The Syndicate

Long Con wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:LC: I've had a civ read of him the entire game. Perhaps I'm mistaken and perhaps he's pulled a ruse on me, but he still strikes me as civ. The mistaken day thing is extremely disconcerting, and it'll factor heavily into my vote, but it won't DECIDE my vote.

There is no "mistaken day thing". That didn't happen.

DF or Wilgy will likely get my vote. Despite my read on him, I'm not against voting for LC because of the wrong day thing. What discomforts me is not that part, but the part the next day where he evened up the votes between four people and said he was waiting to see who would flinch. Seems to me DF may be guilty because he was the first to flinch, LC may be guilty becuase he was trying to gain civ points by seeing who would, or they both are by setting up a way to subtly clear one or the other.

Evening up the votes is a baddie thing now? I thought we might see some real shit in a situation like that. Guess I'm just a baddie and I was wrong about that idea.

notsawyer540 wrote:Linki: Faraday, you're playing a shoddy game? In what ways?

notsawyer540 wrote:You took that last bit as an accusation and you're getting a little too close to defensiveness for comfort, but I'll grant you a pass because I think it's a simple misunderstanding.

notsawyer540 wrote:What discomforts me is not that part, but the part the next day where he evened up the votes between four people and said he was waiting to see who would flinch. Seems to me DF may be guilty because he was the first to flinch, LC may be guilty because he was trying to gain civ points by seeing who would or otherwise mislead us...

Long Con wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:You took that last bit as an accusation and you're getting a little too close to defensiveness for comfort, but I'll grant you a pass because I think it's a simple misunderstanding.

How is this not an accusation? How is this not worthy of a response from me??

notsawyer540 wrote:What discomforts me is not that part, but the part the next day where he evened up the votes between four people and said he was waiting to see who would flinch. Seems to me DF may be guilty because he was the first to flinch, LC may be guilty because he was trying to gain civ points by seeing who would or otherwise mislead us...

The suspicious part here is where I evened up the votes because I evened up the votes. Or I was trying to gain Civ ppints by doing the thing that makes me suspicious. Or a) tie up vote b) ??? c) mislead d) ???

Cool.

notsawyer540 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:You took that last bit as an accusation and you're getting a little too close to defensiveness for comfort, but I'll grant you a pass because I think it's a simple misunderstanding.

How is this not an accusation? How is this not worthy of a response from me??

notsawyer540 wrote:What discomforts me is not that part, but the part the next day where he evened up the votes between four people and said he was waiting to see who would flinch. Seems to me DF may be guilty because he was the first to flinch, LC may be guilty because he was trying to gain civ points by seeing who would or otherwise mislead us...

The suspicious part here is where I evened up the votes because I evened up the votes. Or I was trying to gain Civ ppints by doing the thing that makes me suspicious. Or a) tie up vote b) ??? c) mislead d) ???

Cool.

You changed your vote at the last moment. Along with Wilgy iirc. Whille I do appreciate not being lynched and not having a tie, don't tell me that doesn't seem odd.

thellama73 wrote:The thing thta has me spooked about LC is his "have pity on me, I'm confused" moment. That seemed really out of character to me, as I'm used to him being confident. I have a hard time buying that it was sincere.

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:The thing thta has me spooked about LC is his "have pity on me, I'm confused" moment. That seemed really out of character to me, as I'm used to him being confident. I have a hard time buying that it was sincere.

I have a hard time buying that your face is sincere.

Long Con wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:You took that last bit as an accusation and you're getting a little too close to defensiveness for comfort, but I'll grant you a pass because I think it's a simple misunderstanding.

How is this not an accusation? How is this not worthy of a response from me??

notsawyer540 wrote:What discomforts me is not that part, but the part the next day where he evened up the votes between four people and said he was waiting to see who would flinch. Seems to me DF may be guilty because he was the first to flinch, LC may be guilty because he was trying to gain civ points by seeing who would or otherwise mislead us...

The suspicious part here is where I evened up the votes because I evened up the votes. Or I was trying to gain Civ ppints by doing the thing that makes me suspicious. Or a) tie up vote b) ??? c) mislead d) ???

Cool.

You changed your vote at the last moment. Along with Wilgy iirc. Whille I do appreciate not being lynched and not having a tie, don't tell me that doesn't seem odd.

A tie is good for the baddies. Breaking the tie isn't odd, and doesn't "seem" odd. It's what had to be done.

DrWilgy wrote:

Long Con wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:You took that last bit as an accusation and you're getting a little too close to defensiveness for comfort, but I'll grant you a pass because I think it's a simple misunderstanding.

How is this not an accusation? How is this not worthy of a response from me??

notsawyer540 wrote:What discomforts me is not that part, but the part the next day where he evened up the votes between four people and said he was waiting to see who would flinch. Seems to me DF may be guilty because he was the first to flinch, LC may be guilty because he was trying to gain civ points by seeing who would or otherwise mislead us...

The suspicious part here is where I evened up the votes because I evened up the votes. Or I was trying to gain Civ ppints by doing the thing that makes me suspicious. Or a) tie up vote b) ??? c) mislead d) ???

Cool.

You changed your vote at the last moment. Along with Wilgy iirc. Whille I do appreciate not being lynched and not having a tie, don't tell me that doesn't seem odd.

A tie is good for the baddies. Breaking the tie isn't odd, and doesn't "seem" odd. It's what had to be done.

Unless Marmot couldn't move his vote there was no reason for you to nreal the tie. He hadn't thrown a defensive vote yet.

It would've been a tie had I not moved.

DrWilgy wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Neat, 2v4. LC and DF are the remaining baddoes and votes are final.

Mislynch causes a 2v2... Is that game over or a 50/50?

You've been saying I'm baddie all game. Why?

Kay, day 1 we have a light dissuasion for Scotty calling out JoH.

Or I wondered why he would pick Jack in particular when most of us had under five posts at that point.

DFaraday wrote:

Scotty wrote:Everyone's checked in, so...ima thinking one of the low posters is definitely bad.

Jackofhearts, I see you.

Wouldn't almost everyone qualify as low posters at this point?

Day 2 he enters the thread after catching up woth no thoughts other than flimsy-waver commentary.

Sounds about right.

DFaraday wrote:Finally caught up. Good result, all! RIP Elo.

I agree that there's no rush to lynch Jack, we just need to be careful about how close lynches are or he could tip the scales. Then again, I doubt he'd use that to save a teammate, but rather frame a civ.

To Sawyer: I have no suspicion of you. I randomized from everybody besides myself and it was you. That's all.

Votes Jack out of self defence and not the fact that he's an outed baddie. Interesting that he would choose to vote for Jack on self defence in spite of his comment regarding keeping him alive. I'd think that "I'm vpting for jack because he's bad" or "I'm voting for jack to get rid of his manipulation" would've been what a civ would say, but he doesn't say either of these.

I already said I didn't think Jack was an urgent threat, but if I'm in danger of lynching I'll go for the guy most likely to get lynched besides me. Who wouldn't? Also, if I'd said either of the things you think I should have said, you'd come in and say I did a 180 from my earlier post where I said Jack wasn't a big deal at the moment.

DFaraday wrote:Anyway, I'm voting Jack right now for self-preservation.

Day 3, this one is a personal qualm but how does df know I'm civ when he was wrong about Mac, Fz, SVS?

Um, where did I say I know you're civ? I said I found it suspect that you were taking multiple votes for seemingly unrelated reasons.

DFaraday wrote:I'm putting a vote on Jack for now. I'm not liking how Wilgy has three votes right now, for what seem to be three different reasons. Llama for the visual, but also a little because he didn't like Wilgy's SVS vote. Epi because he finds Wilgy's case against him forced and fabricated. LC because he doesn't like how jokey Wilgy is playing?

For the record, I don't agree with Wilgy's assessment of Epi, but I can see how a civ could come to that conclusion.

Day 5, DF literally feels bad on everyone he comments on except Llama IF his bad feeling of Sawyer is correct. Also note that he specifically went out of the way to call himself vanilla. A vanilla doesn't do that, he's either a power role or mafia but w/e not going into role outing.

I'm a non-conformist and you're going to have to reevaluate your handbook to civvie and baddie behavior when this is all said and done.

DFaraday wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I want to know the following from everybody:

1. Where you stand on notsawyer and why.
I'm leaning bad on Notsawyer because he is tunneling Epi, forcing the facts to fit his suspicion (ie., blaming Epi alone for SVS's lynch), and cites Epi's lack of caught baddies despite the fact that Notsawyer is hardly looking at anyone but Epi, and so has also caught no baddies.

2. Where you stand on Marmot and why.
Rereading his posts, I'm finding him to be pretty inconsistent. First he cites some mild suspicion, decides to vote her over Jack, then the next day says that he's glad everyone is "seeing sense" and voting Jack, despite making a case on Epi and continually pushing it throughout that phase. I'm leaning bad towards MM, but not as much as I am Notsawyer.

3. Where you stand on Floyd and why.
The lack of a kill could indicate that the remaining baddies are uninvolved, which would implicate Floyd more than anyone (and me next, I'm aware). I'm slightly leaning bad on Floyd.

4. Where you stand on DFaraday and why.
Vanilla Civvie all the way.

5. Where you stand on Quin and why.
I don't really recall Quin's activity this game. I'll need to look into him.

6. Where you stand on thellama73 and why.
If I'm right about Notsawyer being bad, it's unlikely Llama also is given the timing of his vote for Notsawyer on Day 1, when the lynch could still have gone that way. His Jack suspicion was also consistent and felt genuine. Leaning civ.

7. Where you stand on Long Con and why.
LC hasn't felt entirely involved in this game, like he's trying to keep out of the limelight. I don't have suspicions of him per se, but I don't really feel civ about him.

You get the idea. If I left you out, it wasn't personal.

Start talking. Tell me why you're good. Tell me why others are bad. Go.

Nvm, Epi is also civ, but this is at the time when several other suspect him so cred hunting?

DFaraday wrote:I would be fine with either Notsawyer or MM, but it seems like it's going to be between Epi and MM, and I see the case on MM, whereas I'm reading Epi as civ.

And this is why we should vote DF, according to him everyone is bad except the people that shouldn't be able to be read (i.e. me because I'm dicking around almost 80% of this game). He's buddies with JoH. Also note that LC saved DF yestersay sooo...

Epignosis wrote:You know who has had like zero suspicion against him the entire time?

llama.

Let's talk about him.

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You know who has had like zero suspicion against him the entire time?

llama.

Let's talk about him.

What do you want to know?

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You know who has had like zero suspicion against him the entire time?

llama.

Let's talk about him.

What do you want to know?

Are you bad?

Long Con wrote:Llama is very likely bad. Just through POE if nothing else, if Epi is good. A suspect of mine since way back.

Long Con wrote:Llama is very likely bad. Just through POE if nothing else, if Epi is good. A suspect of mine since way back.

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:Llama is very likely bad. Just through POE if nothing else, if Epi is good. A suspect of mine since way back.

Why did you wait until I said anything about him to express this?

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:Llama is very likely bad. Just through POE if nothing else, if Epi is good. A suspect of mine since way back.

Why did you wait until I said anything about him to express this?

Because I'm letting you drive. I drive into the ditch when I take the wheel.

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:Llama is very likely bad. Just through POE if nothing else, if Epi is good. A suspect of mine since way back.

Why did you wait until I said anything about him to express this?

Because I'm letting you drive. I drive into the ditch when I take the wheel.

Because Epi has been so successful at driving us towards SVS, Marmot, and Quin?

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:Llama is very likely bad. Just through POE if nothing else, if Epi is good. A suspect of mine since way back.

Why did you wait until I said anything about him to express this?

Because I'm letting you drive. I drive into the ditch when I take the wheel.

Because Epi has been so successful at driving us towards SVS, Marmot, and Quin?

This kind of thing irks me.

You speak as though people aren't responsible for their own votes and that I shoulder that responsibility.

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:Llama is very likely bad. Just through POE if nothing else, if Epi is good. A suspect of mine since way back.

Why did you wait until I said anything about him to express this?

Because I'm letting you drive. I drive into the ditch when I take the wheel.

Because Epi has been so successful at driving us towards SVS, Marmot, and Quin?

This kind of thing irks me.

You speak as though people aren't responsible for their own votes and that I shoulder that responsibility.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I don't blame you for those lynches. I just think "letting you drive" is stupid given your success rate this game.

thellama73 wrote:I do not like this passive LC. It is unlike him. Since when does he let other people drive?

Long Con wrote:Are you actually criticizing me for that when you did the exact same thing at the exact same time???

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:Llama is very likely bad. Just through POE if nothing else, if Epi is good. A suspect of mine since way back.

Why did you wait until I said anything about him to express this?

Because I'm letting you drive. I drive into the ditch when I take the wheel.

Because Epi has been so successful at driving us towards SVS, Marmot, and Quin?

This kind of thing irks me.

You speak as though people aren't responsible for their own votes and that I shoulder that responsibility.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I don't blame you for those lynches. I just think "letting you drive" is stupid given your success rate this game.

That's fallacious thinking too. Even if I were right two out of three times wouldn't guarantee any degree of success in future lynches.

thellama73 wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:In answer to Epi's question, my vote for Quin is based on a Day 0 ping, odd, uncharacteristic behavior, which I tend to associate with baddies. I am also perturbed by Quin's unwillingness to take my vote seriously. I never really intended to leave my vote there, though. I haven't decided where to move it yet, but Notsawyer, for being wishy-washy, might get it. And JackofHearts, for being annoying and not answering questions seriously, might get it.

Can you be more specific?

I don't think there's a real question I've been asked that I didn't take seriously.

Convince me you aren't just being opportunistic by saying you might vote for one of the players who already has two votes for no real reason.

This post is pretty flippant, but in fairness to you, I think I keep confusing you with Notsawyer, since I don't know either of you. I can't tell you apart. Please try to be more distinctive.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I don't like the cut of this jackofhearts character's jib. Voting there.

Well I don't like that your avatar is what you'd get if Diablo fucked a sharptooth.

But I don't vote for stupid reason.

thellama73 wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:@Llama

My avatar is anime demigods fighting.

Sawyer's avatar is a baseball bat, possibly named Lucille.

Does that help?

Who would you vote for if you weren't allowed to vote for players you confuse with other players?

Thank you. That does help.

I'm struggling with a lack of strong pings today, if I'm honest. I might vote for FZ, because I found her question about the rules contrived, like Long Con's face.

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I do not like this passive LC. It is unlike him. Since when does he let other people drive?

Blah blah blah so unlike LC blah.

This is baddie Llama gently nibbling low hanging fruit.

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I do not like this passive LC. It is unlike him. Since when does he let other people drive?

Blah blah blah so unlike LC blah.

This is baddie Llama gently nibbling low hanging fruit.

You don't believe that. You haven't believed it all game.

thellama73 wrote:I do not like this passive LC. It is unlike him. Since when does he let other people drive?

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I do not like this passive LC. It is unlike him. Since when does he let other people drive?

Is it like you to confuse two completely different people with very different avatars and names, and one of those happens to be bad?

DFaraday wrote:Llama confusing players isn't weird to me. I've done that lots of times with players I'm unfamiliar with.

Epignosis wrote:

Long Con wrote:Llama is very likely bad. Just through POE if nothing else, if Epi is good. A suspect of mine since way back.

Why did you wait until I said anything about him to express this?

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Llama is very likely bad. Just through POE if nothing else, if Epi is good. A suspect of mine since way back.

Didn't hesitate to grab that straw, did you, Drowning Man?

Epignosis wrote:I am convinced thellama73 is bad. He campaigned hard for notsawyer, but now? Nothing. He's going after Long Con. He isn't genuine in his opinions.

Epignosis wrote:I am convinced thellama73 is bad. He campaigned hard for notsawyer, but now? Nothing. He's going after Long Con. He isn't genuine in his opinions.

thellama73 wrote:I would like to lynch either Sawyer or Long Con today. Will anyone join me on those votes? As much as I dislike the idea, it appears as if I will have to build a coalition if I am going to survive and save the game for the civvies.

DFaraday wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I would like to lynch either Sawyer or Long Con today. Will anyone join me on those votes? As much as I dislike the idea, it appears as if I will have to build a coalition if I am going to survive and save the game for the civvies.

I think you're civ and want to help, but I'm reading LC as genuine. I'll go ahead and vote Sawyer.