The Syndicate

My pre-research reads/gut impressions on the Canuck Half-Dozen, as I've decided to name them ( :P )

Bass: flying very very low. Normally I'd say bored vanilla civ, but since the baddies are also atually quite "vanilla" in this game, I could also see him being a bored baddie
DF: similar to bass, I often forget he's playing. I have this impression that he seems to pop up mostly right before lynches and at night, but I haven't actually confirmed if that's true or not. Might be misremembering.
Made: He's always zany and off the wall, so that doesn't bother me too much...but he's also usually WAAAAY more involved, so that does raise my notice a little bit. Llama's vouch for him gives me pause
Rico: It is astonishing how easily he has fit in to the rhythms and lingo of this game. Very chameleon-like. I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm starting to becoming more and more wary
TH: I've been suspicious of him since Day 1, for reasons I've stated already, but I am currently very on the fence
Ninjago: I think she's been sort of non-involved in every game I've played with her, but her posts this game are not only infrequent (which seems usual) but also thin on substance or new insights (which seems like an attempt to blend in)

thellama73 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Can I take a really quick poll of how people are feeling about the following players? I'm planning to re-read them all before the end of the lynch, but I'd really like to be able to compare what I find with people's general impressions of them....

Bass, DF, Made, Rico, TH

They're all on my list except Made, who is fine. ALso on my list are Blooper and BR. Starting my rereads now...

I forgot about Blooper, but I agree that she also needs some looking into.

Can I take a really quick poll of how people are feeling about the following players? I'm planning to re-read them all before the end of the lynch, but I'd really like to be able to compare what I find with people's general impressions of them....

Bass, DF, Made, Rico, TH

Whoa. This whole page is some really weird reading.

Are people actually suspicious of bwt, or is there some sort of contextual nuance that I'm missing??

thellama73 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:How bizarre. On my phone a : shrug : is showing up as a blue guy shaking his head!


For example, there is a blue guy shaking his head in you post, LC.... Wacky!

People, am I losing myind here??!! Gah.

This one?

Nope, that one is appearing as stern nodding yellow guy, though the actual text in the quote is :disappoint :
I think my phone is high. It's freaking me out.

Oh, you mean this one.

Yep, serious nod guy.

(So, on preview, that one works for me but shrug guy still turns up as blue disappointed guy. Bizarre. But I guess I'm done smiley spamming the thread now )

thellama73 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:How bizarre. On my phone a : shrug : is showing up as a blue guy shaking his head!


For example, there is a blue guy shaking his head in you post, LC.... Wacky!

People, am I losing myind here??!! Gah.

This one?

Nope, that one is appearing as stern nodding yellow guy, though the actual text in the quote is :disappoint :
I think my phone is high. It's freaking me out.

How bizarre. On my phone a : shrug : is showing up as a blue guy shaking his head!


For example, there is a blue guy shaking his head in you post, LC.... Wacky!

People, am I losing myind here??!! Gah.

Every time I try and make a "shrug" smiley, it comes out as something else. Odd.

Canucklehead wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:What have I been noncommittal about Canuck? And do you feel that noncommittalness is baddie behavior?

Your response to my questions and your comments following read as being very "I am paying attention and reading and commenting on all the major talking points without really coming down definitively on one side or the other"-ish. While this on its own is not necessarily indicative of baddiness, this noncommitallness + (what seemed to me like an) opportunistic vote + bland nature of your posts makes me think you might be saving the funny, charming, hilarious TH for your baddie chat and depriving us poor thread plebs of your wit.

This sums up the main features of my case on TH. It's at this point mostly a gut-based thing, coupled with some sketchy voting. I'd eased off him a little because during the last lynch his posts and responses started to feel a little more engaged (rather than just observational, which I tend to associate with baddies trying to blend in without sticking their necks out too far), but I definitely need to reread TH to see if I can make a better case than just "He's blendy and doesn't make enough jokes!"


I'm also (as ever) concerned that baddies are hiding among the low posters, and will be doing a reread of folks like bass, DF, and ninja (and maybe some others that I might be forgetting??). I think at least one of Sabie or Lizzy is likely civ, due to missing night actions, but that's just a straight out guess....there could e any number of reasons why certain night actions aren't showing up

I think we should go back to my original plan of lynching TH.

And I wasn't cursed, I just really do want to hear more from te radiant creature that is Nincompoopajumbo.

An bwt just said "titties" :giggle:

I want Ninjajambalaya to post more. She is beautiful, and funny, and smells like mild ocean breezes.

I'm on board this lynch train, too!

Ricochet wrote:What is WIFOM-ing?

Canuck, I get it you won't reveal if you were silenced or not (you said you have a special theory on what effects that has - could you kindly elaborate?), but I wonder if you could tell me why you voted MP. Your early vote, the first for him, is also the only unaccounted one right now.

I think the Waters role works such that the targeted player is silenced for a day period and blocked the following night period not, as people in the thread have suggested, that the player is blocked the night s/he is targeted and silenced the following day. This, of course, is just rampant speculation on my part.


As or my MP vote, two main reasons:
1) I wanted to vote early, to signal to the thread that I was, in fact, around...even if I wasn't commenting. (This is not a super uncommon tactic, and I think a few people picked up what I was putting down right away)

2) I chose MP because my previous main suspicion, TH, had been seeming more and more civ in his posting, so I was no longer ready to place a vote for him. I thought Timmer made a persuasive case on MP earlier in the night(?) or day, so I decided to place my vote consistent with my lingering suspicion on MP from Day 1. I was somewhat surprised to see the number of people go also decided to vote MP, but his name had been discussed an tossed around since Day 1, so I suppose it wasn't that shocking a turn of events. If it was my vote tht was responsible for kickstarting the bandwagon, then I'm deeply sorry....but if anyone tries to suggest that they were just following my lead (which, to their credit, no one has done as far as I'm aware), then they would have some serious 'splainin to do, since following along with a very early vote from a very quiet player is a rather questionable tactic.

thellama73 wrote:
Yes, the obviousness gives me pause as well, but at this point I'm inclined to believe that one baddie teams has just decided o go all in on protecting Vomps. This is especially plausible due to a worrying tendency in recent games for civs to be overly WIFOM-y and rationalize what seems like clear evidence away in favor of more elaborate theories. This approach seems absolutely crazy to me (as I say, I prefer to take the Occam's Razor approach), but I am seeing it more and more these days, and would not put it past a baddie team to exploit it.

I find the bolded part is really ringing true for me, llama, and may be the push I needed to get firmly on board with your Vomps suspicion. I think you are very much right-on in your analysis of the "there's no way te baddies would be so obvious therefore let's explain away the only actual facts we have in these games, which are voting patterns"-attitude which you see as a recent phenomenon, an which I would argue has been going on at least as long as I've been playing mafia....

So yes, I think I can actually buy the possibility that Vomps was blatantly saved twice. Maybe it will ultimately turn out that in this case, it was a bunch of elaborate baddie WIFOM-ing, but since Vomps doesn't seem interested in defending himself, and since this topic is the overwhelming focus of the thread, we really can't know for sure until we know Vomps' alignment. If it turn out that he is a civ who is uninterested in helping us lunch baddies/preventing us from lynching goodies, then that will be unfortunate, but at least we will have some clarity about recent voting patterns.

thellama73 wrote:So you're refusing to say whether you were silenced or not, is that correct, Canuck?

Nope, I don't think refusing is the right word in this case.

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

My thumbs are just not cut out for this whole pig ears-posting thing. Sorry for the typos, all.

I'm somewhat tempted to vote Vomps next, but if I were to do so, it would be solely a "lets do this thing so we can gain whatever info is to be gained and move on" type of thing, rather than based on any really suspicions. I agree that the last two lynches could very well have been attempts to save Vimps, but since I was in the non-Vomps voter pool both times, I'm not particularly inclined to see it that way.
For realz, though, it does look like a lot of different cases and suspicions seem to be based on how Vomps flips, so despite the fact that I don't personally suspect him (I think people who are zany players tend to be zany in all games regardless of alignment), I will be considering a vote for him Pfau.

I am also intruded by the suspicijs of Roxy and SVS. I have had a civ vibe from SVS all game, but there's no denying that her voting record is eyebrow worthy (but so is mine, and I know I'm civ). Roxy is an interesting case, though, and I will plan to do a read-through of her today or tomorrow.

Of course, as has been mentioned, both the cases against these players rest on Vinps being bad, so it's hard not to want to follow along with that plan and see where it leaves us.

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

thellama73 wrote:
Canuck, two people have asked if you were silenced yesterday. I'll be the thrd. It really makes a difference so we would like to know.

(The Boy is being a butt and doing work in the middle of Saturday, so I will be around the thread until he decides to stop being a stick in the mud and enjoy our fucking day. )

I definitely saw both questions, and think silencing is one of many perfectly mausoleum reasons why I wasn't super chatty yesterday. I dont agree that it makes a difference, though, because I have a very different interpretation of how the silencing/blocking role works than most people in the thread.

Mongoose wrote:Happy Saturday, sweet players.

I'll be out this afternoon doing indoor rock climbing, but I should not have any problem getting the Night 2 post up on time.

Indoor climbing is super duper the best. Have fun!

I'm caught up on the events that transpired during the last day, but might not be home and able to post until after the boy goes to sleep tonight since we have lots of Saturday thugs to do today. Will post my thoughts when I get a chance, though! But for now, running out the door!

MP, sorry I was wrong about you

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Roxy wrote:Also llama Canuck was not trying to lynch MM instead she was wanting to go for MP.

This is kind of true. (I was torn between AP and MP, but the MM thing pushed me over the top but due to what others have pointed out as wonky reasoning, I was not willing to vote for MM)

thellama73 wrote:

Roxy wrote:Also llama Canuck was not trying to lynch MM instead she was wanting to go for MP.

Canuck referenced MM's defense of AP as a reason for voting for AP though. That's what I was referring to.

Canucklehead wrote:SVS: good point about MM's defense of AP...I think that, coupled with his refusal to vote for any of the likely lynchees (thus avoiding accusations of "saving" someone or "bandwagoning" someone) looks bad for both AP and MM.

This is also true.

Turnip Head wrote:No I think Canuck wanted to lynch me

This is the most true.

I will reask the question I asked SVS (and echo llama's sentiments). If you find my defense of AP suspicious enough to vote for AP, why would you not feel comfortable voting for me?

I don't want to be lynched, but the logic here is not sound.

MM, I've already addressed this (more than once). Just becase you don't think my logic is sound, doesn't mean it wasn't the logic I was operating under.
I have no intention of voting for you today either, so you are under no threat from my faulty logic at this time.

Roxy wrote:Also llama Canuck was not trying to lynch MM instead she was wanting to go for MP.

This is kind of true. (I was torn between AP and MP, but the MM thing pushed me over the top but due to what others have pointed out as wonky reasoning, I was not willing to vote for MM)

thellama73 wrote:

Roxy wrote:Also llama Canuck was not trying to lynch MM instead she was wanting to go for MP.

Canuck referenced MM's defense of AP as a reason for voting for AP though. That's what I was referring to.

Canucklehead wrote:SVS: good point about MM's defense of AP...I think that, coupled with his refusal to vote for any of the likely lynchees (thus avoiding accusations of "saving" someone or "bandwagoning" someone) looks bad for both AP and MM.

This is also true.

Turnip Head wrote:No I think Canuck wanted to lynch me

This is the most true.

For me (and I think I said this somewhere?), on a day when there are a few strong (in terms of cases and/or number of votes already placed) candidiates for lynching, I really don't like voting for someone with no votes, or someone who is very unlikely to be lynched. It's too much like shirking responsibility, and I avoid that when a civ.
So for this vote, I was torn between TH (who no one else would vote for, but who was and is my strongest suspicion), MP, and AP. I thought the reasoning about the avoiding the bwt vote once it was scured made sense (I understand lots of you don't think so, but ), and SVS' points about MM also rang true at the time. If AP had flipped bad, I would deffo have voted MM today. I didn't vote MM yesterday because there was no chance of him being lynched, so I went with AP. I was one of the last to vote, and at the time I was voting there were a flurry of inconsequential votes, so between MP and AP I went with the one that would be more decisive rather than keep things closer to a tie and leave the deciding votes to TH (who I don't trust) and BR, who I wasn't sure would make it in time since she hadn't been around.

Does that make sense (even if you wouldn't personally have acted similarly)?

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.

The last film I saw was Paddington.




Imma just go and die of embarrassment now, k?

Sorry, AP.

Vompatti wrote:Would you believe me if I told you I don't think A Person is a baddie?

Yes.


Why am I/are we supposed to be shocked by this?

S~V~S wrote:I was kinda freaked by how hard MM w

I think the snowstorm has eaten SVS mid-sentence!




:P

Ugh. I've got to get back to work. I'm going to go ahead and vote for AP. I won't be surprised/bothered by a Vomps lynch either, though, since he seems to be encouraging it....

TH: You still around? Who are you voting for?

So left to vote are:
Canuck
BR
TH
Dfaraday
AP
sabie
Lizzy


With half that list being people who haven't been involved at all, I'm in a tough spot.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:So many avoidance votes!

It looks pretty normal for a day one lynch.

Sure, but this isn't really a Day 1 lynch.

So many avoidance votes!

SVS: good point about MM's defense of AP...I think that, coupled with his refusal to vote for any of the likely lynchees (thus avoiding accusations of "saving" someone or "bandwagoning" someone) looks bad for both AP and MM.

So 9 left to vote, with sabie and Lizzy unlikely to do so.....

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.

Sure, but is he just trolling for lulz, or is he a baddie whose number llama has had since moment 1?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I have class now, so I have to run.

Placing my vote on LC.

Really?

If I were voting in a vaccuum, I'd likely vote for TH today as his responses have done nothing to shake my feelings about him (though, to be fair, I'm in that suspicious headspace right now where I'm not sure if there is really any defense he could provide that wouldn't sound to me like equivocating/being too careful/etc., and I understand that that's not fair and is sucky for TH, but I really do have a feeling that he is bad. Sorry. )

However, since it seems unlikely that others are also willing to vote TH today (but correct me if I'm wrong, people who haven't voted yet), I don't want to waste my vote in what looks like it's going to be a tight lynch. So that leaves me with what seems to be today's three candidates: MP, AP, Vomps

I don't feel good about voting Vomps, since to do so I would only be going off llama's read, which other players have countered. I don't know enough about Vomps to fairly choose a side there.

I would feel OK about a vote for AP, though the information that this is what he always does regardless of alignment does render the points/case against him somewhat less convincing.

I am very torn about MP. I think his current frustrations are very genuine, but could be the genuine frustration of a wronged civ or a baddie who feels they've been caught without justification (which is SUPER frustrating for me when I'm a baddie). I still think timmer's post about the Dom/MP brouhaha is very interesting, and I think MP's play between Day 1.1 and Day 1.2 might be reflective of a conscious attempt to hold back on the concilliation/over-explaining after being questioned on it (Again, this change could have been made by a civ MP , too).

Sigh. So, for me it's still between AP or MP, unless there is more support for a TH vote.

linki: wowzers.

Lizzy wrote:I'm drunk again and got in fro me loan's

Lizzy hasn't posted since Saturday night.

I think there are too many good cases being made today to justify a low-poster/non-participant vote, but I really do hope we don't let these ladies skate by all game.

sabie12 wrote:Sorry I haven't been around guys! I was taking my social work license exam and I had to do a lot of last minute studying, but it all paid off!! I passed!

Here's sabie's last post...perhaps she's caught up in a celebratory fog of drunkenness and hang-overs? I hope she comes out to play soon.

MM: I'm not totally against self-voting either, but I think the case against AP rests on the timing of the self-vote in relation to the already-secured bwt lynch, in addition to the lack of thought-contribution DESPITE being around after the results to join in on banter. So, if I vote AP it will not be for self-voting alone, it will be for self-voting in a particular context and not addressing it or anything game-related afterwards.

On another topic, When's the last time we heard from sabie? Or Lizzy?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

- I will not vote Llama today. I think I am seeing genuine baddie hunting from him, though I'm not convinced he's right about Vomps.
- I doubt I will vote Vomps.
- I MAY vote AP, but it sort of feels like a cop out. I have no read on AP either way and wouldn't categorize his behavior as out of character. I do dislike his self-vote though.

The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

I think anyone voting AP is a cop-out.

I understand scrutinizing a player for coming in that last few minutes without being caught up and voting someone that has a wagon on them, but I believe that self-voting in that circumstance shows more responsibility, and doesn't show any malice, at least from AP.

I just realized I keep defending all my shred buddies. I need to stop doing that.

;
MM, I'd be less suspicious of AP if he'd offered some actual thoughts about game events, instead of just trying to let his self-vote slide. Since posting this:

A Person wrote:I remembered to vote with literally 5 minutes left, realized my vote can't change the results unless there is a crazy amount of votes for one person, and self voted.

......which seems to be an implicit "I haven't read the thread therefore I don't feel confident contributing to someone's death" excuse for a self-vote, AP hasn't offered any thoughts on anything, but has contributed OT/theme-related banter. Normally when people do evasive/not-informed-enough votes, they offer some sort of speculation as to what they're thinking/who they're suspecting once they've caught up. AP hasn't done that, and that is part of why (to me at least) the suspicions of him have merit.

LOADS of linki....posting anyway. :P

timmer wrote: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.

Wazzz!!!! I miss that kooky cat! When's the last time he's been around? [/]

Also, to clarify, the linki in my last post was in response to MP's response to me, :P

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

- I will not vote Llama today. I think I am seeing genuine baddie hunting from him, though I'm not convinced he's right about Vomps.
- I doubt I will vote Vomps.
- I MAY vote AP, but it sort of feels like a cop out. I have no read on AP either way and wouldn't categorize his behavior as out of character. I do dislike his self-vote though.

The people who are saying BR is totally in character: Why is it acceptable for someone to say who they suspect but not give reasons why? She said twice now that I'm worth looking at, or something to that effect, but never cited a reason. I find that suspicious.

I interpreted BR's statements of suspicion as following from ongoing discussions and observations (about you, about TH) happening in the thread. I interpreted it as shorthand for "I agree with/will think more about the things that have already been pointed out about x nd y players", rather than a out-of-nowhere, contextless accusation. I don't expect every person who's doing a catchup to restate point by point cases that have already been posited and discussed, so I guess it wasn't suspicious for me that BR would just comment briefly on names being thrown around in the thread.

linki: Yeah, I get what you're saying, and I see how it sucks to be in your position regardless of your alignment. Under-the-radar play is still and may always be a viable baddie survival strategy, unfortunately (and I say this as someone who has both consciously used the strategy when bad, and unconsciously fallen into the trap when good)

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't understand how any of my behavior this game is out of character for me whatsoever.

Maybe it's not out of character for you, MP...I have played so few games recently (and played them so inattentively, for the most part) that it's very hard for me to say what is or is not "in character" for people other than those that I have memories of from way back in the day. Emotional reactions and bending over backwards to clarify and self-correct might be exactly what you always do, but the difference in tone from your interactions with people (SVS, llama, come to mind) on Day 1.1, to your interactions with Dom today seems notable. Again, I do not know if I will repeat my vote for you or not, but I am definitely keeping my options open.
I guess I'm just not sure why someone who posts as much as you do, and involves himself in as many of the ongoing discussions as you do, is surprised/frustrated/exasperated when his name comes up frequently. You are not a blendy player (which is great! ), but the unfortunate nature of mafia is that the people who talk a lot get talked about a lot.

That's a great post, Timmer, and does a good job of visualizing/quantifying some of the uneasiness I've been feeling about MP and his effusiveness/reationariness. After being questioned/scrutinized Day 1.1 for being overly concilliatory/over-explainy, he does seem to have swung his pendulum the other way today in re: Dom. I'm not sure if it's enough to sway my vote from TH/AP today, but definitely an illuminating post by you. Thanks.

I think both TH and A Person are the most likely candidates for my vote today. TH for reasons I've already stated, AP because I like the "avoiding the bwt lynch train" line of thought. I have a few hours before I need to vote, so I can wait to see if AP has any responses to the votes/suspicions of her before I decide between the two.

Re: Dom/MP, which everyone seems to be taking sides on, if only one of them is bad I'd be more inclined to think it was MP, but that is coloured by my bias since I suspected/voted him Day 1 (other people's thoughts on this being just how MP always is have tempered my suspicions, but I think I see more potential for sketchiness in his reativity than Dom's.....but at this point I'm not sure if both, one, or neither of them are baddies.