The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'm voting Roxy. I know vomps is a forgone conclusion, but we'll see what happens.

Is this just to prove me wrong when I said that she probably wouldn't take any votes today?

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I agree with what you've said llama. I looked at the posts in context. You never mentioned saving a teammate, though it was probably implied since you think vomps is bad. But playstyle was never brought up. I mentioned several pages ago that I don't think SVS or Roxy would save vomps (as you know) if they were baddies together, but that doesn't appear related to the current discussion. And as I said, I don't think her first comment about playstyle is something that a civvie would say.

I also wonder why Roxy is no-u-ing me, but not you. Perhaps its because I have garnered suspicion and votes while you have not. Her suspicion of me has only been a reaction to my case against her.

I haven't made up my mind whether her knee-jerk reactions are reading more like a frustrated civ or a cornered baddie.

And I took a couple of votes. :P

S~V~S wrote:Almodovar targets 2 people. I think there are various ways to interpret his direction. Although i would guess he targets based on who he suspects, I think that sometimes being removed from the fray can be a blessing

I agree re Lizzy & Sabie, I doubt that they were targeted by a vote supressor. Daisy has said she was afk, and Vomps, well, perhaps Vomps did not see the point, eh?

And I would like to Thank Ingmar Bergman for seeing which way the wind was blowing, and knowing it was an ill wind

Has anyone had to speak in Romantic Comedies? I might not notice it if they did.

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

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Note: SVS, Canuck, and LC have each refused to explain why they either didn't vote or post the last two days when they were asked.

Do you think all people who are night targeted should announce it in the thread? I don't.

Long Con wrote:It's probably against the rules too, for someone to suggest that kind of thing. I like an aura of mystery around my actions, so I said "Maybe I was busy". Suspect me if you like, that's truly your prerogative.

Lizzy wrote:Aaaaaaaaand back! Sooooo... uhm... sup? *votes Marshy*

S~V~S wrote:George Cukor isn't an insanifier, though. And I think it obvious that people are being silenced and votes are being blocked. We can't say for sure If an inactive is any specific civ role (and why would we want to?) as it is possible they were NKed too.

Ricochet wrote:

Lizzy wrote:Aaaaaaaaand back! Sooooo... uhm... sup? *votes Marshy*

Hiya Lizzy. Uhm... we lynched Vompatti.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Note: SVS, Canuck, and LC have each refused to explain why they either didn't vote or post the last two days when they were asked.

Do you think all people who are night targeted should announce it in the thread? I don't.

In this case it might help. We can rule out an inactive being George Cukor (insanifier) or John Waters (silencer).

Wait, why rule out an inactive insanifier? Canuck wasn't a target the other day.

Long Con wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:It's probably against the rules too, for someone to suggest that kind of thing. I like an aura of mystery around my actions, so I said "Maybe I was busy". Suspect me if you like, that's truly your prerogative.

I've seen so much info-dropping the past few games (usually at Dom's expense), that I don't know what's against the rules anymore.

Well, it's up to everyone to hold themselves to as high a standard of play as they expect to see... and maybe a little higher than that. There is a flip side to it though, and that's when a baddie wants to fake info-drop as part of a deception. Should that be eliminated as well? It's a tough call.

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:It's probably against the rules too, for someone to suggest that kind of thing. I like an aura of mystery around my actions, so I said "Maybe I was busy". Suspect me if you like, that's truly your prerogative.

I've seen so much info-dropping the past few games (usually at Dom's expense), that I don't know what's against the rules anymore.

I swear, I'm getting replaced if any of you start info-dumping or outing people.

Lizzy wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Long Con wrote:It's probably against the rules too, for someone to suggest that kind of thing. I like an aura of mystery around my actions, so I said "Maybe I was busy". Suspect me if you like, that's truly your prerogative.

I've seen so much info-dropping the past few games (usually at Dom's expense), that I don't know what's against the rules anymore.

I swear, I'm getting replaced if any of you start info-dumping or outing people.

I'm so bad, k. Just lynch me now.

Done deal. I used to double bluff when bad.

Mongoose wrote:And now a word from Eisenstein:

Hey everyone. So Vompatti finally got lynched turns out it was for nothing because he was Francois Truffaut. Poor Godard won't be receiving any more messages . So now the the wild Vomps chase is over were should we look at today. I still think everyone should take a hard look at MM. So until next time everyone stay classy.

Mongoose wrote:Effective immediately, birdwithteeth11 has been resurrected.

DFaraday wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote: It should. A fake info-drop is still an info-drop. Since real info-drops are against the rules, any info-drop should be assumed to be fake, unless addressed by the host. The circumstances tend to be messy. I've used a fake info-drop once, and I felt extremely bad for doing so, since I ruined DF's chances at winning Monopoly. I don't know if there were any hard feelings, but I think I owe DF an apology for that one.

No worries, my role hinting helped cause Dom to lose Doctor Who Mafia, so I can't complain about it happening to me. Sorry again Dom!

And yay BWT?

Made wrote:Is there a recruiter in this game?

Ricochet wrote:Why? I was merely rejoicing. That team is factually on a two-night fail streak.

Just a general heads up: Busy day(s) ahead (errands, test preparations, usual study), may affect even my usual afternoon or evening lurking hours.

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Why? I was merely rejoicing. That team is factually on a two-night fail streak.

Just a general heads up: Busy day(s) ahead (errands, test preparations, usual study), may affect even my usual afternoon or evening lurking hours.

We have more suitable smileys for rejoicing than that one.

Hmmm indeed.

wait what are YOU saying?

Turnip Head wrote:Oh hmm. I didn't think about prizes. I guess that's something to be aware of. Regardless, BWT is not on the poll.

thellama73 wrote:

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

Bass, DF, Made, Rico, TH

They're all on my list except Made, who is fine.

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Awesome, BWT! Very phoenix-like, already. The odd night baddies are having a nightmare of a game, so far.

Dom wrote:hmmmm

why the evil eye?

Your reaction stood out from the rest made me curious, that's all. Why did you "hmm" at BWT's rezz? Are you not happy with it?

It was unexpected--- so I'm thinking about the situation-- do you think that's bad?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'll settle this debate then. Mostly because I'm just as curious as all of you as to how I came back.

@Hostess: Was me dying on Night 3 an hosting error on your part, or was I actually rezzed?

Why would you think it was a host error?
If you have no idea how you were rezzed, where did you get the impression that you were supposed to live?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Why? I was merely rejoicing. That team is factually on a two-night fail streak.

Just a general heads up: Busy day(s) ahead (errands, test preparations, usual study), may affect even my usual afternoon or evening lurking hours.

We have more suitable smileys for rejoicing than that one.

Hmmm indeed.

wait what are YOU saying?

Sorry, I'm emphasizing Dom, not mocking you.

No explain yourself.
What about the smilies conflicts with his joy?

Dom wrote:You thought his reaction to my post was part of his rejoice?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'm trying. I think the other civvies could learn something from me.

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:And why is that? What did you think I could have meant that was bad? It sincerely felt to me like you were intentionally pulling the thread away from discussing potential baddie reactions to BWTs survival. That, to me, is relevant discussion fodder for a lynch. So you coming in here and trying to squash that topic pinged the crap out of me, I must say. It felt like you were swooping in and rescuing people, tbh. Look, up in the sky! A flying Turnip!!

You sure extrapolated a lot of meaning from my simple desire to talk about things other than lynching a twice rezzed confirmed civ who can't be lynched

That's okay because I read a lot of meaning into your post as well:

S~V~S wrote:We only discuss people on the poll, TH?

Linki, do you think he should be on the poll?

So when I read this, I think to myself, "Okay, what is SVS really trying to ask me?" It seemed like maybe you misunderstood what I meant, but your next post makes it clear you understood me.

S~V~S wrote:Gotcha, TH.

But no calling me a baddie when I pop in here in the middle of a discussion you are having and tell you to stop talking about whatever it is you are discussing., k?

When I read this post it seemed to me to come from a baddie mindset. You're not actually accusing me in this post, but your whole line of "no calling me a baddie when " really struck me. Why are you laying groundwork to come in here at some point in the future and stop discussion, and then on top of that state that I can't call you a baddie when that time comes?

It seems like you agree with me that BWT is not worth discussing for today's vote. So why do you find it suspicious that I would want to nip that in the bud before it ate up all of today's discussion? Do you really think I intentionally wanted people to stop talking about lynching BWT in order to protect the baddies from speaking their minds? That's just... I don't know SVS. Do you really believe that? Why wouldn't I just say something in BTSC if that were the case?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:And why is that? What did you think I could have meant that was bad? It sincerely felt to me like you were intentionally pulling the thread away from discussing potential baddie reactions to BWTs survival. That, to me, is relevant discussion fodder for a lynch. So you coming in here and trying to squash that topic pinged the crap out of me, I must say. It felt like you were swooping in and rescuing people, tbh. Look, up in the sky! A flying Turnip!!

You sure extrapolated a lot of meaning from my simple desire to talk about things other than lynching a twice rezzed confirmed civ who can't be lynched

That's okay because I read a lot of meaning into your post as well:

S~V~S wrote:We only discuss people on the poll, TH?

Linki, do you think he should be on the poll?

So when I read this, I think to myself, "Okay, what is SVS really trying to ask me?" It seemed like maybe you misunderstood what I meant, but your next post makes it clear you understood me.

S~V~S wrote:Gotcha, TH.

But no calling me a baddie when I pop in here in the middle of a discussion you are having and tell you to stop talking about whatever it is you are discussing., k?

When I read this post it seemed to me to come from a baddie mindset. You're not actually accusing me in this post, but your whole line of "no calling me a baddie when " really struck me. Why are you laying groundwork to come in here at some point in the future and stop discussion, and then on top of that state that I can't call you a baddie when that time comes?

It seems like you agree with me that BWT is not worth discussing for today's vote. So why do you find it suspicious that I would want to nip that in the bud before it ate up all of today's discussion? Do you really think I intentionally wanted people to stop talking about lynching BWT in order to protect the baddies from speaking their minds? That's just... I don't know SVS. Do you really believe that? Why wouldn't I just say something in BTSC if that were the case?

You and SVS are forcing this topic a little too much. Unless you're trying to build something on SVS, let's move on.

Who's stifling discussion now?

Turnip Head wrote:But I feel like I've been misinterpreted literally all day and I can't figure out why, so maybe I need to step back from the thread for a bit.

linki. So, it sounds like we mostly agree, and that you just don't approve of me shutting down a discussion that could have potentially led to baddies shooting themselves in the foot. When really my post was more directed at my fellow civvies to encourage other avenues of discussion. It seems to have been wildly misinterpreted, but oh well.

Roxy wrote:I need to vote now bc my youngest son Nic is here and we are gonna watch Pulp Fiction -
My strongest ping so far is Made but no one seems too bothered by him I am voting AP I think the points are valid and between his vote, timing and lack of anything since the last vote is bewildering even for AP.

Roxy wrote:What other reason have you given to find me suspicious except my votes?

You seem even more suspicious to me bc suddenly you are willing to conform and vote for vomps - someone you said was prob not bad but ofc today you see suspicion from Vomps lol. You voted others before this lynch - why, suddenly this lynch do you feel the need to conform and vote Vomps?

S~V~S wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Roxy. Her vote of AP on Day 1.2 was a complete turnaround from her previous stance.

Roxy wrote:I need to vote now bc my youngest son Nic is here and we are gonna watch Pulp Fiction -
My strongest ping so far is Made but no one seems too bothered by him I am voting AP I think the points are valid and between his vote, timing and lack of anything since the last vote is bewildering even for AP.

Not only this, but she made a big deal about her play style on Day 3. She made some specific comments about it that I found uncivvie-like. She was addressing questions that were never asked. But another point from those comments is this post.

Roxy wrote:What other reason have you given to find me suspicious except my votes?

You seem even more suspicious to me bc suddenly you are willing to conform and vote for vomps - someone you said was prob not bad but ofc today you see suspicion from Vomps lol. You voted others before this lynch - why, suddenly this lynch do you feel the need to conform and vote Vomps?

So on Day 1, Roxy votes AP rather than Made because no one else is interested in voting for Made. But then she accused me of 'conforming' with my vote on Day 3, after she had already done so before.

On top of that, there are the no-u reactions to my suspicions.



Others I am looking at, Bass, LC, and SVS.

Personally, I dislike your suspicions as well (although I have no opinion on Bass yet, his blendiness is level regardless of alliliation), and am potentially going to vote you today.

S~V~S wrote:I got the impression that she was annoyed at people for telling her how to play when she made the points about conforming. And she did not vote for AP solely becasue other people were doing so; she also was suspicious of him, as it clearly states in the post. Your posts the entire game are this kind of thing; misinterpreting and extrapolating out of context.

And since you don't elaborate here, can you tell us what these "un-civvie like" remarks are?

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I'd like to hear her answers to all the questions raised to her, but I'm inclined to agree with you, MP, she's reading like cornered baddie SVS to me right now.

Personally I thought I was reading as "uninvolved becasue I did not have BTS partners to warm me I was in trouble SVS" but that's just me. Do you still feel this way?

thellama73 wrote:All right, here are my reads on The Llama Six, as I am calling them.

DF - He's a civ. No worries.
Rico - He's bad. Vote for him.
TH - He's probably civ.
Blooper - She's bad. Lynch her.
Bass - I could go either way. A very non-committal game.
BR - Do not trust.

Roxy, I am very decisive. It's one of my best and worst qualities.

thellama73 wrote:Sudden extremity is my middle name.

Do you not believe that Blooper is bad, or do you not believe I believe she's bad?

Turnip Head wrote:MM, you are more aggressive and involved than I usually see from you.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Sudden extremity is my middle name.

Do you not believe that Blooper is bad, or do you not believe I believe she's bad?

indeed.

Not the former because I haven't given her a read yet, so the latter.

Why should we lunch lynch her?

Linki: @ TH. I have no idea what you mean either. What's different?

I'm not going to make cases for baddies to pile onto right now. I feel like that's what they want me to do. Someone else do some work.

I'm going to vote for Blooper, you vote for whomever you like.

thellama73 wrote:All right, here are my reads on The Llama Six, as I am calling them.

DF - He's a civ. No worries.
Rico - He's bad. Vote for him.
TH - He's probably civ.
Blooper - She's bad. Lynch her.
Bass - I could go either way. A very non-committal game.
BR - Do not trust.

Roxy, I am very decisive. It's one of my best and worst qualities.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Oh you don't?

thellama73 wrote:All right, here are my reads on The Llama Six, as I am calling them.

DF - He's a civ. No worries.
Rico - He's bad. Vote for him.
TH - He's probably civ.
Blooper - She's bad. Lynch her.
Bass - I could go either way. A very non-committal game.
BR - Do not trust.

Roxy, I am very decisive. It's one of my best and worst qualities.

So you don't know if Rico and Bloops are bad?

Of course I don't. How would I know that?

thellama73 wrote:Everyone else gets to be a follower and ride the coattails of more aggressive players. Maybe I'm tired of playing that role. How come other people can get a pass for doing that, but my refusal to lead another lynch right away is suspicious?

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Long Con wrote:It's kind of freeing, actually, to not be part of "everyone". I'm outside reality.

Now if Canuck or Llama are bad, then we have a problem. I may just start voting for inactives at this point, whoever they might be.

There are a lot of inactives, and it is especially worrying since night kills are apparently being sent in.

why

Why is it worrying? Because it means there are only a few civs actually trying to kill baddies, with the rest being inactive. Once the active civs are killed off, the baddies can coast to victory. Whenever the bad team is more active than the good team, it's cause for concern.

That is, if we don't lynch the baddies... of which you are one.

So....

Dom wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Dom wrote:
That is, if we don't lynch the baddies... of which you are one.

So....

Why do you think llama is bad?

I don't make cases. Why are you obsessed with my opinion!!?!?!?