The Syndicate

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:See, now this is the part that bothers me. Do like 4 or 5 civvies have BTS? Becasue it feels like several people are trying, ACTIVELY trying to keep Made from being lynched.

Maybe they're all French, and using the fact that we don't know the roles in their favor?

Why would you specifically say French here?

The French were essentially the antagonists of the Holy Grail film. I'm being careful with my words, but I hope this explains it.

I know they're in the film and aren't friendly. I just think it's odd you seem to assume they're the/a baddie team (and mention them specifically) when the only known baddie role has no affiliation with them.

I'm in at least three minds about Made today. He has always seemed fairly bad to me, though I've always held off on going after him because of Misfits. On the other hand, Canuck's theory makes perfect sense. Especially when you add in that AP is a strange person to switch the lynch to. Or just to throw a spanner in the works, the crazy wildcard third option proposed by Llama also makes sense:

thellama73 wrote: No one has pointed out that it is possible that Concorde was a lovers role AND that there was a lynch switch. Could just be a coincidence. Or synchronicity.

Furthermore, if this had happened, Made's teammates would be all over it trying to make him look good.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:See, now this is the part that bothers me. Do like 4 or 5 civvies have BTS? Becasue it feels like several people are trying, ACTIVELY trying to keep Made from being lynched.

Maybe they're all French, and using the fact that we don't know the roles in their favor?

Why would you specifically say French here?

Enrique wrote:That's a LoRab post, sorry, I copy and paste into quote tabs.

If you put ="name" after the word quote in the first tag, it fills it in for you as if it were a proper quote. That's how I do it when I chop up people's posts to respond to individual bits.

S~V~S wrote: That is also a good point about affiliation. After someone had said earlier that Lovers did not necessarily have to have BTS, I got to thinking about that. I remember one game, I don't recall which (I so wish the Piano & LP were not gone, it is frustrating not being able to look these things up) where the baddie would die if the civ were killed, so they had to protect that civ, although I am pretty sure I have seen the opposite as well. Also, Tyler & The Narrator were modified Lovers of a sort, Tyler needed TN alive to win, so they were paired in that sense. So yeah, BTS is not a requirement, but I don't recall a situation where it was same affiliation lovers where they did NOT have BTS.

I think I remember a similar thing to what you're recalling here but I'm not sure what game it was. I know I had a similar setup in Supernatural where a civ couldn't die while one of the Angels lived (I think that angel had two lives as well, but superpowered BR burned them both out in one go). Two of my all time favourite games are on TP, and I played really well in both, so yeah I wish it wasn't gone as well. LP too though I sucked back then.

Enrique wrote:Let's all sarcastically shrug off the cases against us, that ought to work.

But really, I was middling and deflecting cases? What? When did this happen?

linki: Yeah, I don't think Made was in danger either, but why does it matter? Does the timing of his post matter at all? It's not like he dropped it in the middle of the day.

linki: wait gth what

I personally wasn't saying it mattered. Just that people do it and it's not unusual.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Enrique wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Reading this now, but why wait so long to post this Made? The day ends in one minute?

Um.

Exactly?

That's pretty standard, isn't it? Why Nights are usually so quiet?

Is it standard? I'm probably being too paranoid; I seem to have the thought stuck in my head that Made is bad.

It definitely happens. People throw out all their thoughts at the last minute just in case they've been NKed. I don't think Made was in much danger of that though.

Canucklehead wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Also, I'm a little shocked that many players are refusing to see how the lynching of AP in Made's stead could actually be an indication of Made's civviness, not baddiness. I'm of the mind that it is pretty much a coin flip either way.

Take off the blinders, folks.

linki: Hooray for houseboats! So much superior to regular boats and regular houses! I look forward to your response, Mongoooose.

I would think a civ taking heat would switch a lynch to someone they'd been openly suspicious of though. Probably someone they and maybe others thought was bad anyway. AP is not such a person. If anything it looks like the lynch was switched at random without a care for who died instead - which suggests baddie to me.

Yeah, I'm not really thinking that if it was a civ-thing that it would have been a switch, though. I think if it was a civ-thing it was very much NOT a "switch" in the traditional, active sense. I don't know how much I can say without incurring host wrath.

Don't get me wrong, I think a baddie switch is very much a likely possibility, but it's far from the ONLY likely possibility.

I think I might know what you're getting at there, but I still think a baddie switch is not only very likely but the most likely. I had held off on Made because we were all incredibly wrong about him in Misfits but the lynch outcome in addition to everything else that has been discussed in the lead up to it makes me more sure he's bad.

Canucklehead wrote:Also, I'm a little shocked that many players are refusing to see how the lynching of AP in Made's stead could actually be an indication of Made's civviness, not baddiness. I'm of the mind that it is pretty much a coin flip either way.

Take off the blinders, folks.

linki: Hooray for houseboats! So much superior to regular boats and regular houses! I look forward to your response, Mongoooose.

I would think a civ taking heat would switch a lynch to someone they'd been openly suspicious of though. Probably someone they and maybe others thought was bad anyway. AP is not such a person. If anything it looks like the lynch was switched at random without a care for who died instead - which suggests baddie to me.

GOD wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I was wondering why Made was so calm leading up to the lynch.

Um, I don't want to be a marmot. I might like to be a bear though

Linki, LOL

Ifyou please me with offerings of Grails, I might consider this request. Just stop with the "LOLs"; it gets nerve wracking after a time.

Bullzeye wrote:Here is a holy grail for you Mr God sir:



As for a tale, well, by looking on the page this picture comes from I see the holy grail is actually produced by a beer company my granddad used to deliver for up until not too long ago. Apparently it's nothing special but whoever reviewed it clearly disregarded the fact that as I'm within six degrees of separation from this ale named after the holy grail it is in fact awesome by association.

Linki - I have this to say: Hello!

Hmm, this is stiff competition for the favor of the LORD. If you really want to be a bear, you need to try harder.

What boon would you ask of the LORB, Bullzeye?

Shouldn't you know that already? :P I would ask the LORB (or LORD perhaps) for the most awesome thing He could think of, doubled.

Here is a holy grail for you Mr God sir:



As for a tale, well, by looking on the page this picture comes from I see the holy grail is actually produced by a beer company my granddad used to deliver for up until not too long ago. Apparently it's nothing special but whoever reviewed it clearly disregarded the fact that as I'm within six degrees of separation from this ale named after the holy grail it is in fact awesome by association.

Linki - I have this to say: Hello!

Oh God, look who it is.

Made wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Made wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Made, you are so freakin' bad I can't even stand it. That whole "oh, llama is muted? I must have been framed!" nonsense came out WAY too fast and seemed preplanned. Then you switch the lynch to poor AP? Not cool, man.

It's called mafia on your cell phone+ telling canuck I wouldn't self incriminate. Obviously I would of been a suspect.


Also for all those who think I switched the vote (if it's not just llama):
Why would a mafia keep themselves alive if everyone already distrust them?
Linki- bullz I didn't actually know that...misread DH then

Why the hell wouldn't a baddie keep themselves alive? Especially at the cost of a civ life.

Because they'll die the next day. Who would waste a switch lynch on a situation where they're all but guaranteed a death on the next lynch

Linki- MM's arguement is strong...NOT TRUE, but strong.

The whole purpose of giving baddies a lynch switch is so they can save one of their own and kill someone who isn't on their side. A baddie who dies with a lynch switch to spare is a foolish baddie.

thellama73 wrote:I'm voting for cherries. I like cherries.

I'm voting cider for a similar reason.

Made wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Made, you are so freakin' bad I can't even stand it. That whole "oh, llama is muted? I must have been framed!" nonsense came out WAY too fast and seemed preplanned. Then you switch the lynch to poor AP? Not cool, man.

It's called mafia on your cell phone+ telling canuck I wouldn't self incriminate. Obviously I would of been a suspect.


Also for all those who think I switched the vote (if it's not just llama):
Why would a mafia keep themselves alive if everyone already distrust them?
Linki- bullz I didn't actually know that...misread DH then

Why the hell wouldn't a baddie keep themselves alive? Especially at the cost of a civ life.

Made wrote:Also. For those who care, history is repeating itself. Mafia kept me alive because I'd be an easy lynch for the next day.
Read misfits, basically.

Right... Except the mafia weren't keeping you alive at all. Read the postgame. DH had a lynch stop, voted for me straight away then tried to end the lynch with me being the only person having any votes. It was nothing to do with you.

I so rarely use that eye thing. This seemed appropriate.

What. The hell.

I'm going to repeat yesterday's vote and go with JC again. Nothing has happened to change my mind about her and nobody else has really caught my attention either.

Dana wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Made, where did you hear the term "derail"? I searched this thread for derail, derailed & derailing, and The Misfits as well, and no one said it.

Derail is a common word... Like derailing the conversation? I don't think it's that odd for him to have said it.

Yeah... Derail is a widely used metaphor, it's not like it's exclusive to mafia. He could have heard it anywhere and applied it here.

Made wrote:If you're referring to when I said "boogs, bulls" I was continuing the list of people I hadn't gave strong opinions on day 1.

People who me or llama hadn't gave strong opinions on would be the last people thought to silence llama

The 'we' question was in reference to why 'we' would decide to lynch based on the WIFOM of why Llama might have been silenced. Because I don't see why 'we' would. I keep putting 'we' in inverted commas because I don't see the thread being so unanimous as to all decide to vote for one specific reason so early in the game.

Made wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Made wrote:After thinking it over further, I think it might be in our best intrest to ignore llama's mutenessness.
Think about it like this. Anyway you cut it, the best person to mute would be Llama. For example, let's say there's a team of Dana, Bea, canuck, squid, a person, space daisy, and anyone else i haven't stated strong opinions for this game. They're aware of the amount of how much flack i've gotten, but they're also aware of how little i've accused them this game. So, even if they don't use this to get me lynched, they'd use it to get anyone i've accused lynched. it a win win for way too many people; boogs, bullz (as he would of been silenced before i quoted him). I don't like these odds.

Why would it be 'win win' for me?

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I agree that llama is not a bad option for silencing, but why do you have to involve yourself in the reasoning? Tbh, I think you would be prime target for silencing.

FWIW Llama could have been silenced to draw attention to Made or anyone else he'd discussed. But I do think for Made to just assume that that's definitely it is a bit odd

Just reread llama, he persued me almost solely. It's not odd, it makes sense. The arguement I'm making is that anyone who hadn't been brought into the middle of llama/made would be pretty much safe from any fallout If we decided to lynch based on why he was silenced.

Why would 'we' do that though?

These two posts from Rey and SVS seem to summarise the Hedgeowl debacle.

reywaS wrote:

Hedgeowl wrote:Ok, gotta run, so voting SVS for now in case I dont make it back i time.

My feelings currently are that either MP or SVS are possibly a baddie, but probably not both. SVS's super focus on Made earlier in the game, made me suspicious, but then he redirection to Metal I found equally interesting. I would think of her voting for her top suspect. That also might have been to redirect focus from the llama-Enri-Made arguments, but I still thought it was unlike her. It made me think she was reacting to the heat she was getting about her Made suspicions.

Votes SVS

Just wanted to expand on this a little more. Saying that "probably not both" gives you an enormous amount of wiggle room in the event that one of the two of them is lynched today. If you had said that perhaps both of them may be bad, you wouldn't be able to avoid responsibility for the one that's lynched today and you wouldn't have a target for day 2...assuming the one lynched today flipped civvie.

This post rings a very loud alarm bell to me.

S~V~S wrote:This sounds like a hedge play (tee hee) to avoid responsibility when I turn up civ, "Oh I knew one of them must be bad, guess I picked the wrong one". And have you read what I said? I still suspect Made, but I feel that Enrique has said some things that gave me pause.

What do you think would have been more like me?

I can see where they're coming from in that her saying 'one is definitely bad but not both' leads easily into lynching a civ and trying to exclude yourself from scrutiny by saying 'well I knew one had to be bad, it must be the other'. I only did a brief skim read after searching Hedge in the thread so perhaps there's more to the case that I've missed. It definitely doesn't look great but at the same time it's not a huge thing in my opinion and I'd need to see more before I decided Hedge was suspicious.

Enrique wrote:LOL those two consecutive posts where apparently I'm a leading lynch candidate out of the blue are golden. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but this is new, right? I've been a little distracted the last few days. No biggie, still don't intend to get lynched.

Can I just say I disagree with the argument that I only ever talk about the Made / llama deal BS? I've been around, I've called people out, asked to participate, responded to most discussions in this thread so far. Maybe most of my posts have been in my own defense but I've been talking craploads and definitely ventured outside that bubble. I actually really needed this day break lol.

It just sometimes feels like people don't read my posts, you know? And it gets really frustrating when people insist I'm working my ass off to save Made right now when I've made several posts questioning him and generally expressing distrust of him. Hell, if I'm not mistaken, I explicitly said I saw myself voting for him today. And because I know it's coming, I will address that this is not flip-flopping; I'm not voting for him because I'm suddenly convinced by llama's I'm gonna call it terrible "he must have BTSC" argument which I've already made too many posts against to be assed anymore. I'm especially wary of MM continuing to misrepresent my posts and just trying to make me look guilty in general. What's the deal here?

Reading through your posts I do think it's unfair to say you only ever talk about Made & Llama. You have added to many other discussions about several different players. There are also several points where you do question Made and appear to distrust him buuuuuut there were times during day one where I thought you were defending Made and did appear to be in his corner. Perhaps you noticed that yourself and decided to step back, or perhaps you're telling the truth and always felt how you now seem to feel. I dunno.

Enrique wrote:For most of the game I've felt pretty well about SVS, but this LC discussion does shake things a little. I didn't have a problem with her attitude which is where LC's original ping came from, but I'm not big into how she's responded to the accusations. I agree with LC when he says that when you yourself ask the accuser to compare your playstyle to a previous game, you absolutely cannot be trusted. Baddies are self-aware peeps; they learn from their mistakes and they will use previous games as reference to manipulate your opinion. I'm not close to ready to vote for SVS, in general I trust her, but this does remind me to keep an eye out for her.

I still mostly feel like SVS is civ. I think I basically agree with your judgement here.

Enrique wrote:People that keep bringing up Hedgie... I think it's pretty funny that nobody ever talks about what the case on her is. It's like she's just a buzz name thrown around by people who want to act like they're all over this game. "Oh yeah, definitely looking at Hedgie's posts," "I'm gonna look back on the Hedgie case to see what's going on." But then there's absolutely no content?? What the hell are you guys thinking? What makes Hedgie stand out from the other 20 players that you're even consider her for a vote? Please enlighten me here!

I also agree with this to an extent. Made said it was strange that I hadn't given an opinion on Hedge but tbh the whole case (or whatever) on her slid right under my nose and I just see people bringing it up every now and then as if they're trying to have something to say. I'm trying to plan my Masters dissertation so I haven't had a lot of time for the thread but I'm almost done with three weeks to spare so today I will make an effort.

Enrique wrote:Something something juliets. I don't trust her a lot, and that exchange with LC definitely pinged me some. Too tired to even think of specific points right now, just sharing how it made me feel reading it. It's reallyy late and I almost forgot to Mafia before bed, but here I am, up to speed again. I will go back on this tomorrow before the lynch. I definitely won't vote for her without having made a case before, but eh, I'm not really that deep into this. I've known juliets on IRC for a few years but I'm not sure we'd ever played together before? It's a lot harder to suspect someone when you're not all that familiar with their style. For the most part I've backed off the llama thing because people insist it's civvie llama talking, it's just my gut disagrees. w/e we'll see

JC is still on my suspects list and I have no intention of removing her from it yet. I might even vote for her again today.

Enrique wrote: Randomly reminded of this. I'm not crazy for thinking this is fishy, right?

You're not crazy (at least not for this reason) but you are reading too much into it. I had spent that day reading over the people on the poll (of which Niju wasn't one) and knew Lizzy was AWOL. So I said of the three who hadn't voted she probably wouldn't but I expected the other two to do so because as far as I was aware there was no reason for either of them to miss the poll.

S~V~S wrote:Agreed; s/he could want Llama to shut up for real purposes, like Llama is on track with suspicions. It could also be in order to frame the person Llama suspects, since some people will think the silencer did the first thing I said. If a civ, it could be to protect llama, although I find this less likely, since I really don't think Llama was in danger of a lynch.

Yeah I think we can rule out a silencer trying to protect Llama. He definitely didn't seem under any threat. It might even be someone who was sick of catching up on so many pages trying to get rid of one of the main causes of that.

Made wrote:After thinking it over further, I think it might be in our best intrest to ignore llama's mutenessness.
Think about it like this. Anyway you cut it, the best person to mute would be Llama. For example, let's say there's a team of Dana, Bea, canuck, squid, a person, space daisy, and anyone else i haven't stated strong opinions for this game. They're aware of the amount of how much flack i've gotten, but they're also aware of how little i've accused them this game. So, even if they don't use this to get me lynched, they'd use it to get anyone i've accused lynched. it a win win for way too many people; boogs, bullz (as he would of been silenced before i quoted him). I don't like these odds.

Why would it be 'win win' for me? I don't understand. Also if anything I think the best person to silence would be you, for your own good. It's possible Llama was silenced just to silence an active player. When I had that power in X-Men several of my targets were just because I'd looked at the top posters before sending in my PM. Llama tends to be the top poster in most games, in my experience.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: I agree that llama is not a bad option for silencing, but why do you have to involve yourself in the reasoning? Tbh, I think you would be prime target for silencing.

FWIW Llama could have been silenced to draw attention to Made or anyone else he'd discussed. But I do think for Made to just assume that that's definitely it is a bit odd.

Halfway through this catchup post I decided I wanted to come back to some other stuff but I'll post this much now anyway.

Made wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Hey, all.
Just catching up and posting thoughts as I go.

1) I see Made has become the centre of Attention again. I am having a harder and harder time maintaining my earlier belief that he's just a whackadoodle civ. The main reason for this is because if I was on a baddie team with him, I'd be rejoicing because he's so successful at diverting the thread and keeping everyone's eyes just on him that it would allow his team a lot of freedom (and an easy distancing vote, if it came to that). Of course, the diversionary benefits still apply even if Made is a civ, so I'm back to square one. Basically, Made, if you are a civ, it might not be a bad idea to turn down the crazy and turn up the listening. There are an unknown number of baddies to find, and if you are a civ, you are currently distracting a lot of people from doing so.

Typing this a second time because cellphones suck...

Is my acknowledging theories where I'm bad really that distracting? When it comes down to it, that's what my unorthodox play style is grounded in.

I will attempt to play in a way that ping less people, but still pigeonholes baddies. If this doesn't work, I'll probably revert to how I naturally play.

Also, MM was forced voted/voted hella early?

Distracting isn't the word I'd use. Most people when someone calls them bad they try to refute and discredit the argument in order to prove they're a civ. Seeing both sides of a debate is never a bad thing but if you accept someone's reasoning as to why you're a baddie then it looks like you're saying they're right and you are bad. It's confusing if anything. It makes people wonder about you.

Made wrote: 1.What if the knight has no BTSC? It wasn't specfically stated that they do, and can't all they say is "NI"? Maybe they can "NI" other team members?

I highly doubt there's a lone baddie whose only power is to search for one civ and kill him. The Knights Who Say Ni in the film can and do say far more than just Ni. Ni is supposed to be a special word that people are afraid of hearing for some reason.

Made wrote: Also, Who's Roger (the Character)?

Roger the Shrubber is a shrubber. He designs, makes, and sells shrubberies.

Made wrote:I think everyone should read this, specifically MP's

He went on to vote for Juliet.

Based on my reread of him, Bullz has so far played a very strange game. Basically, all he's done (exluding arguements towards Juliet/MP) is attempt to bring accusations and theories to a middle ground.

At this point, the only thing i'm thinking right now is that DF and Bullz weren't on the same time.

That's rich coming from you!

The wording of your post kind of implies I'd only been suspicious of MP and my vote for JC came out of nowhere. If you actually read my post you'd see I'd mentioned both as suspicious, and in my overview of SVS said I wasn't sure if I'd vote MP but thought he was more likely to be bad than SVS. I also called JC suspicious and when her defenses did nothing to change that (and actually made me more suspicious of her) she got my vote. Do you have any more examples of me playing a strange game or is it just the one cherry-picked and misrepresented post?

Made wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Bullz lives in England, Faraday lives in Texas, so yeah, they probably were not on at the same time. He has not played a "strange game" he has actually given an opinion on everyone. And if you are trying to make a behavior based theory on someone, you can't "exclude" behavior that does not fit your theory.

You can when looking for abnormalities. What i'm saying is that his opinions weren't strong, including his on Me, Llama, You (SVS), Hedge.
Note this theory isn't really saying he's good or bad. Heck, the fact that he was so focused on one/two people might even appear more likely to be civvie. I mean fuck up the only theory you had all game and you wouldn't look too hot. By that logic, mafia would be hesistant to put all of their eggs in one basket.

I don't have a strong opinion on Hedge because I still haven't gotten around to reading why people seem suspicious of her. As to Llama and SVS, I named them as likely civs so I don't see how I don't have strong opinions on them. You I think look bad but I'm holding back because you looked bad in Misfits for similar reasons. You say I was focused on two people when the fact is of the 12 people on the poll they were the only two I felt comfortable voting for.

Made wrote:

S~V~S wrote:What does that even mean?

I'm not saying Bullz is bad. I'm saying his allignment might be able to be deduced from what he's said, specifically in that quote.

Using what people have said in the game to determine whether or not they're bad? That's a novel concept.

Mister Rearranger wrote:Rarely have I read a Mafia thread and wished that I could be LESS sober while doing so... >.>

I feel this way about most things.

Mister Rearranger wrote:Has anyone else read the first page again?

Only asking 'cause it seems like there's some confusion as to what DF's role was, as well as what MP's role could have done...

Well spotted. Looks like DF's role description confirms the existence of another role. I wonder what Roger can do. Presumably he's a civ, since I can't see how he wouldn't be.

Enrique wrote:Alright, got it.

Well getting the obvious out of the way by saying DF's own team probably didn't kill him. Whether this means there's another baddie team or we have a ninja, I don't know. In any case, it's good that he's gone.

I would assume it means there's another baddie team. I feel like if there was a ninja there'd have been two kills... unless there is one that will kill tonight? It's hard to speculate about these things when we don't know roles but at the same time if we knew them there'd be no need to wonder about them.

Made wrote:Pretty colors on dark backgrounds!


Teammate is probably on Nudge nudge ( insight to what the other team is doing/what's going on in the other chat)

This is a decent assumption and probably correct. I think all of us here would want our hypothetical baddie team spread across both options so we know the effects of each.

Made wrote:The JC(that's Juliet right?) comment is intresting, but to defend a teammate like this seems like a really bad move? As a counterarguement, was anyone else defending her? Maybe he felt he needed to speak up for the sake of her longevity. Also, Probably voted MR for a reason.

JC = Juliets Coffee AKA Juliets, yes. He's not really defending her too hard in that quote, it's not something I might pick up on in a search for teammates had we lynched JC and she flipped bad. That said he does seem to be excusing his not voting for her when it doesn't seem like it'd be necessary to. Given the amount of votes MP got as well as several others who aren't Juliets, I don't feel like he'd have been asked why he didn't vote her. So it's possible he was giving a half-hearted defense of a teammate IMO but it's not damning evidence against JC on its own.

Made wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Do you have an opinion on HIS opinion of Hedgie? All you said was that he was replying to you.

Blending in, no one was defending hedgie so it makese sense to hide there. I'd also suspect his teammate didn't have an opinion on Hedgie in chat as to not appear buddie with his teammate

I feel like I've missed something major with this Hedge thing. I hadn't noticed much about her amongst all the other stuff that happened on day 1. Can someone summarise it for me or should I just go back and look again?

Made wrote:

SVS wrote:What reason do you think he had for voting MR, since you think he had one?

well let's think about it two ways
If he voted to distance: His teammate probably voted MP (one hides very well the other hides in plain sight
If he voted to protect: His teammate is probably Juliet. Make her appear more likeable (this sounds less likely now that i've typed it out, but still possible)
So the overlap between people who voted for MP and those who are nudgie, or Juliet seem like a good place to start looking for teammates.

I don't think I understand some of what you're saying here. I can see why he'd distance himself from the MP bandwagon if one or more of his team were on it (to keep away from the backlash if MP had flipped civ). However, if he'd wanted to protect JC as her teammate then he should have voted MP to keep his vote count way ahead of hers. Not that she was in any danger for most if not all of the lynch.

Epignosis wrote:
A beautiful trifecta. Name three doors. Behind one lies a tiger. Marilyn vos Savant would be proud.

MP was not a teammate. DF doesn't "know Enrique or Made at all" (no mention of Dana even though he's quoting her. No mention of Canucklehead either). That fits the "name two people who are not on your team and one who is" cliche.

Do you think he wouldn't know Canuck because she's 'new'? Because DF and Canuck have been playing together for years. I'm pretty sure she started on the same site as him, though I could be wrong. Can't explain Dana though. How long has this cliche of yours been a thing?

Then:

Enrique wrote:

DFaraday wrote:So much to look over. I'm always wary of going after MP so early just because he is often lynched over nothing (although he was justly caught last time). I don't know Enrique or Made at all, so tomorrow I'll go over their stuff and see what jumps out.

You.
Fuck.
You've known me for years, asshole

Was DF truly ignorant of who Enrique is?

First time Enrique spoke to me I had to think about who he was for a while. He's had a bunch of names and I only confirmed that I knew who he was when he mentioned a thing from LP in the Team Wink chat during the challenge. So it's possible he didn't know but also possible he was faking. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that baddie teammates of new people often play up the whole "oh you're new it's very nice to meet you" in thread for distancing purposes.

Epignosis wrote:In the same post, Enrique said this to Made:

Enrique wrote:

Made wrote:I'm starting to come to the realization that responding to all arguements/points that anyone makes towards you is a very easy way to avoid suspision.

Yeah, don't do that, lol. I'm the kind that does this and gets uber defensive. There's definitely better ways to stand your ground. Not sure if anyone here remembers the mega-post I made that one time in Piano? For Recruitment Mafia, I think. I quoted posts from like every single page in the game. People had to spend whole minutes scrolling down to the end. It was half glorious half terrible. I got lynched.

Read that two, three times over and decide for yourself if it means anything.

What do you think it means? I've read it over and over and don't see much.

Epignosis wrote:This exchange smells. Sure, Mongoose is a cheerful sort, but The Hobbit ended less than two months ago. Both of them played. "OMG Where have you been?" when the person you're speaking to only missed one full game and a couple of speed games just doesn't ring true.

And DF is greeting Made.

See above re: teammates doing the "I most certainly don't know you, no sir, never seen you before" thing. Could also apply to "I haven't seen you in ages and we certainly aren't conspiring together bts right now". Not that I think that's happening here. Just worth throwing out there I suppose.

Epignosis wrote:Why drop JC's name as she's taking votes and vouching for her?

Because defending teammate?

Epignosis wrote:Notice that he mentions Made a third(!) time. This is important because remember he said, "so tomorrow I'll go over their stuff and see what jumps out." He didn't go over anybody's stuff, but he still reminds us that he isn't sure about the "Made/Llama thing." At the time DF voted, Made could have been lynched.

DF votes for MR for no reason and had not mentioned him previously (note that Juliets also voted for MR for what in my opinion was a lame reason- Juliets was my #2 suspect by the end of Day 1).

"Also I forgot to mention above, Hedge is looking pretty shady now." That's random and tacked on as hell.

I think this is the most interesting part of your analysis. I intend to come back to this thought because I want to look at a few things. The point about Made suggests to me that he isn't a teammate of DF. If, as you say, Made was in danger when DF cast his throwaway vote then the best thing DF could have done is jumped onto the MP bandwagon. Nobody would have held him accountable unless MP flipped civ but even if he thought that was a possibility, it'd be worth taking a little heat to keep your team intact coming out of day one, right? I think so anyway.

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Remember that one time in The Hobbit when you brought up fantastic circumstantial evidence against fingers, but never pursued it? And remember how fingers ended up being a baddie? This reminds me of that, except we don't know Enrique's role.

Was she bad though? As I remember, he thought she was the mayor and he turned out to be wrong. I would need to double check though.

Wow, excellent result from the night. I think it was a good idea for people to start combing through his history to see if anything worth mentioning comes up. I'll go back through the last page or so now and see what's worth commenting on from the discussion so far, which I'm very glad isn't eleventy-billion pages again.

Also I see I missed a visit from God last night! Hopefully He pops back again while I'm awake. I've always wanted to talk to a deity. I mean I'd talk to myself but then it'd get boring and people would think I was crazy. My summary of the game for him so far is as follows:

Everyone here is a crazy person. Seriously. All of us. Even you. There were jokes and contests and then Llama and Made blew up but made friends and SVS and MP went after each other and then we killed MP and it turned out to be a solid choice and then someone who claimed to be the creator of everything in the entire universe showed up.

I'm gonna vote Lust. Who doesn't like a bit of lust?

Hmm... an Indy? That's interesting. Also better than lynching a civ in my book, he could have been dangerous.

Enrique wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

Made wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I do like that almost everybody has voted. Hopefully the others show up too!

Yeah, the only people who haven't voted yet are dana, lizzy, and squid.

At this rate Lizzy probably won't vote but I would expect the other two to.

Why are you expecting Blooper to vote? She hasn't been around much, either. Has she been more active behind the scenes?

How should I know? I just thought I'd seen her around more than she apparently has been and figured she was more likely to vote than Lizzy who hasn't been around since day zero.

Made wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I do like that almost everybody has voted. Hopefully the others show up too!

Yeah, the only people who haven't voted yet are dana, lizzy, and squid.

At this rate Lizzy probably won't vote but I would expect the other two to.

I do like that almost everybody has voted. Hopefully the others show up too!

S~V~S wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.

I'm challenging you not to do it, and not to publicize your charity or lack thereof, instead of buying into a narcissistic, hypocritical fad.

My cousin has a son with ALS, and she thinks the Challenge is the greatest thing ever. So

I think it can be a good thing if the people in the video actually explain why they're doing it and how people can donate money. Most don't though, it seems to have been co-opted into a bit of a fad among certain groups of people.

thellama73 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote: In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.

I'm challenging you not to do it, and not to publicize your charity or lack thereof, instead of buying into a narcissistic, hypocritical fad.

Meh, I have to do it now. It's peer pressure and stuff. I'm kinda annoyed tbh, I'd hoped to avoid it.

I think today I'm gonna go with a Juliets vote. I think she is trying to be quite blendy... or maybe blendy isn't the word but I feel like she's trying too hard to avoid getting into anything and even when she does she sits firmly on the fence. I'm not getting great feelings from her and her defenses have been lacking IMO.

In other news, my so-called best friend just nominated me to pour a bucket of ice cold water all over myself. So that's a thing.

juliets wrote: I'm often this way at the beginning of games - not sure who to vote for, not sure what to commit to, just generally feeling like I don't know a lot. I've not come out against anyone because I don't feel comfortable that I've got anything on anyone. I have however said that at least part of what llama said, the essence of what he said, is what I saw. I would say that is pretty definitive and definitely not blendy. I will not vote for llama and I will not vote for made. Over the last day I've been convinced that they are both civs which is I think a conclusion a lot of people have come to. If I have to I'll random with llama and made out of the equation. Otherwise I'm not sure what I'm going to do. Am I the only one in the whole game who is unsure at this point?

Of course you're not the only unsure person and nor am I saying you are. The feeling I get from your posts is that you've only really spoken about the Llama/Made thing without ever seeming to take one side or another. It looks to me like you've been trying to put yourself out there as someone who is joining conversations but at the same time you seem to be just going with the flow and not questioning much. Even here you say you might randomize on a day where a lot has happened.

With regard to your other post, my jump in the middle comment was just a rephrasing of Bea's comment about why people are talking about you. It was essentially repeating the points I've already made.

Boogs wrote:Im on my lunch and i don't quite understand everything going for MP right now and this thread is still way too much for me to read and analyze. Im going to need to vote so hopefully whatever you guys said about MP makes sense but I'm still feeling EEnrique being paranoid and too overly defensive is ringing baddie to me for some reason. Im willing to let Made not get my vote today and see what happens next between the Llama\made thing.
Votes Monsters Inc Enrique

Something about this post just gives me not-good-feelings about you Boogs. Maybe it's the blendy-seeming MP comments or maybe it's the not realising Enrique isn't on the poll. I dunno. I also hadn't felt like Enrique is coming off particularly paranoid or over-defensive.

bea wrote:mm - there was speculation by someone (I really can't remember who - I neeeeeeeedddddd coooffffeeeeeeeeeeee - that her reluctance to jump into the middle of the Made/llama thing was indicitive of baddie behavior. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

In my view she seems reluctant to jump into the middle of anything. That's what gives me bad feelings about her.

So these are the opinions I have found about the people who are currently on the poll.

MP - I feel like MP started out by saying a lot without saying very much at all. He has a lot of posts with a lot of words in them but doesn't do much with them. Other than SVS he hasn't really came out strongly against anyone. He seemed like he might lean toward Made early on but was never convinced and now seems to have gone away from it entirely, which is fine. Also in my opinion he got quite defensive over Epi's suspicion of him.

SVS - I never know what to think of her in general. She has seemed very focused in her pursuit/suspicion of Made and I think her responses to MP's accusations against her have been quite reasonable. I definitely don't see this 'fabricated suspicion' that MP claims is there, I think she has genuine and understandable reasons to distrust Made. I also think that even baddies usually have genuine suspicions. Furthermore, others are suspicious of him for similar reasons but MP only seems to suggest that SVS' suspicion is the dishonest one. Having read the exchanges between these two I would have to say if one of them is definitely bad and the other civ I'd lean towards trusting SVS. That's not to say I'll vote MP today though but I do have an eye on him so far.

Daisy - It's great to see someone with just three posts after going through SVS and MP's! Only one of her posts is really on topic but I know she's usually very busy so that means little or nothing to me. Her read of MP could be particularly damning for him.

BWT - Just after the challenge ended he said there'd been no serious game-related discussion yet, so maybe he ought to be careful what he wishes for!! Seriously though I do share his dismay at having to keep reading a novel's worth of text every time I log in. He is another who is suspicious of MP and shares my view that MP has said a lot without saying much. I also agree with him that we should back off from the Llama/Made fling for now. He seems pretty genuine and in my experience he's more blendy as a baddie so I'm leaning civ on BWT for now.

Juliets - I'm not feeling great about JC. In my opinion she seems to be trying to fly under the radar, not coming out against anyone. Most of her posts say that she isn't suspicious of Made or Llama but she doesn't seem to make much, if any, effort to say who she is suspicious of. The only hint at who might get her vote today is that she says she will vote to save Llama if necessary. My gut says she's not trustworthy and trying to be blendy.

Llama - I was enjoying not having too many posts to comb through He comes off here much like his usual civvie self in my opinion.

Lizzy - Has been missing since Tuesday! Maybe we need to form a search party. Her seven posts are pretty standard Lizzy material. That said, none are on topic or serious in nature but since she disappeared during day zero that's sort of to be expected. I'd like to hear more from her because I know she can be a tricky and dangerous baddie.

LC - I think his point about 'you would know' as a common phrase was good and agree with his view on Made. I'd like to hear more from him though. There isn't enough for me to get much of a feel for where he stands this game. It looks like he might be suspicious of SVS but other than that I'm not sure.

MR - Hasn't posted in a while. The last thing he said was he was joining the 'want to hear more from Made/Rey group' which, as Rey pointed out, he's the founding member of. So I'm not sure what he meant by that. Now that his game is over he might have more time for us so hopefully he makes it in today and can share some of his thoughts.

Canuck - I feel... okay about Canuck. I trusted her for a while in Misfits and was wrong to but here I think she looks quite genuine and I like her point that the baddies could be 'using this insane Made-centric firestorm to stay out of the way and out of memory'. With so much discussion centred around so few people I think it'd be very easy for someone to fly under the radar. She's another I'd like to hear more suspicion from but I feel reasonably good about her.

Dana - Trusted her in Misfits too and I was right for a change. Here she has said a fair bit but, like MP, hasn't really said much. I'm not sure how I feel about her yet.

Made - I doubt I'll vote Made at this point. I think everything that has happened with him here is basically the same as in Misfits, he's just one of those players I guess. I don't necessarily think he's a civ just yet, but I'm not calling him suspicious either.

So overall I guess this is where I stand on the players who are actually on today's poll:

Feel good about: SVS, Llama, BWT, Canuck

Unsure: Daisy, Lizzy, LC, MR, Dana, Made

Feel bad about: MP, JC.

I will look over the winning team either later today or during the night phase and report back.

More linki than you can shake a stick at - I will go through it after posting this and see if any of it makes me want to say anything in response.

Enrique wrote:Also lol wait are you serious are you implying Made was in our chat?

This actually made me laugh. I think we'd have noticed! :P

S~V~S wrote:

reywaS wrote:

Enrique wrote:Those memories are kinda vital here, AP, that's the deal Buuut then, llama's memories are just whatever will get Made lynched. Next thing you know, Made confessed to being a baddie in the Nudgers BTSC.

So yeah llama's looking pretty bad right now. Feel a bit more confident saying that now. I think he's bad and I'll probably vote for him.

The problem I am having with this is why would llama go out of his way to sabotage Made's game? Especially so early in the game and when he could very easily be called out on it?

Yup.

This point actually makes me think both Llama and Made are civ. For now.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:And Epi, it is what it is. I try not to let non participants ruin my fun

Ah, they never ruin my fun. But they can sure ruin a win.

Good job it's the taking part that counts! :P

Enrique wrote:Every llama move is coldly calculated, Mongoose, you should know that by now. It was his strategy to change his vote to MP for silly reasons then back to Made for sillier reasons. Do not question it.

He actually does stuff like this. All the time. See the 'Llama gambit' in Thomas the Tank Engine.

reywaS wrote:

S~V~S wrote: juliets Seems a bit bewildered, did not love being called out to verify Mades chat stuff

I was ping-a-linged by juliets for that. Seems like she was/is trying to go out of her way to play a low key game and being called out like that really effed up her plan....like she could be a baddie not wanting to be noticed yet.

Interesting way of looking at it. Is there more to it though? I can definitely see your point but I will look into it myself to see if there is anything to support it. More on that in a minute actually. Possibly more than a minute. It depends how long you (the reader) take to get to the end of this post. I don't know how long it will be yet.

Made wrote: I'm starting to come to the realization that responding to all arguements/points that anyone makes towards you is a very easy way to avoid suspision.

Noted for when i actually am mafia :P (read on Movingpicture incoming)

Or sometimes in my experience it can make things worse even if you are a civ. There isn't really a surefire way to avoid suspicion 100% of the time, people will latch onto you for the dumbest things and never let them go no matter what sometimes.

A Person wrote:23 pages already
not an awful way to make sure the civs are lost when it comes to rereading the thread later

Nor is it a terrible method of making people find it very hard to keep up in the present!

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

Dana wrote:And don't forget about DP!

I'm being remembered!

Umm... Who are you again? :P

bea wrote:

Dana wrote:

Mongoose wrote: linki - Dana - We are an accepting bunch - don't be intimidated

Everyone here has been so nice! It's just intimidating because many people have masters and grad school and PhD super-smarts. It's a bit scary in a game like mafia where a whole lot of it or probably most of it is mind games and thinking things through.

I do not have grad school, masters phds or super-smarts. I barely made it through my undergrad and I'm pretty sure I forgot most of that. It's all good Dana - everyone has something to bring to the table regardless of education level.

I just got a dual honours degree and am about to start a Masters... I wouldn't consider myself smart, I'm just good at research and stuff. Not that that shows off very well in Mafia for some reason! :P

S~V~S wrote:I just reread, and lost a giant reply by cutting and pasting over my cut and paste (Curse you lack of a multiquote feature *shakes fist*)

I am inclined to do as BWT advises, and let the dust settle around Llama & Made and see what happens. I am totally not seeing sinister llama at all, and won't be voting for him. I did and do suspect Made, he got my eye with the No Lynch thing, then the suspecting someone for challenge related reasons. But I am inclined to buy what Rico is selling, if not Made, for now. But if it comes down to Made or someone I trust more, like myself, or Llama being lynched, I will vote for him.

The no lynch thing kinda pinged me too at first but I can kinda see why he might have suggested it. First, I assume it's a common thing in his rl mafia (which I've always wanted to play but my friends aren't cool enough to play it with me) and after seeing two civs lynched back to back in his first two days of mafia here he probably thought 'wow these people suck at killing baddies' and wanted to get more time for discussion. If someone like you or Epig or DH were to suggest such a thing I'd vote you in an instant but someone new to the community might get a pass for thinking about it. As I said earlier in this post, I don't currently think Made is bad but I can totally see that opinion changing at least 12 times during the course of this game based on experience.

@Llama, I read the "throw under the bus" thing as mainly unfamiliarity with an idiom, rather than as a statement about BWT's affiliation.

@Made, I think I read BWT fairly well. He is blendy, visibly opportunistic in voting, and somewhat detached when he is bad. Not really seeing that, but it is only day one, believe it or not.

I think you can throw a non-teammate under the bus. Look at what Epi did to me in The Hobbit, then later claimed he'd been trying to draw out the real SK. We had no affiliation except for the fact I intended to win with the civs but I think throwing under the bus would be a reasonable way to describe what happened there. I agree with your summary of BWT's game too.

I've really struggled with my readthrough, trying to keep up with everything that has been going on while I've been sleeping (seriously don't you guys know it's rude to talk while people are trying to keep up with their beauty sleep? :P ) so what I will do today is to look individually at those players who are up for lynch today. Then during the night when things hopefully are calmer I will go through everyone else.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Well that was a riveting read. As far as Made goes, on the one hand I agree with this summary here:

MovingPictures07 wrote: But this is someone who multiple times said "if he were" and even more declarative statements that he was on a baddie team and was just revealed to be a civvie. And it's just his second game.

I just think if he had was a baddie, he would have learned so much from all the craziness he committed in Misfits and would be playing differently. He's a paranoid as F civvie. Totally reminds me of MR F in a way.

It just all seems too easy.

When Made flipped civ in Misfits my mind wasn't just blown, it launched itself out of the back of my head and splattered across my bedroom wall. I was more sure of him being bad than I was of the sky being blue. I think the comparison to MR F is a good one (I wouldn't be surprised if he started ranting in French about Dex est MOM or claiming that people are possessed and trying to exorcise them) and could see how some of his comments might just be another case of putting his foot in his mouth like in Misfits. On the other hand there is the whole thing about the chat where he said he couldn't retrieve a piece of info because it had been cleared '8 seconds ago' but later said he'd gone off memory. That doesn't make sense and nor does it work alongside the 'Made is just zany' theory in my opinion.

Yeah, same here.

It doesn't make sense to me either, but how does it not work alongside that theory?

I'm not sure I can explain my thinking especially well here but basically I see a difference between Made saying odd things and implying he might have btsc or whatever and him saying things that just don't add up together. The first group make him zany and not necessarily bad, the second make me suspicious.

I still entertain Made could even be a baddie and still be scapegoated by the other team, assuming there are two teams. But it just seems less likely to me at this point. Do you not recall how many times he lied about being Virtue in the other game?

Yeah, I remember it of course. I'm not saying I think he's bad but I'm not saying I don't either. My vote is still very much up for grabs and I may never vote for Made at all. Doesn't mean I won't wonder out loud about him. He is someone who is clearly going to always be difficult to read due to his play style and I can foresee him being wrongly lynched many times in the future but discussion is never a bad thing.

MovingPictures07 wrote: What happened to the S~V~S that ALWAYS gives newbies a pass on Day 1 (a la Thomas)? Why aren't you understanding here that Made has only played one (speed) game before? I'm not saying you should bypass suspicion of him for that, but you seem to not take it into consideration when you find him suspicious for things. Almost everyone around here is grilling Made, except for perhaps one of the two people that know him BEST (Enrique), for gameplay that is just odd and wacky and inexplicable, but not exactly beneficial for a baddie to take.

How the heck could his day 0 comment about no lynch PING YOU LIKE CRAZY, as you've said? You and I both know there are other sites that have a no lynch option (KSite, for one), and while I agree with you that I don't like the option, how can you not understand a scenario where Made is still pretty new to the game, a lone civvie, and knows only tangentially about the rules of the game, and thought, hey, maybe a no lynch option is in our best interest, even if you disagree?

It's opportunistic because even though you questioned Made you didn't start pushing hard until Llama came forth with his observation.

What benefit would a baddie have to lie about the amount of minutes a chat was closed down or erased?

This post just made me think a bit. If Made was bad, wouldn't he have teammates that could help him/tell him what not to do/clarify misunderstandings such as his mistaken belief about discussing who might have btsc? I'm still not sure either way on him, I doubt myself then doubt my doubts.

Made wrote:Good morning all!

So last night, I didn't understand the rule. I basically got the "your overanaylsing, go nuts" from roxy, so I will.

First thing's first. My original 3 point thingy is full of errors I want to correct, so let's do that now.

1. Pretty much still correct, but I would like to suggest this. If llama found my "I doubt the other team has this" commentweird, why wouldn't he mention it during chat. My current theory is he did mention, and is now denying it (either intentionally or otherwise).(if it helps to jog either Juliets or llama's memory, pretty sure who ever joked asking how would Ik that ended their comment in a ":p"

To be fair, if he'd brought it up in the chat it would've turned your discussion from 'how can we possibly stand together against such an unstoppable force as team wink' into whether or not you're bad, distracting the team from its goal and making your loss even worse. So I can see why he'd keep that card close to his chest until after the challenge was over.

2.I meant to say that I thought that even implying the possibility that anyone had btsc, especially with specific other people (specically the joke/theory that I do with Juliet) was not allowed. I even thought clarifying this would be against the rule as the warning dispor posted was right after I posted my 3 point rebuttal.

This would make it impossible to accuse people of being bad, since the very nature of the accusation implies you think someone has btsc usuallly. Since you're relatively new though I can see why you'd be mistaken.

3.since I don't even know how you guys were interpreting this point, what I was implying (again I thought specifically stating this might of been against the rules, which is why this was vague) mafia are not the only people who could potentially have BTSC.

I got that. But since we don't know the majority of the roles and speculation is forbidden then I don't see how we can assume anyone else might have btsc.

thellama73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:1. He made an assumption about the other team in chat and immediately tried to cover it up, making me think he has BTSC. And no, he didn't specifically reference the script, that came after, so this has not been "proven wrong."

So now there is mention of a script being the reason? Why are clues still being gradually leaked out?

Made is now claiming that his comment was in reference to the script we used, and since the other team also had the script, he claims that exonerates him. I am not gradually leaking clues, I'm trying to guard against revisionism. In the chat, at the time, he did not specifically reference the script, and I have no idea whether he was referring to that or something else.

Did he specifically reference anything in the comments that made you think he might have btsc with someone in the other chat?

Well that was a riveting read. As far as Made goes, on the one hand I agree with this summary here:

MovingPictures07 wrote: But this is someone who multiple times said "if he were" and even more declarative statements that he was on a baddie team and was just revealed to be a civvie. And it's just his second game.

I just think if he had was a baddie, he would have learned so much from all the craziness he committed in Misfits and would be playing differently. He's a paranoid as F civvie. Totally reminds me of MR F in a way.

It just all seems too easy.

When Made flipped civ in Misfits my mind wasn't just blown, it launched itself out of the back of my head and splattered across my bedroom wall. I was more sure of him being bad than I was of the sky being blue. I think the comparison to MR F is a good one (I wouldn't be surprised if he started ranting in French about Dex est MOM or claiming that people are possessed and trying to exorcise them) and could see how some of his comments might just be another case of putting his foot in his mouth like in Misfits. On the other hand there is the whole thing about the chat where he said he couldn't retrieve a piece of info because it had been cleared '8 seconds ago' but later said he'd gone off memory. That doesn't make sense and nor does it work alongside the 'Made is just zany' theory in my opinion.

Oh god, looks like this is going to be another game where tons of stuff happens while I'm asleep! Catching up now...

Enrique wrote:@Hosts: Are the chatrooms there to stay? Do Winkers and Nudgers have BTSC, or is this over?

Also, Made. Voting the non-participants is what we used to do back in the glory days of LP Survivor hosted by my dear friend Bullzeye. Of course it's not the same here given that there's probably specific roles we should be trying to lynch, but, our info is limited enough that lynching inactive users may not be a terrible idea. It's a silly game after all, we're all running blind

Buuut there's definitely space for suspicious behavior in chatrooms. So, I don't know, I'll hear you guys out if you think anybody deserves death more than others or if there was some rolehinting going on or whatever. I have no problem going with the flow on this one.

While non-participants didn't help their team in any way, perhaps it might not be best to revenge-lynch them. I dunno. I wouldn't necessarily vote someone just for not being able to take part in the challenge unless they outright just refused to bother and deliberately watched their team struggle.

Made wrote: We had 4 people, 2 posters, and 1 person who saw the movie. We had scripts, but no youtube. And yeah probably bullz lol, but the lost was fustrating more than anything.

I can imagine the loss was quite annoying. I'm about to drop a fact on you that will improve your and everyone else who is unaware's life but also comes too late to really be helpful. Pretty much every scene of every Monty Python thing ever can be found easily on Youtube. Seriously, there are like four or five links to the full films that get reuploaded every now and then. You could have found all that and enriched your viewing experiences as well as increasing your knowledge for the challenge. There were a few questions that I answered more quickly thanks to watching from the link AP provided.

Made wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

Day 1 has begun!

Which of the not-so-victorious will die a horribly painful death?

we COULD just kill someone who didn't show up to the challenge ...real talk tho wink winks, how many of you guys were there and how many of you saw the movie?



Also, I'd say chat's pretty irrlevant because everyone (probably) wanted to win.....assuming there aren't any team of 3+. and even if there was, avoiding the chatroom all together makes more sense than sabotage.


3 fucking brag linkis really?

There were about 6 or 7 of us in our chat, I think some of us had seen the film. AP posted a link to a youtube playlist of the entire film as well as the script, so we were pretty well prepared.

And you know you'd be bragging if you won. I've played one game and a bit with you and I feel confident in saying you would :P

So, losers, did anyone in your chat seem suspicious in any way?

Linki: Great (winning) minds think alike!