The Syndicate

Maybe it's because he has used his influence to lynch a couple of Civvies. Maybe it's because he can see, like I do, how Llama's whole game so far could be an elegant yet aggressive baddie ploy. Or, he could be getting desperate and grasping at the very straw for which the baddies want us to grasp, and we'll fall for it yet again: the Baddies Sit Back And Watch Us Kill Ourselves plan.

I also haven't seen any of those movies.

Yeah, Llama, you're all polarized. What did you do to get there? Is it good there?

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:It's kind of freeing, actually, to not be part of "everyone". I'm outside reality.

Now if Canuck or Llama are bad, then we have a problem. I may just start voting for inactives at this point, whoever they might be.

There are a lot of inactives, and it is especially worrying since night kills are apparently being sent in.

why

Why is it worrying? Because it means there are only a few civs actually trying to kill baddies, with the rest being inactive. Once the active civs are killed off, the baddies can coast to victory. Whenever the bad team is more active than the good team, it's cause for concern.

That is, when the good team is not good at finding the baddies.

It's kind of freeing, actually, to not be part of "everyone". I'm outside reality.

Now if Canuck or Llama are bad, then we have a problem. I may just start voting for inactives at this point, whoever they might be.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I guess this is my main question about MM then: Has he actually contributed his thoughts on all the players he keeps asking others about, or is he simply asking others how they feel about the players on his list?

I'd prefer to see an answer supported by quotes.

I don't have quotes, but I did just read through a bunch of his posts... he has a weak case on me that talks about "jumps in logic" on the AP case from earlier, he suggested that I set up a wild goose chase with the Vompatti game references, he said my AP vote was "slightly damning", he said my posts are "detached and narrativeish"...

So, he does have original thoughts, at least about me.

Turnip Head wrote:Love the South Park reference LC

You've shared your thoughts on Llama but you've named Marsh your biggest suspect. Can you explain your suspicion of him a bit?

Looking back over his posts, the self-vote gives me a bad feeling. Remember Jason Maher on LP? He always self-voted on Day One, and I realized it was giving him a pass, free from adding any real content whether bad or Civ, and making him not likely to be lynched Day One. I got tired of it, and pushed for his Day One lynch because of it. He was lynched, and was a baddie. And I was like "Yessss!" So, since then, the Day One self-vote always gets my eye. But that's not why I was suspecting MM, that's just something I thought of in the reread.

<Time passes...>

Well, I finished my reread of MM. I am surprised to find I don't have the same level of suspicion that I have been harbouring. I noticed that some of his suspicions were ones I don't agree with, but I didn't really get pinged by anything too much.

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I think SVS is acting weird and suspicious, but the number of people who have jumped on that is making me nervous. I also, like MP, acknowledge that I am bad at reading her. Does anyone agree with my "if Vompatti is bad, SVS likely saved shim, so let's lynch Vompatti first and see" logic?

On a tangent, I ran into this on my reread of TH looking for his position on Made, and it is posts like this that make me less likely to think llama is bad. He is showing reasonable doubt & restraint.

It's this kind of thing that makes me MORE likely to think Llama is bad.

IF Llama is bad, then he knows better than any Civ who's not bad. He doesn't know if his non-teammates are Civvies or Other Baddies, but the chances are that they're Civvies. So, he assumes S~V~S is a Civvie, and he'd love to have her killed for it, but he also wants people to think HE'S Civvie. So he first goes after her like a real suspicion, like the Vompatti suspicion, and when people "jump on that" he acts concerned. To me, that looks like clever baddie stuff, maybe I'm just cynical.

I don't think that's the first time I've felt this way about Llama's gameplay. I think he might be doing a Baddie Thread Leader tactic.

Turnip Head wrote:You also asked for my thoughts on Rico and MM so I'll sum them up: Rico makes me uneasy with how smoothly he has slid into our culture but I'm trying to not hold that against him. The little points against him that point to BTSC (like Canucklegate) aren't compelling to me as I found his explanation of those events believable. I remain on the fence about him.

Marshy is playing a different style game than I have ever seen from him, and I'm unsure what this means quite yet.

I'm very much with you on Rico, I don't believe there's any meat to the "has BTSC" idea. That could just be that I don't have the Mafia sense that S~V~S does, but I found his explanations to be exactly in line with what I assumed happened, both times.

Darsh, however, is a different story, I suspect that marmot the most, and will likely vote for him. I'm gonna go grab a quote now to help explain my suspicion of Llama.

I still hold Metalmarsh as my main suspicion, but I'm almost afraid to say that I'm starting to suspect Llama as well. I have to go back and read to see what I am thinking here, something he was saying earlier set off my Spidey-sense.

BWT, way to be immortal!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:It's probably against the rules too, for someone to suggest that kind of thing. I like an aura of mystery around my actions, so I said "Maybe I was busy". Suspect me if you like, that's truly your prerogative.

I've seen so much info-dropping the past few games (usually at Dom's expense), that I don't know what's against the rules anymore.

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.

It's probably against the rules too, for someone to suggest that kind of thing. I like an aura of mystery around my actions, so I said "Maybe I was busy". Suspect me if you like, that's truly your prerogative.

Your shrugs look fine to me.

timmer wrote: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.

Read you loud and clear, and I agree.

Yes, time to re-assess what's going on here. Is Llama a baddie, leading us on a three-day wild goose chase on Vompatti? Or are the baddies just all sitting back and keeping relatively quiet, safe in the knowledge that no one has yet accused them?

Awesome. Thanks for trying, Vompatti.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'm voting Roxy. I know vomps is a forgone conclusion, but we'll see what happens.

Is this just to prove me wrong when I said that she probably wouldn't take any votes today?

Pretty good reason really.

Roxy wrote:

Long Con wrote:Every lynch requires that we load one basket up with eggs, Roxy! I am in agreement with you about Metalmarsh, and I haven't quite tuned into the suspicion on Made yet, but I'm keeping my eyes open, worry not!

I could not disagree more. If we put al our votes on one person do we really learn anything? Lynches are the only tool a civ has to learn from.

I'm not sure I see your point... I guess I meant that one basket has to end up the most full. If we spread out the votes more, it would show some other suspicions, but thread discussion does the same, doesn't it? Or do you mean when we get the lynch to be REALLY close, the tiebreakers are more meaningful votes? The first few lynches were not "all eggs in one basket", what did you learn from them?

Every lynch requires that we load one basket up with eggs, Roxy! I am in agreement with you about Metalmarsh, and I haven't quite tuned into the suspicion on Made yet, but I'm keeping my eyes open, worry not!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I just realized that MP (essentially) rezzed BWT for the second game in a row. Cars before this one.

Major bromance forming there for sure.

In fact, that's enough to convince me. Vompatti is playing the mysterious joker today, and it's Day 3 and it's still dominating the thread while Civvies get lynched and (probably) nightkilled. I don't think keeping Vompatti around is doing the Civvies any good, and if Vompatti wants to rebut that, I'm all ears.

*votes Vompatti*

A dangerous practice... it means that every time one of them is Civ and one is bad, the one who is bad has an advantage over other baddies. They get to start the game with the trust and devotion of one Civvie.

I think Lizzy and Vomps support each other in all games, isn't that right?

I have also taken note of the over-complicated reasoning that may be running rampant, and it's good to see I'm not alone.

Well, the FZ. kill would make total sense for a non-Vomps baddie to commit, right? For the very reason you're saying. It could even have been you, as an excellent setup which you are now presenting. If Vompatti wanted to kill an accuser, why wouldn't he choose you? For that matter, if a non-Vomps-baddie wanted to kill a Vomps accuser, why wouldn't they choose you?

The Vomps saves are a compelling piece of evidence. I think that looking at the earlier votes in those saves could be just as telling as the later ones that actually DID the saving, because baddies don't like to be so blatantly obvious. That all hinges on whether or not Vompatti is bad at all, of course.

The biggest thing for me with Vompatti is the Are You Being Served comparison. Unless Metalmarsh, my top suspect, is getting lynched, I could see myself voting Vompatti just for that.

RIPIYWG FZ.!

Okay, I'm done with Vompatti review. Here is the spreadsheet. I only looked at Jobs, it's just taking too long to look at Side Jobs and other areas, sorry.

He was only a baddie in one of the games I looked over all his posts for, and I found him to be non-jokey, but with a good dose of Off Topic stuff. Not in the spreadsheet is the already-discussed Are You Being Served, which I think is a lot more damning to Vomps than anything I found in the Jobs search.

Dom wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Event: Directors Respond to Negative Film Reviews



Roger Ebert was known for his sometimes scathing reviews of film.

Ebert's story is being told in the new biodoc Life Itself. I sobbed uncontrollably when I read these memoirs (before he died) because they were so beautiful. Reading his thoughts on Bergman's Persona or meeting Fellini were breathtakingly effervescent.

Additionally, negative reviews can be hilarious in nature.

For today's challenge (optional as always), your job is to write a snippet AS any director responding to a fake negative review of your film. Feel free to a fake quote or include block quotes from this hypothetical bad review. Alternatively, you may respond AS any director responding to an actual negative review of the film.

Be hilarious! Have fun with it.

Post your submissions within the game thread by the end of Night 2 for one doozy of a prize. The winner will be selected by a neutral third party.

Inspiration: http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/ ... ood-movies

Nah you're wrong.

xo xo
Quentin Tarantino

Ok, I get it now.

"Star Wars is a junkyard of cinematic gimcracks not unlike the Jawas' heap of purloined, discarded, barely functioning droids"

Peter Keough, Boston Phoenix

"The Force is not strong with this one."
- George Lucas

Ricochet wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:"Mausoleum" should read "plausible", because autocorrect is a pretentious bitch.

Canucklehead wrote:OmfuckingG. I wrote "phone-posting", not "pig ears-posting". What in the actual fuck.

LOL

She called it a pretentious bitch, it got revenge with 'pig ears'. Theirs is a complicated relationship.

I love you, Canuck, funniest posts around!

For what it's worth, when I saw Rico correct himself about Canuck's gender, I had been following along with the thread, look how he earlier calls Canuck "he", and then there's a bunch of posts, and then Llama calls Canuck "she". I remember thinking that Rico might notice it, but then I read then very next post, where Rico says "he" again. Immediately (within a minute) he posts the correction. Likely immediately for a post, then a BTSC conversation and another post... I definitely read it as he posted and looked at the post and Llamas, and realized and corrected himself due to that.

That's what I believed before he claimed it, and so I believe his claim.

Turnip Head wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:2) I don't know if this is still a thing, but I read the John Waters thing as him silencing someone during a day period and blocking them the FOLLOWING night. So in regards to Canuck, I don't think there is anything indicative of her being bad.

Hostest: Is this the way that Waters works?

Water Works?

*eyes Metalmarsh*

thellama73 wrote:I would like to thank Long Con for being the only person in this game talking any sense.

I wish I could hear someone say that in most games I'm in. I love you, man!

Why didn't you vote, LC?

There are many reasons why someone would not vote. Maybe I was too busy.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think there could be a connection regardless of your vomps' suspicion. I don't recall Roxy mentioning SVS in her daily digests.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Linki: MM, you're my new #1 for that statement. Due to the one I was just posting.

Come again?

Because of this:

thellama73 wrote:Why the heck would you go after Roxy/SVS when the case against them is hta they tried to save Vomps, and you don't believe Vomps is bad?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:And oh look, SVS was again the one who broke the tie against him. And Roxy was in there too. Is anyone else seeing a pattern?

And yet, you're still probably going to vote vomps tomorrow.

The whole idea of a Vomps save hinges on Vomps being bad.

Linki: MM, you're my new #1 for that statement. Due to the one I was just posting.

RIP MP07! I feel for your difficult Mafia path. You are, though, one of the top six players on the site with 7 wins, so you must be doing something right!

I can't believe you can remember a thing like that. I've played so many Mafia games that I can't remember who I have had BTSC with, and how many times.

The baddie would likely act normal, like nothing had happened?

Hey, Metalmarsh, I can sense you getting impatient with my Vompatti analysis. I want to say first that neither you or anyone else is putting a deadline on me for that, it will be done when it's done. It doesn't even have to be done today. Here's what the spreadsheet looks so far - I found some time to start this morning.

Game Alignment Demeanor Notes
Masters Of The Universe Civvie Non-jokey, game-focused BTSC Civ
Bioshock

The columns don't line up here, but that's a cop-paste from my spreadseet. So... I'll share everything when it's done. It's not fast, and I have things to do in Real Life. In about an hour or so, I'm leaving to hang out with a friend for the evening. Between then and now, I'm going to put a second coat of white on the trim in the boys' room. So don't be giving me no deadlines. Just know that I appreciate that FZ. took the time to give me those links, so I'm going to follow through and use them.

I think the S~V~S suspicion picked up some undeserved steam. I've been playing with her at least as long as anyone here, likely longer. I am not seeing anything particularly baddie about her at this time, she just happened to put herself out there with some votes that ended up Civvie. I'm in the same boat as her on the votes, and it's not because I'm trying to lynch Civvies, it's because I was wrong.

And I wasn't trying to "create confusion" with anything. If you became confused at any time during my post, then maybe you need a nap. I think the idea that Sabie's killer was roleblocked is a much more sensible one than her being protected, I hadn't thought of that when I posted about the protection.

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.

I agree.

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.

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

I saw that Dom. I have only read through that part once, and it was pretty skimmy. To the best of my recollection, BR said you and MP were crazy, and wasn't just going to assume it's Civ on Civ. Then I remember a few posts of backlash against BR, including MP and I think Turnip Head (who BR was suspicious of).

I haven't really done any more analysis on that part, like rereading them in a baddie light for instance, to see if I think it's something a baddie would say/do". My first read was more of a "well, BR certainly jumped right in there, how is this going to go?" kind of read.

So I don't have a changed opinion on MP because of it, but it's probably worth a reread, clearly you are referencing it for a reason.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Well, the two people I voted for (let's just pretend I voted BWT, because I would have) have been Civs, so I'm doing crappy so far. I'm willing to look at other peoples' suspicions for my next vote, instead of finding my own, for now. If the vote was up now, I would vote for Vompatti. I still need to look more into the 'past games behaviour' that FZ. provided, but the latest Vompatti stuff (which I spoke about last night) is suspicious enough.

A comparison of Vomps' past behaviour will be important to me to decide if Llama is on the level or not as well with his early claims.

That makes you and SVS.

Your posts still come off as very narrativeish. They have a "Look what I've done, look what I'm doing..." kind of quality. Uber-passive and almost detached from yourself.

Not sure how to take that. Detached narrative posting. I can understand the passive part, because after two wrong suspicions I'm not feeling particularly aggressive.

Well, the two people I voted for (let's just pretend I voted BWT, because I would have) have been Civs, so I'm doing crappy so far. I'm willing to look at other peoples' suspicions for my next vote, instead of finding my own, for now. If the vote was up now, I would vote for Vompatti. I still need to look more into the 'past games behaviour' that FZ. provided, but the latest Vompatti stuff (which I spoke about last night) is suspicious enough.

A comparison of Vomps' past behaviour will be important to me to decide if Llama is on the level or not as well with his early claims.

My mom wants to take my 5-year-old to see Paddington, and they're cool.

I can understand why you would suspect me if MP turns up bad. It's one of the risks one takes when one puts one's opinion out there. I guess it would have been a lot easier and blendy to say it looks like Civ on Civ. Nice and blendy, then you don't get people eyeballing you as much, right, blendies?

I thought MP seemed reasonable at the outset, and Dom seemed less so. I thought Dom's original post was very reactionary. Dom says he explained that, but I'm more interested in studying original interactions than later explanations. You can explain away most things with ease.

I only bring it up because one or two people have suspicion floating around me for my opinion on the MP-Dom. I do not bring it up as an accusation against Dom of baddieness, it was just a 'hot topic' in the thread, so I weighed in. Gonna take a bit more to make me vote Dom than an argument with the sometimes bull-headed MP.

Caught up. Vompatti certainly looks a lot more suspicious, especially with the comparison to Are You Being Served? Mafia, where he was a baddie.

Posts from that game:

Vompatti wrote:Funny, I don't feel like randomizing. I guess I'll just wait and vote for whomever my teammates vote for.

Vompatti wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Vomp & eloh, I see you lurking~ where are you looking to vote, Eloh? And Vomp, did your BTS partners come to a decision yet?

I'm voting for either Dom or MP for their weird reaction to FZ, but my BTS partners are voting for someone else to distance themselves from me.

And from this game:

Vompatti wrote:

FZ. wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Vomps, why are you voting Dom?

lol i dunno, i'm just zany and unpredictable i guess xD

That's true. But it doesn't help me decide. Still no point in voting Dom. If you want to bring the rest of your team to vote for him, he'll have more votes and then I'll consider

k i'll let them know

That comparison from FZ. interested me, so I looked it up myself. Conveniently, that's also a place to start the broader Vompatti research. Maybe I'll make a spreadsheet of Vompatti study!

Last film I saw was Transcendence. I enjoyed it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Does anyone else also think that this post from LC is just trying to set us up for a wild goose chase? Especially since he passed on the whole vomps' behavior anyway and voted AP?

I didn't have much time today, so I went with my own suspicion instead of doing long research into someone else's. The Vompatti thing was not even close to possible for me today:

Long Con wrote:Thanks FZ. for posting those links to Vompatti's past games, I'm glad that they have been analyzed by some, but I haven't gotten to them yet myself. It's getting late here so I won't be delving into that tonight. Tomorrow is my mom's birthday, and while my brother already took her to see Seinfeld live, I still have gotten NOTHING for her. So tomorrow morning is likely to prioritize that, before I go into work for 11:00. I'll be there for a few hours, after which I come home, and soon after, leave for my mom's. Birthday dinner, good times, etc.

What this means is that I'll have to vote early, and I just know some people I am not likely to vote for at this point, so I guess I'll share that list at least. Not ready to vote for Llama, at least until I look into the Vompatti thing, which I intend to do once I have a little more time. So that's on hold. Won't vote Vompatti either, just because Llama says so. Like I said, I like to see proof that the accusation is accurate when we're talking about past games. Now the evidence is there, just need to look into it.

I still intend to look into the Vompatti info I requested. When I have time.

Sorry for the vote, A Person. I still have to go back and read from my vote up to the lynch post. It's a lot of catching up.

FZ. wrote:Why the hell did I get a vote from Made?

thellama73 wrote:I'm going to go ahead and drop my vote on Vompatti. I've got some meetings coming up and I don't see anything that's likely to change my mind before the day ends.

llama, I think it was last game, when you were a civ, you said that when you're a civ, you goof around more (that was not the actual phrase). Would you say you're goofing around this game? Because you seem very serious in your baddie hunting. And while I usually find that to be a good thing, I just recalled that the last two games I was suspicious of you and you were a civ, and this game, I haven't once thought you were suspicious. So this is now starting to worry me.

I think that was said by Llama in the ongoing Champions game. Phone-posting, so I can't pull the quote right now. Llama could be focused like this in order to appear proactively Civvie. Hard to say.

I'm voting for A Person, whose self-vote after the BWT lynch train was alreasy in the station appears to be trying to stay clear of any risk or discussed suspicion.