The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:I am using the default dark grey background skin, and it looks great to me!

This

Long Con wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Wow, I think I want to talk like this all the time!

This is freaking awesome.

I know, right??

This should be a new insanifier.

Hey, what are you trying to say?

Well, maybe not even insanifier but just a curse. I think it looks sweet... But it would fit the bill for a PITA for players to abide by, so I thought insanifier or curse seemed appropriate.

Long Con wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Wow, I think I want to talk like this all the time!

This is freaking awesome.

I know, right??

This should be a new insanifier.

Long Con wrote:Wow, I think I want to talk like this all the time!

This is freaking awesome.

I LOVE The Prestige.

timmer wrote:

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.

What do you want me to say, guys?

- I get suspected if I talk a lot (especially when it is deemed to not have "enough content" even though I typically have thoughts about players more than most anyone else at any given time)
- I get suspected if I don't talk enough (a ridiculously high bar I've raised too high for myself to ever be anything other than top poster or top few posters)
- I get suspected if I throw out a lot of suspects
- I get suspected if I don't throw out many suspects
- I get suspected if I ask other players what their thoughts are
- I get suspected if people feel like I am not taking their thoughts into account
- I get suspected if I play and defend myself aggressively
- I get suspected if I play and defend myself passively
- I get suspected if I agree with other players too much
- I get suspected if I don't agree with other players enough, and people don't agree with my logic or what I say or my suspects
- I get suspected if people think I'm explaining or overclarifying my thoughts too much because people misunderstand me
- I get suspected if people think I'm not explaining my thoughts enough because people misunderstand me
- I get suspected if I actually ever vote a baddie because of my reputation for throwing teammates under the bus
- I get suspected if I vote civilians consistently because surely with such a track record then I must be bad

These are all reasons I've been suspected consistently the past year in games, with some popping up more often than others. I'm sure there are even reasons I failed to list. I have not gone one game in the past year (and probably the past two) without getting serious suspicion. I am NOT exaggerating.

If any game cements in my mind that I should develop a new less talkative or less helpful playstyle, it's this game. Sad but true. Anyone who posts a lot inevitably attracts suspicion, and I recognize that and always have, but it's insane to think about the last year's worth of games and how much suspicion I come under every time, and usually right off the bat. I know it's a mafia game and that plenty of others attract suspicion as well, but it truly boggles my mind when I think about the fact that every game I essentially have a 100% chance of attracting attention to myself, and not just a vote or two, but serious cases and sometimes for days and days from many players, if I'm even lucky enough to last that long.

The only reason people have even been so lucky nabbing me as bad in the past (with a few exceptions where someone actually caught me doing something suspicious, usually Daisy, Epig, or BWT; don't get me wrong, I'll acknowledge those) is because I had such a long string of games where I was bad over and over and over again, and so people started picking up behaviors that I do and thereafter began thinking that they are an indication of my baddie game (like talking a lot and "not saying much", overexplaining my own viewpoints when people misinterpret them, etc.), but they're really just aspects of my personality that don't go away regardless of alignment. I would think that since I have played with so many of you so many times that at least some people would recognize this by now, but I suppose that's naive and unfair of me to expect in a game so characterized by complexities of circumstance, emotion, rationality, and deception.

That said, to be suspected so heavily so often is just disappointing. I'm not asking for sympathy, nor am I even mad or trying to whine with this or anything; it just is what it is. The only emotion I am only expressing disappointment.

And I want people to finally recognize the incredible standards that I always get held up to, and the inconsistencies I get suspected with. Some of it, hell even most of it probably, may be my own fault.

But even if it is, if I'm going to get continuously eyeballed game after game by practically everyone, and lynched on D1 or D2 about half the time I play anymore, then maybe it's about time I finally forced myself to play the game differently. Not just because it is disheartening, but also because whichever team (civilians or baddies) is depending on me loses an asset just because I never can seem to play a game anymore without attracting too much suspicion.

Well, good luck, civilians. Truly sorry I couldn't be of any more help than what little I did manage to accomplish with my role. I just have not been able to find much certainty in suspecting anyone this game quite yet. Pay close attention to how people handled the suspicion against me and I only hope that will help too.

Thanks for hosting, Mongoose.

Wow, what a surprise.

I don't know what to say to timmer (and others') accusations other than what I've already said. I've been genuinely hunting baddies, but of course if you don't believe I have been doing that then that's your interpretation and I don't think I can change that. I didn't vote AP or Vomps even though I had 2 votes and they each had 3 because it didn't seem like I was really in any danger of getting lynched, and I didn't really find either of them suspicious -- and would never have known which to vote for over the other. So I made my vote and cast it in accordance with who I really felt should be lynched. I suspected BR because I thought what she was doing was suspicious, but I don't really find her suspicious now. I don't know what else to say. I hope people believe me. If anyone has any specific questions I can answer, that'd be great, since I feel I've addressed everything in my posts.

I don't understand why people are finding Rico suspicious over being here and leaving, here and leaving, etc. That's a habit I've developed as well. I don't understand the suspicion at all here to be honest. It doesn't seem like Rico has BTSC to me; having known him for the last few years, even though I haven't talked to him much in a while, I always thought he would love mafia and be fantastic at it, so I'm glad to finally see him take the plunge. I see his behavior as a natural mafia player, perhaps, but no real indication of anyone coaching him.

I guess I'll probably vote Vomps to save myself and because he's not really helping, but I'll wait and see what others think before I do that, since I'm not really feeling he's bad. I don't know who else I'd vote at this point... maybe I should stick with my gut read on S~V~S, BR, FZ., or Dom, even if I've abandoned feeling strongly about any of them (and at different intervals). My gut is still feeling like at least a couple of those players are bad, probably in that order (I suspect Dom the least). That said, I still don't feel anything remotely strong about any of them. Meh.

I have no clue on MM, but he does feel a bit different to me this game than other games. Not really sure what it is though, just can't put my finger on it. And I thought Blooper's echoing of S~V~S's point re: Rico was odd. But IDK about her either.

I just feel I haven't found my bearing yet this game.

I have to continue doing homework, so I'll be back later.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

timmer wrote: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.

That was quick answer to your question MP.

Yeah, I suppose it was.

Well, folks, I'm out of here. See you for the vote tomorrow!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:The baddies are doing a good job this game so far, that's what I'm thinking. Either that or I just plain suck. Probably both.

It's Day 2. AP is the only dead player. You're giving the baddies waaay too much credit.

That's not what I meant. I was talking about the fact that I don't have anyone I feel super suspicious about.

You could always self-vote.

No.

What do people think of Canuck?

And is timmer silenced or something? Is there even a silencer? I'd have to go check. It's almost time for me though.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:The baddies are doing a good job this game so far, that's what I'm thinking. Either that or I just plain suck. Probably both.

It's Day 2. AP is the only dead player. You're giving the baddies waaay too much credit.

That's not what I meant. I was talking about the fact that I don't have anyone I feel super suspicious about.

S~V~S wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:SVS, the only question I have left is... where are you looking for today?

Not sure yet, I was actually going to take a look at Vomps and the case on him. I was also curious about the Sabie thing, but that seems to have been clarified, and nothing can be gleaned from it, am I correct?

The only thing that has stood out to me is Ricochets precocious game, but not sure how closely that is wrapped up in my mind with the push I have felt against me. Having voted for 2 civvies in a row, I am not trusting myself very much right now. I had hoped to read other cases tonight and keep my mouth shut today last 2 times I opened it did not work out so well.

i know who i feel good about more so than who i feel bad about. Do you have any suggestions?

MP, TH asked that question earlier. Still not sure, my trust in my own judgment here is bad right now. I can see the point on Vomps, but am not sure I will feel comfortable jumping on yet another bandwagon for an unorthodox player.

Oh, yes, I'm sorry -- I saw your response, I just was saying if you re-read and feel differently after it, or find anything, I'm very curious if you come up with any suspects.

S~V~S, I'm very intrigued to hear whom you're suspecting most after your re-read, in addition to whatever other thoughts you have.

If I had to vote right now, honestly, I don't know what I'd do with it. I am feeling better about you since your defenses, and I do doubt that a baddie S~V~S would so carelessly vote two civilians (or risk being the voter for two possible civilians), so I'll consider not throwing a vote your way.

I still don't really feel Vomps is bad; I just have barely any read on him.

I don't feel Rico, Bass, or Llama have earned my vote either; they all have seemed OK to me.

I was definitely pinged by BR earlier, but her clarification has made me realize I probably overreacted. She has been more participatory today and she seems genuine.

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.

Not sure what I think about the rest.

The baddies are doing a good job this game so far, that's what I'm thinking. Either that or I just plain suck. Probably both.

zeek wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:How does everyone feel about MovingPictures?

Lustful

Oh, and I feel that way about Rush too.

Turnip Head wrote:Man your videos are as long as your posts

Of all the jokes about my long posts, this one might be my favorite.

thellama73 wrote:I just got tickets to see Rush on May 30th.

I am going to see what success I have with the pre-sale tomorrow morning for Austin (May 16th), but if that doesn't work out, I'll be getting them as soon as they go on sale to the public. I've seen them 5 times now (Snakes and Arrows tour both legs, Time Machine, Clockwork Angels twice -- once in Columbus, once in Cleveland) and they were so amazing every time. Especially since the band have said this could very well be their last major tour, you can bet I won't miss it.

Black Rock wrote:
I do. LC is reading civ to me at this point but that could change. I am going back and forth on most players right now. I don't have a reason to trust anyone but it would be silly to put more than half of the players on a watch list.

What do you think about Llama?

Good to know. I'm having the same problem.

You know... I have a hard time reading Llama. That said, I have been seeing his civilian game so far. I think he may be the person I feel most confident about being civilian right now, BUT of course that could be wrong, and I may change my mind later.

Turnip Head wrote:How does everyone feel about MovingPictures?

It is one of the best albums of all time.

Black Rock wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:S~V~S, thanks for responding. I appreciate it. It's possible that perhaps I am either overly scrutinizing your game or finding your actions suspicious when in reality they would be more characteristic of your civilian game than baddie game.

What I find interesting is that players have described S~V~S's playstyle differently (like Bass v. Black Rock). What do people make of that?

I've seen her play both ways, she's not always calm as a baddie, I have seen her cornered before and lose all cool. So, no I don't believe that. I am much more satisfied with her answers now and she's talked me into believing her. Would you say she gained composure as a civvie self or a baddie self?

Think of what? Her defenses? I don't know; they give me some pause. I'm trying to be reasonable at this point, but I don't feel super confident about anyone, so I need to at least somewhat stick with my gut probably.

And regarding this post: I am not sure what I have seen from her, but your recollection might be more similar to mine. And I don't know.

Do you still suspect TH or Dom at all or not? Any other players you have reads on? What about LC?

S~V~S, thanks for responding. I appreciate it. It's possible that perhaps I am either overly scrutinizing your game or finding your actions suspicious when in reality they would be more characteristic of your civilian game than baddie game.

What I find interesting is that players have described S~V~S's playstyle differently (like Bass v. Black Rock). What do people make of that?

Only here for a minute or so, just to say:

BR, I'm not sure I still see the case on Vomps either.

FZ., there is more to the argument against S~V~S than her not answering questions. Why are you saying there isn't? I've repeated multiple times my thoughts about both of her votes this game.

TH, probably just paranoia, but it's just how I interpreted your post -- especially since you just hopped and said yes, rather than more thoroughly explaining why you thought that.

I think the number of people is making me nervous as well, Llama, but I think people might jump onto it regardless of whether she's bad, due to their being two mafia teams and plenty of opportunity to throw teammates under the bus. That said, TH's jumping onto S~V~S struck me as suspicious, but maybe it's just me? Or at least makes me wonder about him and what it means with regards to S~V~S.

I'm not sure about the lynching Vomps logic; I've found reason to suspect S~V~S due to her own behavior. But I suppose I could lynch Vomps at this point if you and others really feel it makes sense.

I have a super busy day today so I might not be back until tomorrow roughly 24 hours from now. We shall see.

S~V~S wrote:I thought they were teammates. This is not apparent?

That is so incredibly weak.

Why are you failing to address my points made about BWT? Why did you not say anything about being able to read him REALLY well? Why did you ignore my post when I made all those counterarguments?

Also, is it just me or is anyone else getting the snarky, cornered baddie feel of S~V~S's posts recently? She keeps using in addition to her post phrasing, which makes it look like her baddie game to me.

S~V~S wrote:And I saw my name, I missed any direct questions. I thought the reason for my vote was clear. And name a game where MP does not bring up my name:)

Why do you use this defense instead of actually addressing what Llama and I asked you? It's not fair to just shrug off every accusation I ever speak against you because I'm often suspicious of you. I even recognized TWICE that I'm terrible at reading you, and told Llama and others to make of it what they will. Dom is suspicious of me almost every game we play together (because we're rivals ), but I don't just say "You always suspect me, whatever".

Also, I can name a couple of games in recent memory:
- Clue: The Movie (Epig convinced many to vote for you on D2; I did not)
- Are You Being Served? (Trusted you all the way through that one)

In addition, I went most of Doctor Who and Champions game without suspecting you.

Turnip Head wrote:

Long Con wrote:So... the Coen Brothers protected the same person they decided to kill? Is this supposed to make us suspect Sabie?

Surely there must be another explanation, because that sounds like crazy talk.

Long Con wrote:So... the Coen Brothers protected the same person they decided to kill? Is this supposed to make us suspect Sabie?

If the Even night killers had killed last night, I would have been all over a Sabie vote, but this is just weird.

I don't get it either.

There's also no redirect in the roles; at least, I didn't see one.

Wow, no death, awesome!

What a weird NK choice though... Sabie??

Mongoose, that is the best reason I've ever heard for a delayed night post.

Black Rock wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:BR, I appreciate your clarification, but clearly you thought I was worth looking at before my vote deliberations yesterday. So... can you explain that? You keep citing the back and forth between me and Dom, but you still haven't explained why you think I'm bad, or maybe I'm misunderstanding. But it doesn't make me feel any better about you, since everyone knows I'm being suspected heavily by at least two other players (Dom and TH) before you even mentioned me AND everyone knows I'm always easy to get lynched.

If you think I took the easy way out, so be it, but I have a history of voting more like this when I'm a civilian, whereas if I'm bad I'll gladly vote a top lynch contender, especially if I can vote for a teammate.

I thought I said you were worth keeping an eye on and I wasn't going to dismiss you and Dom as civ on civ, or something to that effect. I now since then found you more suspicious because of your throw away vote. I would have to read my post again to absolutely know what I said but I think you are taking what I said and putting some sort of heavier meaning to it. A lot of that was because a few people were dismissing your back and forth with Dom and I thought that was premature.

Okay. Fair enough, I'll give you the BOTD for now. I guess I did read into the meaning more than what you intended, especially given I see that you were really expressing an opinion to emphasize you disagreed with the civ v. civ sentiment.

What do you think of S~V~S?

Long Con wrote:The BR I know is largely a "gut" player. I don't find anything suspicious in her suspecting and voting someone on gut.

Well, maybe I'm completely off the mark, but it's personally struck me as suspicious behavior. But I appreciate your and others' vouches explaining what is normal.

Frankly, I am just trying to figure out who else would be worth examining:

- TH had the most suspicious vote for BWT, IMO, on D1.1, and he votes me on D1.2, even though he has given very vague, gut-based reasons to do so. Nonetheless, my gut hasn't told me he's bad, so I'm not necessarily considering him.
- S~V~S: Been over this already, but I am admittedly a terrible reader of S~V~S.

There's also Vompatti, who I'm really not seeing as a baddie, but he's such an enigma that it doesn't surprise me that I don't have much of an opinion on him. But say he were bad, then surely that might provide some information as to what players were doing during the D1 lynches. Say he were civilian, then I would target out Blooper's vote for him on D1.2 has being the most opportunistic, and possibly baddie.

The rest of players have been hard to judge, especially since it's still early and there were many who missed the D1.1 vote.

So input on that front would be appreciated. I'll do more research when I have more time, but no one player in particular is really jumping out at me as super suspicious at the moment.

Linki w/ FZ.: Have to go run some errands, then do homework, then go to class, so I'll read this later. But I might not be back in the thread for a while. I have a busy weekend ahead of me.

And of course, your interpretation of my actions will inevitably be controlled by you and not me, but naturally, everything I've done and said this game has been completely genuine. I can't help if anyone interprets that differently.

BR, I appreciate your clarification, but clearly you thought I was worth looking at before my vote deliberations yesterday. So... can you explain that? You keep citing the back and forth between me and Dom, but you still haven't explained why you think I'm bad, or maybe I'm misunderstanding. But it doesn't make me feel any better about you, since everyone knows I'm being suspected heavily by at least two other players (Dom and TH) before you even mentioned me AND everyone knows I'm always easy to get lynched.

If you think I took the easy way out, so be it, but I have a history of voting more like this when I'm a civilian, whereas if I'm bad I'll gladly vote a top lynch contender, especially if I can vote for a teammate.

And I don't understand why players are saying my vote for BR was odd or suspicious.

I think coming in and naming three suspects, one of which she at least backed up with gut, but even there she didn't quite explain adequately why she thought he was bad -- is suspicious.

I obviously have some history with BR, but I'm not nearly as intimate with her gameplay as some others playing here (Rox, LC, S~V~S, timmer, etc.). So even though I considered what all of you have to say, and that you vouched that it was normal for her... I considered that, but nonetheless I thought that her action was really suspicious.

Could you imagine if I came in and said three people were definitely worth looking at and didn't back up my claims? It would probably get me lynched.

Roxy wrote:MP - how can SVS be second on your list bc of her Teeth vote? You do realize that she is the one who made the original case and vote against him, right?

Llama I see now.

TH - yeah but ot happens aa the time!

Thanks for the response MP

If by second on my list, you mean I found her BWT vote second most suspicious, yes. I do realize she is the one, but just because she started the suspicion and didn't bandwagon doesn't mean I have to find her vote the least suspicious. I counterargued against S~V~S's points and personally thought her argument to lynch BWT came down to "I disagree with your logic".

In addition, S~V~S has said many times in the past she is very good at reading BWT, so her complete lack of ability to read him this game, and her lack of acknowledging that, when she usually does acknowledge it, also surprised me.

My initial thoughts/feelings on the BWT push were as below:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Popping in for just a second before Daisy and I leave for the day, but I have the following comments since I last posted, especially since my last post was made sort of in a rush (we decided to leave later than I thought we would):

- I don't understand the suspicion of BWT. I understand S~V~S's train of thought, but I know BWT really well, and I don't see anything in BWT's posts that strikes me as anything other than just normal BWT thinking. Not only that, but while S~V~S had amazing logical points, she even admitted she gets lynched for that type of thinking all the time when she's civilian. So I'm not sure I fully understand the connection between BWT being bad because of it, only failing to logic it out like he maybe should have. Essentially, S~V~S said that she expressed others thought LC's response was genuine (including yours truly, since I found it genuine), but if BWT disagrees, should he not stick with his gut and vote LC anyway? In addition, I didn't really see BWT as "making excuses" for another player because I read Rico's responses exactly the way that BWT did, as if Rico actually did answer the question (Daisy's explanation of it is exactly what I wanted to convey, but failed to properly do so, honestly). I hope you folks are right, but that train makes me way nervous, and I'm leaning more civvie on BWT than baddie at this point.

And no problem.

Roxy wrote:Bye AP sorry for the part I played in your lynch.

The last film I saw was Pulp Fiction with my son yesterday - its as good if not better than it ever was.

Picked the first film on the list as I have not seen any of them.

Gonna catch up to see if I have anything to say before night ends.

Linky w/LC - I thought MP's vote yesterday was very odd and out of place even though he was suspicious of BR in a "no u" sort of way but I had thought he said he would not vote forher over ir - icr so I need to read back on MP as well.

I did not say that, but I did say that my vote would be wasted if I voted for her.

Nonetheless, I didn't feel I knew AP or Vomps well enough to issue an opinion on either of them being bad, so I stuck with my "wasted" vote, since it represented my biggest suspect.

Llama, thanks.

I actually will echo a sentiment that you stated that S~V~S is on my radar now as well; when examining the reasoning that people voted BWT and AP, I found S~V~S's second most suspicious during BWT's lynch and most suspicious during AP's lynch. Even though she started the suspicion against BWT, I believe I counterargued her points rather well. In addition, the logical fallacy of incriminating AP based on MM defending him also struck me as suspicious.

However, I know how terrible I am at reading S~V~S, and I'm not sure I suspect her heavily at this point. But she is one of the few I am most watching and advocating for tomorrow's lynch, at the moment. I need to do more re-reading and analyzing, but off the top of my head, both of her D1 votes have struck me as possibly sketchy, but especially the second one.

So I'm not sure whether that helps or hurts your case, Llama, but it's my opinion nonetheless.

Ricochet wrote:Snipping and highlighting the relevant part in my own post, in order for feedback on this.

Ricochet wrote: 2. I know I just voted Llama for his case on Vomps, but I'm starting to consider looking more carefully at Vomps, given that he's not helpful in his defence so far, quite the opposite. I'd like to know what other people think: in previous games, has a Vompatti pretending to be bad turned out more to actually be bad or just a cheeky civ (or was it inconclusive)? I don't mean to say I can tell right now if he's just pretending or not. But I'd be really uncomfortable if he'd survived a few more days, playing this kind of game, and turn out to be bad.

I don't know... in my opinion, probably inconclusive. I think he's done this kind of stuff regardless of alignment. It's difficult to recall whether he's done it more as bad. I would say that I think he has, but I'm really not sure.

His recent post where he said if you want to continue lynching civvies strikes me as interesting because I don't remember him saying that as often.

Personally, I still don't think I'll be voting Vomps tomorrow. I'm not really sure that he's bad.

Llama, I do think closer examining the AP voters is a good idea. However, even though you feel pretty strongly about Vompatti, what if he flips civilian? Where do you think that would lead your conclusions?

Good idea, Dom. I'll randomize too.

I'll consider a vote for Vomps tomorrow, I suppose. Depends on what happens between now and then.

LC, I'm really intrigued to see what you think after you catch up.

Mongoose wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I haven't seen any of these.

Oh crap, I hadn't anticipated that. So sorry!

I'm a film fail.

I haven't seen any of these.

Well, that sucks. RIP AP.

No, S~V~S, it's okay, I just got confused, but I get it now.

I'll hold off on any judgments until the results of this lynch are posted, but hopefully we catch a baddie, and if not hopefully this will be nonetheless illuminating.

Yes, I read them, S~V~S, I don't appreciate the insinuations that I haven't. But I understand what you're saying now, thank you.

thellama73 wrote:Mongoose is being super lame and tells me she can't update the results until after work, so it's gonna be a while, y'all.

THE SUSPENSE