The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote:I thought they were teammates. This is not apparent?

I think you might be a teammate of Vomps. I don't like the timing of your vote or the reasoning behind it. But rather than lynch you, I would prefer to lynch Vomps first. If he flips civ, you will look a lot better. If he flips bad, you will look a lot worse. I think it makes no sense to lynch you first for the same reason I thought it made no sense to lynch AP before MM.

S~V~S wrote:Thanks for the quotes, I missed them.

I voted AP cause I thought MM was defending him, and AP already had votes. I thought MM was defending him too hard, tbh.

But it was still early. Why not go after MM instead of AP? YOu could have gotten three votes on MM easily if you had tried. Sometimes baddies defend civs hard because they know they are not on their team, and safe to defend. It just seems like weird logic to me.

Your name was brought up a lot of times, not just by me, but by MP and MM and Rico and others. You really didn't see any of that?

thellama73 wrote:Okay, I just reread the cases on AP. Roxy and SVS both broke ties in favor of AP, and SVS and Canucklehead both offered MM's actions as a (partial) defense of their vote.

S~V~S wrote: 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.
SVS actually said this sort of thing three times. My question to SVS and Canuck is this:
If MM's behavior was what was pinging you (defending someone too hard) doesn't that reflect worse on MM than on AP? Why not vote for MM, then? I don't understand the logic of "X is behaving like a baddie, so I'm voting Y."

YOu didn't address the question I asked you multiple ties, SVS. I'm pulling the quotes now, if you'll hang on.

There are plenty of role blocks. Mongoose may just have written the post that way without meaning to give a hint.

Woooo! No death!

I wouldn't worry about the head. If I know Piper (and I think I do) he has long since eaten the head as a trophy.

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Who do you guys think the baddies will kill tonight? Do you think it will be me?
Why you? Are you good?

I am very good.

Ricochet wrote:
zeek wrote:He was great in Gangs of New York.

Okay in everything else. It's the cold, harsh truth.

While I'm dissing beloved actors... Meryl Streep is fucking awful.
I don't see how his "baddie" in Gangs is superior to his "baddie" in Blood.

Does her Oscar overnomination these past years influence on her or did you disliked her always, in anything?

I like Daniel Day Lewis a lot, and agree he was great in Gangs. I agree that There Will be Blood is overrated, although I liked it. I was sort of annoyed by how obviously fake his voice was in that. His Gangs voice was over the top too, but I could believe someone at that place and time would actually talk like that. In Blood he was so clearly putting on a voice that he might as well have been doing a Dracula accent the whole time.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Who do you guys think the baddies will kill tonight? Do you think it will be me?
I would think they would kill BWT because how the night power he has.

Don't give them ideas!

Who do you guys think the baddies will kill tonight? Do you think it will be me?

Roxy wrote:Also llama Canuck was not trying to lynch MM instead she was wanting to go for MP.

Canuck referenced MM's defense of AP as a reason for voting for AP though. That's what I was referring to.

Canucklehead wrote:SVS: good point about MM's defense of AP...I think that, coupled with his refusal to vote for any of the likely lynchees (thus avoiding accusations of "saving" someone or "bandwagoning" someone) looks bad for both AP and MM.

Roxy wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, thanks.

I actually will echo a sentiment that you stated that S~V~S is on my radar now as well; when examining the reasoning that people voted BWT and AP, I found S~V~S's second most suspicious during BWT's lynch and most suspicious during AP's lynch. Even though she started the suspicion against BWT, I believe I counterargued her points rather well. In addition, the logical fallacy of incriminating AP based on MM defending him also struck me as suspicious.

However, I know how terrible I am at reading S~V~S, and I'm not sure I suspect her heavily at this point. But she is one of the few I am most watching and advocating for tomorrow's lynch, at the moment. I need to do more re-reading and analyzing, but off the top of my head, both of her D1 votes have struck me as possibly sketchy, but especially the second one.

So I'm not sure whether that helps or hurts your case, Llama, but it's my opinion nonetheless.
In my view, Canuck's excuse that there was "no chance" of MM being lynched, hence the vote for AP, will not fly in SVS' case. AP only had two votes when she piled on. She could easily have tried to get MM lynched instead. I am anxious to see what her reasoning is regarding this.
Lemme correct your facts - when AP, MP and Vomps all had 2 votes each *I* broke the tie to give AP 3 votes - I even made a post about it after I had voted.

Yeah, I saw that just after I posted and corrected it in the next post. My memory failed me.

EBWOP: AP had THREE votes when SVS voted for him. My point still stands.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, thanks.

I actually will echo a sentiment that you stated that S~V~S is on my radar now as well; when examining the reasoning that people voted BWT and AP, I found S~V~S's second most suspicious during BWT's lynch and most suspicious during AP's lynch. Even though she started the suspicion against BWT, I believe I counterargued her points rather well. In addition, the logical fallacy of incriminating AP based on MM defending him also struck me as suspicious.

However, I know how terrible I am at reading S~V~S, and I'm not sure I suspect her heavily at this point. But she is one of the few I am most watching and advocating for tomorrow's lynch, at the moment. I need to do more re-reading and analyzing, but off the top of my head, both of her D1 votes have struck me as possibly sketchy, but especially the second one.

So I'm not sure whether that helps or hurts your case, Llama, but it's my opinion nonetheless.

In my view, Canuck's excuse that there was "no chance" of MM being lynched, hence the vote for AP, will not fly in SVS' case. AP only had two votes when she piled on. She could easily have tried to get MM lynched instead. I am anxious to see what her reasoning is regarding this.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, I do think closer examining the AP voters is a good idea. However, even though you feel pretty strongly about Vompatti, what if he flips civilian? Where do you think that would lead your conclusions?

My suspicion of Vomps is not tied to suspicion of other players, so his alignment, whenever it is revealed, will not influence my other suspicions at all. I suppose if he flips bad, it will make AP voters look worse, but if he flips civ, I don't see how it changes anything.

I wills ay thta right now, SVS has rocketed onto my radar, for breaking the tied vote in favor of AP, and for using MM's behavior to justify her vote for someone who is not MM.

Ricochet wrote:Snipping and highlighting the relevant part in my own post, in order for feedback on this.

Ricochet wrote: 2. I know I just voted Llama for his case on Vomps, but I'm starting to consider looking more carefully at Vomps, given that he's not helpful in his defence so far, quite the opposite. I'd like to know what other people think: in previous games, has a Vompatti pretending to be bad turned out more to actually be bad or just a cheeky civ (or was it inconclusive)? I don't mean to say I can tell right now if he's just pretending or not. But I'd be really uncomfortable if he'd survived a few more days, playing this kind of game, and turn out to be bad.

Are You Being Served, from which FZ and LC have pulled quotes, is the most recent and blatant example.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: How do you feel about vompatti now?

Why do you think my opinion of him would have changed?

Thanks, Canuck. I appreciate the response.

Okay, I just reread the cases on AP. Roxy and SVS both broke ties in favor of AP, and SVS and Canucklehead both offered MM's actions as a (partial) defense of their vote.

S~V~S wrote: 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.

SVS actually said this sort of thing three times. My question to SVS and Canuck is this:
If MM's behavior was what was pinging you (defending someone too hard) doesn't that reflect worse on MM than on AP? Why not vote for MM, then? I don't understand the logic of "X is behaving like a baddie, so I'm voting Y."

The last movie I saw was Punch Drunk Love, in my effort to see more of the films on the poll.

I liked it, but Magnolia is still my favorite.

Is it possible we were witnessing a Vompatti save last night? I thought the reasons for voting AP were pretty weak. My task for today is to look at the people who voted there, as well as the timing of their votes, and see what I see.

You guys should have listened to me and lynched Vompatti. RIP AP

Mongoose is being super lame and tells me she can't update the results until after work, so it's gonna be a while, y'all.

Turnip Head wrote:le sigh

Sometimes one gets the impression that the baddies are all laughing behind one's back.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Also, I'm still alive.

Linki: @ llama. Well that certainly doesn't support your vote of vomps.

My point is that Vomps is behaving differently from usual. AP is not. Come on, MM, you know better than that. I've said this a bunch of times.

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.

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

Dom wrote:
thellama73 wrote:A couple of people have now said that they think, between MP and Dom, Dom is the likely baddie if there is one. I disagree with that. Dom is being aggressive and unreasonable with MP, but that to me does not say baddie. I think Dom tends to be a more emotional player, and I think we are seeing this in his conflict with MP.

On the other hand, MP's sudden suspicion of Black Rock feels fishy to me, like he's in need of a distraction. I agree with SVS that BR's post was not weird or out of character.

Now we have two players (Long Con and BWT) misrepresenting Dom's vote. Of course, we know BWT is civvie, so he is surely just going off what LC said, but I am starting to get the sinking feeling that a subtle conspiracy is building against Dom. If I had to vote either Dom or MP, it would certainly be MP at this point.

Does anyone else feel like this Day 1 has lasted forever?
Thank you for pointing out their error.

What do you make of MP's reactionary and explosive response to BR?

It certainly caught my eye. I thought it was weird and possibly was his way of trying to get discussion off of himself. I would say I am more suspicious of him than I was, but only marginally.

FZ. wrote:Why the hell did I get a vote from Made?

thellama73 wrote:I'm going to go ahead and drop my vote on Vompatti. I've got some meetings coming up and I don't see anything that's likely to change my mind before the day ends.
llama, I think it was last game, when you were a civ, you said that when you're a civ, you goof around more (that was not the actual phrase). Would you say you're goofing around this game? Because you seem very serious in your baddie hunting. And while I usually find that to be a good thing, I just recalled that the last two games I was suspicious of you and you were a civ, and this game, I haven't once thought you were suspicious. So this is now starting to worry me.

Hoisted by my own petard! I did say that, and I think it is generally a fair assessment of my playing. I am rarely jokey as a baddie, because I feel a responsibility to my team rather than to myself. I have been more serious this game, and maybe that's because I have died early a lot lately and I am trying not to let that happen this time. I can't really argue with your logic, because it is my logic too, but I would say that the key word is "tend." While I am rarely jokey as a baddie, I think I am relatively frequently serious as a civ, if that makes sense.

I'm going to go ahead and drop my vote on Vompatti. I've got some meetings coming up and I don't see anything that's likely to change my mind before the day ends.

Yeah, that's a weird vote from Made there.

That was my assumption, Long Con, and I still don't think you are bad on balance. I don't see that you would gain much by intentionally misstating the vote, and it was an easy mistake to make due to the layout of the poll. My eye was just caught by a lot of Dom stuff in a row.

A couple of people have now said that they think, between MP and Dom, Dom is the likely baddie if there is one. I disagree with that. Dom is being aggressive and unreasonable with MP, but that to me does not say baddie. I think Dom tends to be a more emotional player, and I think we are seeing this in his conflict with MP.

On the other hand, MP's sudden suspicion of Black Rock feels fishy to me, like he's in need of a distraction. I agree with SVS that BR's post was not weird or out of character.

Now we have two players (Long Con and BWT) misrepresenting Dom's vote. Of course, we know BWT is civvie, so he is surely just going off what LC said, but I am starting to get the sinking feeling that a subtle conspiracy is building against Dom. If I had to vote either Dom or MP, it would certainly be MP at this point.

Does anyone else feel like this Day 1 has lasted forever?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I fell asleep last night before I could vote. Need to vote now since I won't be back in time.

Of the 3 people who voted away after my fate was pretty much sealed (Daisy, Dom, and A Person), those are the ones I find most suspicious. I figure at least one of them has to be bad. The only one I have slightly stronger feelings on is A Person, since he claimed it was "already decided" essentially and then self-voted. That strikes me as incredibly safe and lacking accountability.

Votes A Person

Again, Dom didn't do that, Rico did.

Ebwop: voted not cited. Stupid phone

I also find Long Con's analysis useful, but he made one small error in reading the poll thread. Dom didn't vote for Rico late. He cited for me earlyish. The. It's you are looking for. LC, is Rico's late random vote for Made.

Mongoose wrote:Hi darlings.

Hope you are having a magical ass Monday!

This was my favorite thing I saw this year: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2407380/combined

What was yours?

Happy hunting!

My top three movies of 2014 were Grand Budapest Hotel, Boyhood, and Birdman.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Bass_the_Clever wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, if you couldn't lynch Vomps today, who would it be instead?
Probably Rico. I don't have a lot of other strong suspicions. I think MM's ping on Bass is interesting. I have been historically unable to read Bass, so I am naturally distrustful of him.Ditto Blooper. I guess those four are at the top of the list.
I think I am one of the easiest people to read.
Maybe for other people, but not for me. You always seem good to me, which paradoxically is starting to make you always seem bad to me.
lol that's funny because I always think you are bad.

Everyone always thinks I am bad.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, if you couldn't lynch Vomps today, who would it be instead?
Probably Rico. I don't have a lot of other strong suspicions. I think MM's ping on Bass is interesting. I have been historically unable to read Bass, so I am naturally distrustful of him.Ditto Blooper. I guess those four are at the top of the list.
I think I am one of the easiest people to read.

Maybe for other people, but not for me. You always seem good to me, which paradoxically is starting to make you always seem bad to me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, if you couldn't lynch Vomps today, who would it be instead?

Probably Rico. I don't have a lot of other strong suspicions. I think MM's ping on Bass is interesting. I have been historically unable to read Bass, so I am naturally distrustful of him.Ditto Blooper. I guess those four are at the top of the list.

Dom wrote: I'm not sure how I feel about Long Con yet, but why do you feel he is particularly not bad?

Mainly due to his reaction to my initial suspicion of Vomps. I would have expected a baddie to go along-get along, but he pushed back. My instinct is that he is on the level.

Why are you being so hard on the new kid, TH? It's only Day 1. Give him a chance.

Me too.

Turnip Head wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Linki 3: What?
What?

Huh?

MovingPictures07 wrote: 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

??

I'm not feeling baddie Roxy or Long Con. I don't trust Blooper, more because I know how shifty she can be than because of anything she has said (very little). No reads on the others.

Also, I should note that I understand that my accusations have now put Vomps in rather an impossible position. I feel kind of bad about tha, but I still think he is bad. This is just the unfortunate consequence.

S~V~S wrote: I guess my point re Vomp in my hideously pronouned, unproofread post was that he is kinda being pushed into a corner. The more you go after him, the more he might feel the need to reply, so, you know ....the more on topic he is. Scylla & Charybdis, if you will.

Can you give me a rundown on him other than the generic "on topic"? If you already did and I missed it, i am sorry.

This is all I got. I understand that it is not persuasive to other people, but I feel confident in my assessment.

thellama73 wrote: I will gladly explain why I want to vote for Vomps. Basically, I just think I am seeing his baddie game. He's more engaged than he usually is, and more on topic. He reacted to my suspicion of him when I was the only one even talking about a vote for him, and in my experience, a civ Vomps would have been unfazed by that and ignored it. Then, he started trying to buddy up to me, calling me the epitome of a helpful civ. I have very often seen baddies try to support the people who suspect them as a way of engendering sympathy, and I have very often seen it work.

It doesn't feel like Vomps' normal game. He seems unduly worried about getting lynched (even though only two people really mentioned him as a lynch possibility) and in my experience, people with teams to support are more worried about getting lynched than lone civilians.

S~V~S wrote:@FZ, this is how I play. I am not a strong baddie hunter, I am more of an undercover detective, if you will. I look for someone who catches my eye, and I watch them. At this stage I am finding that following the back and forths is edifying.

llama, why exactly did you let go of Ricochet? I firmly expected you to go after him, you you backed off. There was no night between Day 1 & Day 1.1 so there were no night results for you to account for. This is not to say I think you are wrong re Vomp; I am not sure what I think. I agree that he he more on topic when bad. In one game at RM, that I cohosted that he played, 6 Feet Under, he was a baddie and he was VERY engaged.

BUT he loves Mongoose, and he loves film. I did the post skim and removing the OT, he does not seem all that on topic, especially if you remove defensive posts. So I think some of it is in reaction to suspicion?

I have not decided yet. As usual, I am arguing with myself here.

Linki @ FZ~ tbh, I am not sure yet. I have been watching a few people, and will dig into posts later or in the AM, as Snowpocalypse allows.

I havn't let go of Ricochet. I am still watching him, and very wary. I guess I am waiting for more evidence to roll in, since so many people seem to disagree with my suspicion. I think his "I am not going to answer your question" followed by a delayed "okay, I am not bad" is consistent with a baddie who was late to see his teammates frantically waving their arms and saying "stop!" The key word is "consistent." It is certainly not proof. Not yet.

Right now I am more confident about Vomps, so I am voting there today (unless something big happens). I can then pursue Ricochet in the future if I still feel I need to.

FZ. wrote:I'm off to bed. Would really like to know who people are thinking of voting for and not just have them wait until the last minute when they'll say they don't have time and just vote.
Night

thellama73 wrote: I generally think it is less productive for everyone to roll in five minutes before the lynch and say "no time to catch up, voting so and so."

S~V~S wrote: And since I am not sure if I even need to address this, but when I voted, BWT showed as being here. Perhaps he left his computer on, but I was not even thinking of the whole unable to defend issue. For me, that is announcing to the thread Friday night, "Gonna be out of town till Sunday night" like MM said. But someone making what I thought was a sketchy vote and then saying "I will be gone the rest of the afternoon" are two different things. Plus I did not think in terms of being able to defend when I voted, I was the first to vote for him. I was surprised to come back from my D & D game to find him, A) Lynched and B) Civ.

But if saying a few hours before the end of a 48 hour day period that you're going out meant "unable to defend", then all the baddies would be on the way to their Grandmas house

But in any case I was happy that Kubrick was around to reshoot.

FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?
Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?
Yeah this meanie Llama

Sorry, SVS. I didn't mean to impugn you at all. I was just pointing out the inconsistency of going after me and ignoring you. I entirely concur with your reasoning above, and feel exactly the same way. That is what I was trying to get across, albeit not as successfully as I would have liked.

Dom wrote: Do you think Vomps' increased activity might have something to do with the theme?

Yes, but I think his increased on-topic activity indicates his baddie game.

Search found 352 matches