The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote:I have an idea as to why, based on what llama said, although I could be wrong

Perhaps more people should take part in Mongooses Special Events, hrm?

Spacedaisy wrote:I'm confused. Looking at the poll Rox had the most votes didn't she? But ninjablooper got lynched instead?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Baddies are probbly expansive in finalnd

Long Con wrote:We need to find some baddies. It's hard.

S~V~S wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I just realized that blooops didn't actually win the lynch. Why hasn't anyone discussed this yet?

I don't think it's worth it. *touches nose*

Anything could have affected it though. There has been a few prizes given out so I am leaning towards that thought, otherwise let's not worry about it ok?

What I am really worried about is... wait for it.... who are the baddies? Cause I have no idea.

I'm still looking at Roxy, only because she's my best guess at this point.

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Earlier in the day, though, you said something to someone, maybe Canuck? Kinda trying to cajole them into a Bloop vote.

Have any ideas on how she was lynched as opposed to the person with the most votes?

Yes, I know how.

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote:llama you're a hypocite and tbh i'm making fun of your game

I don't think it's hypocritical of me to continue to baddie hunt rather than roll over and wait for death, even if that is what you would prefer I do.

thellama73 wrote:I am bored of not making cases, and since it seems like there is contingent of people eager to lynch me tomorrow, I guess I better start preparing my defense. MongooseLawyer would approve.

Has anyone read Dom lately? I just did, and a couple of things really stand out.

1. Have you noticed that almost every one of his on topic posts (at least for the first few days) was a question? This is always a red flag for me. It's a great way to participate without committing to much.
2. His campaign against MP, who we now know was as civvie as the day is long.
3. The thing that inspired me to do the reread was the way he jumped onto me after the Blooper lynch (for which he missed the vote.) It feels like the height of opportunism, because no player has stuck his neck out as much as I have. I would be an extremely easy lynch, and when I flip civ, anyone could reasonably say "well, what was I supposed to do? He kept leading campaigns against civvies!"

Anything that allows a player to dodge accountability sticks out as baddie-esque to me, and Dom's Socratic method combined with his opportunistic pouncing on me are both great examples of accountability dodging.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
That is, if we don't lynch the baddies... of which you are one.

So....

Black Rock wrote:
I thought you said that you think Llama is civvie?

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.

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.

thellama73 wrote:I advise people interested in baddie hunting to read over the last day and observe how obsessed everyone was with soliciting my opinion when I had already stated I didn't want to make cases.

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

thellama73 wrote:3. I have seen her baddie game and it is dangerous.

Can you tell us more about it? I have not had the (mis?)fortune of ever witnessing Bloopie's baddie game.

I had BTSC with her recently. Her game is dangerous because she is completely convincing and leaves no clues that she is bad. So this resembles it in that she hasn't really given anybody (except for me! Perceptive.) a reason to suspect her.

Turnip Head wrote:Dom, are you here? What are you thinking?

linki: Llama what do you think of those two Bloop posts I quoted?

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote: I'm unsure about how to read into he Llama/Roxy conflict. It reads as unproductive, meaningless, and vapid if I'm honest.

That indicates to me that it's either Civ v. Civ or a baddie Llama antagonizing Roxy.

Or a baddie Roxy antagonizing Llama.

Ricochet wrote: Again, it's not so much what's characteristic of you, but what stood out as uncharacteristic from all the reactions, in that moment.

Canucklehead wrote:Just to add to my above Blooper comments, the only suspects she's stated all game are Vomps (zany player), Rico (new and seemingly super adaptable player), and Made (zany player). These are the absolute PERFECT suspects for a baddie to stick to, because they are so easily justifiable if they flip civ. They're easy votes, and they're easy to use as a shield of consistency, and they're easy to explain away if and when they flip civ.

Blooper hasn't had a single vote-related suspicion, or a single association-related suspicion, or a single suspicion based on anything other than zany-ness or newbie-ness. It's bizarre, for a player as smart as she is.

linki: oops. I thought you asked for the case on Blooper?? But maybe that was MM.....

Canucklehead wrote:Nevermind, it was Dom who asked for the Blooper case.

Hi, Dom!

Black Rock wrote:Llama is playing a very aggressive game. I'm no expert in things Llama but the way he's reading to me seems more like an aggressive baddie and less like a helpful civvie. In fact there hasn't been a whole lot of helpfulness from him as of late. Just things stated as fact when they are only suspicions and a lot of criticism.

Roxy is reading off to me. A little too sensitive, but I have seen this between her and Llama before so I don't know if I'm reading too much into it.

Something about Canuck is making me eye her. I can't put my finger on it yet. Just a gut feeling.

Ricochet wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:In Richochet's defense, I also raised an eyebrow at Dom's "hmm." Not the enthusiastic welcome back I would have expected from a civ, but possibly the sign of annoyance and confusion at a civ who refuses to die properly.

Did I do so when my kills did not die in other games?

Is that characteristic of me?
Or are you looking for something where nothing is?

Why would we need to check back previous games for this? Given how typical and casual death/kill/rezz reactions are (intentionally or not), anything outside the norm is, as I've said, open to interpretation.

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:RL busyness has interfered with me being able to look into many things, at least today.

The evil eye (I see it more as a stink eye, tbh) I gave Dom was about his curious reaction to BWT's resurrection. Kinda like Llama felt, too. It felt very open to interpretation. Now I'm getting heat for doing that. When Dom gave me the stink eye for something as accidental as messing up Canuck's gender and I needed BTSC to correct something like that, nobody cared (or even endorsed that). Nothing further to add.

Read: Lynch Dom not me.

The two situations are no where near equivalent.
Nor have I stated intentions to vote you.

Your statement, however, does make me think you don't like me watching you.

MetalMarsh, Marshy, my main Lucy---

Who do you want to lynch and why?

Context or our use of the eye may not be equivalent, but people's reaction to it is. I'm still having to defend, days later, a trivial mistake because, to paraphrase you, you seriously saw "something where nothing is". Instead, I'm suspicious on my suspicion of your reaction.

I have no stated any intentions to vote you either.

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.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Who's even looking at the vomps voters now? Nobody really.

I am! I'm probably voting Blooper.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Dom, to answer your questions:

1) I asked because I've seen a similar thing happen before due to a host's error. So I wanted to know if it was that or if I had been rezzed.

2) I never got that impression. I was NKed, and then a few posts later, the hostess says I was rezzed. I have absolutely no idea what happened. My best guess is that someone rezzed me.

Linki: SVS, who do you think had a lack of reaction to my death?

thellama73 wrote:In Richochet's defense, I also raised an eyebrow at Dom's "hmm." Not the enthusiastic welcome back I would have expected from a civ, but possibly the sign of annoyance and confusion at a civ who refuses to die properly.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Dom, what do you think of SVS now?

LC where do you stand now?

DF, what are your thoughts now?


These are three people who stated that they think lynching vomps will help us learn something. Dom, specifically saying he would reserve judgment on SVS until after.

I'm off to class. BBL.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
You and SVS are forcing this topic a little too much. Unless you're trying to build something on SVS, let's move on.

Ricochet wrote:RL busyness has interfered with me being able to look into many things, at least today.

The evil eye (I see it more as a stink eye, tbh) I gave Dom was about his curious reaction to BWT's resurrection. Kinda like Llama felt, too. It felt very open to interpretation. Now I'm getting heat for doing that. When Dom gave me the stink eye for something as accidental as messing up Canuck's gender and I needed BTSC to correct something like that, nobody cared (or even endorsed that). Nothing further to add.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Dom wrote:hmmmm

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.

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

thellama73 wrote:It is interesting to me that SVS, Vompatti, sabie, lizzy, TH, and Spacedaisy didn't vote.

Roxy wrote:

Dom wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Dom wrote:Roxy, do you think lynching Vomps is a good idea at all?

No

You see no value at all in his lynch?

The only value is what others have given it. I personally think we would learn just as much with a Made or MM lynch - their are some who have not even commented on Made and some who are quietly backing him up. As for MM he seems to be suspciousof everyone who did not vote for Vomps - except himself. Do you see value in everyone putting their eggs in one basket?
Should I vote for someone I am not as suspicious of as others just to conform? tbh that does seem like what a civ does - conforms.

Roxy wrote:

Dom wrote:Roxy, do you think lynching Vomps is a good idea at all?

No

Ricochet wrote:Of the seven votes remaining, half were inactive players (out of which the only thing Lizzy did so far in this game was to actually defend you) and the other half had offered no real feedback on you or were not inclined to vote you. The momentum of voting you was pretty dead and gone. Llama's initial theory has been disputed and contested (including by me), but your own behaviour and the voting patterns of the last two lynches have since aggravated things.

Made wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not FZ?

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

If you're implying that he's hinting, Idgaf, nor should anyone else, especially if he doesn't defend himself.

Made wrote:

Dom wrote:

Made wrote:

Dom wrote:

Made wrote:

Dom wrote:Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????




RIPIYWG FZ.

The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.

What do you propose we do today?

Comment on the above if applicable, if not, then pursue other leads.

Who would you like to lynch?

At this exact moment I would vote Vompi, But i would like to hear other players opinion on my read of SVS, or just any feedback at all due to my crippling need for others approval.

Made wrote:

Dom wrote:

Made wrote:

Dom wrote:Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????




RIPIYWG FZ.

The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.

What do you propose we do today?

Comment on the above if applicable, if not, then pursue other leads.

FZ. wrote:I getting sick of being NK in the early stages of the game every time Boo baddies
Thanks for the game Mongoose

Made wrote:

Dom wrote:Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????




RIPIYWG FZ.

The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.