The Syndicate

Sweet! Combining ISO reads to my vote analysis really paid off. Have to laugh at the fact that I voted for a baddie for a pointless reason Day 1. I'm glad my notes brought me back around to him. Go civvies!

Well poop on a stick and shuckey darn.

The last two players to comb over are Mingus and Fleck (can I objectively analyze myself?). Neither of these cats feel like the last baddie to me.

Mingus was the deal-sealing vote on Buble. It would make Mingus one of the ballsiest baddies I've ever laid eyes on. I mean balls the size of hubcaps, baby. He and Fleck drew a line in the sand and that's what's kept him on some radars since. Not sure what his logic was on Coleman but, then again, Coleman seemed to defy logic.

Fleck is what Fleck is. Nothing wrong with that. Just a different breed of cat with some new, swingin' jazz ideas.

Hey cats, sorry I pulled a drive-by vote but I'm glad it went through. I was having horrible connection issues in my travels. I finally got signal and tried to write a post and lost signal. Next time I got signal, I just voted.

RIP Coleman. Unsocked, the behavior makes a lot more sense. Shame to lose the cop. I will also check back to see if he made any hard confirmations or seemed to suggest anything.

As to the question about how many baddies there are, Heist rules mandate 10 civvies and 3 baddies, so we're looking for a solo killer so long as this game follows the guidelines. It was made pretty clear after the last game that that is the setup for these types of games.

Ornette Coleman wrote:To be honest I would be voting for no lynch if I didn't have four votes on myself. Hiromi is a possible baddie, but not a confirmed one. I think it would be wise if we all thought this through and voted for no lynch. Remember, a mislynch is no less likely than the baddies accidentally killing one of their own during the night phase!

Hiromi Uehara wrote:If there is a reason, I'd like to hear it. I just really hope it isn't personal.

Try this.

Vince Guaraldi wrote:Finally Miss Uehara. Her Day 1 vote gave life to a Col-train and allowed Puente to try to save Buble. Uehara hasn't been much of a talker, at least not with words that matter. Perhaps she's flying under the radar. But that Day 1 vote belies all the under the radar squawking. Navarro talked a good game against Coltrane, so you could argue that it makes sense for her to cast a vote for a good argument- but again, like Dixon, it'd be a vote for someone else's ideas and not her own. The part that bugs me is this- knowing that Puente was bad, would two baddies really go for a back-to-back save like that? And if so, why not just hop on our weak but curious Dixon train? Her Day 2 vote is possibly sketchy too. She kept Fleck out there in the lead while minds were changing. Maybe she thought she could use other people's ideas for a second day and railroad a civvie with people out for his blood.

Hiromi Uehara wrote:

Bela Fleck wrote:moved vote

Why do you move your vote to me?

Probably because you're not exactly doing a bang-up job of justifying your existence. That and nobody really wanted to dog-pile on Mingus with him.

Chris Potter wrote:Will have to do some reading after work tonight, I haven't really considered voting Hiromi.

We've only got a little over four hours to vote. Will you be back in time or are you thinking in terms of a Day 4?

We'll need a few people to help lynch Uehara, seeing as she and I are the last two hold-outs. Fleck said he could go that way but that wouldn't be enough.

Do you really think that two baddies would both take part in a late-day last-ditch hail mary train on another player like that though?

Well it would have been nice if you'd have been a little less vague in your verbiage then. I got no beef with you, cat. Does anything I've written so far strike a chord with you at all?

Unless you expect anyone to infer suspicion from "Tito's absence is bothering me. The fact that our amigo is on the verge of being lynched and has only voted twice is bad."

Chris Potter wrote:

Charles Mingus wrote:

Chris Potter wrote:My line of work requires making very risky decisions, but the risk pays off. I have been really lucky in this game so far.

How so?

The two people I suspected to be mafia were lynched. My initial vote for Bublé was really just a risky guess, but his further actions cemented my decision.

But you didn't suspect Puente. You were merely willing to get rid of a non-participating player:

Chris Potter wrote:Tito's absence is bothering me. The fact that our amigo is on the verge of being lynched and has only voted twice is bad.

However, if he's going to stay absent and not contribute to the discussion, I'd rather vote him out of the game. In this scenario, we wouldn't be in shambles if he were civ, and we'd get rid of a shady silent snake if he were a bad guy.

I think I'm voting Tito.

Now for Coltrane-

He gets on the wrong side of Navarro Day 0. They exchange votes Day 1 over sock-guessing. He makes it back once before the deadline to say he doesn't like Uehara's vote on him. At night, he thinks the final vote on him (Puente) might be baddie- good guess. He also ends up on Fleck's side of the "would the baddies bus the godfather?" debate. He's somewhat pleased with Navarro getting whacked because it spares him from having to build a case on him and defending himself from Navarro Day 2. Whacking Navarro was either a lousy attempt to make Coltrane look worse or a clever way for baddie Coltrane to take heat off of himself. He doesn't understand the Fleck voters and had this to say about Puente at 5:10 pm:

John Coltrane wrote:i'd rather go for Tito Puente today. I believe they are mafia, and they voted me to save their buddy.

Then this at 5:49 pm:

John Coltrane wrote:The tito wagon hasn't had any real resistance to it, either the remaining mafia players are inactive or we are voting in the wrong direction. Thoughts?

He has been AWOL so far today, and we're running out of today.

Potter is also a tough case. He votes mid-stream both days. Day 1 he's the second vote on Buble, which ties the godfather up with Dixon. His vote is for non-game-related reasons though, so there is nothing concrete to poke at there. It a hell of a gambit to get yourself into and not one he can easily walk away from. At night he claims he voted Buble for the way he was responding to heat and the questions of others. He suspected Mingus and Davis at one point while feeling civ on Holiday and Fleck. He joins the Puente train not because of mine or anyone else's comments but because he'd rather oust someone who's not participating enough. When I say I was going to look into him, he comes back with a WIFOM sandwich saying he's either civvie or a very arrogant baddie. I say he's either civvie or the coolest customer to ever be a baddie. Now he's got a vote on Coleman, who he never even mentioned before today by name.

Alright, so Coleman voted "No Lynch" on Day 1, which stands out mighty fierce. Hard to say if that is indicative of the player behind the sock or something more strategic. He said it wasn't fair for some to vote for Buble for non-game-related reasons and then says this:

Ornette Coleman wrote:

Fats Navarro wrote: No Lynch Voters
Coleman - Why are you voting the one thing to help the bad guys?

If you would stoop to participating in a lynch just to avoid helping the bad guys, you are no better than them.

Strange cat, that Coleman. Then he self-votes on Day 2 at one point and bounces between Fleck and Puente but settles on Puente at the end. A bunch of rambling at night and then says today he has a complicated procedure for randomizing, which is why he voted "No Lynch" Day 1. Either Coleman is having a great big laugh at our expense or he is being difficult/strange for the sake of being difficult/strange.

What up, Mingus? I'm going to do some more digging. I never got back around to Coleman and Potter. Gotta be a man of my word.

Man, I just can't get much of anything by way of a read on Coleman. Potter seems pretty airtight. More details later.

Chris Potter wrote:

Vince Guaraldi wrote:

Charles Mingus wrote:

Vince Guaraldi wrote: Mingus- who do you want me to look at next?

Coleman, and whoever hasn't been on your mind so much. I want to know what you think here, I need to widen my focus.

I'll check out Coleman and Potter. I've barely noticed Potter, so I'll shed some light just to make sure my ignorance to him is justified.

The nice thing is that we know that no living players are defending teammates anymore as we pick apart our suspicions.

Buddy, would I really jump on the bandwagon on both Bublé and Puente? I voted for all the baddies that went down.

On day 1 lynch, I could have spared Bublé (the mafia godfather) and killed the 'Trane if I had changed my vote because, as you remember, Bublé got 4 votes (one of those was mine) while Coltrane got 3.

I could have tied the day 2 poll by picking Béla Fleck but I didn't. Instead, I chose to lynch Tito.

I'm either a civilian or an arrogant mafioso. A really, really dumb and arrogant mafioso

Your votes are exactly why your so far back on the burner, my man. It'll still be useful to try to theorize how you could be the last turkey. If it seems ridiculously implausible (as it currently seems) then we move toward more plausible options.

I'm curious to see where Coltrane and Uehara cast their votes. It could be telling for one of them.

Bela Fleck wrote:comments can be made later, got some stuff to do

Fair enough. I'd appreciate some comments before the end-of-day frenzy arrives.

Bela Fleck wrote:the comment on POE should of gave away the comments. not doing it

Why not? If you care about POE, then you should want to look at and comment on suspicions and theories on everyone. If you expect me to vote with you, you need to tell me why possible evidence doesn't point in another direction.

Bela Fleck wrote:

Vince Guaraldi wrote:

Bela Fleck wrote:

Bela Fleck wrote:So its between mingus/hiromi like silver said.

^not moving from this, the nk leads up to one of the two.

Of those two, I'd be inclined to vote Hiromi Uehara. I'm still not reading Mingus as a jive turkey.

You have no opinion whatsoever on my thoughts on Davis or Dixon? At least give me a reason why each one isn't the baddie we're looking for, if possible.

do it and the vote will join, its POE right now.

What is POE? And can you please comment on Dixon or Davis?

Charles Mingus wrote:

Vince Guaraldi wrote: Mingus- who do you want me to look at next?

Coleman, and whoever hasn't been on your mind so much. I want to know what you think here, I need to widen my focus.

I'll check out Coleman and Potter. I've barely noticed Potter, so I'll shed some light just to make sure my ignorance to him is justified.

The nice thing is that we know that no living players are defending teammates anymore as we pick apart our suspicions.

Bela Fleck wrote:

Bela Fleck wrote:So its between mingus/hiromi like silver said.

^not moving from this, the nk leads up to one of the two.

Of those two, I'd be inclined to vote Hiromi Uehara. I'm still not reading Mingus as a jive turkey.

You have no opinion whatsoever on my thoughts on Davis or Dixon? At least give me a reason why each one isn't the baddie we're looking for, if possible.

I'f you boys played the same instrument, I'd say we ought to get a ruler and see which one is bigger. Please put the egos away and let's nab this jive cat messing up our jams.

Mingus- who do you want me to look at next?

Fleck- What did you think of my long-winded musing about Davis, Dixon, and Uehara?

Ricochet wrote:^Ahem.

Cut out the first 40 seconds or so and I'd give it a thumbs up.

Lay it on me, brother Mingus. Do you just want to take a hard look at everyone or are you willing to exclude any names from the hunt?

Miles Davis wrote:That's some good old-fashioned vote analysis, just like my uncle, Jasper Sarsaparilla used to do! I can't argue with the logic, but I am not the bad musician in the bunch. I am just Jim-dandy with lynching Hiromi or Dixon.

The simple fact that you three were not a part of either successful lynch means nothing by itself. In larger games, civvies have gone several days without voting for a baddie. It happens, so it's nothing for anyone to get excited about. It's just an interesting observation to explore to see if it could be a clue. It's normal for a baddie to bus a teammate once they're number appears to be up, which is why I'm cautiously skeptical of the "Fleck supabus" theory but I recognize that it's possible. Fleck voted for Puente mostly out of self-preservation since it was the only train a-rolling. That and he probably felt comfortable following Holiday's lead since they're so tight.

You, Mr. Davis, are my lowest suspicion of the three I mentioned before. You followed my lead on an early Day 1 vote. It happens. It happened to put Dixon into the lead over Buble for the moment but it was short lived. Now your Day 2 vote could be construed as fishy since you jumped out early on Fleck, as if that was the logical train of choice. I'll give you that Fleck said some jive stuff about what baddies would and wouldn't do but, as I've stated, I have my reservations on that bit of tin foil. Interesting to note is this: if you aren't the last baddie, then they're a pretty patient bunch, voting all in the middle and end like.

The other two I'm torn on. We'll start with Dixon. We can't really fault his Day 1 vote because the second-place train at the time he voted was himself. The sour note to it though is that he said he was thinking about voting for Buble and felt like he wanted to. But he didn't. Instead, he voted for Mingus. Interestingly, he did not utter a word about Mingus up to that point. Maybe he was jumping on board some other folks displeasures with Mingus' methods but even then he's just voting for other people's ideas instead of his own. His vote also kept things pretty spread out. Day 2 he had a vote on Fleck, then a vote on Coleman and then went back to Fleck after Puente had a two-vote lead. He said he wanted to give Tito a chance to defend himself, which is right noble but Tito's Day 1 vote was pretty sour in the timing. Uehara had voted for Coltrane not long before, so Tito's vote tied things up pretty late in the day, giving his pal Buble a chance depending on Mingus and any late vote changes. Tito looked like a duck, voted like a duck, and sure enough jazzed like a duck, which doesn't reflect well on Mr. Dixon. Puente also had a choice in tying up the votes. He could have voted for Coltrane or Dixon to force a tie. The Coltrane case was built on more substance though, but it's still curious.

Finally Miss Uehara. Her Day 1 vote gave life to a Col-train and allowed Puente to try to save Buble. Uehara hasn't been much of a talker, at least not with words that matter. Perhaps she's flying under the radar. But that Day 1 vote belies all the under the radar squawking. Navarro talked a good game against Coltrane, so you could argue that it makes sense for her to cast a vote for a good argument- but again, like Dixon, it'd be a vote for someone else's ideas and not her own. The part that bugs me is this- knowing that Puente was bad, would two baddies really go for a back-to-back save like that? And if so, why not just hop on our weak but curious Dixon train? Her Day 2 vote is possibly sketchy too. She kept Fleck out there in the lead while minds were changing. Maybe she thought she could use other people's ideas for a second day and railroad a civvie with people out for his blood.

Talk to me, cats. What do you think about any of this? Is it worth picking some more or should we look at other options?

How's it going, you hip cats? RIP Miss Holiday. I could tell from your position in the Buble votes that you were jazzing right.

I got some ideas rolling in my head that I'd like to share. Let's drop the whole "Player X is good because I say they are" tune and use reason to work out the last square among us.

First thought I'd like to share:

Of the nine of us remaining, three have not voted for either of the baddies we've lynched already. Those players are Davis, Dixon, and Uehara. Check the charts that wild host of ours provided:





Look at who they voted for and when the voted. Let me know if anything about these three players stirs you at all. I'm not accusing anybody of anything yet. I'm just asking us to think a little. Yesterday and last night were too testy for my taste. I'm used to pianos hitting perfect notes and it's been a little off-key in here lately.

A most fortuitous result! Just one flat-noter left and we can jam like nobody's jammed before. If I'm not killed off, I will try to be around more on Day 3.

Ornette Coleman wrote:

Vince Guaraldi wrote:Coleman, what are you playing at here?

I'm being indecisive.

That's poor jazz form. Just go with it for better or worse. Jazz up, sir. Jazz up.

Any Fleck-tones care to join us on the "Punt Puente" side of the fence?

Coleman, what are you playing at here?

Mr. Dixon, I beg you to place your vote on either Tito or Fleck. As it stands, there will be a tie if Tito shows up and tries to save himself. Let's pick sides on these two and see how any vote changing shakes out.

My goodness you jazz fiends! What a wild turn of events this has been. My apologies for sitting back and waiting for a comfortable moment to break in.

I like Holiday's passion but I have to ask her this: what would you think of Fleck had he NOT sock-slipped? Seems the chief reason you're defending him is because of his real identity and very little that is game related. Some of the things that Fleck has done and said today are down right dirty jive. I'm of half a mind to join Mr. Mingus, who has been speaking a lot of sense. I'm still not down on Tito but the verdict on Fleck is far from settled.

*cats

I'm feeling you cata on Hiromi but I'm not quite all there with you just yet. More reading, more reading man. I'm still feeling buggy about Tito, so I'll tickle the ivory his way for now.

Sorry to leave you cats all high and dry for so long. I'm going to go back and check my posts about you all again and hit the ISO gig one more time to see if anything has changed. I recall feeling more concern about Tito than Hiromi but maybe some new points were raised while I was out. Not sure what Coleman is all about with that self vote. There's jazz and then there's crazy. Not sure yet which that is.

Coltrane said he had two votes at 5:59 pm. then he doesn't post until just after the lynch post. At that point, Buble had 3 but Coltrane could have place a survival vote switch onto Buble if he felt threatened. Hard to say there.

Buble posted at 2:00 pm and never came back before the poll closed. As long as he wasn't lurking, he never had a chance to save himself.

Perhaps Coltrane can explain why he left his vote where it was despite being one vote short of tying with Buble.

Fats Navarro wrote:Hmm... Buble didn't even try to save himself by voting Coltrane, Coltrane didnt secure his safty by voting Buble.

Teammate interaction?

Have to go back and see their activity after said votes to judge any fishiness there. If they weren't around to change a vote, then it's a false trail. I'll go check quick.

Potter's vote for Buble is sketchy because it's not based on substance. Feed us some more notes, my friend. I need to hear you to understand you.

Puente ain't trying hard enough yet and just glommed onto the Col-train in agreement with others. Jazz is original. So far Puente is not.

Uehara has little of substance. There's no room for filler in jazz. She seemed to just follow Navarro's lead on the Col-train.

Holiday didn't buy what Buble was playing. She seems legit to me. I'll circle back around on her suspicions after I finish my ISO's.

Mingus put the nail in Buble's coffin. Seems square to me but I need to see more from him to see if he's just playing a fine tune or actually feeling a fine tune.

Navarro plays his tune like someone with experience and the edge that comes with thinking you know more than you probably do. It's a personality thing that can seem bad but I read it as just a pushy guy trying to make something happen. We may not see eye to eye but he ain't all bad. If anything he's probably the one most likely to redeem himself in our eyes and come up clutch for us here soon.

Dixon's got my bushy white man eyebrow raised a little here. Not for the jazz hands thing but for a slight flip flop on Buble. First he tells Coleman he'd like to vote for Buble but then he comes back around to say Buble's responses felt genuine. Others didn't feel the same way. Then after Buble is revealed to be jive turkey supreme, Dixon comes in suggesting we look for a bus in Buble's voters but suggests the last two votes. Seems like he can't make up his mind but he likes trying to nudge with with soft notes.

Fleck doesn't give much to dance to during Day 1 but my oh my is he putting up a unique solo effort tonight. He's mixed it up with a few people across my still-developing color spectrum. The bussing tussle between Fleck and Navarro/Davis/Mingus shows he stands for something, which is honorable even if I feel he may be misguided on part of it. He's knows what he is about and isn't interested in switching up his plan to please the crowd. Challenging the audience is what jazz is all about. He's a tough one to crack.

Coleman never really took a stand and only had one concrete thought Day 1. Not many posts there.

Coltrane was justified in moving past sock-hunting. It's not a fruitful exercise here because we don't know who all is playing. Now he did flip-flop in only a fee measures on Bela. First he said none of the Buble votes looked bad but then said Fleck could be. Strange but not terrible. I disagree on his bussing comments. In a game this small, bussing a teammate on Day 1 could provide crucial cover and put you on the trail to victory.

Davis was largely absent Day 1 with just a few riffs here and there. Nothing very above the radar at all. He could have hidden behind my vote but it would look worse to blindly glom on. He's been laying down some wisdom tonight though. As long as he's not trying to build a Day 2 train on Fleck, I'm cool with him for now.

I'm picking up some strange vibes as I look back through the thread. I'm going to look at you all in ISO before I finalize a few thoughts for the night.

I suppose I will leave my vote where it is. Day 1's man. Day 1's.

I agree that he's holding the same note a little long but let's see if he can throw a few more dots down on the sheet. He's only got four posts. I think neither of you make sense for today's lynch. Both your improvs feel a little too convenient to join in on. I still haven't seen any tonal surprises that take my breath away though. Not much time to keep lookin' though. Day 1's man. Day 1's.

Fats Navarro wrote:I would like to point out that there is 1 active artist who has already tried to stifle discussion, and there was no discussion on the matter.

Chill, cat. Chill. You're hammering on this issue like it's legit but it's no blue note my friend. You may think your case is sharp but all I hear is awkward flat notes. He wasn't deflecting. The way I see it, he was moving past the something sour to find sweeter vibes. We all want to be on the up-and-up, not the out-and-out.

Don't mind me, babe. I'm just free-styling and waiting to see what comes of it.

Fats Navarro wrote:

Vince Guaraldi wrote:

Fats Navarro wrote:Coltrane why did you dismiss a subject of discussion?

Who's down to vote this man with me?

I dig your line of thought. I do, I do. But I'm going to throw my vote at Billy Boy Dixon at the start. That cat was the first (and for a while, the only) one of us to do something the host wanted. Not a bad thing on its own. Waving that fact in our faces in an attempt to gain favor with the host, however, is brown-nosing. Can't stand for that here. No siree.

If I noticed that I was the only player who actually read the rules in a 3 hour span of activity, I would've probably stated the same, or at least nodded in the host's direction. How is that alignment indicative?

Do you think baddies generally are the 1st responders to a thread going up, mid, or last? What makes you think this?

Well, it's no more or less indicative than your reasoning for voting for John.