The Syndicate

boo 2 wrote:So does golden have some kind of curse where he can only talk with images?

Dom 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Dom 2 wrote:
I disagree. I don't find Synonym's posts over Night 1 to be genuine.

But do you propose we try to lynch Long Con again (who may have surived two lynches already) or someone else?

Who is your next option?

Dom 2 wrote:
I disagree. I don't find Synonym's posts over Night 1 to be genuine.

But do you propose we try to lynch Long Con again (who may have surived two lynches already) or someone else?

Dom 2 wrote:

Long Con 2 wrote:I was joking about being unlynchable. And yes, I am claiming the latter. Every time I get the most votes, I have a chance of being lynched. As for who gets lynched instead of me, I was not given this information. I am guessing it may go to the person with the second most votes. TGG was up 2 votes on Day 2's tally, tied with Syn and MM. But of course I cannot be sure. It may have nothing to do with my non-lynch. It may be that no one gets lynched instead of me and that the TGG lynch was due to something different.

Considering that nobody is lynched in a tie, I believe something else is in play.

Long Con 2 wrote:To answer everyone's questions. No, I did not switch the lynch. I just said that it is more difficult to lynch me. I cannot reveal everything about my role, that is infodumping, of course. Think a little more on it and I am sure you can come up with a way that it would be more difficult to lynch me. Any time I get the most votes, there is a chance I will die.

Dom 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Dom 2 wrote:As such, I am voting Synonym.

Because I think he is bad. I don't believe every player you mentioned in relation to Synonym is going to flip bad, but I agree that he is likely mafia.

Should I not trust you?

Dom 2 wrote:As such, I am voting Synonym.

Black Rock 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:

Black Rock 2 wrote:Welcome back and congrats on your rezz Golden 2, assuming of course that you are good. I'll be gone to see about the horses part of the day tomorrow but will be back in plenty of time for discussion.

What do you mean "assuming of course that you are good" he is writeup mod-confirmed as town are you serious

BR2 slipping into my scum reads.

What do you mean he is write-up mod-confirmed as town? You mean because his role was revealed as town? Wasn't there conversation earlier in the game about there being a possible seemer in this game because it was in the host survey? Personally, I will have some doubt about any death that is a civ death because of that risk. Something I learned from past mafia playing.

Roxy wrote:Impossible Trivia
Guitar Hero Edition

Most everyone had a favorite guitarist. Some were left undecided.

But ALL 27 people responded, including your Hostesses,





4 people chose Jimi Hendrix as their favorite guitarist.

Be the first to list all 4 correctly to win a fabulous prize!
Only 1 guess of 4 per PM.
You may guess more than once AFTER first getting a response from your Hostesses.

(I was going to make you all do more but I thought we would start small.)

BASED

HEY, SCUM



So yeah, ignore the previous post and let us return the smooth broadcast of Golden.

but seriously scum don't ever pull that shit again

who fucking dared

Golden wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:First, though, I'll be voting Biblical. There finally are several games in the poll that I've took part in, but that one was a LOT of fun and a LOT of work and a LOT of win.

And G-Man was a complete ass and the bestest btsc partner, that was so much fun.

But the epi-hosted win I'm most proud of is Roger Rabbit.

shoo

I think only "Epignosis" and "DrWilgy" are in danger of missing the third vote, but the former seems to be finally picking it up.

First, though, I'll be voting Biblical. There finally are several games in the poll that I've took part in, but that one was a LOT of fun and a LOT of work and a LOT of win.

"Syn", unless your research into the real Syn came back that he flips the fuck out even over burning toast at breakfast in the morning, I'd recommend to try to chill out more. I get it that it can be frustrating when others are missing out or misinterpreting events that should be at least clear, but this is starting to look like something that can't be undone with turtles.

That being said, it looks like the right spot for a rewind in order to try to catch up.

I have done no justice in the past 48 hours to my sock's real player, to the fellow players in this game and to the wonderful Hostesses; I have been swamped by RL and right now (yes, on a bloody Sunday) it just got worse. Nothing to worry about (no, I'm not the second person who asked for a replacement ), but as far as RL goes, it's completely stressful and mafia is the last thing I can do today. I'd never normally do this, but with less than an hour and a half to go, catching up is out of the question and I hate even more committing to a vote without adequate reasoning, so I'm voting myself.

I'd find it reasonable for all those roles to be present in this game, maybe except the last one (which is not a very common Syndicate one; we have pro bono jesters, after all ).

fingersplints wrote:Think you figured out the real identity behind some of the socks?
Submit your guess at who each sock is via PM to both of your hostesses if you would like your chance to win one of two amazing prizes. Guessing in the thread will result in disqualification from the contest.

Distraction from baddie-hunting.

Also, each and every sock?

Llama 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:You do all know that Gamer Guy 2 is listed alphabetically, when you take into account that the 'the' in his name was simply dropped, right?

This seems like a weird sticking-point. It was someone playing as llama trying to be llama-y, and whether or not they succeeded being open to interpretation.

Llama is thellama73, yet "Llama" has been placed alphabetically under L.

I guess "Llama" should now vote himself.

Your logic is slightly faulty my good sir. Because even so, my name was still in correct order on the poll. But good try!

Also, voting Gamer Guy again. I just want to point out that lipsticklacey came right out after the failed lynch to put attention back on me.

I think gamer guy and Lacey are baddie mcbaddersons.

It was meant to disprove to Lipsticklacey that the "the" lacking "TGG" and your sock name has any bearing on the alphabetical ordering. You are placed correctly, "TGG" isn't (he still isn't lol). Thank you for applauding my spot on logic, kind gent.

Yay, no kill!

Dom 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:Nice context twisting there. Your first reference is a game in which Llama voted a completely absent player, to "piss off" anyone reluctant to vote completely absent players. While it is a nice coincidence that TH happened to be misplaced in the poll in that game, on that Day, that is still not why Llama voted TH. And he still did not vote, straight off the bat, for a player with not even a hint of reasoning whatsoever, the way "Llama" did here.

Your second reference is also bendy, because Llama's train of thought is very clear in that exact post. There was no Night Kill, which he associated with an absent player missing to send his action, hence likely being the killer. Furthermore, suspecting a player over several consecutive games is not the same thing with stipulating that bad before must mean bad again.

These are still two instances of llama voting for players and offering a reason that isn't coherent. We would also be hard-pressed to find a game in which there was a single player not listed in alphabetical order with the rest of the players to compare this one to. Llama would do such a thing.

I disagree with Llama not being coherent in those two instances. Coherency isn't the issue, anyway. "Llama"'s "TGG" vote didn't lack coherency. It was downright absurd. Furthermore, it seemed to force the image that Llama would make such absurd votes, hence that "Llama" would be equally playful with such a vote being the same stuff. It's not the same stuff.

Dom 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:Are you referencing the real Llama's or this game's "Llama"'s "supatown self"? I'm confused.

I am not imagining a difference.

Then I don't know what it means and what relevance it has. I don't have any issue with "Llama" roleplaying that he's supatowning. I'm not seeing any supatowning from "Llama", but you apparently do.

Dom 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:To me, "MM"'s Dom statement read as a sock guess. It doesn't have any substance. What can it distract from, regarding "Syn"'s actions?

I feel "MM" behaving like MM without being helpful should be under scrutiny, much like MM being unhelpful should in general be under scrutiny.

Going after who is behind each sock is a distraction from baddie-hunting. Not only this, but why would MM call out "the real Dom"? If this is like any sock game, the Sockmaster behind each sock puppet is not important, so pointing fingers at these people behind the curtains is useless and distracting. 1) It wastes the time and effort of sniffing out real baddies. 2) Why would MM know that the real Dom is the man behind this (if this is even true).

I agree that MM should be under scrutiny. You, Jay, and MM are on my shortlist tomorrow. Oh, and Synonym as well.

I don't have a strong stance on this, as of now. Excessive sock guessing would probably hurt the flow of the gameplay - meaning, at its essence, baddie-hunting - indeed. "MM" was as wasteful with this post as with several other posts he made, sure, but to distract with this from hunting would mean to influence the perspective on "Syn" or get people tangled up in this guess and lose focus on relevant issues. It didn't do that for me, because, as I've said, I wrote it off as an unsubstantiated guess. I don't believe MM would know, hence considering it to be a guess.

I was moreover asking how the Dom guess distracts or influence the view on "Syn"'s claim that he lynched his pardon. Does it change the perspective in any way for you? What is your perspective regarding "Syn"'s lynch pardon claim?

linki @ "Lipsticklacey": lol what. I was being pedantic. Also, to further be pedantic, "Llama" is placed correctly as just Llama 2, but "TGG" is placed incorrectly as just Gamer Guy.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:You do all know that Gamer Guy 2 is listed alphabetically, when you take into account that the 'the' in his name was simply dropped, right?

This seems like a weird sticking-point. It was someone playing as llama trying to be llama-y, and whether or not they succeeded being open to interpretation.

Llama is thellama73, yet "Llama" has been placed alphabetically under L.

I guess "Llama" should now vote himself.

Dom 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Dom 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:You say you agree with "Llama"'s statement here, but do you agree with the way he made his case on "TGG" the previous Day?

No, but I like the way his play has progressed since that time.

But it is true that you accepted MM for behaving like MM while you rebuked llama for behaving like llama. This looks like a double-standard to me.

It isn't true. I don't believe Llama would ever vote a person for being misplaced on an alphabetical poll and/or for that person having been frequently bad before meaning he must be again now. "Llama" did do that, however. What part of this isn't clear from what I've written about "Llama"?

No, I think that llama would do such a thing. It's not the first time he's done such a thing.

I disagree with it. It is still not helpful. But there is a difference between having fun with role-playing and hiding behind the role-playing. Llama has more recently shown his supatown self, and proven to be more productive. Not only this, but I agree with what he has to say.

How do you feel about MM accusing the real Dom (and not the fake Dom) of being involved in the lynch stop? Do you think this information is even helpful at all or distracting? How do you feel about MM behaving like MM without being helpful?

Nice context twisting there. Your first reference is a game in which Llama voted a completely absent player, to "piss off" anyone reluctant to vote completely absent players. While it is a nice coincidence that TH happened to be misplaced in the poll in that game, on that Day, that is still not why Llama voted TH. And he still did not vote, straight off the bat, for a player with not even a hint of reasoning whatsoever, the way "Llama" did here.

Your second reference is also bendy, because Llama's train of thought is very clear in that exact post. There was no Night Kill, which he associated with an absent player missing to send his action, hence likely being the killer. Furthermore, suspecting a player over several consecutive games is not the same thing with stipulating that bad before must mean bad again.

Are you referencing the real Llama's or this game's "Llama"'s "supatown self"? I'm confused.

To me, "MM"'s Dom statement read as a sock guess. It doesn't have any substance. What can it distract from, regarding "Syn"'s actions?

I feel "MM" behaving like MM without being helpful should be under scrutiny, much like MM being unhelpful should in general be under scrutiny.

Dom 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:You say you agree with "Llama"'s statement here, but do you agree with the way he made his case on "TGG" the previous Day?

No, but I like the way his play has progressed since that time.

But it is true that you accepted MM for behaving like MM while you rebuked llama for behaving like llama. This looks like a double-standard to me.

It isn't true. I don't believe Llama would ever vote a person for being misplaced on an alphabetical poll and/or for that person having been frequently bad before meaning he must be again now. "Llama" did do that, however. What part of this isn't clear from what I've written about "Llama"?

And some further thoughts:

1) I'd be inclined to say vote manipulation sounds more like a baddie tool, for messing with the lynch work, but we still don't know what kind of manipulation it was. "Syn" being ahead of "LC" in some way in the polls can mean either one of his six voters' was worth more than 1 or someone negated one of "LC"'s votes. Thing is, in my experience, I've seen either of those powers attributed, depending on how the games were themed, to both badass civ characters or buff mafia one. A flip from either "Long Con" or "Syn" could be tell us more about the manipulator's intentions.

As for the lynch pardon, I'm reading "Synonym"'s explanation fairly genuine. Again, he may be the kind of player, from a different culture, with the impulse to claim such a role. It's not a claim to be taken for granted, of course, but I can understand what he presented as the chain of events: telling the Host to pardon his lynch, if he was to be lynched; afterwards he considered that there being no lynch meant his pardon was used, hence that he had lost the tie - this at least until the Hosts clarification that the lynch was not tied, but which doesn't influence the veracity of his pardon claim or tactic.

2) I don't like how the exchange between "Lipsticklacey" and "Synonym" deteriorated, overall, but it also makes me think of some real players, mostly from a different mafia culture, that would blow up like that in their gaming. I also don't plan to approach or adopt the "win con" angle and would not recommend to anyone to make a dangerous move and talk about or reveal something the Hosts will not allow. I also doubt the Hosts would leave a loophole in the design of the game that would allow all baddies to be simply flushed out by being clueless or giving wrong answers to something that is civ-only distinguishable.

3) To my mind, there are still several players on both vote trains whose votes are curious or suspicious. "MM"'s and "TH"'s votes, on "Syn"'s side, still don't sit right with me and "Scotty" was a bit sudden as well with his "Syn" case, after missing the Day. On "LC"'s side, "Cobalt" has been constantly on "Scum Con" mode and "JJJ"'s vote looks flip-floppiest of all.

I don't have much time today (sometimes RL can outsock your play), so I'll say just a few words for now.

First, some quotes:

SVS 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

You seemed to make the same observation LC did about the number of mafia Synonym had pegged with a tone of suspicion. How did you not understand other people's votes despite some of them being for that reason?

That's not what I meant in that post. "Lipsticklacey" (win-con-reply reasons), "MM" (reasons still unclear to me...something about WIFOM?) and "TH" (no post D1 = no reasoning) did not vote "Syn" for the "number of Mafia pegging" reason. *Those* are the votes I said I do not understand. By contrast, at that time of that post, the players who did make observations or had suspicions about "Syn's number of Mafia pegging" had not pulled the trigger on "Syn" for those reasons.

Dom 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:I would be satisfied with a sig lynch.

You've voted already. You suspect "TGG" of being mafia, but would be satisfied with a lynch in which he voted?

I stand by my decision.

Then I suppose I can stand by my suspicion. I believe that you've given both your suspects-of-the-day without any real case, then built the case post-factum re: "TGG" and that approach was rather pure meta (and speculation on role distribution). Furthermore, I can add the extra sin that you're mishandling Llama's sock (or, worse, relying on people to write this off as "oh, that's so llama") in making such loose cases. For these reasons, I'm voting you today.

I would argue that I have given more reason to vote for someone today than most. Your harping on my "mishandling" of the sock is an accusation I can do nothing about. Who are you to judge my sock play? That's MovingPicture's schtick anyway.

You said in your next post that MM is posting as normal MM would post, which is far from solid voting reasoning. I don't see you blowing up at him for his antics. Are you just trying to protect your scum buddy, Golden?

I agree with this statement.

I also think Golden is behaving very get-along this game. His subtle defense of Metalmarsh is disconcerting to me.

I can only point to you my case on "Llama" and what I've replied to him regarding his statement above. I did not put an equal sign between "Llama"'s and "MM"'s roleplaying (nor their "antics", as "Llama" put it) and did not pardon "MM" whilst blowing up at "Llama".

I believe "Llama" forced the roleplay and took comfort in it to suspect and vote someone. "MM" moreover copypasta'd MM's habits and catchphrases, for which it is not set in stone that MM is unequivocally baddie when he does that. I would say I rather gave "MM" a pass for Day 1, not a subtle defense. It doesn't mean I'll give him such a pass forever - in fact, I hope others won't, either.

You say you agree with "Llama"'s statement here, but do you agree with the way he made his case on "TGG" the previous Day?

My family took care of a friend's turtle pet for a while when I was a kid; unfortunately I wasn't too cute to the turtle. I'll post something two rows below what "JJJ" found on the search engine. Looks cute enough to me.



The poll is yet another one with games I never played. I like how Fight Club looked the most.

Also, I believe to get the theme of the polls and I dig it.

So ties result in no lynch, it seems.

That's oh, not ph*

15 minutes to go and, in addition to "rey", "DrWilgy" and "LC" not having voted yet, I think several other players haven't even posted on this Day!

I'm particularly intrigued where "boo" vanished.

linki - ph, "Elo" just showed up!

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:Correct.

I may have been; but there were also more than 2 people in the Angry Birds BTSC. Or I could even be Metalmarsh89. Or Lacey.

Those are good questions!

Well, nice identity fail, if so.

Llama 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:I would be satisfied with a sig lynch.

You've voted already. You suspect "TGG" of being mafia, but would be satisfied with a lynch in which he voted?

I stand by my decision.

Then I suppose I can stand by my suspicion. I believe that you've given both your suspects-of-the-day without any real case, then built the case post-factum re: "TGG" and that approach was rather pure meta (and speculation on role distribution). Furthermore, I can add the extra sin that you're mishandling Llama's sock (or, worse, relying on people to write this off as "oh, that's so llama") in making such loose cases. For these reasons, I'm voting you today.

I would argue that I have given more reason to vote for someone today than most. Your harping on my "mishandling" of the sock is an accusation I can do nothing about. Who are you to judge my sock play? That's MovingPicture's schtick anyway.

You said in your next post that MM is posting as normal MM would post, which is far from solid voting reasoning. I don't see you blowing up at him for his antics. Are you just trying to protect your scum buddy, Golden?

I have made it clear what forcing I see in your sock play and how your "more reasons to vote for someone" came at the second or third time of asking.

What I said about "MM" is that it replicates heavily MM's own shticks and that those shticks are so frequent, they're never confirmed indicative of being a baddie shtick. I didn't blow up at either of your antics, really. I found that you are forcing yours and, by comparison, "MM" is just acting it heavily.

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

I think Lipsticklacey is mafia for a meta reason.

I'm not familiar with what that meta reason might be.

She's played a single game, and was bad in it.

And? Is it set in stone that everyone who bad before (real Lipsticklacey) or mostly bad before (real TGG) must have been drawn as a baddie?

My sock-account is Lipsticklacey 2, I was answering that one out of her character, since the answer wasn't to hard to puzzle out.

I think it's a silly reason, because as we all know, Metalmarsh89 is bad in almost every game; a fact he talked about in our BTSC at the start of Angry Birds. If we're going to lunch people for meta how often-they're bad vs. good, MM would be the more obvious place to start. But, as I said, I think it's a silly reason, because, A) It would make puzzling out the baddies a good deal easier, and B) I know Lacey has only played Angry Birds, I know she was bad in it, and I know I am civilian in this game. If the meta actually held up, then yes, I would expect the role based around her to be mafia. But it is not, so clearly, I know that the meta does not hold up in at least 1 case. Since it does not hold up in 1 case, I have no reason to operate under the belief that it will hold up in other cases.

Ah, so you were just explaining "Syn" reason for calling you mafia, hence "Syn" is pushing this meta angle. Got it. I agree with your take on it.

MM (the real one) has had a few baddie wins this year under his belt, but I think he got varied alignments overall. What was that about talking in BTSC in Angry Birds? Were you referencing the real Lipsticklacey? If not, how would you (sock-Lipsticklacey) receive info on what the real MM talking in Angry Birds?

Lipsticklacey 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Synonym 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

I think Lipsticklacey is mafia for a meta reason.

I'm not familiar with what that meta reason might be.

She's played a single game, and was bad in it.

And? Is it set in stone that everyone who bad before (real Lipsticklacey) or mostly bad before (real TGG) must have been drawn as a baddie?

Timmer 2 wrote:I'm voting Long Con for trying to tell me what I can and can't talk about.

Wasn't it "JJJ"?

Ricochet 2 wrote:
MM - I haven't seen much of value. Strong roleplaying. Reading back on MM, I'd be really comfortable putting my vote this way, it's time for MM to contribute properly beyond being MM.

This is a good description of how much "MM" has relied on roleplaying, but MM tends to do such actions as well, without always getting burned at the stake for it (was Biblical the last time he did get lynched for this sort of thing on Day 1, I wonder?). He might stick with the shtick. I'm willing to see how this develops further.

Llama 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:I would be satisfied with a sig lynch.

You've voted already. You suspect "TGG" of being mafia, but would be satisfied with a lynch in which he voted?

I stand by my decision.

Then I suppose I can stand by my suspicion. I believe that you've given both your suspects-of-the-day without any real case, then built the case post-factum re: "TGG" and that approach was rather pure meta (and speculation on role distribution). Furthermore, I can add the extra sin that you're mishandling Llama's sock (or, worse, relying on people to write this off as "oh, that's so llama") in making such loose cases. For these reasons, I'm voting you today.

Synonym 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

I think Lipsticklacey is mafia for a meta reason.

I'm not familiar with what that meta reason might be.

Llama 2 wrote:I would be satisfied with a sig lynch.

You've voted already. You suspect "TGG" of being mafia, but would be satisfied with a lynch in which he voted?

I agree about "JJJ", his post was a complete 180. I might point to there being something about these two vote trains, but I'm not yet sure which way to look at.

I don't understand any of the votes Synonym received so far, particularly Lipsticklacey's and MM's reasons. TH hasn't even posted on this Day.

In fact, by comparison, I think there are other players who have questioned Synonym's action harder and they haven't made any vote move yet, compared to these three.

Llama 2 wrote:

SVS 2 wrote:

Llama 2 wrote:

Timmer 2 wrote:I'll be voting for someone who is trying to tell me I can't talk about what I want to talk about.

You should talk about Gamer Guy and why he is a member of the mafia.

I'll talk about it if you go first. Why is Gamer Guy a member of the mafia?

Call it premonition. Call it a Llamadic enterprise.

Tell me SVS: what was your first choice for your character that you sent in? Did you describe yourself as you are, or how you wish to be perceived?

There are people here that I would expect to send in their biography with a realistic tint. From what I hear and have read, Gamer Guy is a realistic dood, and is usually mafia. Whether or not he is proud of that, or attempting break out of the mold, I can't say.

What I can say is I think he is bad.

Any other questions?

As far as I understand, you seem to suggest that the questionnaire might have played a part in the role distribution. If so, each of our answers might have been a statement of preference, which the Hostesses then took into account into making the teams. Is it safe to make that assumption? I think it's true that TGG drew mostly baddie, at least here on this site, but are we to hunt solely based on meta at this stage?

Also, my lingering feeling is that you keep expanding reasons for suspecting TGG after planting that early vote without any solid reason whatsoever. It doesn't feel to come naturally out of that vote, because you offered nothing back then. Why didn't you?

Ricochet 2 wrote:

Golden 2 wrote:I disagree, however, with your approach regarding baddies potentially role playing more than the rest of the players.

No, I didn't mean that. I mean that its harder to see if someone is thinking about the game when everyone is role playing. If I go after llama 2, am I trying to solve the game or trying to roleplay rico? I think it creates a possible hiding place. Is that more clear?

It is, thanks. Your example is precisely why I think content would matter more. If your launch at "Llama" would feel forced, for the sake of sockin' and meta, with no solid case behind it, I would challenge your action.