The Syndicate

FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Ignore me. I'm an idiot. I looked at FZ's avatar and thought it was Roxy because of similar colors. Apologies all around.
LOL, I was wondering why you called me Roxy the first time, and then you accused me of voting MP, and for a minute, I thought I actually voted MP by mistake

By the way, I find Roxy more suspicious than SVS for some reason. I feel like she's skating by more than SVS. So if Vompatti turns out bad, I would say my first person to look at is BR, followed by Roxy.

We are on the same page.

Ignore me. I'm an idiot. I looked at FZ's avatar and thought it was Roxy because of similar colors. Apologies all around.

FZ. wrote:RIP MP I'm kind of pissed they lynched you.

Wait, what? They? You voted for him! You tied the vote with Vomps! What do you mean "they"? You are directly responsible for his lynch!

That's a good point on BR, Roxy. I feel like I had something to say about her, but now I've forgotten. I shall have to look back.

I'm not sure whether the hostess has been especially strict in prohibiting people from saying "I was silenced" "I was forced to miss the vote" etc, but if that is not the case, I want to posit the following to the thread.

The baddies can communicate with each other outside the thread. The civs cannot. Do you think the civ cause is advanced by obfuscating and purposefully withholding information?

So you're refusing to say whether you were silenced or not, is that correct, Canuck?

The Fall is a spectacular movie. I like all of Wes Aderson's films (except Rushmore and Bottle Rocket, but he was still learning) but Moonrise Kingdom perfectly captures the magic and humor of his work to me.

I also feel I should apologize to SVS for being overly combative with her. I know we always see things really differently, and it doesn't mean either of us are bad or dishonest. We just don't understand each other.

I'm sorry, SVS. It is just frustrating to feel like you're screaming into the void with no one listening. I still think you might be bad, but I should have been more respectful.

Canuck, two people have asked if you were silenced yesterday. I'll be the thrd. It really makes a difference so we would like to know.

I also will BBL, because I genuinely don't understand why no one wants to win the game except me. SVS thinks you shouldn't vote for baddies if they are new, or if it might prove discouraging to them (boo hoo) and MM doesn't think you should persist in your suspicions, even if you think you are right.

Fine, have it your own way. Let the baddies win without a fight. I'm laving before I say something that gets me a stern talking to from our lovely mod.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I will vote for Vomps tomorrow if that is the consensus, I am beginning to think that this is just corking the thread.

Linki, my record makes me look stupid & incompetent, not bad. Don't confuse the two.

Linki x2, MM, why do you persist in saying shit like that???
Because I find llama's persistance annoying.

I find your eagerness to make up elaborate and circuitous theories based on nothing rather than follow the evidence that's staring you right in your marmoty face annoying.

S~V~S wrote:I will vote for Vomps tomorrow if that is the consensus, I am beginning to think that this is just corking the thread.

Linki, my record makes me look stupid & incompetent, not bad. Don't confuse the two.

Linki x2, MM, why do you persist in saying shit like that???

Well, I respectfully disagree. The timing of your votes makes it look like you are trying to save Vomps, since you keep breaking ties, and to me that looks bad rather than incompetent.

I don't think disagreeing with me makes you bad at all. I think your vote record, especially with respect to timing, makes you look very bad. But as I keep saying, it makes more sense to lynch Vomps first to see whether there really was a save attempt going on. That's what I intend to do unless I get murdered in my sleep, and I expect another save attempt. I just hope this time people won't fall for it. If the civilians are going to fall for the same trick three times in a row, nothing I do in this game matters and we might as well call it quits.

I think Vomps is bad. Do you think I should not vote for people I think are bad because of the incentive effects on future games?

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, you're right. I am a very philosophical player. My philosophy is deep and wide like an azure lake.

SVS hasn't really brought me up as a suspect before. Now she doesn't trust me. She knows I am on her trail and she is scared. Watch for me to be the mindless bandwagon alternative to Vomps tomorrow.

I honestly, honestly don't know how to answer the question "why would a baddie want to save a teammate" without sounding unbelievably condescending.

Someone else will have to take it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:To recap: MM just asked why a baddie would try to save a teammate. That's how bad it is, people.
Are you going to deny me an answer?

I think this should explain it.

To recap: MM just asked why a baddie would try to save a teammate. That's how bad it is, people.

I would like to thank Long Con for being the only person in this game talking any sense.

Why didn't you vote, LC?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I still don't see the vomps suspicion, but a Roxy-SVS would be worth looking into.

Also, I have not seen any of the movies in the poll, so no vote.

Linki: were you silenced Canuck?

Why the heck would you go after Roxy/SVS when the case against them is hta they tried to save Vomps, and you don't believe Vomps is bad?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Btw llama, what are your thoughts on Roxy? Does she usually just post thoughts about players without addressing actual game content?

Damn straight I'm going to vote Vomps tomorrow. SVS or Roxy or both are desperate to see absolutely anybody but him lynched. What better reason to lynch him is there than that?

My suspicions go:
1. Vomps
2. Roxy
3. SVS

SVS is only below Roxy because I think she mostly sounds sincere, and I have a hard time believing she is playing the most blatant baddie game ever rather than just being a victim of bad luck, but the vote record looks VERY bad for her. Roxy has been wiffle waffly and non-committal, barely brought up suspicion of MP before this lynch, and her voting record is as bad as SVS'. I don't trust her one bit.

And oh look, SVS was again the one who broke the tie against him. And Roxy was in there too. Is anyone else seeing a pattern?

What! Another Vomps save? When are you people going to start listening to me?

RIP MP, but at least you got to use your power and saved a valuable civ. I'm glad I didn't fall into the trapping of gunning for you like I so often have.

Oh sure, now people are suspicious of Ricochet. I was doing it before it was cool.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Roxy wrote: Llama - again we will agree to disagree inre:Made. I have been baddie with him and his scatteredness reminds me of that game. Lemme tell you - I could not tell him what to post or how to post it - he played his own way.
You would hate having me as a baddie partner. I tend to play the same way.

YOu would love having me as a baddie partner, because I am fun and not at all rude.

Roxy wrote: Llama - again we will agree to disagree inre:Made. I have been baddie with him and his scatteredness reminds me of that game. Lemme tell you - I could not tell him what to post or how to post it - he played his own way.

Fair enough, but I think he plays his own way when civ as well, and I have no reason to suspect him yet.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:That didn't take long. He reads to me like a distracted player, busy in real life, which is causing him sloppiness. His inadequately explained "Hawthorne effect" theory; his bizarre vote for FZ; his absenteeism and complaining about driver's ed. I think he is just not paying attention, which seems more likely from a civ than a baddie.
So baddies always pay attention? Remember Made in Monopoly?

No, but they pay attention more than non-baddies because thye have a team supporting them and informing them. I just didn't see anything in his posts that rang alarm bells.

DFaraday wrote:
FZ. wrote: 3. What do you all make of DF voting as the last voter for himself. What's the point in even voting if you didn't have time to read? He had time to come and say that he doesn't have time, so he's voting for himself, and conveniently, it was after AP was almost a sure bet for the lynch. And then he comes in after the night and says Sabie probably saved herself.
I voted because some hosts punish players for missing votes. And if, as you're suggesting, I avoided voting for AP because he was already a sure lynch and I knew he would flip civ (which I didn't), the more sensible thing for me to do is throw my vote on to one of the players who has a bit of suspicion on them, in order to seem more active. Self-votes draw attention, so why would I do that unless I really had no clue where to vote?

I'm also not quite sure how my Sabie remark ties in with your previous points. I think that Sabie would be a weird choice of protection unless she herself had such an ability. However, now that Mongoose has cleared up how posts are written, I think it's much more likely that the kill was blocked.

And for the record, I work in a school, so I'm much busier in RL and less active in Mafia in January than December, regardless of alignment.

It's worth remembering (all players, not just DF) that in a two mafia game like this one, no one knows someone will flip civ.

That didn't take long. He reads to me like a distracted player, busy in real life, which is causing him sloppiness. His inadequately explained "Hawthorne effect" theory; his bizarre vote for FZ; his absenteeism and complaining about driver's ed. I think he is just not paying attention, which seems more likely from a civ than a baddie.

I still am not really seeing a baddie MP, TH. He's not pinging me. Going to reread Made now.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:If Canuck is indeed silenced, it could mean that she was blocked last night by John Waters, which makes her a likely candidate for a killer. But would a killer telegraph that she was silenced by voting early?

BWT said he would likely not post today, so no surprise there.
I don't understand the part about the killer telegraphing. Does Canuck's vote actually reflect the silencer's?
Generally the only reason people vote early without saying anything is that they can't say anything. I was just wondering whether a killer would want the rest of the thread to know thta, given the way the role powers are distributed.
But would Canuck like the thread to know that she's been silenced, by voting early, or the killer (i.e. force her to vote early)? If she was silenced and happens to be bad, would she expose herself to a possible lynch by voting early?

Yeah, thta was exactly my point, but as MM said, baddies don't always play perfect games, and she may not have thought about it.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:It's not clear from what you said that she* is also silenced during the night, but Llama says she is.

*she as in hypothetically Canuck, of course
No, she's not silenced at night. She's blocked at night, and silenced during the day.
Well, I asked if she's both during one of the phases. Sorry if that was misunderstood.

Yeah, I thought you meant that the silence and the vote were an either/or rather than an "and". I misunderstood, sorry!

Ricochet wrote:It's not clear from what you said that she* is also silenced during the night, but Llama says she is.

*she as in hypothetically Canuck, of course

No, she's not silenced at night. She's blocked at night, and silenced during the day.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:If Canuck is indeed silenced, it could mean that she was blocked last night by John Waters, which makes her a likely candidate for a killer. But would a killer telegraph that she was silenced by voting early?

BWT said he would likely not post today, so no surprise there.
I don't understand the part about the killer telegraphing. Does Canuck's vote actually reflect the silencer's?

Generally the only reason people vote early without saying anything is that they can't say anything. I was just wondering whether a killer would want the rest of the thread to know thta, given the way the role powers are distributed.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:D'oh, forgot about the silencer. But if Canuck was blocked during the night, he could have still posted. Maybe just circumstancial? (He didn't come her to post during N1, but was silenced and could only vote during D2)
There is the one role (John Waters I think) that blocks AND silences a player. That could be Canuck.

@llama, if that is the case, maybe it wouldn't cross Canuck's mind?

It's certainly possible, and it's the first piece of hard evidence we've had (as opposed to play style analysis and possible saves in the vote record.) My vote is cast, but if others want to lynch Canuck, I would not attempt to stand in their way, even though lynching silenced players is sort of a taboo.

linki Rico: It is both.

If Canuck is indeed silenced, it could mean that she was blocked last night by John Waters, which makes her a likely candidate for a killer. But would a killer telegraph that she was silenced by voting early?

BWT said he would likely not post today, so no surprise there.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:A lot of people are saying that Sabie was a weird night kill choice. I don't really think she was. It's common to kill less participatory players, because the civs can't make much out of it or draw conclusions, and those players are never going to get lynched anyway.
Yup, same reason we lynched an active player Day 1.2. (I'm not blaming you, just sayin'...)

Hey man, I didn't vote for him.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote: Interesting. Is that what you make of Vomps' vote for Dom? I think he [V], AP and MP* were tied at 2 votes at that point (*Dom's vote for MP is the only one I can't trace, judging from the posts, when it happened, so it could have been 1 or 2 votes for MP).
I think Vomps' vote for Dom was in keeping with his "wacky" style. He has never been a conformist, so I don't make much of it. I do, however, think those type of votes are very popular with baddies not wanting to be tied to a particular lynch.
Then why did you make a point about Vompatti not bandwagoning?
Because it was a point that needed making.
Without "making much of it" from his actual gameplay?

Precisely.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote: Interesting. Is that what you make of Vomps' vote for Dom? I think he [V], AP and MP* were tied at 2 votes at that point (*Dom's vote for MP is the only one I can't trace, judging from the posts, when it happened, so it could have been 1 or 2 votes for MP).
I think Vomps' vote for Dom was in keeping with his "wacky" style. He has never been a conformist, so I don't make much of it. I do, however, think those type of votes are very popular with baddies not wanting to be tied to a particular lynch.
Then why did you make a point about Vompatti not bandwagoning?

Because it was a point that needed making.

Ricochet wrote: Interesting. Is that what you make of Vomps' vote for Dom? I think he [V], AP and MP* were tied at 2 votes at that point (*Dom's vote for MP is the only one I can't trace, judging from the posts, when it happened, so it could have been 1 or 2 votes for MP).

I think Vomps' vote for Dom was in keeping with his "wacky" style. He has never been a conformist, so I don't make much of it. I do, however, think those type of votes are very popular with baddies not wanting to be tied to a particular lynch.

Roxy wrote:SVS - I hope I was not the one who you thought was rude. I hate to even say this but you still have not answered my only question. I guess at this point it does not matter but I would have liked a response and your thoughts about the other people who used your reasoning for their vote for Teeth.

I cannot believe no one has one word to say about Made. I mean his play style is so unlike Python and so reminiscence of his baddie game.

Here is a linky to all his posts I would like to hear what others are thinking about his game.

BR - can you elaborate a bit more? You seem to be tossing a lot of names about without really backing up as to why you think them suspicious.

She was talking about me, don't worry.

Thanks for reminding me about Made. I will reread him today and report back.

A lot of people are saying that Sabie was a weird night kill choice. I don't really think she was. It's common to kill less participatory players, because the civs can't make much out of it or draw conclusions, and those players are never going to get lynched anyway.

S~V~S wrote:No certain civs are not expendable, although that is not the point i think FZ is making. She means that even if Vomps is a civ, this lynch will give us alot of direction. For instance, one of the reasons Llama had for suspecting me was that he felt I was saving Vomps. Yet Vomps is not proven baddie. So if he flips bad, then we know some of those AP voters may have been attempting a save. If he flips civ, we will know there was no malicious intent in the AP voters, and that we might be better off looking elsewhere. I am not sure I agree with this approach, but it is not a baddie thought, imo, and if it was i don't think she would have said it in thread, lol. FZ doesn't much pull punches.

The last two lynches of civs were kinda thrown together; had I not been spooked by MM (and oddly, MM is having the opposite effect on me this lynch; him defending yet another shredder, Vomps, is making me leery of voting for Vomps, lol. Maybe it's the burn factor) I doubt i would have voted for AP. We have tried to make direction from them, but personally I think it more likely the baddies avoided those wagons. I know I was not trying to save Vomps, I was even considering a vote for him. Llama is always 100% positive, yet often wrong, like someone else I know Day 1.0, for instance, he seemed fairly sure you were bad, now it seems not so much.

YOu know who's been avoiding bandwagons? Vompatti.

Also, yes, I am frequently wrong, but one of these days I'll be right and it will all be worthwhile!

I just got tickets to see Rush on May 30th.

I don't think I am that rude.

I do think I am voting for Vompatti now, though.

Black Rock wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Black Rock wrote: A question to the thread in general. What am I missing about Vomp? I do not know his play style well can something spell it out for me cause I don't get it. Is it just the last vote?
I've reposted my explanation of why I find Vomp bad at least four times. Go find it.

Thanks for the help!

Sorry if that came across as rude, but, with all respect to you, a bunch of players have gotten into the habit of expecting others to do all their work for them, digging up all the quotes, building all the cases, posting all the links. If people can't be bothered to read the thread, I don't see why others should do work on their behalf.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Thanks. I forgot about that post from LC. It looks more like a setup than what SVS posted.

What do you think about these ideas regarding SVS and sabie, llama?

I'm a big believer in Occam's razor when it comes to mafia. I got lynched in GoC for suggesting that the simplest explanation was true instead of the elaborate invented conspiracy lunatic arguments everyone else was making (and it turns out I was right!) I think the assertion that a team tried to kill its own member and protected her to create confusion makes no sense from a tactical standpoint. I think it's more likely that a role block was written strangely in the Host Post.

I don't think that necessarily makes SVS, LC or Sabie bad though, because I can see how someone would think the Golem was being indicated by the Host Post. I continue to feel like LC is good, sabie's inactivity leads me to believe that she was not part of a grand scheme, and I am increasingly distrustful of SVS, but I don't think the analysis of the night's events means much.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Question to everyone.

If the Brotherhood targeted one of their own and saved themselves (sabie), who else would be a member of the Brotherhood that would be so risky with their NK? I can think of only a handful of players who would be so bold.

LC, SVS, or llama, or any combination of two of these. Actually, I would include myself, but I know I didn't do it.
Another possibility, SVS was subtly trying to put sabie up for a lynch by suggesting she was protected/killed by the same team. This idea does not require sabie to be bad.

Long Con was the first to suggest that though, not SVS.

Black Rock wrote: A question to the thread in general. What am I missing about Vomp? I do not know his play style well can something spell it out for me cause I don't get it. Is it just the last vote?

I've reposted my explanation of why I find Vomp bad at least four times. Go find it.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Question to everyone.

If the Brotherhood targeted one of their own and saved themselves (sabie), who else would be a member of the Brotherhood that would be so risky with their NK? I can think of only a handful of players who would be so bold.

LC, SVS, or llama, or any combination of two of these. Actually, I would include myself, but I know I didn't do it.

I think they would have to be nuts to try that, given how many roll blocks there are. If the protect got blocked but not the kill, they would lose a teammate and have wasted an NK opportunity.

I may be crazy, but I ain't stupid.

Vompatti wrote:Excuse me if I missed this due to not reading the thread, but why does Llama think I needed to be saved when I didn't even win the lynch poll?

What I mean by "saved" is that people voted for AP to make sure you didn't win the lynch poll when it looked like you might.

I think SVS is acting weird and suspicious, but the number of people who have jumped on that is making me nervous. I also, like MP, acknowledge that I am bad at reading her. Does anyone agree with my "if Vompatti is bad, SVS likely saved shim, so let's lynch Vompatti first and see" logic?

Search found 352 matches