The Syndicate

It's also not the first time I mention her, but who wants to split hairs?

Sudden extremity is my middle name.

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

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

I am! I'm probably voting Blooper.

Canucklehead wrote:Hey, all.
I didn't yet have a chance to do the rereads I wanted to do, but I will hopefully get to them today. However, based on recent responses of players since llama and I posted our lists, my current top suspects are Ninja, MM, and Rico, so I will be concentrating my efforts there. I think SVS is very much playing like a civ SVS, I don't suspect llama, I'm on the fence on Roxy but leaning towards civ, bwt I trust (obvs), TH is still feeling nebulous for me, and then there are a whole pile of players that I have very little read on.

Also, I'm going out of town tonight and won't be back until Tuesday afternoon (I'm going to Disney World with my man, my sis, and my nieces!! I've never been!! And I know I'm supposed to be all hip and dismissive and cynical and blase about shit like this, but dammit if I'm not giddy like a fucking five year old right now!! I'm gonna meet Goofy!! AND I'M GOING TO HARRY POTTER LAND!!!!!!!), so I may be sporadic in the next few days. I'll have my phone and wifi in the condo, but posting and catching up will likely be restricted to late nights after the kidlets and the boyfriend have snoozed off for the night.

Let's team up and both vote for Blooper, Canuck. I have never been on a team with you, so this will be our chance.

S~V~S wrote: 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.

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?

I got the impression she was doing that too, but no one was telling her how to play ever, so I found it weird. And when I pointed out to her that no one was telling her how to play she didn't say "oh, I misunderstood" but rather "I know no one is telling me how to play! Rarrrrr!"

Also, although I still suspect Rico heavily, I think the gender confusion thing is a weak reason for it.

I'm leaning towards a Ninja Blooper lynch, but Roxy is still on my radar.

nijuukyugou wrote:
thellama73 wrote:After a game of silence, you've gotten awfully chatty now that I asked people to lynch you, Blooper. Awfully chatty indeed.
I knew you'd say that :P And I get the eye when I'm too chatty or too quiet. One day I'll find the balance.

Or I'll just do whatever I feel like

Did you know I was going to say this too?

After a game of silence, you've gotten awfully chatty now that I asked people to lynch you, Blooper. Awfully chatty indeed.

Mongoose wrote:
Oh here's a video. The Academy's tribute to Kate Hepburn, the superior of the two Hepburns.

Um....flase.

Long Con wrote:I still hold Metalmarsh as my main suspicion, but I'm almost afraid to say that I'm starting to suspect Llama as well. I have to go back and read to see what I am thinking here, something he was saying earlier set off my Spidey-sense.

BWT, way to be immortal!

Hi, Long Con!

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.

Black Rock wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:It's true though, I've seen hosting errors involving killings and this is what it looks like. But it could be something else. I just don't think it impacts BWT's role either way.
As a host that has made possible hosting errors like this, to the thread appears this way but the players concerned have known why. There needs to be a better blush around these parts.

My point is I think it's a rez. No other point to this, I don't suspect BWT for being rezzed.

Agreed.

Turnip Head wrote:Roxy, my point about BWT was that he's the closest thing we have to a confirmed civ, and he isn't even on the poll, so we shouldn't keep discussing him when we have to talk about somebody to lynch. SVS came in with a semi-snarky comment about me stifling discussion. Llama's comment about it seemed tongue in cheek, but SVS seemed serious.

SVS hates stifling discussion. I have extensive personal experience with this.

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.

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. ALso on my list are Blooper and BR. Starting my rereads now...

Turnip Head wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:...
I'll take that as a yes.
Stop it.

No.

Turnip Head wrote:...

I'll take that as a yes.

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.

Were you planning on lynching him?

Can't keep a good bird down!

RIP Birdo. I share your minority opinion about the Illusionist, Host.

Mongoose wrote:Last hour for PMS!

Thank goodness! These cramps are killing me.

Ricochet wrote:Oh, and one last movie thought before calling it a night: Inherent Vice is probably PTA's dullest movie to date.

Couldn't agree more.

It seems I am the only Michael Keaton fan here.

Canucklehead wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:How bizarre. On my phone a : shrug : is showing up as a blue guy shaking his head!

For example, there is a blue guy shaking his head in you post, LC.... Wacky!

People, am I losing myind here??!! Gah.
This one?
Nope, that one is appearing as stern nodding yellow guy, though the actual text in the quote is :disappoint :
I think my phone is high. It's freaking me out.

Oh, you mean this one.

Canucklehead wrote:How bizarre. On my phone a : shrug : is showing up as a blue guy shaking his head!

For example, there is a blue guy shaking his head in you post, LC.... Wacky!

People, am I losing myind here??!! Gah.

This one?

Canucklehead wrote:On closer inspection, there is no "shrug" smiley here. I must have hallucinated its existence. There is, however, this smiley, which now seems very apt

What are you talking about? You just successfully posted the shrug smiley multiple times. Are you hallucinating?

DFaraday is on my list because of his Day 2 vote, dodging being on record for voting for one of the two civvies. However, of all the people I named, I suspect him least. Why? I don't know, he just doesn't seem like a baddie to me.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Do you think you don't deserve to be watched, Bass?
Its a game of mafia everyone deserves to be watched.

Precisely. So what are you complaining about?

Do you think you don't deserve to be watched, Bass?

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

Yep.

S~V~S wrote:I don't know that I think he is bad, but I would not be surprised to find that some of those who followed in his footsteps are.

I a looking forward to hearing Llama take on things after he rethinks things.

I'm still in the process of rethinking, but this is what I have so far:

We know that the Day 2 lynch was between two civs, with almost everyone piling on one bandwagon or another. The only way to avoid being tied to a civ lynch in that case, would be to cast a symbolic vote for a third party. Four people did that: DFaraday, Bass, TH, and Black Rock. I think they bear watching, although my gut tells me that DFaraday is on the level.

Also on my radar are Ricochet and Blooper, who went along with me and voted for Vomps. Ricochet took some convincing, but as someone else pointed out, his final reasoning left something to be desired. Blooper piled on from the beginning without giving too much of an explanation as to why. Those six players will all be getting rereads from me before the next vote.

I need to reevaluate like crazy today. My suspicions of SVS and Roxy were largely based on their vote timing, but with Vomps being civ that reasoning evaporates (although I still think Roxy is acting WEIRD.) The unfortunate thing is that this means we have had a series of civ on civ lynches, making vote records less meaningful than they would otherwise be.

Major reevaluation in progress...

Well that is not what I was expecting.

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

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

What do you make of the quotes I pulled from Roxy defending her playstyle, MM? I'm not quite sure what to think about it.

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?

Roxy wrote: Llama - that is not true. I have asked should I conform to your suspicion just so I am not suspicious. That is not saying let me play my own way it is asking a serious question - should I stop hunting baddies and just go along with the crowd? No one is telling me howto play - I can tel the difference.

I do not think it is a serious question, I think it is a rhetorical question, but I will answer it anyway. No, of course not. But who is suggesting you do that? No one is. I do not find you suspicious because you don't suspect Vomps. Lots of people don't suspect Vomps. I find you suspicious because of the timing and placement of your votes, which I think I've been quite clear about.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting you, but you seem to be very defensive of your playstyle, even though no one has critiqued it that I have seen.

Roxy wrote: llama - you did not even respond to the reason I did not vote for Vomps. If you were so concerned why wouldn't you have said something before now? Should I have just went along like a good little poppet and voted the way you like? I am sorry but that is not the way I play. And I know it is not the way you play. Give my posts a good long look I have nothing to hide - if you have any questions I will be happy to respond.

Roxy wrote:Llama - yes I understand my votes look bad but you are wrong when you say MP was not on my radar when in fact I said I thought Canuck had made some decent points - but - the top 3 vote getters last round were MP, Vomps and MM I had not read back on MP and bc I was unsure of my vote rather than use someone else's opinions/suspicions for my vote reasoning I like to use my own. Out of the 3 MP's game stood out the most bc this game he was very back track-y but in the beginning of Dr Who he was laser focused and unbending in his suspicions so I went with MP.
i am sorry but I have to play my own way. I can tel you in the 100's of games I have played I have never tried to save a teamie mostly I am one of the first to vote a teamie or even make the case myself - in other words I have never once voted to save a teamie nor have I ever defended one ofc this is all wifom but it is checkable. if Vomps was my teammate I would have been the first to make the case or held onto your coattails of suspicion.

Roxy wrote: 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.

Your defensiveness is very puzzling to me, especially since you have taken no votes and don't seem likely to today.

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, you keep responding to every question with some variant of "don't tell me how to play." Who is telling you how to play? Who is criticizing the way you have been playing? This is not something I have seen happening.

Just kidding, I voted for Vomps.

I'm self voting today.

I approve of you, Made.

Roxy wrote: llama - you did not even respond to the reason I did not vote for Vomps. If you were so concerned why wouldn't you have said something before now? Should I have just went along like a good little poppet and voted the way you like? I am sorry but that is not the way I play. And I know it is not the way you play. Give my posts a good long look I have nothing to hide - if you have any questions I will be happy to respond.

I'm not telling you how to vote, I'm just saying that your voting record looks suspicious. Can you acknowledge that? Suppose the shoe were on the other foot, and someone you thought was bad kept narrowly avoiding lynches thanks to the votes of a few players. Wouldn't you think that worth looking into? It's not like I'm making this up out of nothing. Look at the vote record. It's there for anyone to see.

Reading your posts, I found your suspicion of MP lukewarm until Vomps was in danger and there were already votes on MP. Then all of a sudden you seemed sure. That is my perception anyway. You shouldn't take it personally. As I said, I am just looking at the vote record and remarking that yours, particularly with respect to timing (you were neither the first nor the last vote cast, but instead played the crucial middle role) looks bad.

EBWOP: *refers, not reverse.

Ricochet wrote:What is WIFOM-ing?

WIFOM stands for "wine in front of me" and reverse to the kind of circular reasoning scene in the iconic scene in the Princess Bride. "A baddie would do X, but you knew that so you wouldn't do X, but you know that I know that, so you WOULD do X... etc."

Long Con wrote:Well, the FZ. kill would make total sense for a non-Vomps baddie to commit, right? For the very reason you're saying. It could even have been you, as an excellent setup which you are now presenting. If Vompatti wanted to kill an accuser, why wouldn't he choose you? For that matter, if a non-Vomps-baddie wanted to kill a Vomps accuser, why wouldn't they choose you?

Because I have a habit of getting myself lynched, a habit which FZ does not share.

Long Con wrote: The Vomps saves are a compelling piece of evidence. I think that looking at the earlier votes in those saves could be just as telling as the later ones that actually DID the saving, because baddies don't like to be so blatantly obvious. That all hinges on whether or not Vompatti is bad at all, of course.

The biggest thing for me with Vompatti is the Are You Being Served comparison. Unless Metalmarsh, my top suspect, is getting lynched, I could see myself voting Vompatti just for that.

Yes, the obviousness gives me pause as well, but at this point I'm inclined to believe that one baddie teams has just decided o go all in on protecting Vomps. This is especially plausible due to a worrying tendency in recent games for civs to be overly WIFOM-y and rationalize what seems like clear evidence away in favor of more elaborate theories. This approach seems absolutely crazy to me (as I say, I prefer to take the Occam's Razor approach), but I am seeing it more and more these days, and would not put it past a baddie team to exploit it.

Long Con, your analysis of past games in commendable, but while my initial suspicions of Vomps were based on his playstyle, they have now blossomed to be consideraby more than that.

What do you make of the fact that there appear to be a number of people desperate to lynch anyone but him, and the fact that one of his most vocal opponents has now been executed? To me, this is far more conclusive evidence of his guilt than the playstyle analysis that set me on his trail in the first place.

Made wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I wonder if it means anything that FZ was a Vompatti voter and got killed?

RIP FZ.
Llama, I'm reading you as civvie this game partly because of this unrelenting attack of Vompatti, but I think you're wrong (or at least right for the wrong reasons?) I'd personally look elsewhere, but iunno man....
i'm going to reply to stuff in revere chronological if that's cool
oh, and i wasn't cursed or anything, I just been crazy with life and things. Got a huge snowstorm and the super bowl coming up, so I should have a lot of free time in the coming days.

You don't think him narrowly avoiding a lynch two days in a row, with the same people making the difference, followed by an NK of one of his voters looks suspicious? What kind of evidence would you find suspicious? Would it take an overt confession?

I wonder if it means anything that FZ was a Vompatti voter and got killed?

RIP FZ.

Dear Filmore Reviewmacutty Quackenbush, Esq.,

I was dismayed to see your recent review for my film Mulholland Drive and I, being an eminently sociable man who is not at all weird and reclusive, thought I would drop you a line to correct a few of your misconceptions.

First of all, you said that the plot of the film "makes about as much sense as a Chinaman with a hairbrush in his mouth." Okay, I added the part about the Chinaman, but the gist is there. What you fail to understand is that my movies are not about "making sense." That's for amateurs. Anyone can tell a straightforward linear story, but it takes a genius to string together random, unconnected scenes that seem like they're symbolic, but are really not. Didn't you see Eraserhead? If not, go see it. It's nuts.

Second, you criticized my use of color, music, and scenery as "shallow and superficial." Oh really? What about the scene where they guy (I forget his name) pours pink paint all over his wife's jewelry? Wasn't that a pretty shade of pink? I thought it was. Sometimes I just put things in my movies because I think they are pretty, even if they have nothing to do with the story. I do that because I am a genius. Also, why did he have that shade of pink paint in his garage anyway? Why would a guy like that have such a horrendous color picked out for a paint project? See, it's all about making you think, my friend, but apparently you didn't do much thinking. You were too busy critiquing. "Less critiquin', more thinkin'", that's my motto.

Finally, you complained that my film was "nothing more than a pretentious buildup to a gratuitous lesbian sex scene." Gratuitous? I've got four words for you, bub. Integral. To. The. Plot. Also, you're probably gay.

Maybe you should stick to lawyering, "Esquire," "and leave the film reviews to the pros. After all, Roger Ebert liked my movie, and you're not half the man he is (because he is fat, you see?)

Respectfully yours,
- David Lynch

S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:So you're refusing to say whether you were silenced or not, is that correct, Canuck?
It used to be, old school, that you did not discuss thing like whether or not you had been targeted in the thread. Some hosts won't allow it. Sometimes people are reticent to do so.

And thanks, FZ. ~ imagine that, someone even more suspicious than me

I'm assuming it is a host rule, since LC did the same thing.

Search found 352 matches