The Syndicate

No problem.

I have to eat and will likely be busy for a while with homework and then other tasks, but I'll be around again tonight and tomorrow morning. Hopefully more discussion occurs by then, especially by those who still only have a post or so. Because right now I just know three people I won't vote for (unless they seem super baddie between now and poll's end, something that seems highly unlikely, almost impossible), but other than that I'm not sure which direction I will take with this vote just yet.

Frankly, I don't understand how LC wants the claim for Vomps's baddieness = activeness to be definitively proven, especially since there seems to be some dissent, unless he's asking for Llama to provide substantiation for his theory.

I offered one counterexample (Twin Peaks) and Vomps offered another (Occultism), both of which are valid examples. I'd still say I generally agree with Llama, though, since I was on a baddie team with Vomps twice (a game on RM... can't remember which, and the other one was McGyver IIRC), and he did seem a bit more post pushy. It's a weak observation though, especially since the reasons that one would post more or less are much more complicated than alignment-driven.

Well, I've finished a reread, and nothing still has really caught my eye. I suppose the most worthwhile topics of discussion are:

1) MM's self-vote.
2) Llama's theory about Vompatti generally being more active when baddie.

All I know is that I will NOT vote:
- Llama: He put out a theory about Vomps and seems genuinely interested in trying.
- Ricochet - He's new, and seems to be generally interested in playing the game
- S~V~S - Despite our miscommunication and my misunderstanding of what you were hunting for in terms of OT, I see your attempts to baddie hunt so far genuine, and I'd rather not vote out a high poster right away when I have no reason to suspect you're bad any more than anyone else (I feel similarly about Llama)

This is the perfect example of why we often suspect each other in games, yet often are incorrect.

S~V~S wrote:I am not offended.

And I have seen people do that. i don't think it is a strategy that you discuss in the chatroom, but I think I have seen people inflate post counts to look more civ. Not sure why this is such a big issue for you.

i was asked what caught my eye, I answered and you are acting like I am restarting McCarthyism.

Oh, good.

I'll take your word for it. I personally just never really think about it, so it's possible it's happened in a game I've played, and I just didn't notice.

I think you're reading something into my posts that isn't there. Where did I say or imply it was a big issue? I don't suspect you or anything for this; I'm merely discussing. I've said your findings would intrigue me, and that I would entertain your thoughts, even if I had my own thoughts on the matter.

The fact that you think my tone sounds like I am "acting like you are restarting McCarthyism" means that clearly we're miscommunicating. I never once said that we're witch hunting THIS game. I was only expressing concern over making your OT criteria a hard and fast rule in future games because I encourage OT discussion at the start of games. I never said that's what YOU were doing.

I honestly have been on plenty of baddie teams, and never did we discuss or entertain the idea of posting a ton of OT to blend in or "hide". It just never would have crossed my mind; and if someone else would have suggested it, I would be indifferent.

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?

Perhaps S~V~S can better explain what she's looking for... Frankly, the only way this would even prove meaningful to me is that if someone makes every effort to post about film directors, but refuses to engage in current discussion. I can't recall anyone doing this though. And it's not like there's really much to discuss on-topic right now, anyway, due it to being D1.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? I don't expect you to agree with me, but surely you have seen baddies hiding in OT? I am not trying to discourage OT, and I am amazed that you are implying that i am. I have been involved in it myself. What I am saying is that after some time days, if someone is mostly posting OT, then I might find that suspicious. Like if someone has 10 or 15 posts and says nothing game related, that would get my eye.

What?

I can't say I've ever witnessed a baddie hiding in OT, but it's possible I just don't pay attention to it.

I'm not implying that you are; I'm implying that witch hunts on D1, if this were to be the basis by which people judge activity, might discourage OT.

After some time? Sure. But we've hardly had that happen yet.

I agree with you on the bolded and underlined.

I don't understand why you're offended.

But again, I don't want this to be a trend in future games. I appreciate the OT discussions on Day 0. It is fun and healthy to engage in the theme.

At this point, it's really just grasping for straws to find evidence, since there's so little of it.

Ricochet wrote:I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?

Perhaps S~V~S can better explain what she's looking for... Frankly, the only way this would even prove meaningful to me is that if someone makes every effort to post about film directors, but refuses to engage in current discussion. I can't recall anyone doing this though. And it's not like there's really much to discuss on-topic right now, anyway, due it to being D1.

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I never mentioned Llama. Why do you think I was talking about llama? I wasn't, it was a general statement.

Where did I say you did?

Even if it sounded like it, my post wasn't really a direct response to your post. I was just stating all of my thoughts thus far on what people have proposed.

Gotcha, it DID sound that way to me. You responded to my points, then you said, "In any case I am not voting for Llama", as if you thought he was someone to whom I referred.

Yeah, in reviewing my post after I saw your response, I realized it was wording misleadingly. I was really just trying to express everything I was currently thinking; some of it just happened to be in response to you.

Frankly, I might just do a reread, since I can't imagine it'll take that long. I'll try to look out for anyone being heavy in OT and refusing to participate at all, since you may be onto something. I do think everyone should at least have something on-topic to say in 48 hours.

Haha, sorry about that, it seems better coordination is needed. :P

Well, what are players thinking in the absence of a no show vote? (I know some likely weren't considering that anyway).

Typically I find something to vote for on D1, but I'm trying to be more reasonable in jumping on little things early on (since I'm usually wrong), and regardless in this game I haven't even seen anything to jump onto.

Okay, so oddly enough, it appears all players on the poll have actually posted at least once. So everyone is technically accounted for.

Regarding the D1 vote, it appears that Black Rock missed the vote.

So I suppose the motivation to vote BR is less, IMO, since she has actually checked in. I don't know who the replacement is for then, since I can't recall anyone mentioning it.

So who is that one no show anyway? I'll try and find out here.

HOST: Just a request, but for future polls and for the main player listing, is it possible for the names to be alphabetized? I know it's rather trivial, but it helps for better organization: to keep better track of who is playing, who has votes, etc.

Thanks!

S~V~S wrote:I never mentioned Llama. Why do you think I was talking about llama? I wasn't, it was a general statement.

Where did I say you did?

Even if it sounded like it, my post wasn't really a direct response to your post. I was just stating all of my thoughts thus far on what people have proposed.

Also, I understand spurring on-topic discussion is most favorable, but I don't want to harbor an environment where players are afraid to post OT in Day 0 because they fear it will get them lynched the following day. I just hate the idea of that. I know that if I'm super excited about a theme, and there's at least someone else to discuss it with, I have fun doing so.

All I know is I won't be casting a vote for Llama today. It's too soon, and at least he threw a theory out there.

Bass, I do agree that MM's self-vote is odd. I know he's done it before, but I still fail to see how it makes sense for civilians to do this. If you're a civilian, chances are you are the only person you know is 100% civilian. Why risk putting a vote on yourself when you at least have some chance of hitting a baddie with someone else? So what if you start a bandwagon? It's better than risking your own life, which YOU know is 100% civilian. Just seems silly to me. Always will.

Sorry folks, should have included all this in my previous post as well. Got "Submit" button happy. :P

I'm personally fine with Canuck's plan, assuming I see nothing that is actually worthy of a vote.

I don't see eye to eye with S~V~S's OT thing; I honestly don't believe it makes any difference. If I try to recall a player's content, I never think about their OT. And what does an extra 5 posts help anyway if that person hasn't contributed on-topic at all? If anything, it makes them look worse, since you think, 'Wow, how does so and so have 10 posts and I can't remember a single thing they said?'

That said, I am nonetheless intrigued by her analysis, and am interested to see what she comes up with. I just won't make it a framework for my vote today, personally, that's all.

thellama73 wrote:Well, it is not much of a ping, but I have played an awful lot of games with Vompattti at this point, and while he is hard to read, I tend to think a more active Vompatti is a more bad Vompatti. I know he is excited about the theme and a bit of a film buff, but he is the one I have my eye on today. Also, I don't think I've ever voted for Vompatti on day one, so that might make a nice change.

Interesting observation. I've seen a civilian Vompatti active as well (Twin Peaks pops to mind), but I'd probably agree with your experience overall.

Far from wanting to vote for him though, especially since the day just started.

Yay Day 1! (Well, I think, nonetheless yay game!)

thellama73 wrote:We could all abstain from this lynch and let Metalmarsh lynch himself entirely by his own hand.

Lol, this sounds fun. Appropriate as well because I dislike self-voting and it makes no sense for a civilian to do from a logical standpoint.

Nonetheless, I don't know whether MM is bad or not, and he just got lynched D1 in Champions, so I doubt I'll abstain.

What are you thinking, Llama? You seemed to indicate you've observed something that might be worth pursuing. What say you?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I'll be gone camping this weekend, so I may miss the Day 1 lynch, we'll see.

Also please don't lynch me.

Votes Metalmarsh

Yeah, let's vote out MM on D1 again.

Just kidding.

Can't make any promises about lynching.

Who still hasn't checked in?

It seems I really need to be educated on my film directors.

All the more reason I'm excited to play this game!

Actually, upon closer examination of the options and considering which ones I actually DO know...

I'd have to say Christopher Nolan is definitely my favorite. So I'm going with that.

Yay game!!!!!!!

Long Con wrote:Game on! I am playing, but sorry that I won't appreciate the full artistic breadth that I'm sure this game will entail.

I echo this sentiment.

That said, it appears I have some research to do. Either that I could just vote David Lynch.