The Syndicate

Not sure what to make of Made's reasoning, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time he's done something crazy.

S~V~S wrote: No.

(I had to pull a few of the quotes out becasue I hit the embed limit).

MP always seems bad to me, and Dom seldom does, so my opinion there is pointless, and I need to see that play out more. I don't think LC or BR are suspicious at this point. I can see both sides of the Vomp situation, and I dislike putting all the eggs in one basket, and it seems that the only reason he is suspish is that he is being active? Again, I need to see more. I was thinking that AP is acting too much like normal for him to glean much from his self vote, BUT~

MM seems to be ignoring the reason one might vote for AP other than the fact of a self vote, the strategic reasons for voting for anyone other than BWT at the end of the lynch. He keeps saying that it is because of the fact that he made a self vote, when that is not the reason for the suspish as I understand it. MM is acting like he is on a crusade to defend self voters. Plus, having read back in his posts it seems like he is trying to find reasons to suspect people.

So I am going to also vote AP. MM is defending him too hard.

I'm confused because you seem to be contradicting yourself with what you said in Champions:

S~V~S wrote:We only missed CAH one night~ there are blocks, dropped PMs etc. I would be more convinced of that re BR when there is no CAH 2 nights in a row. Plus there have been 2 NKs right?

@Epi~ do powers go through on the night someone dies?

I voted MP because he is playing the level civ game I came to expect from MP. The past while, he has been playing the hyper game i associate with his bad self more often than not, even when civ. This game, the enforced slow down, perhaps, from having to wait for a less prolific person to post, has done him some good, I think. I can't speak for the others, and am not sure why you would expect me to. Just because someone gets a lot of positive votes does not mean they have baddie teammates backing them up.

And I think TH is silenced. Zeek, what time did you get your PM? I was wondering about one or two others being possibly silenced, but they made a post or so after the Night Post. So it is possible they also got late PMs, or did not check their inbox. There is not a pop up notification in the light theme.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

Canucklehead wrote:

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?

I honestly have no clue, but was leaning the former, so hence my vote.

Gotta go now guys, be back sometime this afternoon. Good luck.

Well, screw it. I know it seems like a waste, but I just don't know about Vomps or AP, so I'm putting my vote where I really feel it should go -- and that is BR. I know others have said this is normal for her but I'm still pinged that she would pour oil on three fires without giving any real good reasons for it.

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.

Dang it, i have to leave... but honestly I don't feel inclined to vote AP or Vomps.

Turnip Head wrote:So... Vomps voted for Dom on Day 1 in the Are You Being Served game too.

Strange puzzlings.

But he didn't vote Dom yesterday.

Dang it, I really need to vote but don't know what I'm going to do.

Am I the only one really confused by the last 10 minutes or so?

FZ. wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Vomps, why are you voting Dom?

lol i dunno, i'm just zany and unpredictable i guess xD

That's true. But it doesn't help me decide. Still no point in voting Dom. If you want to bring the rest of your team to vote for him, he'll have more votes and then I'll consider

Does this mean you think Vomps is bad?

Vomps, why are you voting Dom?

Roxy wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:Oh for the love, Alex just pointed out to me that the vote isn't until tomorrow night. Sorry guys. I was really confused.

The vote is today Alex must be messing with your mind :P

She was rushing out the door and I said that about Champions and that this one ended before work, but she probably mixed them up.

Roxy wrote:MP I said how I felt about FZ ^^^up there somewhere - how do you feel about her?

I don't really know yet.

But thanks, your thoughts are appreciated.

Someone mentioned a ping of FZ. earlier, didn't they? I'm sorry I don't quite remember who it was. How do people feel about FZ. this game?

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Don't feel bad, MP. No one can read me either.

That does make me feel better.

How do you feel about AP?

I feel nothing about him. This is how he always plays. No cases. No responses. Random and self-votes. Unreadable. I never quite know how to handle those players.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly how I'm feeling.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Roxy wrote:Oh yeah -

Made - this feels like his first baddie game we were teammates and he was posting different and oddly. I feel the same about him now. I am not following the suspicion he is giving. Maybe I have just misunderstood him but right now I do not get good vibes from him

I think Made was just high or something. I'm willing to wait for an explanation before voting him.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm still looking at you, MP. Your more recent posts suggest maximum frustration, which is a trait I have encountered in both the civvie and baddie flavors of MP, so that doesn't help... but something really feels off about you here, and I wish I could place my finger on what exactly it is.

Well, I'm sorry for getting frustrated, but if you think of anything I can address just let me know.

I have a meeting soon, so I'll have to vote probably within the next 15 minutes or so.

Canucklehead wrote:

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.

thellama73 wrote:Don't feel bad, MP. No one can read me either.

That does make me feel better.

How do you feel about AP?

Canuck, I agree about AP, but I've seen him do this a lot of the times he has played, so who knows?

Clearly no one at this site can read me. Just vote me off. This has been such a frustrating start to a game.

Dom, WTF. I did address that. Look through my posts. I explained everything ad nauseum. I'm not talking about it anymore. Just vote me and get it over with. You're either bad or possessed by tunnel vision.

S~V~S 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.

Why is blowing minor pings into Federal Cases ( ) a better strategy if you call it "Baddie Hunting"? Not everyone plays that way, I don't play that way. I watch and I try to draw people out if I suspect them, and see if they make a mistake. Sometimes i don't even do them the courtest of mentioning them, as BR did.

Becasue of this I absolutely hate lack of "Baddie Hunting" as an indicator of badness, and I also dislike it when people think that people who do things differently than they do must be bad.

If BR was bad, she would be more likely to mention no one, dither a bit, and vote a tangent, rather than name names this early IMO. Perhaps she is trying to see how we, the people she named, react to her. But I don't see her specifically naming names without going into detail as being specifically bad for her.

I am on a snow removal break, about to go back out :P While we did not get 3 feet 20 inches is plenty enough

Fair enough, I'll consider your thoughts on BR, especially since my vote seems it'll be wasted if I vote for her today anyway.

Also, I echo your thoughts on AP that his behavior seems textbook baddie that it is also totally textbook AP regardless of alignment.

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.

Why are you so sure about me?

You're wrong.

Canucklehead 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 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)

Again, fair enough, I'll consider it. I just personally think it's suspicious. IMO if you find someone suspicious, you should be able to say why.

Canucklehead wrote:

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.

Fair enough!

Well, really, I'm not so much frustrated by that this game as I am being sucked into a conversation where I tried explaining myself so much to clarify but it turns out the other person just doesn't want to listen because he thinks I'm bad. That's fine, it happens, I shouldn't really get frustrated over it. I'm not really THAT frustrated anyway. Only a very little bit at this point.

I recognize this, but it's the age old logical fallacy of players being more likely to suspect players who are posting more. I recognize it, don't get me wrong. And even I sometimes fall into it when I suspect Llama for his crazy theories that I don't agree with, that doesn't mean he's necessarily bad. But I just don't see how I've been suspicious this game, so if someone can give me something I can respond to, great, but otherwise I suppose if you or anyone else finds me bad, then by all means vote for me.

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

TH, to answer your questions:

- Why would a bandwagony vote equate to a baddie? Well, your vote seemed to most take advantage of the BWT suspicion, so I was taking that into account. I won't vote for you though, since I don't personally believe you were being nefarious.
- Why was Blooper's vote as opportunistic? Clearly she's taking advantage of Llama's tunnel vision on Vomps; if Vomps flips civ, she can shrug all responsibility.
- BR jumped really quickly onto my radar because IMO it's suspicious to come into the thread and accuse three players of being bad and basically give no reason for it. Apparently it's possible I misunderstood her, but I still find it suspicious. I still want to vote her today.

Linki w/ timmer: No, it's an emotional response, because I felt like things were being blown out of control and all I did was ask him a simple question, but whatever. I'm not saying anything else about this. I'm still frustrated about it.

Black Rock wrote:Alright MP and Dom, you misunderstood my out of control remark. I often don't use smilies and I should have. That part was a bit of a joke, my sense of humour is often misunderstood. I meant the gigantic size of your posts sometimes, and was making fun. In my mind, the response to that was also funny. I do think the two of you are worth looking at, I'm not going to just dismiss as civvie vs civvie arguments till I trust you. Which I don't at this point. If that"s a bit odd so be it. You two have not said or did anything to gain civvie trust in my opinion and I will be reading and watching you two.

Oh, okay. This makes me feel better. Sorry, I clearly misunderstood. That's more than fair.

Nonetheless, I'm still pinged by your sudden suspicion of three people without really giving any reason. Here you seem to indicate that we're both worth looking at, but you still don't explain why. So why?

Well, I'm curious what everyone else is thinking, and I highly doubt I'll be voting for any of the major thread contributors at the moment. I suppose I could vote TH, since his vote for BWT seemed most bandwagony, the fact that he doesn't seem overtly baddie to me and that both FZ. and BR (two people I'm not sure I trust, especially the latter since she threw out three suspects with basically no reason) are gunning for him doesn't bode well.

I'm out of here, but I'll be back sometime tomorrow before the vote.

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:LOL, is that me getting a thousand eyes from you, Dom?

Go ahead and vote me then. :P

"That I didn't even start"


Are you serious?
This is not only false, but it is also ridiculously deflecting onto me. You are saying to BR, "See, I didn't even START this".

Are you serious?

I asked you what your thoughts/suspects were, and you drew millions of implications from a simple request. So, no, I didn't start an insanely crazy back and forth where it turned into much more than that.

On that note, I do think Blooper's already-vote for Vomps is opportunistic, but I'm not sure I've seen enough from her to plop a vote there.

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Black Rock wrote:My initial read was very interesting. MP/Dom, you're out of control. I can't decide who I'm more suspicious of out of you two but you have both made my radar. Although I doubt I'll be voting for either of them because TH has gotten my eye His posts are reading baddie TH to me. I don't like how he is so dismissive of MP/Dom. Like he's trying to lead eyes away from a teammate.

Look at them if you want. I don't suspect them but that's just me. Other people were just as dismissive about this same issue, so it's weird that you're focused on me. You always think my posts read like baddie TH, you know that.

It's not just the dismissive but your posts in general. I'm not getting the baddie hunting civvie TH from any of them. I know I often (not always) suspect you, you're just that damn evil. I don't know TH I just have a feeling... tell me that I'm wrong and tell me why. I'm still open to new ideas at this point. I felt the same dismissive, baddie feeling from this post.

I don't know what to tell you that you're wrong about. You only say it's just my posts in general, and that I'm not hunting. Am I doing any less hunting than you? I've mentioned my thoughts on both FZ and Rico, as well as all the suspects du jour. My thoughts on FZ and Rico didn't get much response but that doesn't mean I'm not trying, and it's only Day 1.2... Y'all seem to expect so much of me so early

I know how it feels.

At this point... I mean, we'll see what happens between now and poll's end, but I'm leaning towards a BR vote (contingent on her answer); if not that, maybe another player who missed the D1 vote and is flying low. I just don't find a Llama or Vompatti vote at all convincing, to be honest.

LOL, is that me getting a thousand eyes from you, Dom?

Go ahead and vote me then. :P

I find it awfully interesting that BR, who had no opinions this game whatsoever and said this:

Black Rock wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:The cases on Llama, Con and Sir Vomps-a-Lot have been examined, and they have been found wanting. In addition, I have found nothing during my reading of the Day's events that seemed noteworthy or suspicious of any sort to me. I am at a loss for where to place my vote today.

It's like you were in my head. Get out of there. I need to think for myself.

Now comes in here and says apparently Dom, myself, and TH are all suspects, but doesn't really give any reason why -- except that she gets a feeling about TH being bad.

Am I the only one that finds this really odd?

Black Rock wrote:Holy crap, it's hard to keep up to you guys.

My initial read was very interesting. MP/Dom, you're out of control. I can't decide who I'm more suspicious of out of you two but you have both made my radar. Although I doubt I'll be voting for either of them because TH has gotten my eye His posts are reading baddie TH to me. I don't like how he is so dismissive of MP/Dom. Like he's trying to lead eyes away from a teammate.

Also SVS and Llama are on my watch list for minor pings.

*joins game*

It was a lot to take in so I may have missed a few things but I'm playing catch up nonetheless.

How am I out of control and how has anything I've said actually warranted any suspicion?

You know, I have had tons of opinions this game that weren't just a back and forth with Dom that I didn't even start by the way.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I also find it odd Roxy hasn't been posting more.

Odd or suspicious?

Llama, if you couldn't lynch Vomps today, who would it be instead?

Anyway, thanks for the commentary on my list, Llama and MM.

I personally haven't seen anything to make me suspicious of Bass just yet. The rest of the players I don't really have a read on.

Dom, if you think it's sketchy, go for it. I WAS trying to get you lynched, in theory, since I cast my vote for you on D1. I am not currently, at least actively. I've said all I need to say on the matter. If you feel you don't have any more questions for me and you've made up your mind that I'm doing something sketchy, I don't think I can change your mind.

So, looking at the BWT voters and their reasonings and such, I think I agree with Canuck that TH's looks most suspicious to me. That said, however, I'm not sure I'm really feeling a baddie TH.

Honestly, S~V~S's vote for him comes second place to me, but again, I'm not sure I really have any other reasons to think S~V~S is bad, and this could very well just be my instinctual reaction to disagree with a lot of what she said, and then think she is bad because of it. So... my opinion here is likely garbage.

As to "throw off" votes:
- AP voted himself
- Daisy voted Lizzy
- Rico voted Made

But I'm not sure any of those are particularly alarming.

However, there are tons of people that missed the vote, so voting records may not be as helpful as I was initially thinking they would be, especially since I haven't found anything substantial.

Therefore, I want to open up discussion on those players. Does anyone have any read of the following players:
Sabie
Roxy
Blooper
Dfaraday
Bass
Long Con
Made
Black Rock

??

Wow, talkative thread is talkative.

Turnip Head wrote:You say you don't want to rehash the Dom thing anymore MP, and even said you don't suspect him, and yet you seem to expect that someone else should find his behavior suspicious. Why is that?

Clearly I am not communicating well this game.

I DID suspect him, very mildly, on D1. I don't know what I think anymore, so, yes, I don't actively suspect him.

I was asking others because I appreciate other players' inputs, and since no one commented on my vote or thoughts on Dom at all, I wanted to make sure that I'm right to back off of it due to thinking it was a misunderstanding, or if someone else saw what I originally saw on D1. That's why.

Contrary to what Dom says, it's not because I WANT someone else to find it suspicious. I just wanted other people's input. I don't understand what's so wrong about that.

I appreciate what you, Llama, Bass, and others have said on the matter.

Dom wrote: In a game where we've discussed how people who don't add to the discussion might be bad and you then say that I haven't said who I'm suspicious of yet, only asked questions....
You don't see that might seem a bit.... jumpy... almost like you were trying to get someone to lynch me?

Huh?

Well, I clearly thought you were worthy of my vote on D1, so that's why I voted you. If you call that "trying to get someone to lynch" you, then I suppose OK.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

But I'm done discussing it unless you feel I haven't adequately answered your questions.

I am sort of frustrated right now to be honest because people are acting like this thing between and Dom is happening in a vacuum and I feel I've had to explain things over and over. Does no one else think Dom read things into my post that weren't there? And if so do they think that makes him suspect? I assume no one does or else they would have said it by now but it's odd to me that no one really paid attention to my vote yesterday.

That said, I feel like I am being sucked into a pointless drawn out discussion that I didn't even want to start. My question was simple but apparently it had connotations I didn't intend. That's it. So I don't intend on rehashing this more than I need to.

FZ., I already said where I intend on looking but I haven't had time yet because every time I have been online recently it has just been between classes or homework or errands or hanging with Daisy. I said this but I think at least one baddie hopped on the BWT vote and at least one threw off but I haven't had the time to investigate yet. I will do so when I get more time and let folks know what I'm thinking. Also I believe I have discussed a lot, I had thoughts on Llama, Rico, SVS but I acknowledge that I am not gunning against anyone hard yet if that's what you mean

Anyway I hope none of this comes across as snarky or mad because it isn't. I will admit it feels like I have been discussing so many things and it hasn't led to any concrete suspicion, which is all the more reason I want to look at the voting record and posts again.

I thought I had already voiced my thoughts about Dom, but I realize there have been a lot of posts, so I will gladly clarify:

I had no real pings throughout D1 except for Dom, which is why I voted for him (and no one commented on this), because I thought:
1) The fact that he was drawing so many implications out of my question for his thoughts seemed even more overreactive than is what I would expect to be characteristic from him
2) The fact that, even though he had asked me and llama questions, he generally hadn't posted a ton in D1, so a voice in the back of my head was wondering if it wasn't a way to seem like he was being helpful, but wasn't putting forth any suspects of his own. Because, as you can see if you read back through his D1 posts, he never said he outright suspected anyone, by the time I had made my vote.

Now, I realize after:
1) Reflection over the fact that we may just be having a HUGE misunderstanding this entire time
2) Seeing as though we have one day's worth of vote history to base decisions off of, I feel there may be other avenues much more worth pursuing than sticking to some really weak ping I had on D1

That I don't really actively suspect Dom at this moment. I have no read on him either way, I think.

If you read this AND my response above and still don't understand something, then I can try again, but I feel like so many people just aren't understanding my explanations for my thoughts this game. Am I just being really unclear or what? And I'm not being emotional at all when I say or ask any of this; it's an honest question.

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:
If I'm reaching, what am i reaching for? You never stated it, and I find that potentially concerning.

Wait, what? (Sorry, I had to cut the quotes since I screwed them up and they were getting too long)

I just said you're "reaching" because you're jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I asked you, when really it was just a simple request, "state your suspicions", because I honestly had no idea what you were thinking. I'm not gunning for you as bad because of it; I just found it odd I had to ask you for you to clarify who you were actually suspicious of, and when I asked, you asked me all these questions like I implied all these other things when I didn't.

Frankly, I don't think you'll top my suspicion list for this second round of D1 though.

So this is the question I asked, MP. What conclusions was I making?
What was I reaching for?

Please, do tell me.

I think we're on two completely different planes of communication right now, Dom, so we're missing each other's points.

Let me walk you through my train of thought and hopefully that will adequately answer your question:

This is the original post I'm referring to:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:And one last thing, I'd appreciate to hear what Dom's thinking, since I haven't really seen what he's thinking re: suspects or anything yet other than questioning people.

Now, MP, is that really strange for me at Day 1?
I think it's pretty obvious what I'm thinking.
Is questioning people bad?
Why are you concerned with my questions?
Is this an unusual way for me to play?
(Hint: it's not)

So yeah, Llama's got my eye. I thought that much was obvious.

Now I've been saying that all I was asking you here was for your thoughts re: suspects. You had, before this post, asked Llama a couple of questions and then said to his response "OK. I just wanted an answer. Thank you!", but other than that and your questioning me about my "serious assumptions" post, I didn't really see anywhere where you said "I suspect so and so and here's why" or anything like that. Which is fine, but it's what prompted my question, because I value your input and was wondering what you were currently thinking.

You responded, however, asking all these questions and reading all this stuff into it.
- I never said or meant to insinuate that it was strange for you
- It wasn't obvious to ME what you were thinking, so that's why I asked the question
- I never said or meant to insinuate that questioning people is bad
- I never said or meant to insinuate that I am concerned with your questions
- I never said or meant to insinuate that it's unusual for you to play

So what gave you the impression that I said or meant any of those things? I was only asking for your suspects/thoughts. That's IT.

So when you responded like that, that's why I said it seemed like to me you were "reaching", like you were reaching for some kind of insinuation out of a simple request for your thoughts. That's all. That perception of your behavior, combined with the train of thought below:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I have to leave really soon, and won't be back.

I'd really rather not get any more votes because people miscomprehend what I am clarifying (and maybe that's my fault for not being clear enough with my explanations; if so, I apologize), but I don't see Llama as bad. I really don't want him to die today either because he tends to attract a lot of attention early on regardless of alignment, and I see no reason to believe he's any more bad than anyone else right now (same with S~V~S and Rico).

The point on LC was made, but I thought his response was genuine, and I don't see that being worthy either.

I thought Dom's response to me was incredibly overreacting (not totally out of character, so that alone doesn't mean much), but it struck me as odd because I never implied any of those things, and it seemed to me he wanted to make a big deal out of me asking him who his suspects were, when he NEVER actually said them outright. And I know he asks a lot of questions, but the fact that he never came out and said how he felt about anyone, including Llama, just seemed strange to me, and an easy way to seem like he was contributing but without putting any thoughts out of his own in addition to his questions. And I think he's taking advantage of a vocal Llama to place an easy vote, so I'll be voting Dom. It's relatively weak, but it's really the only thing I'm feeling right now.

votes Dom

Are why I voted for you on D1, since I wasn't really pinged by anything else, and I was only minorly pinged by what I mention there.

Now that we have a day's worth of voting records to go off of, I'm not even really sure what I think about you right now, and I don't think I'll pursue you for a vote today, which is what I said here:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:
If I'm reaching, what am i reaching for? You never stated it, and I find that potentially concerning.

Wait, what? (Sorry, I had to cut the quotes since I screwed them up and they were getting too long)

I just said you're "reaching" because you're jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I asked you, when really it was just a simple request, "state your suspicions", because I honestly had no idea what you were thinking. I'm not gunning for you as bad because of it; I just found it odd I had to ask you for you to clarify who you were actually suspicious of, and when I asked, you asked me all these questions like I implied all these other things when I didn't.

Frankly, I don't think you'll top my suspicion list for this second round of D1 though.

Now I thought I addressed your "what am I reaching for?" question in this post as well, but apparently it wasn't adequate. So hopefully this post answers your question? If it doesn't, please let me know.

Dom, I'll address your question in a separate post.

S~V~S wrote:@MP, remember that game where I told you I would explain why i always think you are bad these days, but it just never happened? Remind me again after this game. I know exactly what Canuck means~ you come across as more hyperbole than anything sometimes. Back in the day, that was bad MP. But these days, that is always MP. You didn't used to do this all the time. This is part of why you get lynched early alot these days, imo. You might want to throttle back on the drama words just a tiny bit. When you use those words & phrases, I visualize a sock dressed like Snidely Whiplash; just a bit over the top. Like that time you said, "How Dare You?" to me in the context of an internet Mafia game; overkill much? *Sees a Sock Twirling its' Mustache*

Not saying I suspect you here for that. I don't have much of an opinion yet.

Oh, yeah, I forgot to ask you again about that. Will do.

Well, I guess I never noticed it was something I didn't used to do but do now... it's just part of my personality. Sometimes I like to think I'm a very analytical and rational person, but I often succumb to hyperbole, which isn't exactly a rational way to describe a situation.

And LOL at the imagery, that's so great.

Now I'm not going to force myself to post a certain way and I will continue posting my thoughts as I have... I frankly never saw anything in my language that I would qualify as "drama words" but apparently people are interpreting my thoughts differently than I'm intending them, so I'll take your commentary into consideration and appreciate it.

Spacedaisy wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:@MP, remember that game where I told you I would explain why i always think you are bad these days, but it just never happened? Remind me again after this game. I know exactly what Canuck means~ you come across as more hyperbole than anything sometimes. Back in the day, that was bad MP. But these days, that is always MP. You didn't used to do this all the time. This is part of why you get lynched early alot these days, imo. You might want to throttle back on the drama words just a tiny bit. When you use those words & phrases, I visualize a sock dressed like Snidely Whiplash; just a bit over the top. Like that time you said, "How Dare You?" to me in the context of an internet Mafia game; overkill much? *Sees a Sock Twirling its' Mustache*

This is all very true, and why I tend to always think MP is bad as well. Although for me it is not so much the hyperbole as the "overly reasonable" demeanor, where he seems to very thoughtfully take in everyone's opinion and analyze it. I know he always does it, but it always reads like a baddie trying too hard to seem helpful.

LOL, that is MP in everyday life. Decisions never come quickly in our house.

Lol, so this.

I just overanalyze everything, and I like to consider everyone's perspective. I mean, discussion is how we flesh out baddies, and regardless of whether I trust someone or completely distrust them, it helps to get their opinion in evaluating how I not only feel about them but about the person I ask them about. Of course, as a baddie, I have just as much incentive to do that.

timmer wrote:
While I'm rereading, I've just got to comment on this ad. I laugh at the top line calling Dennis Hopper a master of his craft. When he made Easy Rider, he barely knew what he was doing!! He actually did not know that once you physically sliced off a part of a film reel, that you could go back and put it back in again, so every time he "edited", he thought those scenes were lost forever. That's partly why Easy Rider feels so disjointed.

So I've finished my read of Day 1.2.

So llama I guess wasn't doing a Day 1 gambit to see who bites but genuinely thinks Vomps is acting bad. So far, Vomps seems to be playing a more "normal" game, meaning less throwaway posts, nonsensical comments and "tures". In fact, he is directly responding to posts, like with the "what makes you think I'm afraid of being lynched" comment. But, llama called him out on this so early, I'm not sure how that would affect Vomps. Would Vompatti react in any noticeable way to being called out on something related to play style? I feel like he's usually locked into a certain mode for a game?

I dislike voting for people on play style, but like I said earlier, sometimes people genuinely do just "know" when a player is off. Roxy certainly has my ticket a lot of the time. So I'd like to hear some corroboration, some support to llama's views. Do others feel that Vompatti is playing in a "bad Vomps" style, or is this just more on-point than normal, not indicating alignment? I won't vote play style based on one person's view. but there is a consensus that something is off, I could consider it this early in a game.

I've expressed this earlier, but I frankly don't see anything weird or off with Vompatti's behavior. He MAY seem just a bit less jokey than he has been in recent games I've played with him, and in that way it's a return to the style I associate more with the beginning of Vompatti's career, where he contributed more -- but I really think it's not necessarily tied to alignment. In my experience I have seen a baddie Vomps more talkative and serious than a civvie Vomps, but only BARELY more so than the opposite. I have seen examples of an active, more serious Vomps as well when he's civvie. So I don't understand Llama's narrow-minded focus on him. I guess he just feels strongly about it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:No pings. Everything seems honky-dory right now. But I skimmed last night after getting home, and was rather tired. Vote records may be the best place to start, since it is rare to get such bonus material on Day 1. Contrary to MP, I think random votes are far more suspect than self-votes. As a baddie, I have 'random voted' before, but it's an excuse to vote for someone for no reason, and it typically isn't actually random.

Linki: wombatist

Now don't misquote me here, but I'm afraid I haven't said it this game.

I find self-votes and random votes BOTH suspicious. I'm not sure which I find more suspicious. However, I find the rationale for a self-vote, if someone is civilian, makes much less sense. At least with a random vote, there is a reason that someone else could be bad, and I'm not. With a self-vote, if you're a civilian, your chance of lynching a baddie with your vote is 0%.

RIP BWT. But welcome back to the land of the living! Way to go, Stanley!

When I get more time (I have to leave for class in just a few minutes), I'm going to look back at the D1 voting results and posts and see what I can find. I honestly think there might be a baddie in at least one of BWT's voters, but I'm sure there's at least one baddie who threw off and made a meaningless vote as well. Just will have to see if I can find anything notable.

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.

Dom wrote:
If I'm reaching, what am i reaching for? You never stated it, and I find that potentially concerning.

Wait, what? (Sorry, I had to cut the quotes since I screwed them up and they were getting too long)

I just said you're "reaching" because you're jumping to all kinds of conclusions about what I asked you, when really it was just a simple request, "state your suspicions", because I honestly had no idea what you were thinking. I'm not gunning for you as bad because of it; I just found it odd I had to ask you for you to clarify who you were actually suspicious of, and when I asked, you asked me all these questions like I implied all these other things when I didn't.

Frankly, I don't think you'll top my suspicion list for this second round of D1 though.

Canucklehead wrote: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!

Oh, okay, this makes a lot more sense. I was confused by your wording then.

Well, I can respond to that and just say that what you're describing: That's just me. I do that all the time, regardless of mafia or not. I tend to overexaggerate or misrepresent what I'm saying, people are like, 'Huh?', then I have to try to explain what exactly I meant. Of course, that doesn't happen in every occurrence ever, but it has happened to me enough.

If you think that makes me a baddie, by all means.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:- I appreciate the reasoning for not voting MM, but I still HATE self votes. If I wanted to avoid suspicion on D1, I could just say, "self-voting, really busy, see you guys later!" And I already explained the logic for why it makes no sense for a civilian to do it, ESPECIALLY at this stage (later on, as a tactical emotional move, OK, but still). Anyway, I'm not sure on MM, which is why I didn't end up voting for him, but I think I'd rather see him go at this point of MM, Llama, and BWT.

I don't feel right placing my vote randomly, even on Day 1. I don't feel any other player deserves to receive my vote, which could be easy prey for other players later on in the day. If you're wondering about my previous Day 1 vote, I made all my explanations in that game, so look over there. And yes I have recently self-voted in a game, but that was Oblique Mafia, which I think is excused from any meta-gaming.

Thanks for explaining.

That said, I still stand by my Dom vote, as his actions were the only really suspicious actions to me this past cycle, even if I don't feel strongly about them at all. I don't understand why anyone has not responded or commented on my observations of him. Not a word.

Popping in for just a second before Daisy and I leave for the day, but I have the following comments since I last posted, especially since my last post was made sort of in a rush (we decided to leave later than I thought we would):

- I don't understand the suspicion of BWT. I understand S~V~S's train of thought, but I know BWT really well, and I don't see anything in BWT's posts that strikes me as anything other than just normal BWT thinking. Not only that, but while S~V~S had amazing logical points, she even admitted she gets lynched for that type of thinking all the time when she's civilian. So I'm not sure I fully understand the connection between BWT being bad because of it, only failing to logic it out like he maybe should have. Essentially, S~V~S said that she expressed others thought LC's response was genuine (including yours truly, since I found it genuine), but if BWT disagrees, should he not stick with his gut and vote LC anyway? In addition, I didn't really see BWT as "making excuses" for another player because I read Rico's responses exactly the way that BWT did, as if Rico actually did answer the question (Daisy's explanation of it is exactly what I wanted to convey, but failed to properly do so, honestly). I hope you folks are right, but that train makes me way nervous, and I'm leaning more civvie on BWT than baddie at this point.

- I do think Lizzy's "drunk" vote for Llama was weird, but it doesn't tell me anything about her, so I didn't comment on it.

- I appreciate the reasoning for not voting MM, but I still HATE self votes. If I wanted to avoid suspicion on D1, I could just say, "self-voting, really busy, see you guys later!" And I already explained the logic for why it makes no sense for a civilian to do it, ESPECIALLY at this stage (later on, as a tactical emotional move, OK, but still). Anyway, I'm not sure on MM, which is why I didn't end up voting for him, but I think I'd rather see him go at this point of MM, Llama, and BWT.

- Regarding Vompatti, I appreciate that he's actually taking the game seirously and I see nothing wrong with his MM vote. I'm sorry, guys, but I don't see anything baddie about Vompatti's behavior this game. Maybe it's because I helped Vompatti start his mafia career, but his playstyle this game reminds me more of his posting in Twin Peaks, where he was a civilian, and in his early mafia career, where he tended to be a bit more vocal, and still zany, but not quite as much as games in more recent memory. Just because the guy isn't voting himself and is defending someone doesn't mean he's baddie. Can someone explain that to me?

I honestly didn't think I'd have the time to pop back in, so I would have waited to vote, but since I did, thought I might as well at least come back.

Well, I have to leave really soon, and won't be back.

I'd really rather not get any more votes because people miscomprehend what I am clarifying (and maybe that's my fault for not being clear enough with my explanations; if so, I apologize), but I don't see Llama as bad. I really don't want him to die today either because he tends to attract a lot of attention early on regardless of alignment, and I see no reason to believe he's any more bad than anyone else right now (same with S~V~S and Rico).

The point on LC was made, but I thought his response was genuine, and I don't see that being worthy either.

I thought Dom's response to me was incredibly overreacting (not totally out of character, so that alone doesn't mean much), but it struck me as odd because I never implied any of those things, and it seemed to me he wanted to make a big deal out of me asking him who his suspects were, when he NEVER actually said them outright. And I know he asks a lot of questions, but the fact that he never came out and said how he felt about anyone, including Llama, just seemed strange to me, and an easy way to seem like he was contributing but without putting any thoughts out of his own in addition to his questions. And I think he's taking advantage of a vocal Llama to place an easy vote, so I'll be voting Dom. It's relatively weak, but it's really the only thing I'm feeling right now.

votes Dom

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

You find it strange that SVS would have a sentimental reason for not voting new players? You find it strange that SVS would place principle over pragmatism-- especially early on in a game?
You really find THAT strange?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions.

I am eager to hear the rationale for your Day 1 vote that involves zero assumptions.

^^^^^

LOL, seriously guys? Where did I say my D1 vote wouldn't involve zero assumptions? And way to cut out the rest of my post, Llama, to misrepresent what I was saying.

MP, what did you mean to indicate by "serious assumptions", then? Do you intend to make them in your vote?

MovingPictures07 wrote:And one last thing, I'd appreciate to hear what Dom's thinking, since I haven't really seen what he's thinking re: suspects or anything yet other than questioning people.

Now, MP, is that really strange for me at Day 1?
I think it's pretty obvious what I'm thinking.
Is questioning people bad?
Why are you concerned with my questions?
Is this an unusual way for me to play?
(Hint: it's not)

So yeah, Llama's got my eye. I thought that much was obvious.

I never once said it was strange, Dom. I just was hoping you'd clarify since I knew you questioned Llama but you seemed to feel better after his response, but I really couldn't tell what was going on in your mind, so that's why I asked.

I think you're reaching; I never said questioning is bad, that I'm concerned, or anything. I just wanted clarification, that's all.

Canucklehead wrote: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.

Wait, what? I didn't back down immediately. I don't understand why you got that interpretation. I have merely been clarifying, but I tell you what, I haven't backed down. I still feel like harboring an environment based on analyzing someone's OT usage would create a witch hunt like atmosphere that I don't like, which is why I was hesitant to consider the idea -- even though I was saying that WASN'T was necessarily happening here. I just didn't want to make it a go-to in future games. I thought you agreed with me on that? Even if not, I don't understand why you interpret my actions as backing down.

In with "serious assumptions", where did I back down from that as well? I said there were serious assumptions Llama would have to make to assume someone would not just answer "No". It means Rico would have to show no understanding of the game whatsoever, and not only that, but somehow recognize that he's playing a game of deception and realize that if he is baddie that he'd have to lie, etc. etc. I just personally thought it was a ridiculous accusation, which I thought I conveyed. Where did I back down here? I NEVER said anything about anyone else not making serious assumptions in D1 votes, so I don't understand why Llama and Dom jumped to me saying I would not make any serious assumptions in MY vote. I specified the serious assumptions in my post, which Llama cut off, here:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions. Ricochet obviously has some idea of what he was getting into, so I just can't believe that anyone over the age of 5 would actually refuse to say just "No" because they're baddie. What's the logic or motivation in that, in a game of deception? Any adult human being should be able to recognize that answering your question with "Yes" would be ridiculous and self-destructive. I frankly found Ricochet's responses incredibly reasonable. I don't know whether he's bad or not, but this incident has not influenced my view of you or him.

So where are you getting me backing down from?

And one last thing, I'd appreciate to hear what Dom's thinking, since I haven't really seen what he's thinking re: suspects or anything yet other than questioning people.

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions.

I am eager to hear the rationale for your Day 1 vote that involves zero assumptions.

^^^^^

LOL, seriously guys? Where did I say my D1 vote wouldn't involve zero assumptions? And way to cut out the rest of my post, Llama, to misrepresent what I was saying.

If you really think Rico is bad because he didn't just say "No" to your question, by all means. But frankly that's one of the most absurd accusations I've probably ever seen. And the back and forth between you and him was pretty much pointless, IMO. But who knows? Maybe you're actually right. I just didn't see anything in it, personally.

Now really, see you folks tonight/tomorrow.

S~V~S: Duly noted re: LC. Wasn't there a recent game he did that as civ too?

Also, my experience at Hedville was pretty limited, but I did play some games there. From what I recall, the games did have much more OT than what I'm used to here. I was trying to think of examples from TS of what you were talking about and I just couldn't think of any. And I'm not really "astonished", just intrigued, and it's not something I usually think to look out for. I either participate in the green or just skip it, depending on how much I know and like the theme and how busy I am.

I'll have to go now, but at the moment I'm really leaning towards voting a player who's hardly contributed during D1. I'm not feeling a Llama, S~V~S, or Rico vote still, and while the point on LC is intriguing, I want to hear from him first and I'll mull over it. I'm not sure yet whether it's something I'd vote for him this early.

And agreed with S~V~S, I'm loving playing with Rico so far, and he seems he will be a very worthy opponent or teammate in future games!

Mongoose: Thanks!

Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions. Ricochet obviously has some idea of what he was getting into, so I just can't believe that anyone over the age of 5 would actually refuse to say just "No" because they're baddie. What's the logic or motivation in that, in a game of deception? Any adult human being should be able to recognize that answering your question with "Yes" would be ridiculous and self-destructive. I frankly found Ricochet's responses incredibly reasonable. I don't know whether he's bad or not, but this incident has not influenced my view of you or him.

Dom: I suppose when you say it like that, sure, I'm sure I've seen something like that. I just can't think of an example off hand. I can't really think of an example of someone being baddie though because they posted tons of OT early in the game but then refused to participate thereafter. I can think of examples of baddies avoiding genuinely contributing to discussion though, for sure.

FZ.: Interesting observation on LC. I didn't really get that impression, personally, but that's an interesting interpretation. It didn't strike me as out of character for LC to do that though; I think he did a similar analysis in a recent game (can't remember which). Nonetheless, it would be a good way to make it seem like he's contributing without actually contributing anything.

S~V~S wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

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.

This was where I got the "witch hunt" thing from.

Maybe we are miscommunicating. This is something I have seen, and done myself.

Ah, yes, I see. What I meant was:

I'm NOT implying you are discourage OT. I'm only saying that, if, hypothetically -- someone's OT participation became a major criteria by which everyone judged whether someone was bad early in the game, then it might have consequences for making people feel uncomfortable to post OT. Which is NOT what I was saying was going on here. But merely speculating on the nature of analyzing someone's OT content this early in the game. Does that make sense?