The Syndicate

So before I go to sleep and head into my journey tomorrow, here are my thoughts on Lang's message regarding the D9 lynch, based on two relevant moments in that lynch process

1) LC-Canuck tied 2-2, Made and Canuck giving the last two votes. Canuck was forced to tie herself with LC, so it's pretty explanatory what purpose she saw in that. Indeed, she apparently did not remember that ties would result in no lynch, still she obviously found it better to give herself a 50-50 chance, anyway. What LC points out about why would Made be motivated to force a tie, if he's bad, makes sense. He suspected Made the other day, for that reason, but only as an attempt to not push AP into lynch zone as his teammate - this is obviously no longer a good argument, since AP flipped civ. In my opinion, Made2.0, so far, has strongly voted according only to his own leads and cases i.e. not being influenced by other players' lobbying for any kind of votes, bandwagoning or anything of that kind.

2) LC-Canuck at 1-2. At this point, Bass wasted his vote on a replaced Roxy/unlynchable TH, LC went forward with his vote for AP and TH went forward with his vote for Dom. It is important to note that LC's "lobby" for voting AP came *after* all these votes (and TH also wanted to take advantage of the same sort of situation and lobby for voting Dom). I would also note that LC and Canuck didn't really saw each other as likely candidates throughout the entire day, LC even going to the length to ask at one point "what does Canuck have to do with SVS being killed" as if the answer wasn't obvious. Assuming that, with a bit more suspicion on Canuck, he might have considered keeping the lynch more focused on a two-way situation and voting for her, I must have slightly mixed feelings about his vote. Yes, he did focus very (or too) much on AP and found him the best lynch option. But maybe he also did not intend to push Canuck into near-certain lynch.

So to answer Lang's food for thought: no, I can't fully discern what would anyone have wanted out of a non-result. I mentioned in 1) my ideas on why those who did in fact push it towards a tie did it that way, but it doesn't make me believe there was any plot there.

And the part about BR?

Would you have pursued something different if you would have held on to your vote, but AP would have still voted for you and tied you with Canuck?

EBWOP: I left "I think there were two important moments in that lynch. In reverse chronological order:" in my post above. I wrote that down, planned to re-read the D9 lynch and add thoughts, then decided to elaborate later, but left that part by mistake.

But since I accidentally hinted at it, I'll now say that those two moments are:

1) LC & Canuck tied at two votes each. Made and Can add the last two votes. (LC already weighed down on this)
2) LC & Canuck are at 1-2. A lot of spreaded votes happen, instead of people focusing on this possible two-way lynch path.

I'll elaborate later, because right now I have to make preparations for my departure early tomorrow morning.

I'll try to think over Lang's message, re-read extensively D9's votes and such. I think there were two important moments in that lynch. In reverse chronological order:

But for now, I would like ask LC if he could clarify two posts he made on that Day

Long Con wrote:Canuck, if you're not a baddie, then perhaps a vote for A Person and some faith would be in order here. I promise you, I am a Civ. I think I was foolish with my vote.

Long Con wrote:I can't believe I made such a silly mistake. BR is laughing at me right now.

What did you mean by "being foolish with your vote", then "making such a silly mistake", in the context of the voting back then?

Switching to [Night 10] in the subject to avoid further confusion, everyone should do the same.

R.I.P. Sabie/AP2.0. So sorry.

What's a TS-win, Canuck?

Since this Night will last until Monday, I should probably repeat my disclaimer that I'll be in London from Monday until Friday, with business on Wednesday specifically, otherwise hanging out in the city much of my time during the rest of the days. I'll try my very best to catch-up here during the evenings, but generally depending on how much time and fuel I'll have left in me (although, since I'll be two hours closer to DST or whatev-ST, 2am-ish deadlines will definitely be much better than 4am-deadlines anyway).I have no objections to switching to 24/24.

AP it is then. The ideas on him are balanced between good theories and gameplay interpretations/speculations. I think this lynch can go either way. Would have gone with LC or Canuck slightly more, but not much can happen anymore in that regard.

Vompatti wrote:I see no reason not to *vote for Canuck* again.

I didn't really notice you giving a reason in the first place, apart from your toss coin moment.

It's 2:43am here and I'm too tired to stay another two hours, I almost fell asleep an hour ago. If we are to go the consensus way, I will try to revisit the viewpoints on AP and decide. Otherwise I could see myself voting for Canuck or LC as well.

Fark.

http://www.avclub.com/article/rip-leonard-nimoy-215878

Canucklehead wrote:Holy shit I'm terrible at endgame. I've now convinced myself that RoxNips and Rico are teamies.

And what convinces/d you of that?

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Shall I presume the last part or my entire post? If the former, yes I realize that, but these are similarities that I notice.

Yes, the former.

Admitting that you are incorrect and regret your decisions is a baddie trait now?

Surely not because that was not quite what I was referencing, but more like downbeat gameplay statements.

Shall I presume the last part or my entire post? If the former, yes I realize that, but these are similarities that I notice.

To sort of wrap up for now:

Canuck catching a second wind, on top of sounding quite genuine the whole time, is making me more uneasy rather than satisfied. I would echo, in this regard, LC's point and say that I'll be very frustrated if it turns out she got herself out of a very tight situation and that we should have gone for the simple solution, wether she is indeed MM's teammate or if she is on the other team, but got herself cornered because of the MM issue. This is why I can slightly understand Made's vote and I noticed TH sort of shares the same mistrust. I didn't really like her initial thoughts on why to go for AWOLs such as AP, but since then she, again, developed much better thoughts.

I honestly can't shed my overall suspicion on LC either, but it's kinda gut-based rather than being able to connect the dots. I just have the nagging feeling much of his posts can be read in a bad light. The Llama-kill/DF-frame context is still most unfavourable to him, but I'm still feeling he'd have all the reasons to push it away from him for a couple more days, until it might not matter anymore. Why, for instance, would he call for no more spreading votes, when he himself contributed to it the other day? I'm ok in theory to pursue a certain lynch, but I'll still be wary about who intends to propose it.

LC's also catching a second wind, after days of rather moping that the civvies are playing lousy or that he is, of taking a back seat and just insisting on DF and such. Again, I personally can't read this in an entirely genuine way. It's almost as if SVS and a few other important players were "cleared" in order for certain players to take the floor, instead. And speaking of self-deprecating tone, the ones I get from LC, Canuck and sometimes even Dom aren't really relaxing me either, but on the contrary, make me believe there might be a "three's a crowd" thing going on there; on in this case, "three's a team".

Made wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Made wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Thanks for clarifying, LC. In that case, I really don't understand either why Made did nothing all game long. Probably because Made.

wait, time out.... how did you know what kind of play I'm know for?

I didn't say I "know". Where have I expressed such certainty?

You hadn't said know, but my question still stand. If this is your first game with me, how are you able to justify my behavior with "Because made". Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure it was the first reference to my play in that light this game.

It was, but honestly I didn't intend to put so much weight into it, meant it more as an irony, although I can see why it didn't come off like that. I was also influenced by remembering a lot of players commenting on how odd your gameplay is, on several occasions, in here as well as in other games (Death Note). Some even hesitated to vote for you on D5, thinking you are just playing in a very "strange" way.

I'd like to also put the above in context of all the replacements, much like I said it would be good to do in my initial post. I think Sabie and Lizzy were replaced by Mongoose (as her alternative to modkilling them and getting those roles back into play somehow) and Spacedaisy and Roxy asked to be replaced - of course, Mongoose probably contacted Sabie and Lizzy too in order to get their opinion, but overall I believe this is the big picture.
If there's a way to read Sabie's inactivity, for instance, I myself still have to learn it.

I find it reasonable that both teams might have at least one such player and that they would have agreed to replace them as we advanced more towards the endgame, but I'm still inclined to see the low-lying rather than absentees as likely candidates. But I also understand better now the "AWOL theory" Canuck has put forth - although, to be fair, I would have preferred to have heard it from the beginning rather than to feel like two WIFOM-suspects - her and LC - are desiring to gun for the most absent player in the room.

That definitely puts Spacedaisy/Vomps and Roxy/TH in the spotlight, except that I'm conflicted about both separately and I'm getting the opposite feedback on each, as well. I thought Spacedaisy would make the perfect low-poster candidate, with Vomps not about to break character no matter what role he is now. I now find Canuck's ideas about why Spacedaisy would not be a candidate for either teams quite sound.

Made wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Thanks for clarifying, LC. In that case, I really don't understand either why Made did nothing all game long. Probably because Made.

wait, time out.... how did you know what kind of play I'm know for?

I didn't say I "know". Where have I expressed such certainty?

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Sorry everybody. I got sucked in by puzzle solving in Death Note. I'm not even good at it, but I caught the bug as soon as I saw a few things I could solve.

I'm open to more reasoning on the inactives being potentially bad, because I do acknowledge this is way beyond worrying now that we are so few left. For one, the baddies eliminating active, significant players one by one is likely telling, but in hindsight we probably shouldn't have let those players fly by either. But I'd like all the replacements to be discussed, with both views on the past player and whether you find the current players has made himself suspicious with or may try to conceal. I promise to come with thoughts on them and others tomorrow.

Do you have thoughts on Roxy/TH?

I can see how people are drawn in to the idea that she willingly played from the shadows, but I still can't fully read it as such. You said Bass made good points, but I would argue his points were actually shallow or gut-based throughout much of the game and the last time he actually made a case on her, he might have easily missread her two replacement pleads: the first one, I think, was because of personal Mafia frustrations; the second because of RL issues. Her apologetic posts in the thread make me believe she could just as well have excused herself as a civ, for not being a better player and more helfpul to the cause. As for TH, I think he's facing the replacement challenge the most, given how many are inherently suspicious of the role he's taken over; I'm noticing a few instances where he's been tested with questions, but I can't say if I read anything out of order from his answers.

Sorry everybody. I got sucked in by puzzle solving in Death Note. I'm not even good at it, but I caught the bug as soon as I saw a few things I could solve.

I'm open to more reasoning on the inactives being potentially bad, because I do acknowledge this is way beyond worrying now that we are so few left. For one, the baddies eliminating active, significant players one by one is likely telling, but in hindsight we probably shouldn't have let those players fly by either. But I'd like all the replacements to be discussed, with both views on the past player and whether you find the current players has made himself suspicious with or may try to conceal. I promise to come with thoughts on them and others tomorrow.

RIP Bass.

6 hours of sleep and 1 hour and half delay, in the night train, breakfast now and have an English exam preparation in 3 hours. I'll be back later for thoughts.

Thanks for clarifying, LC. In that case, I really don't understand either why Made did nothing all game long. Probably because Made. I'm going to wait for a second confirmation on talking about who we think is who, before opening my mouth, but I got the gist of that, too. Then again, I think the D4 vote and the D9 vote makes it clear what theory to consider.

Feeling pleb today, so John Woo.

couple of thoughts on LC's list:

Interesting indeed that Made1 never used his pardons. But aren't they night powers (so basically player protects)? And also, would have been able to pardon himself?

Cukor, Lang and Eisentein can optionally use their powers, hence why Lang didn't post until Day...7 was it?, and Eisenstein has been on and off.

Welles is dead if you ask me and last night's poll is revealing of that. But I don't knos if I can say more, is talking about who we think the dead were or who we think the alive aren't still hinting?

A possible total of five badddies, yet ideally two each team. I don't get this math.

Hey, no lynch! We're all still in this.

Bass just wasted his vote, though. At least he's consistent.

Sorry for not being here anymore to answer your questions, Canuck. I was lucky enough to have a connection and be able to write a post instead of being forced to vote with no opinion. Be back later, but, as I've said, busy day for me today.

Posting from train but definitely not staying till the end of the poll, so will vote after this post. Also, a reminder that very limited Mafia from me until Thursday.

LC is my biggest suspicion right now, based on the WIFOMs ( and for other reasons already stated). The one on Canuck is so immediate and based on her being suspected for being MM's teammate, that I can still find it a kill so ham-fisted from the Hacks, that they're just relishing to see Canuck lynched all the way for it. Plus the whole thing still hasn't fully cleared my doubts about her being such an obvious defending teammate of MM's. She made good arguments today about what perils she sees in low-lie players, even if I personally don't agree entirely, and won't go there today. AP's rebutal sounded genuine to me.

With LC though, the Llama kill was built more on plain dissension among them, with no alignments to be deduced from it, just to cast suspicion on the player left alive from the two. Which is one thing. But then, instead of just giving a rebuttal to DF, he suspects him of pushing and makes a two-day case out of lynching him; but now, with DF flipping civ, it looks like a complete frame up. The problem with this WIFOM is that treating a third-party diversion would take much more precious time, to go in completely different directions, look for connections much less predictable, and by then we'd probably already be on our way to completely lose this game. So I'm more willing here to suspect that LC is involved and bad.

Canucklehead wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I still don't get why we should lynch AP for doing little to nothing. Again. It's like saying the most inactive substitute for the most inactive player is the most likely baddie of all.

Flying under the radar is a tried and true mafia strategy. The civvies focus all their energy on the louder/more active people in the thread (because it is human nature to pay attention to those people, and because there is more substance there to build "cases" on), and the baddies lie low and go relatively unnoticed until the late game, when the numbers are so low tht they can't hide any more (like now) but by that point there's no way to make a real case against them because there's just nothing there (like now).

This is not to say that all low-participants are bad (that's obvioisly not the case), but flying under the radar is (for me at least) a point of suspicion rather than a reason to exonerate.

I fully understand the theory behind this and am not trying to exonerate AP or any of the low-liers; you may recall that I was gradually wary of Spacedaisy actually being such a player: busy in RL, occasionally online, yet unwilling to even pop in around here. This was the type of inactivity that seemed to me that potential teammates would also be ok with, while they act "louder/more active" in the thread.

What you said, however, doesn't really change what I meant: most inactive sub for most inactive player = most likely baddie. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't reach such a deduction right now.

Not to mention that I'm noticing how the two players who are (individually) suspects in a WIFOM nominate AP as their easy choice to make.

Also, AP, kindly address this. Or anything.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say or what you're trying to refute in regards to what I've said, since I've nowhere made the sort of insistent equation between "most inactive" and "most likely to be bad" that you seem to be commenting. I think we're talking past each other unhelpfully, so I'm gonna move on.

Yes, we're slightly not intersecting in our viewpoints, nevertheless

Canucklehead wrote: I think Sabie/Ap is my most likely vote today. I will NOT be voting for Bass, myself, SD/Vomps, or RoxNip (but only because I can't). All the rest of y'all are fair game.

Given that you also excluded four other players and given a pass to the rest, I have to take for granted that you imply AP deserves the vote the most. And, assuming you claim you're voting with good intentions, that you are voting for a baddie suspect and, thus, that AP is the "most likely baddie" for you.

Huh? What four players have I excluded?? If you're referring to the list of people I won't be voting for, one of them is me, one of them is not eligible, an two of them I happen to believe are very likely civ.....so yes. Of that group, I think AP is the most likely voteable person to be bad. What's the issue?

Oops, yeah, I did forgot about TH and about including yourself in there.

But... there's no issue, now that you agree in the last sentence with my view. Which takes me back to questioning why do you (and LC) think AP is the most likely baddie.

Canucklehead wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I still don't get why we should lynch AP for doing little to nothing. Again. It's like saying the most inactive substitute for the most inactive player is the most likely baddie of all.

Flying under the radar is a tried and true mafia strategy. The civvies focus all their energy on the louder/more active people in the thread (because it is human nature to pay attention to those people, and because there is more substance there to build "cases" on), and the baddies lie low and go relatively unnoticed until the late game, when the numbers are so low tht they can't hide any more (like now) but by that point there's no way to make a real case against them because there's just nothing there (like now).

This is not to say that all low-participants are bad (that's obvioisly not the case), but flying under the radar is (for me at least) a point of suspicion rather than a reason to exonerate.

I fully understand the theory behind this and am not trying to exonerate AP or any of the low-liers; you may recall that I was gradually wary of Spacedaisy actually being such a player: busy in RL, occasionally online, yet unwilling to even pop in around here. This was the type of inactivity that seemed to me that potential teammates would also be ok with, while they act "louder/more active" in the thread.

What you said, however, doesn't really change what I meant: most inactive sub for most inactive player = most likely baddie. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't reach such a deduction right now.

Not to mention that I'm noticing how the two players who are (individually) suspects in a WIFOM nominate AP as their easy choice to make.

Also, AP, kindly address this. Or anything.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say or what you're trying to refute in regards to what I've said, since I've nowhere made the sort of insistent equation between "most inactive" and "most likely to be bad" that you seem to be commenting. I think we're talking past each other unhelpfully, so I'm gonna move on.

Yes, we're slightly not intersecting in our viewpoints, nevertheless

Canucklehead wrote: I think Sabie/Ap is my most likely vote today. I will NOT be voting for Bass, myself, SD/Vomps, or RoxNip (but only because I can't). All the rest of y'all are fair game.

Given that you also excluded four other players and given a pass to the rest, I have to take for granted that you imply AP deserves the vote the most. And, assuming you claim you're voting with good intentions, that you are voting for a baddie suspect and, thus, that AP is the "most likely baddie" for you.

Canucklehead wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I still don't get why we should lynch AP for doing little to nothing. Again. It's like saying the most inactive substitute for the most inactive player is the most likely baddie of all.

Flying under the radar is a tried and true mafia strategy. The civvies focus all their energy on the louder/more active people in the thread (because it is human nature to pay attention to those people, and because there is more substance there to build "cases" on), and the baddies lie low and go relatively unnoticed until the late game, when the numbers are so low tht they can't hide any more (like now) but by that point there's no way to make a real case against them because there's just nothing there (like now).

This is not to say that all low-participants are bad (that's obvioisly not the case), but flying under the radar is (for me at least) a point of suspicion rather than a reason to exonerate.

I fully understand the theory behind this and am not trying to exonerate AP or any of the low-liers; you may recall that I was gradually wary of Spacedaisy actually being such a player: busy in RL, occasionally online, yet unwilling to even pop in around here. This was the type of inactivity that seemed to me that potential teammates would also be ok with, while they act "louder/more active" in the thread.

What you said, however, doesn't really change what I meant: most inactive sub for most inactive player = most likely baddie. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't reach such a deduction right now.

Not to mention that I'm noticing how the two players who are (individually) suspects in a WIFOM nominate AP as their easy choice to make.

Also, AP, kindly address this. Or anything.

I still don't get why we should lynch AP for doing little to nothing. Again. It's like saying the most inactive substitute for the most inactive player is the most likely baddie of all.

SVS's death now stands as something we should treat either as an obvious kill, after her gunning for Canuck as MM's teammate, or as a diversion.

Just like, as I've said, we should revisit Llama's death, in light of DF not actually having tried to push it and frame LC for it. Same reasoning: either an obvious kill or a kill to shut him up, after announcing he'll go for LC, or a diversion.

My feeling is that both teams want us to treat these as diversions, considering that we were completely wrong the first time, when we lynched Vomps1.0 for thinking FZ's death was an obvious kill.

Long Con wrote:I also ask that question of the next person to post.

AP, Vomps and Bass.

Long Con wrote:I felt good about Made's recent posts, so I would be more likely to vote A Person between the two of them.

Who are the three people you would be least likely to vote for, Dom?

Why makes you vote AP of the three replacements, based on what you said about him? Also, since AP replaced sabie, i.e. the only completely inactive player in this game, I'd also have to ask how can you discern from her complete inactivity (and also her N1 survival) that she was a baddie in hiding, therefore that AP too was now assigned that baddie role?

Turnip Head wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Also, Birdman is going to win the Oscar. The Academy loves movies about the industry.

Called it!

Oh, right, that. Didn't honestly expect for Boyhood to receive an almost shut-out. Keaton, though...

Dunno why my post had Night 8 in the title, probably from starting it by quoting Made's take on Lang's post.

R.I.P. SVS.

Catching up a bit:

Made wrote:

Mongoose wrote:And now a word from Fritz Lang:

Reading back it is obvious to me now that few of the civilian lynches so far have been accidents. There is a malicious group of individuals functioning behind the scenes controlling and manipulating the votes, and when you examine the pattern there is little to no doubt as to who they are. Pay particular attention to what happened on days 5 and 6 and the night between and you shall discover the truth.

._. rip
Alright so (based on votes anyways) Fritz thinks it SVS and Roxy. Thoughts?

Can you elaborate on how you read Lang's note, please?

---

Not sure how I feel yet about a dormant baddie Roxy. The dormant baddie issue itself is thorny, because we've just had three players being replaced, and I don't want to rush and simply contrast Roxy's absence as more intentional, especially given her RL issues. I stopped having a read on her ever since the Vomps debacle made her look better (D4, I think) and then she caught up with a healthy input, but nothing more. I rather think the actives have been active and scheming all along and still are. The only potential dormant baddie I started to suspect was Spacedaisy, but she got then replaced with Made, who is now back to his active self. Vomps seems to have gone back to his usual self too and AP voted DF the other day without reasoning, which is something I can't even correlate, since we lynched him the first time before he could vote for anyone (his D1 self vote notwithstanding, that is).

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Dom wrote:Bass, do you have a specific team you think Rox might be on? Hacks, right? With MM?

I don't see Rox killing SVS like that.

I not sure now. I was thinking hacks. I still think she is bad I mean she asked for a replacement and I don't think civvie roxy would do that I think she would have just rode it out.I think she was looking out for her team because she knew she wouldn't be able to be around.

As far as I remember, her first ask for a replacement was because she wanted time off altogether after a bad GoC feud or something. Her second ask came amidst RL issues. While I am aware those RL issues affected you as well, I'm not quite convinced she would do it on purpose.

BTW, Bass, don't know if you noticed my question earlier, but

Ricochet wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Dom who are you thinking about voting?

MetalMarsh, and you?

MeatalMarsh I would also be with Roxy and Rico in that order.

Bass, you are very consistent in naming your suspects, but not so much in reasoning for it. MM aside, I read back your posts and noticed just one instance of saying something about why you think Roxy and I are, on our own, suspicious. In my case, it's the ever-recurrent underestimating of my playing abilities in this game ("ooh he can't possibly have adapted this way / played this good without btsc"). So, would you please elaborate?
[/ot]

---

So overall I think we now have two active (i.e. unresolved) WIFOMs based on NKs: SVS's and Llama's. The first one is easy: either Canuck is a Hack and together with her remaining teammate made an obvious kill, either the Hacks have took advantage of creating a WIFOM.
Regarding the second, I'd like to quote back my view of how Llama's NK can be interpreted, now updated after DF's flip:

Ricochet wrote:
L0 - LC is a Bro and killed (with his team, I mean) Llama to silence him
L1 - LC is not a Bro (i.e. Hack or civ), but the Bros seized the moment and killed Llama to make it look like LC is involved
L2 - LC was not involved in any way with Llama's kill, but DF is trying to push for it
L3 - LC is trying to frame DF as pushing it

and the Inception-like Level 4 of subtleness would be that the baddies are a completely different faction and they're trying to frame the both of them in some way for this.

So either LC framed DF and actually did make with his team an obvious Kill, or the Bros are framing him, just like they framed DF.

All in all, I see that the baddies are very keen to create WIFOMs, these two being the second and third after FZ's NK. They (the baddies) might want us now to see it as a diversion instead of an obvious kill, given that we were completely wrong the first time. But maybe it would still be best stick to the simple explanation.

---

LC, by the way, is looking bad to me. Back-seat-taking for days now, yet sturdy to lynch DF throughout the same period. His comments also add up, because some of them can be really red in a baddie light. For instance, his latest

Long Con wrote:Sorry DF, the baddies' trick worked like a charm on this sucker.

He shouted that DF is framing him and supported his lynch for two consecutive days, yet now he sees him as a "sucker" who was lynched because of "baddies' trick". What?

Plus throwing in Dom* into the pool suspects just now, without reasoning. Plus other comments, all the way back to when Llama called him on his potential "geez wizz, TH, what a fine case you made, totally subscribe" attitude towards lynching Made (...after which the Llama kill happened).

*not that I don't trust Dom, either, right now


That's about it, right now. All fragments free to snip.

Will you lend us your knowledge and intuition in catching the baddies?

Vompatti wrote:Was Llama a civ like a predicted?

We don't know. He was NK'd.

A Person wrote:

Mongoose wrote:What your choice for Oscar fave says about you:

http://www.purewow.com/arts/What-Your-O ... -About-You

lol @ "you're a guy"

Tru.

Even by that article's standards, I can only go with Birdman. As for the poll, I will count it as my prediction and that is Linklater.

Mongoose wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Well, way to go for me to write endlessly until the Day actually finishes. I was sure I read the poll ends at 2:55am here.

RIP DF.

Ric, I ended the day early since everyone had voted.

Roxy didn't.

Well, way to go for me to write endlessly until the Day actually finishes. I was sure I read the poll ends at 2:55am here.

RIP DF.

To SVS: Sorry for sounding more analytical than necessary, in that case. I did address some of those issues in my big post earlier, but I'll try my best to clarify.

"it's either baddie bluff or civ dread" - this is actually copied from that post: "With Canuck, it's the fact that she's aware she looks bad and defenseless in context of everything, just like she acknowledged that she was inconsistent in judging TH. In light of this, I guess I only have to decide if it's a cornered baddie bluff or a genuine civ dread." I added that I personally know how it feels, from a different game, to wake up, the day after a player's been lynched/killed and found bad, that all you said about him reads as pure defending and that you must be his bad teammate for it. It's a small bias that's holding me back from a clear verdict.

"what I need more is the sign of a team-approved tactic in which MM to have been on the offensive and Canuck on the defensive and on his side" (side-note, I realize I didn't do well to mix these two sentences together, since they're separate ideas) - by tactic, I wondered why MM - who did pretty well not to show support for a lot of players, but rather confront and question a lot of them all the time - would agree with Canuck, as his teammate, to blatantly support him all the way and making it easy to reach the conclusion that she must be his teammate for so much defending. I really feel I need a third part of the equation, of some sort, to see how they fully cooperated this way.

"DF's misfortune to have aligned himself through his posts in relation to some of the Bros' actions can be equal" - Just like you, I don't think DF and MM are teammates. This has to do a lot with the context of the threadlock. Otherwise, I would be more suspicious, actually, of DF & MM intentionally distancing themselves or antagonizing each other as a diversion, rather than Canuck defending MM and MM showing himself completely neutral of her.

But since DF could be a potential Bro, he has drawn suspicion so far on bringing up their activity in his comments. I already noted that, for some reason, he questioned sabie's save, bwt's second rezz and llama's kill, meaning all of the actions executed by the Bros. This could be coincidence and, just like Canuck's posts on MM, unfortunate. LC instead called it "introducing thread actions resulting from baddie moves". The most severe point for which he is suspicious is, of course, whether or not he's pushing Llama's kill into discussion and/or trying to frame LC for it.

What does what mean?

Voting now. Don't think I can go with Canuck. As I've said, it's either baddie bluff or civ dread, but what I need more is the sign of a team-approved tactic in which MM to have been on the offensive and Canuck on the defensive and on his side, with no intent whatsoever to shift from that or to mask it. DF's misfortune to have aligned himself through his posts in relation to some of the Bros' actions can be equal, but there are reasonable doubts on that.

DFaraday wrote:I, for one, think that since Vomps is the active player his vote should count and not Daisy's.

Daisy's vote is not going to be counted, DF, didn't you see Mongoose's post?

My impression was that MM was in perpetual conflict with Roxy, especially after the Vomps affair. But I'd have to go back to read Roxy's early votes and comments on him to give a proper opinion. She did vote for MM on D1, but then was steadfast suspicious of Made, got implicate in the MP-lynch/Vomps-save and so forth.

I have to note, though, that the last person to suspect an MM-suspecter of always voting for someone else instead of MM despite finding him a valid candidate was MM himself.

So I'll write down my thoughts on a few things for now and come back in the evening for more and for deciding. After almost three hours spent this afternoon rereading here and writing, I'd rather practice my Brahms for the next few hours and return afterwards.

Regarding DF and Canuck, both cases are truly eloquent, but there's just one tiny bit that's holding me back in either of them. With Canuck, it's the fact that she's aware she looks bad and defenseless in context of everything, just like she acknowledged that she was inconsistent in judging TH. In light of this, I guess I only have to decide if it's a cornered baddie bluff or a genuine civ dread. (From my Donner experience, I know what the latter feels like. ) As for DF, on his own, going back to the levels of suspicion/frame-up I noted regarding Llama's kill, I'm still not sure why DF would actually want to frame LC for an obvious Llama kill, yet state he believes LC is civ and that he [LC] could be framed. So these are my main doubts that stop me from deciding right now. Maybe others can offer more insight on this.

Also, LC is acting a bit like sitting in a hammock these days and watching everything unfold. I'm aware he'd want to go through with voting for DF, but it's almost like he's taking some distance and letting the others carry on with it.

But back my two thoughts:

1. The lockdowns

In a nutshell, the first one is still confusing as hell. The second, not as much, and it influences me to regard the first one the same way. Which is this: MM did both lockdowns out of self interest. On D5, he probably wanted to vote for SVS the most, but doing so and then locking the thread and getting her lynched would probably have been the worst option for him and he likely didn't have much faith in anyone else (not even his teammates) jumping on SVS's one vote. As for waiting for other lynches to shape up (such as Made's), maybe he feared it was too close and that at any moment, if anyone would have voted for him, the others would have seen his lynch as a better one to go with. There were very undecisive vote reasonings for Made until the lockdown happened. One spark and it could have been him instead. Even SVS noted that, until TH made his now famous Made case, MM was under the heat. As for the second lockdown, if it was also in self-interest, then maybe he was actually foiled by the mods/Host due to the thread never being unlocked before the poll ended and thus he didn't manage to create any more chaos, confusion or even a turn-around.

2. The potential teammate relation between him and Canuck/DF

Even as a baddie, MM has nevertheless concluded his game as a very active player with a solid game of confronting with most players (and automatically getting suspected for it) rather than taking sides. Which is what makes me wonder why he would not make sure, in the frankly high likelihood of being lynched, that things aren't obvious enough as to immediately drag his teammates with him as well. To translate: if Canuck is his teammate, why would he never instruct her BTS to ease down on her "MM is good, boo everyone suspecting him" posts? if DF is his teammate, why would he lock down the thread with the both of them on trial, knowing the suspicions on DF could resume or even be aggravated the following day?

It's already known how much Canuck defended MM and SVS already brought up the quotes, so I won't add anything more to it. Once AP flipped civ, she never managed to surpass the feeling that MM isn't guilty of anything. MM, on the other hand, never really interracted with her that much in the thread, with minor exceptions. Neither defensive, nor judgemental of her gameplay. Total distance, but with no implications. Plus, there was that time when he wondered in the thread why Canuck was silenced or if she by any chance was hit by Cukor's "romantic" powers. If they were teammates, I don't see much purpose in faking such questions.

DF and MM, on the other hand, were in stark and definitive distance from each other throughout the whole game so far. DF quit seeing what MM was seeing in Roxy/SVS after D4. He started re-reading MM and at first concluded he's a civ, but then changed his mind. MM also started questioning him after his Vomps vote, re-reading DF as well after that, acting pinged by DF suspecting him of something on D5 (but apparently he misread that), then already affirming his complete distrust in DF and fully suspecting him for all the things DF was already suspected - his last words to the thread being "lynch DF instead of me, but if you lynch me, lynch DF the next way anyway". This, to me, can read in two ways: DF and MM are teammates but have decided to go with a complete, obvious break-up in gaming - or - DF and MM are not teammates, but MM was sure of DF being a baddie in the other team and antagonized him as such.

So in terms of pure "teammateship", I think if Canuck and MM are teammates, they made a complete mess of not drawing attention, but if DF and MM are teammates, they made a pretty good distancing act over this game. If neither are true, however, I have no other read on Canuck to suspect her (well, except her TH case push), while the charges on DF still linger more.

linki: where, there goes LC proving my point

linki Bass

Ninja'd by SVS on the same question. Actually I do have an impression based on reading back DF's posts/reasoning, but I want to hear it from him first nevertheless.

Long Con wrote:Also:

Favorite Anderson

Poll runs till Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:07:19 pm
You may select 1 option


Paul Thomas
5
Mongoose (1), A Person (2), Dom (5), Ricochet (7), S~V~S (8) 45%
Paul W.S.
1
Long Con (4) 9%
Wes
5
thellama73 (3), zeek (6), Made (9), timmer (10), Roxy (11) 45%
Total votes : 11

I rule.

Would you believe that I don't even know who Paul W.S. is? Sounded more like a "Paul Wes Anderson" hybrid option to me.

Long Con wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Vompatti wrote:Since I just arose from the grave would it be considered suspicious of me to respect my predecessor's belated decision and vote for DFaraday for a reason unknown to me?

If Mongoose won't exclude Spacedaisy' vote from the tally (I'm sure she will, though), then it'd be best not to add another one to it, methinks. But confirmation is needed on that from Mongoose first.

I think that allowing Spacedaisy to vote even though Vomp2.0 has taken over adds to the kind of natural transition that a replacement should have. We're not supposed to be getting a new player with totally different ideas, but it happens. Ideally, Spacedaisy would provide Vomp with notes on her suspicions and views, which Vomp could use as a starting point for true replacement.

Well, I wasn't particularly sure what the habit is, in case of replacements. If it's advisable for the old player to put in one last vote instead of the new player having to give his input right away, then it's fine. I rather meant Vomps shouldn't add a second vote for DF, theoretically in the same slot with Spacedaisy, if Mongoose will count Spacedaisy's vote.

There is, however, the issue that her vote on DF is pretty unaccounted for. Like, at all.

Vompatti wrote:Since I just arose from the grave would it be considered suspicious of me to respect my predecessor's belated decision and vote for DFaraday for a reason unknown to me?

If Mongoose won't exclude Spacedaisy' vote from the tally (I'm sure she will, though), then it'd be best not to add another one to it, methinks. But confirmation is needed on that from Mongoose first.

Derp, one though too many in that post.

Thanks for your input, Canuck. Why would you vote for Bass, though? Roxy wasn't replaced, though.