The Syndicate

Spacedaisy wrote:I'm confused. Looking at the poll Rox had the most votes didn't she? But ninjablooper got lynched instead?

Yes, this is true.

Roxy wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I'm feeling pretty good about Llama, I've got his name scribbled under my "Civvie Head Case" column. I think we should keep him around as a pet.
I may be hungry, but I sure ain't weird.
Lies!
llama do you know if Mongoose is ok?

Yes, she's in Sarasota, FL dealing with some family stuff. I don't know when she'll get to the Host Post, but she is not dead/injured/institutionalized, or at least was not as of last night.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm feeling pretty good about Llama, I've got his name scribbled under my "Civvie Head Case" column. I think we should keep him around as a pet.

I may be hungry, but I sure ain't weird.

Flase. Numbers lie all the time. They're called statistics.

S~V~S wrote:OK, I will remember that and keep it in mind as you post and vote the next few days.

And no, not paranoid yet, not even close. But when one of my top suspects comes in here with a story mixing me up with someone in a totally meta way, and one of my other top suspects chimes in with his corroboratory opinion, I notice that.

You hear that, MM?

Made, you keep asking why I made a new case instead of going after SVS or Roxy. I don't know how to put this more simply, because the principal reason I suspected Roxy and SVS is now gone, and I no longer think they are bad (at least not SVS. I am still slightly hesitant about Roxy). What do you want me to do, pursue people I don't think are bad just for the sake of consistency? Why would I do that?

As John Maynard Keynes once said in between bouts of economic incompetence, when the facts change, I change my opinion. It would be madness to do otherwise.

linki: I got your joke, MM

Made wrote:Also, Just noticed, Gag's off for Champion game. My chain of thinking right now is Llama might be trying to pull what i pulled in that game. Give someone attention, then absolving them, thus removing them from most people's radar.

You give me far too much credit.

S~V~S wrote:I thought his main reason for suspecting me, at least, was tied to Vomps being bad. When Vomps came up civ, that reason was gone.

This is correct.

I also think you're misrepresenting my cases on both Blooper and Vomps, Made. They were not identical, nor were they based on "talking more than usual." Vmops' was based on increased on topic engagement, which I only noticed becuase he is such a uniquely unconventional player.

Blooper is not an unconventional player. My case on her were based on her willingness to follow my Vomps suspicion with little original analysis, and a sudden change in her talkativeness when I mentioned her name.

Those are not the same cases, and they are not based on merely being more talkative, so you are straw-manning me, buddy.

Made wrote:I've been talking more than usual this game why not go after me next?

Don't tempt me.

And regarding your analogy, yes, a good cop should absolutely pursue the second suspect rather than assume he's innocent just because the last one was.

Made wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Catching up a bit...

The case on Llama oscillates too much right now, IMO, between seeking an easy lynch in reaction for the past two ones and a tricky gamble that he'd actually be bad. I'd be surprised for him to be the orchestrator of all that's happened. Has he exhibited in past games such a tactic of leading hunts decisively, but turning out to have been a grand manipulator?

I think the best option as of now is to keep him alive, not lynch him unless we find a tie to a baddie, but not listen to him, or let him lead a lynch as he is very good at doing that.

I'm not trying to!

Made wrote: Ok as there is confusion.

TLDR: Llama is shifty because he suspected a Squid before SVS or Roxy. While Yes, part of his suspicion was based on Vomp, Not all of his stated suspension was. Above i listed all the loose ends in the cases that llama created that are separate from Vomp

The second post with the quote from Llama re:bloops are drawing parallels between the reasons Llama found Vomp suspicious and why he found bloops suspicious. I find these parallel noteworthy because you'd assume that if someone suspects someone for one reason, and is prove to be wrong, they wouldn't push for a lynch against another person for the same exact reason, or at least wait a cycle before doing so because they were just wrong.

I don't agree with this. Just because the conclusion is wrong, doesn't mean the reasoning leading there is.

Suppose you were a police officer and you found someone next to a dead body with a bloody knife in their hands. You would assume that person did it, yes? It's possible they didn't, but the balance of the evidence is that they did.

Now suppose you later find out that they were framed and are innocent. Okay, fine. Next day, you go out on the homicide beat, and find a guy with a literally smoking gun fleeing the scene of a murder. Would you say "well, I was wrong about the last guy, this guy must be innocent too?" Of course not. You would assume that the evidence is what it appears to be unless given a good reason to think otherwise.

You said a mouthful, LC.

Long Con wrote:
thellama73 wrote:To address your last point, my leading civvie lynches is the exact opposite of dodging accountability. I am responsible for those lynches. I led them, I argued for them, I voted for them. Anyone can look at the record and see that they are my fault and judge me accordingly. In my experience, baddies are more careful than that.
So, you are an experienced player, so you would know that baddies might be expected to be more careful than that... so you could act in a different way, and then say the above.

Yes, I could. But I'm not.

Dom wrote:i'm not actually that sure you're bad
i'm just pointing out how flawed your logic is and that you aren't he infallible god you act like you are.

If I were an infallible god I wouldn't have lynched two civvies. I am the first to admit that I have a terrible record, not just in this game, hunting baddies. But at least I show up and try. I try over and over again, which is more than can be said for all the inactive players in this game.

So I'm a highly fallible god at best.

MM, it has been discussed a little by SVS and me.

Dom wrote:llama you're a hypocite and tbh i'm making fun of your game

I don't think it's hypocritical of me to continue to baddie hunt rather than roll over and wait for death, even if that is what you would prefer I do.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Here's an intro, blah blah blah.

Here is why I think llama is good.

He has been consistent (sign of civ or good baddie). He has done some research, specifically about vomps. For the first three days of the games, he has seemed like a civvie llama. And above all else, I'm pretty sure he was the one who rezzed BWT. I have a couple reasons for this. Only llama and I were online and posting between the Day start and the rezz, and it only took 11 minutes to send the rezz in. llama also posted a lengthy film critique that may have won him a prize. I'm open to input on this. I know it's terrible to share ideas about a possible civ, but I feel my read on llama has come to a crossroads.

Here is why I think llama is bad.

My pingdar on llama has done a complete turnaround on Day 4. As Dom pointed out, blooops was an easy lynch, which very well could have been why llama picked her out of the crowd. llama said she was bad. We had this interaction, which makes less sense than a post from Made (sorry bud). And the read on blooops that he offered is both meaningful and useless at the same time.

And now there is the no-u on Dom. Llama is accusing Dom of avoiding accountability, not long after llama has led a couple civvie lynches (as he admits). I don't get it.

To address your last point, my leading civvie lynches is the exact opposite of dodging accountability. I am responsible for those lynches. I led them, I argued for them, I voted for them. Anyone can look at the record and see that they are my fault and judge me accordingly. In my experience, baddies are more careful than that. That's why I suspect people who are cautious about taking hard stands. You're a smart cookie, MM, and I hope you realize that your read of me in the top art of your post is the correct one.

linki Dom: I've seen this argument many times and it continues to mystify me. Someone who has lynched civvies is not allowed to continue to play the game and hunt baddies? I should just sit quietly and wait for you to lynch me? It is opportunistic and you know it.

I am bored of not making cases, and since it seems like there is contingent of people eager to lynch me tomorrow, I guess I better start preparing my defense. MongooseLawyer would approve.

Has anyone read Dom lately? I just did, and a couple of things really stand out.

1. Have you noticed that almost every one of his on topic posts (at least for the first few days) was a question? This is always a red flag for me. It's a great way to participate without committing to much.
2. His campaign against MP, who we now know was as civvie as the day is long.
3. The thing that inspired me to do the reread was the way he jumped onto me after the Blooper lynch (for which he missed the vote.) It feels like the height of opportunism, because no player has stuck his neck out as much as I have. I would be an extremely easy lynch, and when I flip civ, anyone could reasonably say "well, what was I supposed to do? He kept leading campaigns against civvies!"

Anything that allows a player to dodge accountability sticks out as baddie-esque to me, and Dom's Socratic method combined with his opportunistic pouncing on me are both great examples of accountability dodging.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Dom wrote:
That is, if we don't lynch the baddies... of which you are one.

So....
Why do you think llama is bad?
I don't make cases. Why are you obsessed with my opinion!!?!?!?
Sorry. I'll ask someone else then.

LC, why does Dom think that llama is bad?

I can answer this. He doesn't think I am bad, but he wants the thread to think so because he thinks I will be an easy lynch.

Dom wrote:But does that make made bad

Only the role he was given by the host can "make" him bad or good. At present, I do not think he is bad.

DF coming in hard with sound logic. There's a reason I don't think you're bad, DF. Made's post made no sense whatsoever.

It's not that I "trust"Made and Dfaraday so much. I don't trust anyone. But I have reread both of them and nothing stands out at me as suspicious. They seem be behaving like I would expect the to behave as civvies. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful than that, but I simply do not see the case on Made.

Then again, we have all seen how good I am at sniffing out baddies, so I could easily be wrong.

Roxy wrote:Llama - if weren't sure about Ni and did not want people to follow you then why voice the suspicion and vote early? I am so glad to know that you are the only one trying to hunt baddies.
You have also vouched for 2 players more than once - Made and DFaraday. I was wondering why can so strongly vouch for 2 people so early in the game?

I think you are the reason the lynch went the way it did yesterday. I am asking you to reread my posts with an open mind - your original accusation of me is bc I was saving Vomps - which in a way I guess I was - but then went to I was WEIRD all capitalized like that. So what is weird?

I no longer really think you are bad, but i am very confused about the standard that has been set for me. If I voice any suspicions or cast a vote, I am leading a lynch? If I say I don't think someone is bad, I am "vouching for them"? Why aren't other people's opinions held up to this same standard?

I'm kind of interested in that answer myself, MM.

Dom wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Long Con wrote:It's kind of freeing, actually, to not be part of "everyone". I'm outside reality.

Now if Canuck or Llama are bad, then we have a problem. I may just start voting for inactives at this point, whoever they might be.
There are a lot of inactives, and it is especially worrying since night kills are apparently being sent in.
why

Why is it worrying? Because it means there are only a few civs actually trying to kill baddies, with the rest being inactive. Once the active civs are killed off, the baddies can coast to victory. Whenever the bad team is more active than the good team, it's cause for concern.

Long Con wrote:It's kind of freeing, actually, to not be part of "everyone". I'm outside reality.

Now if Canuck or Llama are bad, then we have a problem. I may just start voting for inactives at this point, whoever they might be.

There are a lot of inactives, and it is especially worrying since night kills are apparently being sent in.

S~V~S wrote:Earlier in the day, though, you said something to someone, maybe Canuck? Kinda trying to cajole them into a Bloop vote.

Have any ideas on how she was lynched as opposed to the person with the most votes?

Yes, I know how.

S~V~S wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Why are people so interested in my suspicion? I am always wrong. Ask about Black Rock's suspicion.
I asked because you were the one pushing Blooper. And then none of us took your opinion yet she was lynched anyhow.

I wasn't pushing Blooper. That's my whole point. Someone asked for my reads on various players, and I said I thought she was bad. Then I said I was going to vote for her, but that I wasn't confident enough to try to convince others to do so. How is that "pushing"? I didn't push anymore than anyone else, yet I was the one whose opinion everyone seemed most interested in. I don't believe this is becaue they think I am a good baddie hunter, because I am manifestly not.

I advise people interested in baddie hunting to read over the last day and observe how obsessed everyone was with soliciting my opinion when I had already stated I didn't want to make cases.

You'll also note if you read my posts that what you quoted was only 1/3 of my reason.

Dom wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
thellama73 wrote:3. I have seen her baddie game and it is dangerous.
Can you tell us more about it? I have not had the (mis?)fortune of ever witnessing Bloopie's baddie game.
I had BTSC with her recently. Her game is dangerous because she is completely convincing and leaves no clues that she is bad. So this resembles it in that she hasn't really given anybody (except for me! Perceptive.) a reason to suspect her.
This is the vaguest criteria I've ever seen.

Turnip Head wrote:Dom, are you here? What are you thinking?

linki: Llama what do you think of those two Bloop posts I quoted?
My laptop died in the library with no power cord with me. :/

I don't know who I would have voted for tbh. Sorry to see Blooper flip the way she did. TBH I found her Canuck suspicion suspect. IDK. Sorry to see you go!

Llama is making me think he's bad tbh.

Vaguer than all the reasons/non-reasons given by the other voters? Vaguer than the reasons given by all the people who didn't vote at all? The double standard is getting tiresome.

Couldn't choose between Boyhood and Birdman, so I voted for both. Budapest was great, but it was really just Wes being Wes and I'm not sure it deserves best picture in this unusualy strong crop.

Doggone it.

Awful lot of non-voters.

Tough love, old friend. Someday I won't be here to hold your hand while you vote. It's better if you get used to it now.

Turnip Head wrote:Dom, are you here? What are you thinking?

linki: Llama what do you think of those two Bloop posts I quoted?

I already cast my vote. Make up your own mind.

See? I stop carrying the thread, and everything falls apart. Atlas shrugged, y'all.

Why are people so interested in my suspicion? I am always wrong. Ask about Black Rock's suspicion.

Turnip Head wrote:
thellama73 wrote:3. I have seen her baddie game and it is dangerous.
Can you tell us more about it? I have not had the (mis?)fortune of ever witnessing Bloopie's baddie game.

I had BTSC with her recently. Her game is dangerous because she is completely convincing and leaves no clues that she is bad. So this resembles it in that she hasn't really given anybody (except for me! Perceptive.) a reason to suspect her.

S~V~S wrote:I am not sure I get the Blooper suspish. Can I get the tl;dr on that?

The reasons I am voting for Blooper (which I am doing as soon as I finish this post) are threefold.
1. She piggybacked on my Vomps suspicion.
2. She was quiet and inactive until Vomps was lynched and I said maybe we need to look at her. Then she came bursting into the thread with a flurry of activity.
3. I have seen her baddie game and it is dangerous. SO I never really trust her.

I'm not really trying to convince people here. Not confident enough for that. But this is my reasoning for my vote.

S~V~S wrote:Um, I looked back to the top of my page, and Llama called her "literally insane", I see. Rox is very sensitive to slights & insults. Calling her "literally insane" is just calculated to piss her off & upset her.

Telling people they are insane becasue you disagree with their playstyle does not bring out the best in them, lol. So if that is what set her off, she won't be getting my vote.

False. I said the argument that critiquing someone's vote record is the same as telling them how to vote is literally insane, not that Roxy is. A sane person can make insane arguments.

I don't see how I'm "antagonizing Roxy" by pointing out that her argument makes no sense and that if we were to take it literally, baddie hunting would be impossible.

Dom wrote: I'm unsure about how to read into he Llama/Roxy conflict. It reads as unproductive, meaningless, and vapid if I'm honest.

That indicates to me that it's either Civ v. Civ or a baddie Llama antagonizing Roxy.

Or a baddie Roxy antagonizing Llama.

Black Rock wrote:Llama is playing a very aggressive game. I'm no expert in things Llama but the way he's reading to me seems more like an aggressive baddie and less like a helpful civvie. In fact there hasn't been a whole lot of helpfulness from him as of late. Just things stated as fact when they are only suspicions and a lot of criticism.

Roxy is reading off to me. A little too sensitive, but I have seen this between her and Llama before so I don't know if I'm reading too much into it.

Something about Canuck is making me eye her. I can't put my finger on it yet. Just a gut feeling.

People always expect me to be a leader. I usually am, especially early in the game, because that is my style. I have strong suspicions and I stick to my guns. This results in a lot of opportunity for others to latch on and follow me. This is what happened with Vomps. Not only do I feel responsible for lynching a civ, but I am perceived as bad for so aggressively campaigning against one. If Vomps had flipped bad, it would be a different story. But now everyone expects me to find another suspect, latch on and lead another lynch. Why do I have to do that? How many lynches have you led, BR? How many theories have you developed and how many cases have you made? Same question for Bass, DFaraday, Lizzy, Made, Blooper, Roxy, Sabie, Daisy, and Timmer.

Everyone else gets to be a follower and ride the coattails of more aggressive players. Maybe I'm tired of playing that role. How come other people can get a pass for doing that, but my refusal to lead another lynch right away is suspicious?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Oh you don't?

thellama73 wrote: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.
So you don't know if Rico and Bloops are bad?

Of course I don't. How would I know that?

Metalmarsh89 wrote: What's wrong with baddies piling on your case if you're making cases on baddies?

Unfortunately, I don't know who the baddies are. I thought I was making a case on a baddie with Vomps, but the baddies just gleefully watched from behind the scenes while I led the lynch train into a cliff.

I am sure they would like nothing more than for me to make another error, so they can follow me and then it will look like my fault. I'm not playing that game right now.

Why don't you make a case on a baddie if it is so easy?

It is not extreme, it is the logical conclusion of what you said. If someone says that your vote looks like it was calculated to save someone, you take that as a criticism of how you play. If we all had that attitude, all vote analysis would be impossible. If I look at someone's voting record and observe "you have only voted for civvies" it is ridiculous for them to respond "don't tell me how to vote." We have to be able to look for potential baddies in the voting record.

I am not twisting your words or putting words in your mouth. This is the argument that you are making.

Roxy wrote:One more time bc I really believe I am being srsly misrepresneted.

I KNOW no one was telling me how to play.
Llama, however, was saying that my votes look like a save of Vomps (which everyone now knows is false)
So in a sense he was telling me to "conform" and vote his way and if I did notI was suspicious (that is a lot of paraphrasing but it IS what was implied.
My WHOLE point was why should I conform and vote with everyone? Why can't I have my own thoughts about MY own vote?
And that he now considers weird.
I am playing weird bc I did not latch onto his Day 1 case. Tbs day 1 cases usually always lynch civs.

Yes this subject makes me uptight bc its right up there with telling people how to play. I will not be told how to vote or to play.
I will never be a conformist.

I am voting Made.

By this logic ANY vote record analysis is telling people how to play, since there is implied criticism of someone's vote choices. I hope you can see that that is literally insane.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Sudden extremity is my middle name.

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

Not the former because I haven't given her a read yet, so the latter.

Why should we lunch lynch her?

Linki: @ TH. I have no idea what you mean either. What's different?

I'm not going to make cases for baddies to pile onto right now. I feel like that's what they want me to do. Someone else do some work.

I'm going to vote for Blooper, you vote for whomever you like.

Ricochet wrote:As I've said, I find it llama's solution to focus on third party and most consistent voters, after Vomps' lynch, highly undesirable, considering that, excluding myself and Blooper as the latter category & BWT as the immortal king of civs, there are 10 other people who contributed to that lynch. As always, I can't say this would necessarily shout baddie from Llama, but it could well be another misguided path he's following.

Actually, I might do this, in the time I'll have left: look back myself and try to filter through the Vomps lyncher. And I'll also reread MM and Made, since SVS asked.

My initial focus was on the third parties, but after doing my reread I found Blooper, a Vomps voter, more suspicious than any of them.

Search found 352 matches