The Syndicate

I'm very proud of my team for lasting as long as they did! I randomly died off early, but Dom and Made, you guys were terrific!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Rezz please

Me too, k?

So I read thru quick. My main suspicion is MM. Will type more about it tomorrow when it doesn't hurt to type (hopefully).

Hey all, I've got cellulitis in my hand and it's insanely swollen, so I will commence catch up but may not type much tonight, as even this is hurting.

Sorry for missing the vote, and a good chunk of the game, I kind of raged out of the other game and walked away from mafia for a bit. I'll catch up when I can.

Long Con wrote: Well, it's up to everyone to hold themselves to as high a standard of play as they expect to see... and maybe a little higher than that. There is a flip side to it though, and that's when a baddie wants to fake info-drop as part of a deception. Should that be eliminated as well? It's a tough call.

I hear an odd echo coming through the abyss... it sounds like MP saying "I received a parchment last night..." Weird. Must be the weed.

Voted Far and Away, Backdraft, and Splash and they were all films that were perfect for me at the time of release. I'd hate to go back and revisit them now and ruin that, but I have fond memories of them

So Vomps was a civ. I want to say something about people playing "weird" but it would only come across as snarky so I will eat it.

Roxy wrote:
Wow Timmer has done a swift back stroke there.

I am voting for my own suspicion today Made but I have time.

It's not a back stroke, but each day brings new information, and new points of view, you know this. I wouldn't be voting Vomps if it was JUST about his play style, I had enough of that with Wazzipi ages ago. But it's the sense that he is actively TOYING with his play style now, and the looming problem of two lynches that appear to be potential saves of him.

I've caught up to the game, and I don't see how there can be anything BUT a Vomps lynch today.

First, his actions are not contributing to the game in any meaningful way.
Second, he's aware of this and every single post is meta now, more than even in the beginning of the game.
Third, a few of the cases on OTHER people are attached to whether Vomps was saved.
Fourth, a Vomps accuser got NK'd. While it can be argued that baddies did that to put more of a spotlight on Vomps, I'm inclined to go the other way, as I think it was pretty clear Vomps was an imminent goner, and it was more likely a shot at WIFOM.
Fifth, he twice appears to have been saved in lynches.

At this point, there is nothing better than that for a lynch today. Vmps gets my vote. And I'm sorry for being absent, it's been a busy Super Bowl weekend!

Sorry, MP

In for a second while on my break. I haven't seen anything to make me change my mind about MP, so he gets my vote. That said, I'm very intrigued by the prospect of a Vomps lynch, so if the thread goes that way, I'm good with that. He's 100% meta now, playing with the perception of himself, which doesn't feel all that civvie. Plus, a lot of people have weighed in on him, so there would be lots of leads. I'm still going with MP though, I believe he is bad and have seen no reason to change my mind.

Turnip Head wrote: You know what, I always vote at the tail end of every lynch in every game, and in every game it gets me extra eyeballs. Those last few votes can be so scrutinized and over analyzed because you can read anything you want into them. I didn't know that my vote would be second to last, nor could I know that the "lynch seems secured" as you put it. I could not have known that ~6ish players wouldn't vote after me. You're acting like AP's lynch is MY fault because I voted MP.

It's more because of your post that I quoted than the vote itself.

In any lynch, until several baddie's identities are known, there are numerous ways to analyze the voting patterns that could all prove wrong.

My point, in regards to YOUR vote, was that you had previously made a comment about not voting ONE way because it could make you look bad, but then proceeded to vote in a way that ALSO is a classic "look bad" way. I think it's the meta aspect, that you were clearly thinking about how your vote would be seen, that set me off a bit.

FWIW, I'm likely voting MP today (no one has given me a solid reason as to why my feelings are wrong about him, and the way he has toned down today makes me feel like he's trying to not be noticed) and agree with you there.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
I have had minor pings of Dom and FZ. earlier in the game, but neither of them are on my baddie radar at all right now.

Important to note, that while I still feel MP is playing a baddie-ish game, both he and Dom seemed to drop their fight awful quick. I'm not sure what that means that both just gave it up like that. It's weird.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:That's good to know Roxy. Glad you decided to keep playing!

That changes things. Also note, one roleblocker wouldn't have taken effect last night.

I'm sure it's addressed in the future of my read, but in case it isn't, I'd like to know what this means. I see no mention of either role blocker being an alternating power or anything.

FZ. wrote:
As for SVS, I'm not saying everyone's reasoning is the one I mentioned, but it seems to be building up too fast and people seem to be jumping on that with the "look how she's avoiding answering the questions" train of thought. In contrast, look how hard it is to get people to view the Vompatti case. I wonder why it's so much easier to jump on the SVS case

This is becoming quite an interesting read! First, SVS correctly nailed the tone of Rico's post, I think. It's weird. But, FZ defending seems a bit weak here as well. It's building up too fast? Sometimes a case causes that because there is logic behind it. But it can make a teammate panic. FWIW, I think SVS' votes in the two lynches could def. be the sign of a baddie at work, but there are too many variables atm for me to vote that way. I prefer to vote people in relation to proven baddies, not based on the idea that a save is going on when that has yet to be determined.

But considering how MP has now been gunning for SVS (Dom is now completely off his radar?) I wouldn't be shocked if this were two baddie teams duking it out (svs/fz) vs )mp/rico) along with various divs mixed in. Or it could all end up differently, I'm not done the read.

S~V~S wrote:There has been a lot of talk about a lot of people, interesting that the only big case coming that you see is on me.

Which other members are you referring to? I am beginning to think that maybe you heard about this big case in your chatroom.

Now I am looking forward to seeing who presents the big case

Haha, exactly. ^

Ricochet wrote: I have to study the Vomps case, as promised, and maybe look back at everything posted by SVS, since there's a big case brewing on her, apparently.

This is a bit pingy. This, considering Rico wouldn't go find evidence of it for SVS, sounds like baddies had been chatting all night in btsc and "the plan" was to push the SVS angle.

zeek wrote:
While I'm dissing beloved actors... Meryl Streep is fucking awful.[/ot]

You just go and... oh no wait, you're cool. Carry on.

zeek wrote:There Will Be Blood is overrated...

So is Daniel Day-Lewis.

THAT's RIGHT, I SAID IT. HE IS.

You just go and fuck right off, k?

Turnip Head wrote:BUT if I vote MP and one of the other two is lynched and flips bad, my vote will (quite reasonably) be deemed opportunistic, so I have to consider that risk when casting my vote as well...

Linki how hard MM what

Voting for MP and one of AP/Vomps flips bad, sure, your vote could look baddie. But you know what else looks baddie? Waiting until AP is at 5 votes, and putting your vote on MP *then*, with the second to last vote, once the lynch seems secured. And that's what you did.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dang it, i have to leave... but honestly I don't feel inclined to vote AP or Vomps.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, screw it. I know it seems like a waste, but I just don't know about Vomps or AP, so I'm putting my vote where I really feel it should go -- and that is BR. I know others have said this is normal for her but I'm still pinged that she would pour oil on three fires without giving any real good reasons for it.

Let's recap.

Before MP voted, AP had 3 votes, Vompatti had 3 votes, MP himself was at 2 votes, Dom 1 vote, FZ, Daisy, the llama and Long Con 1 vote each.

First of all, I'm pinged by the fact that MP made no mention that he had taken on votes and was 1 shy of being the lynch leader at the time.
Second, i'm pinged by the fact that he posted this before his vote

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't know what's going on with Vomps but it seems he is purposefully trying to act more zany due to the accusations against him.

and yet wouldn't vote Vomps to help save his own self.

third, and most important, after ALL the back and forth, no mention at ALL of voting Dom?

MP's vote choice makes me feel more sure that he is likely bad. I feel like this is someone who wasn't too fearful of getting lynched, because he had some friends. i feel like Alex has been so posty and wordy in the game up to this vote moment, that it is baffling that he would make no mention of the risk he was in. Not a single "come on guys, don't fucking lynch me for being posty".

As of this point in my read back, MP remains my #1 ping with a bullet.

Dom wrote: I was talking more about Timmer. I don't see how my alignment or MP's alignment would influence the other. I don't see how my alignment would influence LC's alignment. I do, however, see how MP's alignment might be linked to LC's. However, this is not quite what Timmer said.

I'm blasting through the MP/Dom stuff again, and saw this. Part of it could be blinders, but I feel that MP's posts feel like he was trying to keep himself as the centre of attention somehow, while your posts more often sounded like you were simply responding to him. Thus the fact that Long Con seemed to see it as the opposite made me feel like MP and LC may both be bad, or at least that if MP flips bad that LC my represent a teammate. It doesn't really make you a civ, but it keeps you in neutral at this point.

FZ. wrote: If I were a baddie, voting for him at that time, would have been the stupidest thing to do. Am while there are smarter people than me, I'm not that stupid

LOL, that's what WIFOM is all about. "I can't bad, because I would never do that when I am bad!"

I'm not really suspecting you atm, I simply hadn't seen that post the previous time I reread 1.1.

FZ. wrote:Okay, I hope this isn't a mistake, but I'm going to vote for BWT, because I see no point in voting for anyone else at this time.

I've just finished rereading Day 1.1 and this is the one thing that jumped out as being something I hadn't noticed last time. FZ had only talked about the other cases, especially Long Con, and yet just idly jumped onto the bandwagon? Sure, maybe if you vote someone late in the lynch they won't die, but it marks your feelings about the day. Just adding to a bandwagon is a funny thing to do. This is something I will remember for future reference. Moving onto Day 1.2.

Sorry, I'm here, I'm just having a busy day at work. I'll reread Day 1.1 on my supper break, I'll finish when I get home.

Nice night!

A little disappointed that eisenstein's recap wasn't in the form of a montage, but what can ya do?

I'll do a full catchup in this game tomorrow morning, I've been too invested in the Champs game so far.

Canucklehead wrote:The last film I saw was Paddington.




Imma just go and die of embarrassment now, k?

I'm hoping to see that next week, I've actually heard good things about it!

Mongoose wrote:What was the very last film you saw?

Mine was Luis Buñuel's Tristana (based on the novel of the same name), starring the effervescent Catherine Deneuve (did anyone catch her in the recentish film Potiche? I freakin loved that).

You've probably seen his classic short film Un Chien Andalou, but have you seen L'Age d'Or? Whoamg.


Deneuve shines brightly in Tristana.

Oddly enough, the last film I saw was Bunuel's Belle du Jour, also starring Deneuve! Un Chien Andalou is funky, but L'Age d'or is one of my 20 fave films of all time! Second to last movie I saw was The Theory of Everything, in which a masterful physical performance gets trampled upon by possibly the most inept direction and screenplay of the year.

RIP, AP!

I'll be heading to work pretty quick, so I'm going to go ahead and vote MP.

Okay, I'm up to Made's bizarre vote. WTF, dude? Those who know Made's play fairly well, does he do scatterbrain stuff like that often? Saying things like "there's another reason, Iswear but I forget?" Dude...

MP is definitely squirming under the lights today. the more of his posts, like where he kind of goes after BR, I read the more I'm sure I'm voting him today.

I'm just not touching either side of the vomps situation. I got into enough messes trying to vote or defend Wazzipi years ago for the same kind of things. Yes, i agree this seems like more on-topic Vomps than I ever remember, but he's aware that we're aware. He controls the narrative. It's too complicated for me to properly judge. I don't see baddie llama, though, either, I believe llama's thoughts to be genuine.

And I don't quite trust Long Con. Part of it is linked to his defence of MP and suspicion of Dom, though, so that will wait until i know the alignment of one of the players. But LC gets the for now.

Note that, immediately following that last quoted post, people started talking about MP/Dom again. MP essentially CAUSED this discussion to continue, when in fact the thread was doing just fine talking abut other suspicions.

Here is something interesting I've noticed about the MP/Dom thing. So MP was generally saying that he didn't suspect Dom and was just trying to clarify his position over and over. This culminated in THIS post (bolded part my doing):

MovingPictures07 wrote:I thought I had already voiced my thoughts about Dom, but I realize there have been a lot of posts, so I will gladly clarify:

I had no real pings throughout D1 except for Dom, which is why I voted for him (and no one commented on this), because I thought:
1) The fact that he was drawing so many implications out of my question for his thoughts seemed even more overreactive than is what I would expect to be characteristic from him
2) The fact that, even though he had asked me and llama questions, he generally hadn't posted a ton in D1, so a voice in the back of my head was wondering if it wasn't a way to seem like he was being helpful, but wasn't putting forth any suspects of his own. Because, as you can see if you read back through his D1 posts, he never said he outright suspected anyone, by the time I had made my vote.

Now, I realize after:
1) Reflection over the fact that we may just be having a HUGE misunderstanding this entire time
2) Seeing as though we have one day's worth of vote history to base decisions off of, I feel there may be other avenues much more worth pursuing than sticking to some really weak ping I had on D1

That I don't really actively suspect Dom at this moment. I have no read on him either way, I think.

If you read this AND my response above and still don't understand something, then I can try again, but I feel like so many people just aren't understanding my explanations for my thoughts this game. Am I just being really unclear or what? And I'm not being emotional at all when I say or ask any of this; it's an honest question.

Here is a bullet summary of the posts that occurred between this post of MP's, and his NEXT post. I want you to note 1) how MANY posts were posted after MP posted the above post, and how many of them have to do MP/Dom. I'm listing in order to give you a visual of just how many there were.

. Rico, talking to llama about the day 1 vote
. llama, talking to FZ about Vomps
. MM, answering MP about self-voting, nothing to do with Dom
. Rico, llama and day 1 again
. canuckle, asking TH about not changing votes
. canuckle, same thing
. made, talking about LC
. FZ - directly replies to MP's post about Dom
. llama, replies to Rico about day 1
. llama, same thing
. FZ, replies to llama about day 1
. MM, same topic
. rico, same topic
. llama, same ongoing topic
. AP, same topic
. rico, same topic
. rico again, same
. fz, same
. llama, same
. fz, samwe
. mm, same
. fz, same
. rico same/vompatti playstyle
. llama same
. bass - day1 again
. bass vomps playstyle
. mm vomps
. rico vomps
. vomps vomps
. LC vomps
. mm vomps
. TH replying to canuckl
. vomps about vomps
. AP twice joke to vomps
. canuckle replies to TH
. MM joke post
. rico addresses TH
. rico movie talk
. vomps more jokey
. TH replies to canuckle
.llama about vomps
.mm about vomps
. llama about vomps

That was fucking exhausting to do LOL, but it's to prove this point. After ALL OF THAT. After TONS of discussion about EVERYTHING IN THE GAME BUT Dom/MP, now MP posts this:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I am sort of frustrated right now to be honest because people are acting like this thing between and Dom is happening in a vacuum and I feel I've had to explain things over and over. Does no one else think Dom read things into my post that weren't there? And if so do they think that makes him suspect? I assume no one does or else they would have said it by now but it's odd to me that no one really paid attention to my vote yesterday.

That said, I feel like I am being sucked into a pointless drawn out discussion that I didn't even want to start. My question was simple but apparently it had connotations I didn't intend. That's it. So I don't intend on rehashing this more than I need to.

FZ., I already said where I intend on looking but I haven't had time yet because every time I have been online recently it has just been between classes or homework or errands or hanging with Daisy. I said this but I think at least one baddie hopped on the BWT vote and at least one threw off but I haven't had the time to investigate yet. I will do so when I get more time and let folks know what I'm thinking. Also I believe I have discussed a lot, I had thoughts on Llama, Rico, SVS but I acknowledge that I am not gunning against anyone hard yet if that's what you mean

Anyway I hope none of this comes across as snarky or mad because it isn't. I will admit it feels like I have been discussing so many things and it hasn't led to any concrete suspicion, which is all the more reason I want to look at the voting record and posts again.

Like, WTF? Yes, there was one single post about it in there. But MP is posting about this as if there is a conspiracy. Dom hadn't even replied at this point. MP is blowing up for NO REASON which makes me feel very strongly that he is bad. He's trying to create drama out of thin air. How is he getting sucked into a pointless discussion? Everyone is talking about other things?

I've got to keep reading, but this is a major ping for me.

I've been WAY too tied up in the other game, I'm going to read Day 1.2 from scratch starting now and draw some conclusions.

Canucklehead wrote:

timmer wrote:Im hungover and need to get back to bed. Ill go with svs' vote on bwt, and join her on it. I don't agree with voting llama or vomps.

timmer, would you say that you voted with SVS for bwt more because you agreed with her case on him, or because you didn't agree with cases on the other potential lynchees at the time (llama and vomps)?

I know in reality it was likely a combination of both factors (plus is was Day 1), but I'm curious if one factor weighed more heavily for you. Was it more of a voting FOR bwt, or a voting AGAINST llama/vomps?

I felt the llama vomps thing needed to percolate to pay any future dividends, more than I thought BWT. I'll be totally honest, the decision to vote him was a brief one; I had a splitting headache, read through quickly, and thought "yeah, that could be something". I then went back to trying to never open my eyes again. But now I've read the day back properly, I likely still would have voted that way, I don't see anything I missed that would have altered my choice.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

timmer wrote:Also, I don't think there is anything to Rico's lack of answering the are you bad question. If he were bad, I think his teammates would have told him to answer it, and his responses would have been different.

So Rico is good? That is the implication I got.

At worst, it's a neutral read for me.

MM, what are your thoughts on the game?

Just finished rereading Day 1 (won't bother rereading Day 0).

Only a few things to note:

The only person who seemed perturbed at llama's calling out of Vompatti was Lizzy, who used accusatory language that no one else did. But llama said she is often like this in regards to Vomps? Protective? Sorry, I should know these things but I hadn't played a game on this site in a LONG time before these current ones, and I've got memory issues that get in the way of details like this.

Either way if Vomps flips bad, I'll be looking Lizzy's way.

And it was pointed out that Vomps HAS been more active recently in games as a civ, so I'm now feeling like this whole topic is maybe taking up too much time and i'm going to move on from it.

Also, I don't think there is anything to Rico's lack of answering the are you bad question. If he were bad, I think his teammates would have told him to answer it, and his responses would have been different.

Mongoose wrote:

While I'm rereading, I've just got to comment on this ad. I laugh at the top line calling Dennis Hopper a master of his craft. When he made Easy Rider, he barely knew what he was doing!! He actually did not know that once you physically sliced off a part of a film reel, that you could go back and put it back in again, so every time he "edited", he thought those scenes were lost forever. That's partly why Easy Rider feels so disjointed.

So I've finished my read of Day 1.2.

So llama I guess wasn't doing a Day 1 gambit to see who bites but genuinely thinks Vomps is acting bad. So far, Vomps seems to be playing a more "normal" game, meaning less throwaway posts, nonsensical comments and "tures". In fact, he is directly responding to posts, like with the "what makes you think I'm afraid of being lynched" comment. But, llama called him out on this so early, I'm not sure how that would affect Vomps. Would Vompatti react in any noticeable way to being called out on something related to play style? I feel like he's usually locked into a certain mode for a game?

I dislike voting for people on play style, but like I said earlier, sometimes people genuinely do just "know" when a player is off. Roxy certainly has my ticket a lot of the time. So I'd like to hear some corroboration, some support to llama's views. Do others feel that Vompatti is playing in a "bad Vomps" style, or is this just more on-point than normal, not indicating alignment? I won't vote play style based on one person's view. but there is a consensus that something is off, I could consider it this early in a game.

Made wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Made wrote:Yo, just a quick thought i want to get out while i'm thinking about it. Does talking about a player play style/tendencies this early in the game kinda taint possible future "AHH GOTCHA" moments later in the game?

I don't understand, explain more.

Like Hawthorne effect kinda.

So let's say it's agreed that I'm a very outspoken player, unafraid to offend. If I'm meek and submissive, then that's a ping against how I normally play. If the game starts and everyone's like "Yeah man, Made, he's such a feisty one" Baddie Made would attempt to play to his feisty tendencies more than he might otherwise. Through this we'd lose an opportunity to spot a baddie Made.

This is an interesting question. People who can "read" a player's baddie or civvies game can be one of the more dangerous mafia factors out there. And you are right, it's possible that if someone comments early on that someone is quieter than normal and they are quiet when they are bad or whatever, it can indeed cause the player to shift play style and cover their tracks. But just as some players are good at reading the play style, they are also often good at catching the reversal, knowwadimean?

What pings me more, for a Day 1, is when people bring that kind of thing up way early. I was very curious to see what would shake down from Vomps getting called out on Day 1, and part of my reread is to go and write down which people had glommed onto that. Calling Vomps out that early seemed odd to me, BUT I also know there are a few people who like to shake the tree on Day 1, so I considered it more of a potential gambit than a baddie move. More interesting to see who followed.

I've been quite preoccupied with the Champs game, so forgive my lack of posting here.

I'm reading back and will post some comments as I go.

first up @FZ, I just your post about how LC's comments about the roles says nothing. I think you maybe just have some blinders on a bit, there. You are absolutely right. I can read that whole post on the assumption LC is bad, and it makes sense, as in it reads like a baddie trying to post stuff without really saying anything risky. I get it. BUT, on Day 1, civvies often have just as little to say as baddies. So, I read it again assuming LC is civ, and it still makes sense. The fact is, to me it could go either way, but you are CHOOSING to read it the bad way. As far as I'm concerned, this whole thing is a wash.

Moving on.

It appears so! Sorry BWT, it seemed enough for a Day 1

Now, DeMille will have a much easier time "finding" Hawks ...

Im hungover and need to get back to bed. Ill go with svs' vote on bwt, and join her on it. I don't agree with voting llama or vomps.

thellama73 wrote:I am not accusing you of anything. I am merely asking if you are bad. Are you?

I'm going to some friends' house for the weekend and may or may not be able to pop in to vote. I'm going to gamble on being able to, so I don't have to vote yet.

I will say this, about this recent llama/Ricochet thing.

@Ricochet... when someone asks you if you are bad, and you aren't? You typically say "no". :P

Interesting, llama... I don't know Vomps enough to catch nuances in his playstyle, he just always seems Vompy to me. I have absolutely no pings at all yet, so I will observe and report tomorrow.

I Am Curious is a horrible film, whichever "color" you watch. I highly don't suggest it.

The poll just made me LOL, I've never seen one use nicknames like that hehe.

So llama, what are your thoughts so far, then? SVS? Lots of peeps not around, imo.

thellama73 wrote:

timmer wrote:I'm pretty smart.

If you're so smart, who do you think we should lynch?

Two hours in to Day 1? I said pretty smart, not Rain Man smart.

I'm pretty smart.

Ricochet wrote:So OMG, it starts. Now that it started, I want to thank Alison for my role and, of course, the Academy...

I knew it was Hitch, but the quote "For me, the cinema is not a slice of life, but a piece of cake" made me think of Wes Anderson, but Alison cut him out of the picture as well.

It seems obvious, but just to be clear... Mongoose=Alison?

thellama73 wrote:Serious question: Who wants to discuss lynch possibilities now, and who wants to wait until several hours before the vote ends?

I dunno, waiting until 10 minutes before deadline worked real well in the Champions game.

I think people should jet put lynch ideas out there when they think their idea is a good one?