The Syndicate

Hmmmmm....I am by no means an expert in or connoisseur of film, so imma just vote for a woman, cuz there are practically none on the list.
Ava Duvernay is absent, and Kathryn Bigelow is spelt wrong which made her hard to google, and Nora Ephron made "Julie and Julia" which I hated, and while I loved "The Virgin Suicides", "Marie Antoinette" was an abomination that should've revoked Sofia Copola's filmmaking liscense, so that leaves me with Susanne Bier, of whom I have never heard, but whose films I may now watch just because I now feel an intimate connection with her because I just typed a long and unnecessary paragraph justifying a vote for her.

Hmm. I can spell neither "Coppola" nor "license". Poor form.

Mongoose wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:Hmmmmm....I am by no means an expert in or connoisseur of film, so imma just vote for a woman, cuz there are practically none on the list.
Ava Duvernay is absent, and Kathryn Bigelow is spelt wrong which made her hard to google, and Nora Ephron made "Julie and Julia" which I hated, and while I loved "The Virgin Suicides", "Marie Antoinette" was an abomination that should've revoked Sofia Copola's filmmaking liscense, so that leaves me with Susanne Bier, of whom I have never heard, but whose films I may now watch just because I now feel an intimate connection with her because I just typed a long and unnecessary paragraph justifying a vote for her.
I truly believe Susanne Bier is the most gifted filmmaker alive today. I had Penny Marshall and others on the list too (Catherine Hardwicke, foreign directors, Mira Nair etc). but you can only have 50 poll options.

In that case, I am legit excited to watch her films! Where should I start? The one she won the Oscar for? (Keep in mind I am a cinema neophyte and may not appreciate some of the subtler/more technical aspects of filmmaking...

That should probably have been in green...

Vompatti wrote: not in a completely non-random order:

(...)
wim wenders
(...)
michael haneke
(...)
lars von trier

I will be forever grateful to Wim Wenders for introducing a bunch of ignorant North Americans to the absolute wonder that is Bausch's Tanztheatre Wuppertaal. His film so perfectly captured and reproduced the power of Bausch's incredibly visceral, intimate, and theatrical work (no small feat in itself), but the film also (and more importantly for me, who has worshipped that woman's being since I was a wee and terrified little ballerina just beginning to discover the entire world of movement/expression/experience that exists beyond pointe shoes and perfect technique) did an incredible job of forefronting the profound respect and genuine affection that Bausch had for the incredible artists that she worked with. I loved that film, I adored that woman, and I love Wenders for preserving/reimagining her work in a different medium. I should probably watch more of his films...

Michael Haneke's "Amour" broke me. I just can't even.
I have never been more affected by a film in my entire life. I to this day cannot speak about that film without falling apart.
I should probably not see more of his films, because that one absolutely ruined me and I don't think I could handle that again.

I have a very strange affection for Lars Von Trier's "Melancholia". It was just such an stunningly beautiful, quiet, atmospheric, odd, strangely ecstatic little apocalypse movie. I absolutely love that film. I think that makes me not very cool (my film buff friends universally hated it), but I think about that film often...
I also liked "Dancer in the Dark", so maybe I should watch more of his films, too...

I dunno about others, but I like to use ot green for anything that I write that I think won't be relevant to people who are trying to catch up on or re-read the thread for game purposes. It's a visual indicator that they can just skip over long chunks that have nothing to do with finding mafia

Since the poll is just a check-in poll, and since it's still Day 0, I am considering all of this chat to be OT (but SUPER informative and enjoyable!!), so I'm using green so skimmers can skip it if they choose to or are pressed for time.....
But I don't think its a hard and fast rule? Whether or not something is OT is pretty subjective, methinks....

....or, what Vomps just said but way more succinctly!

thellama73 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Serious question: Who wants to discuss lynch possibilities now, and who wants to wait until several hours before the vote ends?
What could we lynch someone based on? We could see who is named MetalMarsh to find someone who matches up to that famous criminal profile.
We could lynch someone based on a wide variety of things. We could randomize, we could self-vote, we could analyze playstyle up to this point, we could go for no posters, high posters, or people we have personal grudges against outside of mafia. There are many options. I have a couple of thoughts already, but I have been lynched before for "pushing an early day 1 lynch" so I want to make sure people are cool with it before I start tossing out names.

I generally think it is less productive for everyone to roll in five minutes before the lynch and say "no time to catch up, voting so and so."

I'd like to hear your thoughts, llama. I pinky swear I won't accuse you of "pushing an early day 1 lynch".

That's good to know about Vomp's playstyle, and I'll keep it mind as the game gets more game-y and less filmy, but I don't think I'll vote for someone who is usually a low poster just because they seem really into the OT chat and theming. Lord knows if this was, like, "Early Modern Devotional Poets Mafia" or "Photos of Canucklehead's Dog Mafia" my post count/participation level would go up a whole bunch too.
I do understand, though, llama, that you seem to be only a little pinged by Vomps and aren't attenpting to string him up just yet, and I'm glad that people are willing to talk suspicions already which will help make this vote less scattered.

Now, if anyone is willing to put together those games I mentionws above, that would thrill my little heart to no end...

Did everyone eventually check in on Day 0? Or are there any no-shows?
*goes to check Day 0 poll*

There were 23voters in the Day 0 poll, including our fair host, so that means 1 player didn't voter and probably has yet to check in (I didn't bother going through to compare player list with voters, so I don't know who we're missing....but that should be easy enough to find out).

I'm currently leaning towards a vote for the no-show (unless they show up in the interim). I know the received wisdom is that low/no-posters are likely to be civvie (b/c they don't have teamies urging them to participate), but I'd honestly rather be down a civvie and have a roster full of participants (especially early in the game), than lynch someone Day 1 who is actively playing...

Thoughts?

S~V~S wrote:The Hostess said she is actively looking for a replacement. I would rather give her a day to do that. Since she had to cut several roles, she probably loves the ones that are left, and having your roles wasted that way is painful.

You're right, I do remember there being a mention of a replacement being sought....
However, I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning re: "wasting roles". I mean, someone has to be lynched Day 1....one of her carefully curated roles is going to be lost/"wasted" regardless, so I don't see why we shouldn't make it the one that seems the least likely to be used/enjoyed? I guess I'm just not sure why wasting (through a day 1 lynching) the low poster's role is any worse from a host's point of view than wasting (throughthe a day 1 lynching) an active participant's role. I imagine as a host you have to be prepared to lose any role at any time, regardless of how much you love creating it....

But, of course, I have never hosted! Because I am a lazy coward!

I do like your line of thought about OT-heavy content , though. I know that in the later game (again, because I am lazy), I often do a quick browse of a player's number of posts to get a sense of their activity level/contribution when I'm feeling unsure about their blendiness, and don't always religiously comb through the content vs filler ratio, so I can see how that might be a good foundation for te baddies to establish early. I can also see MP's point about squashing enthusiasm, though....but I like the foresight of this observation, SVS, and I think I will join you in keeping it on the back burner going forward.

I'm still leaning more towards a no-show vote, though.

Also, I apologize in advance if I don't respond to things immediately, even if I'm in the thread. I'm currently trying to work on a Pomodoro system, so during the daytime I will only be reading and responding every 30 mins, and will only have 5-10 minutes to do so, so I may not get to everything every time....just a warning!

I think the non-voter is Black Rock.....though I seem to rember her posting in the thread, so maybe I'm wrong??

Lulz. Jinx, MP.

I'm not 100% sure that I'll be around again tonight before the vote ends, so I'm going to go ahead and put my vote on MP for now. My suspicions of him are not super strong, but they're more than I have for anyone else at this point. He just seems to be very much poking at small things using strong language (cf "witch hunt", "serious assumptions"), and then backing down immediately when called out on this strong language, or when no one seems to be on board with his directions. He also seems to be bending over backwards to make sure that he is seen to be listening and considering everyone's opinions....which is, of course, not in itself a bad thing, but the amount of couching and caveat-ing just seems very excessive in MP's case.
Not a strong suspicion (MP possibly always does this to some extent, but it seems even more over-the-top this game), but enough for Day 1 for me in the absence of other strong cases. If I do get a chance to get back to the thread later, I will consider revising, but for now I'm voting MP.

Glad to see bwt's lynching didn't take! Way to not die, dude!

MP: to respond to your incredulity at my vote for you, I just felt like your posts had a very over-explainy/over-clarifying vibe to them. I didn't really mean that you backed down from your positions in the sense that you curled up into a little ball and let people kick you (which seems to be how you interpreted my accusation/vote rationale), but more like you talked and talked and explained and clarified to the point where what was once a bold statement (witch hunts and all that jazz) became much more watered down and conciliatory. That was my impression. Not sure yet if I will repeat my vote for you Day 1.2, but you're definitely still a candidate for me. Sorry!

Yeah, I agree with SVS's analysis of LC and his role breakdown/thoughts. I don't think his post in any way guarantees he's a civ, but I'm certainly not any more suspicious of him because of it, apart from my constant baseline suspicion of "I'm afriad of LC 'cuz he's too damn good as a baddie and I know that's he's capable of easily hoodwinking me". I always have that in the back of my mind because I'm paranoid, but I haven't seen anything from LC yet that pushes me beyond mere paranoia.

I don't agree with FZ that LC's post "said nothing", and "wasn't helpful"...can you give an example, FZ, of a role analysis that says something and is helpful?? That might help me understand where you're coming from with your read on LC here.

FZ. wrote:Can we please get the results ASAP?

FZ, is there any particular reason you needed the results ASAP, or are you just super impatient?

timmer wrote:Im hungover and need to get back to bed. Ill go with svs' vote on bwt, and join her on it. I don't agree with voting llama or vomps.

timmer, would you say that you voted with SVS for bwt more because you agreed with her case on him, or because you didn't agree with cases on the other potential lynchees at the time (llama and vomps)?

I know in reality it was likely a combination of both factors (plus is was Day 1), but I'm curious if one factor weighed more heavily for you. Was it more of a voting FOR bwt, or a voting AGAINST llama/vomps?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:
FZ. wrote:Can we please get the results ASAP?
FZ, is there any particular reason you needed the results ASAP, or are you just super impatient?
I can certainly think of one reason that did not need addressing.

OK.

Turnip Head wrote:Wow, somehow I missed linkitis where a few other people agreed re: BWT, so the vote isn't as spread out anymore. Still casting my vote there, but I'm a bit wary of the quick support it garnered. I guess that includes me though...

TH (you beautiful human, you): did you read the previous pages before you voted? Or were you doing a quick catch-up/skim through kind of thing? I ask because, iirc, the fact that votes were unchangable was adressed both by MM's self-vote (which he realized afterwards he couldn't change) and llama's explicit question to the host (which MM answered for her). Did you miss these posts?

thellama73 wrote:HOST: are votes changeable?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:HOST: are votes changeable?
Nope.

I went ahead and self-voted since I won't be around. Have a good weekend y'all.

oops. meant to also include this TH quote in my previous post:

Turnip Head wrote:I didn't realize voters weren't changeable this game.

Turnip Head wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Wow, somehow I missed linkitis where a few other people agreed re: BWT, so the vote isn't as spread out anymore. Still casting my vote there, but I'm a bit wary of the quick support it garnered. I guess that includes me though...
TH (you beautiful human, you): did you read the previous pages before you voted? Or were you doing a quick catch-up/skim through kind of thing? I ask because, iirc, the fact that votes were unchangable was adressed both by MM's self-vote (which he realized afterwards he couldn't change) and llama's explicit question to the host (which MM answered for her). Did you miss these posts?
Yes, yes I definitely missed those posts. I don't think I would have ended up changing my vote, but when I cast it I definitely thought I had the option. It's been the norm for so many games now that I didn't even think twice about it.

I was going to be looking at FZ today but she's backed off of LC which gives me pause when suspecting her. I felt her vote for BWT was disingenuous as it seemed she was more suspicious of LC and Vomp but voted BWT anyway. Something about FZ feels off to me so far but I don't know enough about her baddie game to know if what I'm seeing is correct. I know she has explained her BWT vote but it still sticks out to me.

Other than that I still don't feel I have enough to go on. The MP/Dom exchange reads like the screenplay for Cloud Atlas: long, meandering and pointless. The Vomp suspicion doesn't resonate with me because he seems normal.

Does anyone want to talk about Rico's Day 1 vote? I believe he was the only player to randomize, and I was under the impression this was his first mafia game. Day 1 randomizing has become somewhat standard around here but it felt too savvy a move for a new player to make especially since he was the only one to do it.

That's all that really stood out to me though I'm digging all the discussion we've got going so far.

I get the impression from the rest of his posts and his back-and-forth with llama that Rico has done his homework about mafia before engaging, so his Day 1 randomize didn't seem any more savvy than the rest of his game so far (which is pretty darn savvy for a newb.....and for many of the old players, not to name any names *cough* Canuck *cough*). I don't think I ascribe that to baddie team coaching, though. If anything, I'd expect teammates of a newb baddie to tell them to play pretty green in the thread to avoid precisely this suspicion.

I'm glad you're digging the discussion so far! What, in particular, are you digging? (since you state that you "don't have enough to go on", I'm interested in which bits have managed to pique your interest/garner your enthusiastic support, yet not managed to give you things to go on....)

fZ: I am asking questions of the bwt posters because that is where I'm mostly focusing my attention this lynch cycle (though with the usual caveat of keeping my eyes open for thing outside of my narrow field of focus) because I think there were some opportunistic votes in there.

So far, I haven't questioned llama or SVS, because I suspected them least of the bwt voters. (SVS because she made a reasonable case and was the first to vote, therefore unlikely to be trying to hide in groupthink; llama because he had votes at the time so his self-preservation vote makes sense. This doesn't necessarily mean he's a civ, but it means I could learn less from questioning him about his valid excuse than questioning others about their less-valid ones).

Your response to my questions makes me feel OK about you at the moment.
timmer's response was pretty equivocating, so I don't think I'm done looking there, but have no real fire under my butt to lynch him either
TH's vote was by far the most opportunistic-looking to me, and his responses and "Golly gee, guys! I like all this discussing about possible baddies who are not me!" blendy and non-commital tone is making me consider very strongly that I might need to vote for this gorgeous creature.

Super linki! But nothing relevant to this post....

by "bwt posters" I of course meant "bwt voters". Dumb brain.

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

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

Mongoose wrote:Hi darlings.

Hope you are having a magical ass Monday!

This was my favorite thing I saw this year: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2407380/combined

What was yours?

Happy hunting!

We have a fantastic local cinema where I live that is dirt cheap and really well curated, so I feel like I saw a lot of great movies this year (desperate need to escape school stress will make a film buff out of even the dopiest of movie consumers, I guess)
Birdman, Calvary, Selma, and (because I am a giant sucker for Cheezy, feel-good, romanticized , British, underdog movies) Pride were all standouts for me. Also, I saw Blade Runner for the first time a few weeks ago in the theatre and liked it quite a bit, but not enough to understand the cult following it has...

Dom wrote:
Mongoose wrote:Hi darlings.

Hope you are having a magical ass Monday!

This was my favorite thing I saw this year: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2407380/combined

What was yours?

Happy hunting!

I don't watch many films, but I really really enjoyed The Skeleton Twins.

Yes! That was great!

Long Con wrote:Hi everyone... I got off work over two hours ago, and now I have finally caught up on the thread.

Thanks FZ. for posting those links to Vompatti's past games, I'm glad that they have been analyzed by some, but I haven't gotten to them yet myself. It's getting late here so I won't be delving into that tonight. Tomorrow is my mom's birthday, and while my brother already took her to see Seinfeld live, I still have gotten NOTHING for her. So tomorrow morning is likely to prioritize that, before I go into work for 11:00. I'll be there for a few hours, after which I come home, and soon after, leave for my mom's. Birthday dinner, good times, etc.

What this means is that I'll have to vote early, and I just know some people I am not likely to vote for at this point, so I guess I'll share that list at least. Not ready to vote for Llama, at least until I look into the Vompatti thing, which I intend to do once I have a little more time. So that's on hold. Won't vote Vompatti either, just because Llama says so. Like I said, I like to see proof that the accusation is accurate when we're talking about past games. Now the evidence is there, just need to look into it.

Dom-MP has obviously been a thing. I agree with MP that Dom is the one that made it into a "thing", and that MP was asking a simple question that Dom reacted to with a lot of... reaction. So, if this turned into a lynch with only MP and Dom on it, I'd vote Dom.

What else is going on... BR is suspicious of TH, I'd have to look over that again. I think that a baddie BR is more likely to lay low than to come out with a hot accusation like that so early. So I'll look again at TH to see if she's on to something.

FZ. is still prickly to me, I've seen baddies in a recent game come after someone early on for a Day One thing like they have a good reason, but it turned out to be a baddie just trying to get someone not on their team lynched. It could be personal to me, since it was me she came after, but I can't help but feel that could be what's happening here. That said, I have a small reason to think that FZ. could be on the level, but I'm not sure how to address it yet.

I'll probably end up voting BWT. Kidding!

I'll have a look again at the BWT voters. It's a little hypocritical of me, since I would have voted for him as well, for the same reasons I am considering an FZ. vote. Baddies like bandwagons, but if a bandwagon is already happening, smarter baddies avoid it altogether and let the voters get themselves in hot water. Maybe that's where I'll look... people who avoided the BWT bandwagon.

Re: the pink part: BR's suspicion didn't come out of nowhere but (it seems to me) built off of my questioning/suspicion of TH (which other people have also commented on), so I'm not sure I agree with you that suspecting TH couldn't be filed under the "laying low" category......but overall, I don't have much of a read on BR at this point.

Re: the purple bit: I thought so, too.....but FZ has now explicitly denied that, so I don't know where I stand with her now.

I agree with the thoughts from SVS and LC that baddies might be very likely to NOT vote bwt once his fate was "sealed", and this is part of the reason why TH's vote seemed odd to me. He votes BWT when things still seemed dicey/up in the air/votes very spread out, then is shocked both that bwt suddenly received a bunch more votes (thus making his vote much more succeptible to being called out as bandwagon-y) and also that he couldn't change his vote (meaning he couldn't do exactly the sort of late and tangential vote that SVS referenced once bwt was no longer a safe spot to land his vote). You can read the chain of TH posts beginning HERE and see for yourselves. Of course, these coud very well be the actions of a civ who recognized a mini bandwagon forming and wanted to reconsider their vote, but coupled with TH's other posts (pre his encounter with BR), it seems sketchy to me.

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's not out of character for you, MP...I have played so few games recently (and played them so inattentively, for the most part) that it's very hard for me to say what is or is not "in character" for people other than those that I have memories of from way back in the day. Emotional reactions and bending over backwards to clarify and self-correct might be exactly what you always do, but the difference in tone from your interactions with people (SVS, llama, come to mind) on Day 1.1, to your interactions with Dom today seems notable. Again, I do not know if I will repeat my vote for you or not, but I am definitely keeping my options open.

I guess I'm just not sure why someone who posts as much as you do, and involves himself in as many of the ongoing discussions as you do, is surprised/frustrated/exasperated when his name comes up frequently. You are not a blendy player (which is great!

), but the unfortunate nature of mafia is that the people who talk a lot get talked about a lot.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

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

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

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

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

timmer wrote:Okay, I'm up to Made's bizarre vote. WTF, dude? Those who know Made's play fairly well, does he do scatterbrain stuff like that often? Saying things like "there's another reason, Iswear but I forget?" Dude...

MP is definitely squirming under the lights today. the more of his posts, like where he kind of goes after BR, I read the more I'm sure I'm voting him today.

I'm just not touching either side of the vomps situation. I got into enough messes trying to vote or defend Wazzipi years ago for the same kind of things. Yes, i agree this seems like more on-topic Vomps than I ever remember, but he's aware that we're aware. He controls the narrative. It's too complicated for me to properly judge. I don't see baddie llama, though, either, I believe llama's thoughts to be genuine.

And I don't quite trust Long Con. Part of it is linked to his defence of MP and suspicion of Dom, though, so that will wait until i know the alignment of one of the players. But LC gets the for now.

Wazzz!!!! I miss that kooky cat!

When's the last time he's been around? [/]

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

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, a few things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lizzy hasn't posted since Saturday night.

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

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

Sorry. )

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

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

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

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

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

linki: wowzers.

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

Placing my vote on LC.

Really?

MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't know what's going on with Vomps but it seems he is purposefully trying to act more zany due to the accusations against him.

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

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

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

So many avoidance votes!

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:So many avoidance votes!
It looks pretty normal for a day one lynch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the snowstorm has eaten SVS mid-sentence!

:P

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

Yes.

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

Search found 228 matches