompatti to meet the end of ensuring someone was lynched? I don't consider that staying on the sidelines at all.

If you were to not vote Vompatti, who would have been your vote?

I went out for a date with my husband. I had not formed a strong suspicion that I saw a case on. If I had felt like I had someone that I strongly suspected I would have already said as much.

Quin wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:Quin, I was looking at three votes for Vomps, up against four votes for no lynch. I was pretty clear that I thought a no lynch was a bad idea from the time I first came in the thread. Basically I could vote for Vomps to try and get rid of the no lynch direction, or I could have thrown my vote away on someone else. I think the only one anywhere even close at the time was SVS and I didn't feel any more about her than Vomps. So you think I should have thrown my vote to the wind instead? I voted for the result I preferred, even if I was not particularly partial to lynching Vomps specifically. Sorry if you take issue with that, but it is what it is.
As I said I think the way you (and rabbit as well, I'm putting you both on equal turf with this) went about your vote felt like you were voting just for the sake of lynching somebody and avoiding a no lynch. Wanting to lynch somebody without caring who just so somebody was lynched is pingy. You didn't make the 'at least we'll get information from the lynch' argument either so I doubt that was your motive. Why do you think you would be throwing your vote to the wind if you didn't vote for a top lynch candidate?

Are you kidding me? My whole point was that I felt like a no lynch was a bad result because even a mislynch provides us some information. That was exactly my motivation. Sorry if I was not explicit enough, though I thought I was when I first discussed the no lynch idea. And it would be throwing my vote to the wind for two reasons. First of all, casting my vote somewhere else would essentially be to say, I'm going to stay on the sidelines instead of weighing in on whether I think Vomps should be lynched or no one should. Second, it would have been to say I was ok with a no lynch outcome which I have clearly said from the get go that I am not ok with a no lynch outcome.

I should clarify, that when I began writing my post, that was the vote tally, by the time I tried to post it Jay had changed his vote to Vomps as well, making my vote the one that put him over the no lynch option.

Quin, I was looking at three votes for Vomps, up against four votes for no lynch. I was pretty clear that I thought a no lynch was a bad idea from the time I first came in the thread. Basically I could vote for Vomps to try and get rid of the no lynch direction, or I could have thrown my vote away on someone else. I think the only one anywhere even close at the time was SVS and I didn't feel any more about her than Vomps. So you think I should have thrown my vote to the wind instead? I voted for the result I preferred, even if I was not particularly partial to lynching Vomps specifically. Sorry if you take issue with that, but it is what it is.

Ah, nevermind, he was not saying he was changing his vote to Vomps, he was just expressing his approval with the leading candidate over his own option.

Well crap I have to make at least one more post in order to not be at 4. So, yeah... lol

Wilgy, that was weird.

I know I broadcast mine Day 1 in your game, but I also knew that one or two others had already claimed civ peeks and I believe another did after me too. So, yeah. I wasn't just jumping in claiming blind in that game. It paid off, and you are right regarding how in theory it would best work. It's just a difficult leap for some of our players to make because of the fact that we have always been so anti-info dump and role claim. They are a cautious bunch. It's a tough transition to make.

By the way Jay, asking you about why you said something that made no sense to me from a civilian mind set, does not make me bad. I never accused you of being bad, I just did not see the logic in it. Also, I never said you invited a lynch, because I didn't get that from what you said either. So keep on suspecting me if you wish, but you would be barking up the wrong tree. Use your next peek on me if you don't believe it. Or you know, don't, since you aren't a cop. Whatever.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:I like this post and agree with the assessment of Jay's cop claim.
There are some possibilities I don't think Elohcin quite covered which I think you'd understand better than anyone else in this game -- you were the true cop in Arrested Development, and some of your team mates played a big role in keeping you alive late enough into the game to solve it. How did they do that?

What she seemed to be saying as I read it was that there are too many possibilities to be sure of the truth to your peek. Which I agree with. But here is the thing, if your peek was true or false, there would be no tactical advantage for a mafia member to want the person who someone claimed a civ peek on to be lynched. They already know if it is true or false. If it is true, why would they want to confirm you are the cop before killing you? So what I draw from this situation overall is that Elo is likely civ.

I understand you are talking about the lack of peeks to cover for the cop or get information out there, and I understand what happened in the game where I was the cop. But I would think you of all people would have seen how much luck went into that win too. If the people I had green peeked had not stayed alive, I could not have figured it out by PoE. We only had about two or three other cop claims. I would think you would play it wiser knowing that cop claims are rare on this site. If you are asking for a peek from me, sure, here you go I'll say Elo was my N0 green peek. Maybe that's why I am inclined to see her vote as an indication of her civ alignment. Maybe.

Anyway, I am voting Vompatti. Sorry Vomps, I enjoy playing with you but I think a no lynch is a mistake.

Elohcin wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Elohcin wrote:Thank you for answering, it seemed genuine. I will move my vote to Vompatti for now. I am not usually one to move my vote around like this. But your response was pleasantly surprising.

Day 1 #8
Do you think JJJ is telling the truth about dog? What's your feeling on JJJ?
Is there anything particularly surprising about sig's response?
I don't know what I missed about "dog", but I have no clue what you're talking about. I mean, I have literally searched for the word "dog" and only see it in your post when you say JJJ peeked dog.

As for my feelings on JJJ. I am not paying too much attention to his claims. I don't think we can put too much weight on it yet. Players claim things all the time (whether it be about themselves or others) that may or may not be true. I'm not too concerned. It could go like this:
1. he is the cop. Yay, he can help us find mafia.
2. he is not the cop, but the real cop is too scared to come forth b/c he might get nightkilled so we keep on thinking he's the cop
3. he's not the cop, but the real cop calls him out on it (but who's to say that the player who calls him out on it is the real cop. maybe the player who calls him out is just concerned that JJJ IS the real cop and is afraid the mafia will kill him, so he claims to be cop as a distraction to the mafia)
4. Maybe there is no damn cop in this game so we all go on thinking JJJ must be the cop.
There is way too much speculation that can happen on this subject, so I say

sig's response was calm and collected. this makes me think he is civ.

@ sig - I am not sure who else I am considering. I think it will partly depend on scotty's response to this post

I like this post and agree with the assessment of Jay's cop claim.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:Svs, That's not how I meant that. I meant that I wasn't asking to try to solicit his opinion of myself, I was asking because I was curious about his opinion on others. I'm not stressed about me because I know my role, lol. If someone suspects me they are more than welcome to share it so I can address any suspicions of course.
I'm trying to decide whether I find this post suspicious. I believe what Daisy said at face value -- that it wasn't her intent to solicit a read on her from me. However, the language here is collected in such a way that it feels rehearsed.

I dunno, it sounds weak as I type it. Thoughts?

Jay, my language is not the most normal in general. I joke with Alex about my "granny-speak" and as I mentioned earlier, "hot" is not a term I generally use applied to how attractive a person is to me. As an example, one time in college another friend and I met up with a third friend. The first friend exclaimed "Ryan! You're wearing your hottie jeans!" as a joke. I heard this and looked at his jeans trying to figure out what made them "haughty." True story. My point here is that I don't know what about it made you feel the language is collected or rehearsed, but I assure you it wasn't. It's just the way I talk and think.

Quin wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:Svs, That's not how I meant that. I meant that I wasn't asking to try to solicit his opinion of myself, I was asking because I was curious about his opinion on others. I'm not stressed about me because I know my role, lol. If someone suspects me they are more than welcome to share it so I can address any suspicions of course.
I'm trying to decide whether I find this post suspicious. I believe what Daisy said at face value -- that it wasn't her intent to solicit a read on her from me. However, the language here is collected in such a way that it feels rehearsed.

I dunno, it sounds weak as I type it. Thoughts?
SD comes across to me as a collected sort of person, so at face value I think it's sincere.

linki: fair point, but what 3j said wasn't an opinion, it was a fact, assuming he's telling the truth anyway. i just think it's interesting that you didn't address at least that post.

12

It makes me happy to hear this since I was such an emotional disaster in BSG. It was bad at the beginning, and the direct result of some major family drama, but I hate being the person who loses it emotionally. I'm not good with emotions in general, lol. Anyway, thanks for that.

LOL Elo, I tell Alex, if I die first you should totally feel ok with falling in love with and marrying someone else. He is the one who is like, no I would never marry someone else! He's the sweet one, not me, lol. I'm too practical I guess.

I need to read some ISOs I think, because I'm not feeling enough of a pull any one direction at the moment. No one is striking me as overwhelmingly bad right now. Hopefully some ISOs will change that. And I'm off today so I can totally do it.

Svs, That's not how I meant that. I meant that I wasn't asking to try to solicit his opinion of myself, I was asking because I was curious about his opinion on others. I'm not stressed about me because I know my role, lol. If someone suspects me they are more than welcome to share it so I can address any suspicions of course.

I actually am more interested in your stances on others than your opinion on me. I'll have to go back over your posts in more detail to see what positive things you have said about them. For now I need to sleep and I think that leaves me at 5 posts so I think I can safely stop posting for the evening.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:What do you mean? You haven't had quite so many people immediately react to things you have said?
Other way around. For a game that has barely started to realize its own sensorimotor capabilities, I have some manner of a stance on more people than I'd expect.

Ah, and what stances do you have so far?

What do you mean? You haven't had quite so many people immediately react to things you have said?

Scotty wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:I tried to post earlier when I voted but my internet has been wonky this evening. I've never found Hillary Swank to be attractive, or hot any other word of the kind. but to each their own.

Jay, you are saying you would rather we lynch you than we no lynch? If you are a civ, how would this be beneficial to us? You should know you are civ (assuming you are), and thus lynching you would mean we would be down two civs if a civ gets NKed, which seems likely, rather than one if we were to no lynch rather than lynching someone you know is a civ. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of a no lynch. But I would rather a no lynch than my own lynch, because I know that it is not in the civs' favor. But I am not in favor of a no lynch versus someone I don't know that same thing about. So I am confused why you would prefer your own lynch over a no lynch. Please explain your reasoning there.
Question 2: is there a female celebrity that you do find hot?

LOL, did my husband put you up to this question? First of all, "hot" is not a word I usually use to describe how attractive I find another person, male or female. It just has never been a word I use in that way. If I say hot, it usually refers to temperature. That said, I think that Karen Gillan is an attractive woman, and I'm sure there are others I would call attractive, but I haven't thought about it extensively. I like Zoey Deschanel, but I'm not sure if that is just because I like the quirky roles she frequently plays or if I consider her attractive. She's cute but I don't know if I would consider her attractive, beautiful or "hot." Whatever.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Spacedaisy wrote:I tried to post earlier when I voted but my internet has been wonky this evening. I've never found Hillary Swank to be attractive, or hot any other word of the kind. but to each their own.

Jay, you are saying you would rather we lynch you than we no lynch? If you are a civ, how would this be beneficial to us? You should know you are civ (assuming you are), and thus lynching you would mean we would be down two civs if a civ gets NKed, which seems likely, rather than one if we were to no lynch rather than lynching someone you know is a civ. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of a no lynch. But I would rather a no lynch than my own lynch, because I know that it is not in the civs' favor. But I am not in favor of a no lynch versus someone I don't know that same thing about. So I am confused why you would prefer your own lynch over a no lynch. Please explain your reasoning there.
I believe a day phase which progresses without a lynch is the worst-case scenario. I would rather not be mislynched and I would fight any attempts to do so tooth and nail, but it's better than nobody being lynched. There is information in my mislynch. Those who live beyond me would be tasked with deciding what to do with that information -- I'd have to hope that the rest of the town team has the initiative to do something.

Nothing is worse than lynching nobody other than lynching a top power role, but when that happens on Day 1 I am typically inclined to blame the victim more than the voters. It should be quite unlikely if the players in those roles are doing their jobs.

I firmly believe that no lynching is an objectively terrible strategy to the point of being indefensible. I don't mean to imply Quin is dumb or even suspicious for disagreeing -- this is a debate I've engaged in many times.

This answer is satisfying to me. I actually had seen that as a possible answer, but did not want to backpedal until you answered. I wanted to hear how you responded. At the moment you sound civ to me.

I tried to post earlier when I voted but my internet has been wonky this evening. I've never found Hillary Swank to be attractive, or hot any other word of the kind.

but to each their own.

Jay, you are saying you would rather we lynch you than we no lynch? If you are a civ, how would this be beneficial to us? You should know you are civ (assuming you are), and thus lynching you would mean we would be down two civs if a civ gets NKed, which seems likely, rather than one if we were to no lynch rather than lynching someone you know is a civ. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of a no lynch. But I would rather a no lynch than my own lynch, because I know that it is not in the civs' favor. But I am not in favor of a no lynch versus someone I don't know that same thing about. So I am confused why you would prefer your own lynch over a no lynch. Please explain your reasoning there.

Search found 39 matches