The Syndicate

Long Con wrote:

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

I've been working my brains to write a page long invective for hours now and you guys crack it with a one liner? I give up.

In reply to BWT's post:

I find your read on what happened interesting, but I can't figure out where you draw the line between me making rookie mistakes and slipping as a baddie. I also don't see how all the issues are connected, the way you put it.

You say you agree SVS was quite "reaction-y" (as Blooper put it) and that it looked like she was baiting me with the "chatroom" idea, but at the same time you still feel like I did "pull up a chatroom topic". Frankly, I don't know how else to comment to this accusation anymore. The conversation was in the thread. It happened throughout a full phase. All I said was I'll catchup/look more into it. SVS happened to be there when I said it and it made her jumpy. From there on, (mis)interpretation galore.

Re: referencing / backing up, I'll say this again. On Day 1, when I snipped a post of hers to address only a part of it, she was kind to advise me not to do that, because it'll look bad. Now that I, just as ill-advisedly, delayed backing my post up and/or referenced pages instead of quoting, oh that won't do. It's understandable, given the circumstance, that her reaction wasn't as nice and it looked bad to her, but I don't see why that should make other players see more than a mistake in this.

The most stunning accusation for me is still regarding my correction re: Canuck's gender. It was literally an EBWOP. I screwed up her gender the whole time, in that discussion with Llama and MM, before realizing. When several people were "he/she" about me during the first day, I politely addressed the issue. When I screwed up a player's gender that I didn't know well (i.e. I didn't know at all outside Mafia, as is the case with about half of the players in this game), I politely corrected myself. If I wouldn't have noticed and, say, Canuck would have later corrected me, perhaps everything would have been fine. But since I did (and on the spot, too!), I'm suspicious for it - or better yet, I received "tips". Again, I don't have much else to say about this, other than how slightly disquieted I am with players picking on trivial stuff like this.

---

This will probably be my only entry for tonight, since my girl will soon come home and we'll watch Birdman, which I'm dying to see and, again, the end of the phase will be too late for me to stay up for.

BTW, you said you missed voting yesterday. Was that purely because of RL or because of a certain civ's powers?

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

RIP Alex. And thank you, Mr. Kubrick.

I'll agree that, statistically at least, SVS' and Roxy's votes look bad for two consecutive lynches. And the dynamic of the voting is telling: three strong, consistent votes (i.e. players who have mostly suspected and voted for him throughout the whole game), followed by four not so strong ones. Llama, do you believe there would have been more support for Vompatti, besides the four votes given?

At this point, surprisingly, I'm most baffled by Vompatti's reasoning for "bandwagoning":

Vompatti wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not FZ?

Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.

6 to 4 votes for MP already (vs. Vompatti), momentum for voting Vompatti pretty much dead (imo), and yet Vompatti feels threatened and in need to boost the gap? Meanwhile, not backing up a vote at all for the two people you actually insinuate could be bad ("terrorists")? I was torn enough of what his gameplay meant before, but right now my untrust of him is spiking.

---

Few more things:

Canuck, were you silenced during D2?

Six votes missing, if I'm not mistaking, but this is also making me believe Almodovar made two players not vote. Very inactive players notwithstanding (Sabie, Lizzy), I have to question if, for instance, Long Con or BWT (or Made) may have been forced to miss out on voting.

Long Con wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Why didn't you vote, LC?

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

Careful, there. I can tell you from experience that Llama doesn't enjoy not receiving straightforward answers.

---

Nauru is a real place on the planet, but a fictional location in my profile. If I'm required to state a real location or refrain from mentioning any in case I don't want to reveal my real location, kindly let me know.

For Vomps.

It's almost 3am here and deadline is still two hours away. Too late for me to stay because I need to sleep, so voting now.

linki @SVS: No, I said I think the outcome could be 50/50, because of Vomps' gameplay itself. How I feel about his gameplay weighs more for me to vote for him, right now.

Not that you've done admirably well to defend yourself so far, Vomps, but how is throwing a couple of names without backing it up in any way supposed to help you?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote: linki: One cautious re-read away from deciding, perhaps, but inclined to vote him. Overall I still it could very much be 50-50 regarding how he'll flip. He usually pleaded players to reconsider lynching him when the day phase was at its beginnings, more relaxed, but switched back to his pretence when the heat was on him again. It's difficult to read this, then again I believe he'll stick to doing this pretty much the whole game from now on and I can't say I'm ok with this.

Who, vomps? I do agree with your comments about his playstyle.

Yes, the linki was for SVS.

I've basically been doing it*
Overall I still think*

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Oh sure, now people are suspicious of Ricochet. I was doing it before it was cool.

For me it was since yesterday morning when he made that remark about the Big Case. He would post, then leave the site completely, he did not show as being here, then he would come back as soon as I spoke to him, reply, and leave again. Like someone posting from phone, flipping back and forth between sites. But this is a game with civ BTS so I don't want to jump to conclusions when someone new acts like they have BTS.

OK, gotta do some more reading.

I still don't understand why I'm suspicious for my remark of looking into the "Big Case" other players have been making, throughout a full phase. My flipping on and off the site is a bad forum habit I've had since ever. I'm always on the internet a lot, but never really browse keeping all tabs and accounts open. So I've basically been doing the whole time during this game, but only you find it suspicious and only just now. During our conversation, however, I was online until I said I'd have to leave for a considerable amount of time (had a class), which I did. Still a whole lot of misunderstanding about that exchange, if you ask me.

linki: One cautious re-read away from deciding, perhaps, but inclined to vote him. Overall I still it could very much be 50-50 regarding how he'll flip. He usually pleaded players to reconsider lynching him when the day phase was at its beginnings, more relaxed, but switched back to his pretence when the heat was on him again. It's difficult to read this, then again I believe he'll stick to doing this pretty much the whole game from now on and I can't say I'm ok with this.

S~V~S wrote:Its amazing how you always just pop up when people mention you.

Yes, I always do my best to reply to people who address me.

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I mean she. Sorry. More d'oh.

That was not the first time you messed up Canuck's gender. Where did you learn it?

From the person who posted right before I did, as well as all the others in this thread.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:If Canuck is indeed silenced, it could mean that she was blocked last night by John Waters, which makes her a likely candidate for a killer. But would a killer telegraph that she was silenced by voting early?

BWT said he would likely not post today, so no surprise there.

I don't understand the part about the killer telegraphing. Does Canuck's vote actually reflect the silencer's?

Generally the only reason people vote early without saying anything is that they can't say anything. I was just wondering whether a killer would want the rest of the thread to know thta, given the way the role powers are distributed.

But would Canuck like the thread to know that she's been silenced, by voting early, or the killer (i.e. force her to vote early)? If she was silenced and happens to be bad, would she expose herself to a possible lynch by voting early?

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:It's not clear from what you said that she* is also silenced during the night, but Llama says she is.

*she as in hypothetically Canuck, of course

No, she's not silenced at night. She's blocked at night, and silenced during the day.

Well, I asked if she's both during one of the phases. Sorry if that was misunderstood.

It's not clear from what you said that she* is also silenced during the night, but Llama says she is.

*she as in hypothetically Canuck, of course

thellama73 wrote:If Canuck is indeed silenced, it could mean that she was blocked last night by John Waters, which makes her a likely candidate for a killer. But would a killer telegraph that she was silenced by voting early?

BWT said he would likely not post today, so no surprise there.

I don't understand the part about the killer telegraphing. Does Canuck's vote actually reflect the silencer's?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:D'oh, forgot about the silencer. But if Canuck was blocked during the night, he could have still posted. Maybe just circumstancial? (He didn't come her to post during N1, but was silenced and could only vote during D2)

There is the one role (John Waters I think) that blocks AND silences a player. That could be Canuck.

@llama, if that is the case, maybe it wouldn't cross Canuck's mind?

"player will be muted during the day... blocked during the night". Doesn't sound like both to me.

I mean she. Sorry. More d'oh.

D'oh, forgot about the silencer. But if Canuck was blocked during the night, he could have still posted. Maybe just circumstancial? (He didn't come her to post during N1, but was silenced and could only vote during D2)

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote: Interesting. Is that what you make of Vomps' vote for Dom? I think he [V], AP and MP* were tied at 2 votes at that point (*Dom's vote for MP is the only one I can't trace, judging from the posts, when it happened, so it could have been 1 or 2 votes for MP).

I think Vomps' vote for Dom was in keeping with his "wacky" style. He has never been a conformist, so I don't make much of it. I do, however, think those type of votes are very popular with baddies not wanting to be tied to a particular lynch.

Then why did you make a point about Vompatti not bandwagoning?

Because it was a point that needed making.

Without "making much of it" from his actual gameplay?

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote: Interesting. Is that what you make of Vomps' vote for Dom? I think he [V], AP and MP* were tied at 2 votes at that point (*Dom's vote for MP is the only one I can't trace, judging from the posts, when it happened, so it could have been 1 or 2 votes for MP).

I think Vomps' vote for Dom was in keeping with his "wacky" style. He has never been a conformist, so I don't make much of it. I do, however, think those type of votes are very popular with baddies not wanting to be tied to a particular lynch.

Then why did you make a point about Vompatti not bandwagoning?

Quite the early vote from Canuck. Any idea why? He hasn't been active since almost two day ago.

Roxy wrote:SVS - I hope I was not the one who you thought was rude. I hate to even say this but you still have not answered my only question. I guess at this point it does not matter but I would have liked a response and your thoughts about the other people who used your reasoning for their vote for Teeth.

I cannot believe no one has one word to say about Made. I mean his play style is so unlike Python and so reminiscence of his baddie game.

Here is a linky to all his posts I would like to hear what others are thinking about his game.

BR - can you elaborate a bit more? You seem to be tossing a lot of names about without really backing up as to why you think them suspicious.

His Day 1.2 vote startled everyone (but I wasn't here) and his explanation didn't really satisfy (TH mentioned this). I don't agree with his opinion of sabie being active to save herself (because I don't really agree with that at all). I'm not good at judging from reminiscences, I definitely need more games under my belt for that.

could see into the three-way tie a save in this direction [MP's] as well*

FZ. wrote:Oh, so you think that if there was a save, it was MP and not Vomp?

I replied to llama earlier on the page, but then corrected my knowledge of how the votes stood when Vomps voted. I suppose everyone suspecting MP could read into the three-way tie could see a save in this direction as well.

*Oh, silly me. I should have checked the poll results for the order (I manually revisited the topic instead). Dom's vote for MP was before Vomps votes. So it was a three-way tie.

FZ. wrote:Here is DF's post regarding the NK. I think this is his only post of the day

DFaraday wrote:I've finally just about caught up! I think it's very odd that Sabie would be targeted for an NK so early in the game, and even weirder if someone decided to protect her. I'm thinking Sabie herself probably was the cause of her survival.

I don't have a read on Vomps, but I don't necessarily think Llama is suspicious for looking at him. And I'm not clear on why SVS thinks there is a connection between AP and MM.

Interestingly, he is going for the "save" explanation. But I think this was before Mongoose answered the question about the stories and the kills. So not sure what to make of it. DF is not posting much, and if he's a baddie, it will be his third time in a row. He said he doesn't like being a baddie 2 times in a row (last game), so I wonder if that's the case here.

I honestly don't know what to make of inactive players, at this point. I think DF, Lizzy and Sabie are the only ones who still qualify as that, with Sabie being definitely the most inactive (I've examined why right after the failed NK). I did believe AP was inactive throughout the first two Days (and so it proved, sadly) and I do believe Sabie is genuinely inactive, so she didn't save herself or plotted a baddie stunt. So I'm not inclined right now to suspect the other inactive players, either. Of course, in the end I could be tricked in this reasoning by at least one of them, but I can't read much further into this right now.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:No certain civs are not expendable, although that is not the point i think FZ is making. She means that even if Vomps is a civ, this lynch will give us alot of direction. For instance, one of the reasons Llama had for suspecting me was that he felt I was saving Vomps. Yet Vomps is not proven baddie. So if he flips bad, then we know some of those AP voters may have been attempting a save. If he flips civ, we will know there was no malicious intent in the AP voters, and that we might be better off looking elsewhere. I am not sure I agree with this approach, but it is not a baddie thought, imo, and if it was i don't think she would have said it in thread, lol. FZ doesn't much pull punches.

The last two lynches of civs were kinda thrown together; had I not been spooked by MM (and oddly, MM is having the opposite effect on me this lynch; him defending yet another shredder, Vomps, is making me leery of voting for Vomps, lol. Maybe it's the burn factor) I doubt i would have voted for AP. We have tried to make direction from them, but personally I think it more likely the baddies avoided those wagons. I know I was not trying to save Vomps, I was even considering a vote for him. Llama is always 100% positive, yet often wrong, like someone else I know Day 1.0, for instance, he seemed fairly sure you were bad, now it seems not so much.

YOu know who's been avoiding bandwagons? Vompatti.

Also, yes, I am frequently wrong, but one of these days I'll be right and it will all be worthwhile!

Interesting. Is that what you make of Vomps' vote for Dom? I think he [V], AP and MP* were tied at 2 votes at that point (*Dom's vote for MP is the only one I can't trace, judging from the posts, when it happened, so it could have been 1 or 2 votes for MP).

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Did Llama offered you the quotes you wanted, SVS? That was the main issue I was referencing, myself, anyway. I still find it intriguing that you would have read all that and not want to address it, missing or not any direct questions.

He did

Tell him I said Thanks!

Nah, just kidding. Maybe.

I did address them (thanks for letting me know I needed to before the big case). How do you plan on voting, Ricochet?

I could consider a vote for Voopy, but even that I find very difficult, because I can't actually read much into his defence/pretence. Knowing Vomps outside the forum as well, his random way of going back and forth between pretending to be bad and "no wait guys I'm just joking don't kill me" doesn't really tell me which way is it. At this point, I feel that if Vompatti is lynched, it could go either way. Literally 50-50.

There's one post that made a curious statement. I know FZ. is leaning on calling Vomps bad and voting him, but still

FZ. wrote:Hi, I'm not going to be around much this day. I'll be here a bit later today, and then tomorrow morning my time, when you're all asleep. And then I'm gone. Right now, I still want to vote Vomp, and I also said in my post where I analysed the votes that if Vomp is bad, the timing of SVS' vote seemed most like a save (though I did mention some other names as well). I think I suck at reading SVS, so based on her posts alone, I can't see anything that screams baddie to me. I think that lynching Vomp would give us more information after how the lynch went down, even if he's civ. Because if he is, I can see the baddies spreading their votes more.

What are people's opinion of Bass, by the way?

Are certain civs expendable? Am I just reading this wrong?

timmer wrote:

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

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

I do understand what could seem pingy about my exchange with SVS, but I'd argue that it was all very unfortunate and a misinterpretation of my intentions - which was to simply say look into what others have said. To say I was out to "push a SVS angle", after "btsc team chats", would be to ignore the fact that the angle was already being pushed and discussed by several people in the thread.

The fact that I didn't quote "evidence" for her (although I did motivate that I had to leave soon) or that I referenced page numbers instead of quoting the relevant posts - I'd call it another rookie lapse on my behalf (just like, on Day 1, I was pointed out that I shouldn't snip player's posts, because it might make me look bad), for which I apologize. Would I have not been pressured by time, or be aware that it's preferable to quote rather than say "go read page x", I would have done so, obviously. When I came back, I offered to quote any other fragments SVS might still require, but llama already pointed out to her what was the most significant part.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:@Mongoose~ lovely hostess, are all fail kills portrayed the same way, or are distinctions made?

Hiya Mongoose. I'd love an answer to this when you get a chance.

As would I to this

Ricochet wrote:Any results from the Scorsese contest? What was the prize and who got it?

Did Llama offered you the quotes you wanted, SVS? That was the main issue I was referencing, myself, anyway. I still find it intriguing that you would have read all that and not want to address it, missing or not any direct questions.

I can tell that you are now fully in game mode, but you keep twisting my original post over and over.

Did I say you are ”the only big case coming"? No. I said I'll look into Vomps (who now worries me with his style of baddie-pretence defence) and you (who have been questioned by others for your AP vote). I believe these two were the more significant talks during N1 and, therefore, I need to look more into it myself.

"Which other members are you referring to? I am beginning to think that maybe you heard about this big case in your chatroom."
No, I said I read it in the thread. Are you making yourself intentionally oblivious to what was posted during N1? Why didn't you address yet what was questioned about you, by the way?

Again, I am not the one suspecting you or making a case (big or not) about you, at the moment.

For now, though, I really must be going.

S~V~S wrote:LOL, you come and drop that into the thread, and won't back it up? I read after the lynch, and did not see that any "big case" was coming up. I would lke to know why YOU think a big case is coming up.

Cause I don't see it

Sorry if you read it that way. I only meant I'll look into what others have brought up during the Night, and significantly so. By ”big case” I meant something enough members reacted to. The only thing I imagine "coming up" is more input on it.

I have to go in 15 mins. Can't you track what was posted right after AP's lynch as announced? I could do it, if you still want, but only later.

Mostly the discussion post-AP kill, pages 22-23.

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:
Who are you going after this Day, folks? I have to study the Vomps case, as promised, and maybe look back at everything posted by SVS, since there's a big case brewing on her, apparently.

I'll be fairly busy today because of a class I have to prepare for and personal issues, so I'll probably spend this day just trying to do what I said above.

There is?

So I read.

My bad on the Coens.

Woo, no death! But what an intriguing outcome, indeed.

I think it's safe to say that Sabie, at this point, is the only inactive player (i.e. didn't participate in-game, didn't vote in-game). I went over her posts: she posted a bit on Day 0 (and voted for a director) and excused herself for not managing to play on Day 1.

I can imagine the bad team targeting her for being the most inactive.
I can also imagine, given how many role-block powers are, that one or two civs must have considered the idea of inactive/low-posters being targeted, at least, and it paid off, obviously.
I can imagine even less Sabie actually coming her during the Night to save herself, yet not post anything in the game while at it (not even another excuse), but there's no way of knowing this at all.
I can imagine the least Sabie being a baddie and being both targeted and protected. It would a very, very slick baddie move. I'm more certain she is actually highly inactive, just like AP proved to be, and I wouldn't follow this line of suspicion again, at least not right now. Besides, the Coens have only one protection available and, while I can't figure out how they can use it best, it'd seem a waste at this point.

---

Who are you going after this Day, folks? I have to study the Vomps case, as promised, and maybe look back at everything posted by SVS, since there's a big case brewing on her, apparently.

I'll be fairly busy today because of a class I have to prepare for and personal issues, so I'll probably spend this day just trying to do what I said above.

zeek wrote:He was great in Gangs of New York.

Okay in everything else. It's the cold, harsh truth.

While I'm dissing beloved actors... Meryl Streep is fucking awful.

I don't see how his "baddie" in Gangs is superior to his "baddie" in Blood.

Does her Oscar overnomination these past years influence on her or did you disliked her always, in anything?

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







So is Daniel Day-Lewis.

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

Boo this man.

thellama73 wrote:Who do you guys think the baddies will kill tonight? Do you think it will be me?

Why you? Are you good?

S~V~S is statistically the only person who voted for both lynches. I may look further into this, considering I've said I believe there has been more coordinating than reasoning in the lynches, so far.

I'll check them and the thread, then, thanks.

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.

Canucklehead wrote: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)?

Yes (even if). I sort of understand better now the "attraction" for such a vote, but I still find it questionable for baddie hunting later on. If I don't believe the "strong candidate" to be suspicious and vote something else, I can wake up the next day as a suspect of "shirking responsibility". Why? All in all, I wouldn't have voted for AP, really, because I was more convinced he just didn't manage to get in the game in either days - which proved to be true.

Apologies again for being offline for basically an entire day now. My 10-hour journey was followed by a long sleep. But I think the poll ending time is much more convenient now for everybody else and, provided it won't be delayed even further in the next days, I will be able to stay up late myself not miss it or have to vote early.

RIP AP. I'm sorry you didn't even get the chance to play properly or use some freaky math to connect with Lean (err whatever that power even meant...). Also, quite a loss in terms of movie talking.

---

So what do we do now? Wait and pray?

Just two thoughts, for now:

1. I was really surprised again how the lynch happened, it strikes me a lot like BWT's lynch went (even if he was later saved): several members adhering to the idea of lynching somebody rather than exploring or debating it.

I wasn't here to bring it up, for the reasons stated, but the premise, at least, didn't make much sense to me at all: the players who voted in the last minute and didn't vote for BWT are suspicious; voting for BWT proved wrong, because he turned out to be a civ; but the players who didn't take accountability for voting BWT are still suspicious. What the what. Afterwards, a few more arguments sounded more reasonable. I suppose AP's self-vote also weighed heavily, but I still think such principles of voting haven't worked out very well so far.

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.

---

Catching up (but more OT):

Poll option not changed. Still haven't seen Magnolia, but still voting for TWBB.

I can't believe how much I liked the songs in Frank, especially the last one.

Frank also the last movie I saw. Didn't watching anything yesterday. The only Bunuel I saw were Exterminating Angel and Belle du jour, which I both moderately liked. I saw the former with my gril, she was bored all the way through, but instantly took offence at the last scene, like it was a "catholic reflex" or something.

---

linki: Interesting, but I can't fully see it as a save tactic atm. For one thing, BWT voted AP. But I also find the case against AP weak and will look back at the lynch myself, of course. As I've said, right now I see it as a worrying trend that doesn't pay off.

I am now at the station and will soon travel back home. I won't be online again until the poll closes, so I'll vote now.

Time won't be on my side at all today to fully elaborate an overview on this (I've explained here why), so in short I have to say that, after two consecutive day ones, I still find Llama's case against Voopy to be unsubstantial. His start theory about Vompatti being more active on Day 0 falls under theme bias for me and hasn't been checked by others that it meant something in particular (civ/bad) when it happened in the past.

Then he addressed each one of Vompatti's replies as signs of him feeling cornered, retorting like a baddie would instead of ignoring it would he be a civ and feeling worried about getting lynched (today). I think he may have read too seriously some of Vomps' replies - as, just like TH, I also believe his "epitome of a helpful civ" was an irony. I checked back on a few games that were listed and, tons of Vompspeak aside, I see no evidence it was any less ambivalent what he turned out to be (civ/bad) when he made jokes or remarks about him being bad.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing Llama's intense belief in his case (which perfectly suits his proactive and confident playing), but I do find his obstinacy over it and his occasional misread of the situation to be more concerning. He also often had the tendency to reinterpret some replies to befit the cases he's building (Voopy's irony and - on a more personal note - claiming BWT spoke on my behalf, back on the "are you bad" matter, or that I came back on that answer, which was taken completely out of context). If he's speaking as a "helpful civ on a baddie hunt", these stand simply as intriguing lapses in his cases. If he's playing more a intentional game than that, these are for me clearly worrying factors.

And since there's also a theme going on about watching more closely over the five who lynched BWT, I'd say Llama is more suspicious here as well, because his vote was the most partial of all (in context of BWT garnering votes for his LC vote), otherwise also voting on his own misconception (mentioned above) that BWT explained in my behalf (which he didn't at all; he merely interpreted what I had already said).