The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:I knew Roxy was bad. I just decided to trust SVS after her and LC made it painfully obvious on day one who they were. You two need to work on being more subtle. To be fair if you were any other players I went have never seen it but LC and SVS never trust each other so easily. Why was I blocked so many times? I didn't even have a great role to block. Every time I wanted to take myself off the poll I was blocked.

Mongoose you are an excellent and fair host, I very much enjoyed my time in this game and talking to you.

I blocked you early on when I was a civvie, and silenced you, because you were suspicious of me and I was hoping it would give you time to reconsider :P

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Black Rock wrote:I knew Roxy was bad. I just decided to trust SVS after her and LC made it painfully obvious on day one who they were. You two need to work on being more subtle. To be fair if you were any other players I went have never seen it but LC and SVS never trust each other so easily. Why was I blocked so many times? I didn't even have a great role to block. Every time I wanted to take myself off the poll I was blocked.

Mongoose you are an excellent and fair host, I very much enjoyed my time in this game and talking to you.

We blocked you on N1, and the kill was also blocked. So we kept blocking you on odd nights in case you were a baddie. That's all there was to it. Sorry about that.

At least I/we didn't kill you.

Canucklehead wrote:I'm not a dumb civ, just a frequently mistaken one.
And I don't say "y'all" because I'm Canadian, eh?


*votes TH*

Mongoose wrote:

Black Rock has been killed. She was

DFaraday wrote:

Long Con wrote:I cast my vote for DFaraday, who now has tried to introduce thread actions resulting from baddie moves (the Llama kill, the Uwe Boll thing)... I think he's a baddie who wants certain results from those actions.

How would you rather I play? Just vote people based on intuition?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:^That was directed @ LC.

What do you guys want to talk about today then?

Ricochet wrote:BR is off the poll for today, I noticed.

linki: Pretty much what MM said. I'd just add BWT built his case on TH's voting record, to which people either subscribed (i.e. trusted BWT enough to vote for TH), either TH's later reactions made people even more wary and a couple of people brought back their game-long suspicions on him and influenced the debate as well.

Turnip Head wrote:Interesting.

Thank you Rico for taking the time to read through me and sort through all of your thoughts on me, instead of just falling in line. It is much appreciated by me, though I'm not sure anything can slow this lynchtrain down.

I'm probably voting for either Dom or Metalmarsh today. Both of them struck me as disingenuous in how they've handled this incident. MM was trying to twist everything I said against me today. Dom seemed extra flippant in his vote for me: he seemed on the fence about me, then put asterisks around a single word I wrote and used it to justify a quick vote.

I don't blame anyone for voting me today but I was also hoping for a little more effort But people love an easy lynch when they see one.

Turnip Head wrote:I tend to make weirdly specific speculations. It's gotten me in trouble in the past, too.

Turnip Head wrote:I was clearly just speculating.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:TH, I want to ask you again about this post?

Turnip Head wrote:I guess BWT's vote could also be forced, maybe an Emmerich thing? That's another possibility for sure.

Roland Emmerich's role is vaguely worded; are you suggesting that he can force votes?

Mongoose wrote:Roland Emmerich Natural disaster movie guru, his over the top films do not garner much critical acclaim.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I had to walk away for 24 hours. I suck, and I am sorry

Don't be sorry. What do you think of Long Con? His last couple of posts have me firmly distrusting him.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Black Rock wrote:*sigh* Did no one else PM the host to check first? I saw the locked thread and PM'd her right away. I also PM'd her when I saw mods posting still. Read the roles guys, it's helpful. Maybe next time the host should post in the thread that it's locked. I don't have a lot of time right now but I will go back and say somethings I wanted to say when the thread was locked.

RIP Made. I am certain the baddies locked the thread when three civvies were tied at one vote each, giving them a free lynch. I would have probably voted Made if I could have just because the other two I am certain are civvie and I had no idea if he was or not.

So you think Rico and SVS are civ, amiright?

Ricochet wrote:Catching up but just a bit. Fed up of writing for today (MM, I explained my absence these past two-three days before going absent, every time.)

BR either just wrote two contradictory statements ("Roxy is my best guess", then "I'm at a loss of who I want to vote this day") or she actually backed away from suspecting Roxy. If she did mean the latter in earnest, I can't include her anymore in Roxy's suspecters. Nevertheless, I still feel slightly wary of her. As I've said, her voting record and reasonings, up to Roxy, especially the one on Vomps, didn't put her in a good light.

MM still thinks Roxy is pretty bad, but still not many reasons offered since I asked for some.

DF, I did note MM has a bad record so far on civvie lynches, but I did not mean it as a strong thing on which to build cases, especially given that other records are worse than his right now (there's even a 4-0 one).

The most vocal right now of those who voted Roxy is TH. Contrary to BR, he said he doesn't see the Llama-Roxy dispute as bad-civ, but civ-civ. And frankly so do I, even if, on the spot, Roxy's reactions were odd. But TH still suspects Roxy for defending Vomps on his lynch day, which I frankly do not. As I've said, I've found a few players who did poor in joining in on the Vomps lynch. By contrast, Roxy's reasons for why lynching Vomps is bad idea still echo in my mind for how well-argued they were and how clear her stance, thus, was in not taking part in all that (somehow, I'm developing a distinction in my head between "not joining a lynch" and "defending the lynchee", but maybe that's all coming from my Donner traum- err experience).

Also, he wants to know why Roxy is not saying anything about her "near-lynch". She was actually asked that by MM and answered shortly, also mentioning she has an idea on what happened (but she won't state it too clearly in the thread). TH also says he has his own idea. I also have my own idea and if it's true, then Roxy wasn't saved and Blooper was unfortunately pushed to her lynch by the extra-polling abilities her visible voters might have had (or used). It's a very tricky result in which to try to scoop up the baddies, tbh.

Can you clarify, TH, why you think vote analysis is pointless until we actually baddie? I know we've had very bad results from doing that so far (at least in thinking in terms of "saves" and such), nevertheless, why give up on it altogether?

Also, Day fending should be included in our Mafia terminology. I like the sound of it, especially describing what a baddie would try to do on every Day.

All paragraphs free to snip.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:

Made wrote:Yo, I've yet to catch up, but something just clicked: who the hell night kills MP????

do y'all think made's bad?

No, but I am interested to hear who he's going after today.

Black Rock wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think that would be a good idea, yes.

That's a horrible idea

I await your alternative plan.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think that would be a good idea, yes.

Ricochet wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Yes, but what is that sufficient suspicion more specifically?

What are you getting at?

I'm not getting at anything. I only asked your reason for (very likely) sticking with voting Roxy, much like I asked MM the same thing.

Ricochet wrote:Yes, but what is that sufficient suspicion more specifically?

Ricochet wrote:Catching up a bit...

The case on Llama oscillates too much right now, IMO, between seeking an easy lynch in reaction for the past two ones and a tricky gamble that he'd actually be bad. I'd be surprised for him to be the orchestrator of all that's happened. Has he exhibited in past games such a tactic of leading hunts decisively, but turning out to have been a grand manipulator?

I said I didn't like his reevaluation after the Vomps flop - because he didn't reevaluate much at all - but I just felt it was misguided. On the bright side, just like MM, I too have an idea of how BWT's rezz might have happened. I also have an idea of how Blooper's lynch might have happened, outside the poll tally, but curiously, in case it's a power we're talking about, it'd be a civilian-esque one, so the lynch would still stand as simply unfortunate. The only thing that pinged me from today's conversation is that he sort of did exactly what he blamed Roxy for doing, days ago: being suddenly overdefensive about what his gameplay, in a manner of stating that players would want him now to stop chasing baddies, without anyone actually saying they'd want him to do that.

No eager to jump to conclusions, so far.

MM, why are you decided to vote for Roxy again? BR, why do you reckon Roxy is still your "best guess"?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I just realized that blooops didn't actually win the lynch. Why hasn't anyone discussed this yet?

Made wrote:

Mongoose wrote:
It is now Night 4. You have 48 hours to submit your PMs (notice extended time).

oh

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
That is, if we don't lynch the baddies... of which you are one.

So....

Why do you think llama is bad?

Black Rock wrote:
I thought you said that you think Llama is civvie?

Dom wrote:

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, if we don't lynch the baddies... of which you are one.

So....

thellama73 wrote:Why are people so interested in my suspicion? I am always wrong. Ask about Black Rock's suspicion.

thellama73 wrote:

Roxy wrote:One more time bc I really believe I am being srsly misrepresneted.

I KNOW no one was telling me how to play.
Llama, however, was saying that my votes look like a save of Vomps (which everyone now knows is false)
So in a sense he was telling me to "conform" and vote his way and if I did notI was suspicious (that is a lot of paraphrasing but it IS what was implied.
My WHOLE point was why should I conform and vote with everyone? Why can't I have my own thoughts about MY own vote?
And that he now considers weird.
I am playing weird bc I did not latch onto his Day 1 case. Tbs day 1 cases usually always lynch civs.

Yes this subject makes me uptight bc its right up there with telling people how to play. I will not be told how to vote or to play.
I will never be a conformist.

I am voting Made.

By this logic ANY vote record analysis is telling people how to play, since there is implied criticism of someone's vote choices. I hope you can see that that is literally insane.

Roxy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Roxy wrote:One more time bc I really believe I am being srsly misrepresneted.

I KNOW no one was telling me how to play.
Llama, however, was saying that my votes look like a save of Vomps (which everyone now knows is false)
So in a sense he was telling me to "conform" and vote his way and if I did notI was suspicious (that is a lot of paraphrasing but it IS what was implied.
My WHOLE point was why should I conform and vote with everyone? Why can't I have my own thoughts about MY own vote?
And that he now considers weird.
I am playing weird bc I did not latch onto his Day 1 case. Tbs day 1 cases usually always lynch civs.

Yes this subject makes me uptight bc its right up there with telling people how to play. I will not be told how to vote or to play.
I will never be a conformist.

I am voting Made.

By this logic ANY vote record analysis is telling people how to play, since there is implied criticism of someone's vote choices. I hope you can see that that is literally insane.

Why are you being so extreme in your viewpoints? Did I say ANY vote record analysis? No I did not. As a matter of fact I didn't even mention voting analysis.

Stop putting words or intent into my posts that are not there.

What point are you trying to make? I stand by my votes. I made them with my judgement just like you did with your Day 1 Vomps case all the way through day 3.

There is a difference betwixt criticizing votes and analyzing them imo.

thellama73 wrote:It is not extreme, it is the logical conclusion of what you said. If someone says that your vote looks like it was calculated to save someone, you take that as a criticism of how you play. If we all had that attitude, all vote analysis would be impossible. If I look at someone's voting record and observe "you have only voted for civvies" it is ridiculous for them to respond "don't tell me how to vote." We have to be able to look for potential baddies in the voting record.

I am not twisting your words or putting words in your mouth. This is the argument that you are making.

Dom wrote:BR, I wouldn't say I am the best at reading Rox, but what makes you read bad about her?

S~V~S wrote:I thought I saw something that made me think she could be a civ fairly early in the game. And Rox can be touchy, good or bad, so if she is bitching at someone, it does not necessarily make her bad. When she is bad, it feels a bit meaner; theres a bit of venom she does not have when civ. All i saw before today was indignant, not venom. I have to reread today, I just walked in the door, and I have to finish rereading MM as well.

S~V~S wrote:Um, I looked back to the top of my page, and Llama called her "literally insane", I see. Rox is very sensitive to slights & insults. Calling her "literally insane" is just calculated to piss her off & upset her.

Telling people they are insane becasue you disagree with their playstyle does not bring out the best in them, lol. So if that is what set her off, she won't be getting my vote.

thellama73 wrote:

Black Rock wrote:Llama is playing a very aggressive game. I'm no expert in things Llama but the way he's reading to me seems more like an aggressive baddie and less like a helpful civvie. In fact there hasn't been a whole lot of helpfulness from him as of late. Just things stated as fact when they are only suspicions and a lot of criticism.

Roxy is reading off to me. A little too sensitive, but I have seen this between her and Llama before so I don't know if I'm reading too much into it.

Something about Canuck is making me eye her. I can't put my finger on it yet. Just a gut feeling.

People always expect me to be a leader. I usually am, especially early in the game, because that is my style. I have strong suspicions and I stick to my guns. This results in a lot of opportunity for others to latch on and follow me. This is what happened with Vomps. Not only do I feel responsible for lynching a civ, but I am perceived as bad for so aggressively campaigning against one. If Vomps had flipped bad, it would be a different story. But now everyone expects me to find another suspect, latch on and lead another lynch. Why do I have to do that? How many lynches have you led, BR? How many theories have you developed and how many cases have you made? Same question for Bass, DFaraday, Lizzy, Made, Blooper, Roxy, Sabie, Daisy, and Timmer.

Everyone else gets to be a follower and ride the coattails of more aggressive players. Maybe I'm tired of playing that role. How come other people can get a pass for doing that, but my refusal to lead another lynch right away is suspicious?

Dom wrote:

Black Rock wrote:Llama is playing a very aggressive game. I'm no expert in things Llama but the way he's reading to me seems more like an aggressive baddie and less like a helpful civvie. In fact there hasn't been a whole lot of helpfulness from him as of late. Just things stated as fact when they are only suspicions and a lot of criticism.

Roxy is reading off to me. A little too sensitive, but I have seen this between her and Llama before so I don't know if I'm reading too much into it.

Something about Canuck is making me eye her. I can't put my finger on it yet. Just a gut feeling.

I'm unsure about how to read into he Llama/Roxy conflict. It reads as unproductive, meaningless, and vapid if I'm honest.

That indicates to me that it's either Civ v. Civ or a baddie Llama antagonizing Roxy.

Turnip Head wrote:It's true though, I've seen hosting errors involving killings and this is what it looks like. But it could be something else. I just don't think it impacts BWT's role either way.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'll settle this debate then. Mostly because I'm just as curious as all of you as to how I came back.

@Hostess: Was me dying on Night 3 an hosting error on your part, or was I actually rezzed?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:RIP Vomps! Sorry I was wrong about you.

I voted for my 3. Apparently, birds and mongooses agree on 2 of the 3 titties.

You made me spit milk.

thellama73 wrote:Well that is not what I was expecting.

MovingPictures07 wrote: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:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I've actually never had BTSC with SVS... or BR I don't think... and we've been playing together for freakin forever.

That's not a surprise, most games I play I don't have btsc. It's fairly lonely.

Long Con wrote: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.

You never remember anything. You have had BTSC with me. In case you forgot. Remember when Scocub (I think) made us civvie ninja's together and we sucked balls? Worst civvie ninjas ever. That was back on LP.

I think I've only had btsc with SVS once a long time ago. Most people in this game I have never btsc'd with.

And for whatever reason, my baddie team usually ends up killing you early on.

S~V~S wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I've actually never had BTSC with SVS... or BR I don't think... and we've been playing together for freakin forever.

That's not a surprise, most games I play I don't have btsc. It's fairly lonely.

Long Con wrote: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.

You never remember anything. You have had BTSC with me. In case you forgot. Remember when Scocub (I think) made us civvie ninja's together and we sucked balls? Worst civvie ninjas ever. That was back on LP.

I think I've only had btsc with SVS once a long time ago. Most people in this game I have never btsc'd with.

Twice before Fight Club. Once on LP, maybe Heroes? You were both on my team, you & LC. Then you & I were on the bad team in CabinFevers Freemasons game.

Why so quiet/no voting? You all waiting for me to make some stupid bonehead vote?

Turnip Head wrote:I've actually never had BTSC with SVS... or BR I don't think... and we've been playing together for freakin forever.

Long Con wrote: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.

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote: Linki~ I think it depends on context, Dom. I am more asking my former BTS partners what they think. Do YOU think I would make really stupid baddie votes on two bandwagons in a row on low participators if I was a baddie?

I don't.
I would like to think I know your game fairly well, as well.

I remain on the fence about you.

Black Rock wrote:What do you think of that MP?

Dom, who are you looking at today?

MP, mainly. Llama, in recent posts, has assuaged concerns I had with him-- for now, at least. SVS is a potential suspicion for me, but I think her rebuttal was nicely put. Ricochet has said a few things that made me twitch, but nothing major.

While we're at it, can you answer my question about who you think knows SVS's game well enough to judge her? I'm curious who you think that would be.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

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?

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?

S~V~S wrote:I guess it really isn't, but It feels that way, though. So many non participators It has that intense "lets sit in a circle and stare at each other" feel that endgames have.

It is getting down to the brass tacks point, I think, though.

S~V~S wrote:Also, yeah, avoiding the thread during the dig out from a blizzard, a nieces birthday party & my brother moving, and the endgame in the Champs thread. LOL.