The Syndicate

juliets wrote:
Long Con wrote:
juliets wrote:Yeah Made, I didn't play Misfits but i read enough of it to know your playstyle is whack. Nevertheless, I agree with Bullz. I have also started to wonder if you are making up these wild theories to keep the eye away from others. I have believed in your civviness but I am starting to have doubts or as Bullz brings up maybe I'm just confused by you. I know I'm confused by some of those theories.
Hmm...

Ping. I don't buy the "keep the eye away from others" thing. Sounds contrived. Then add "I'm confused" and it's more suspicious to me.
That's interesting. Maybe I didn't say it right. I have started wondering if some of the things made has said have been attention getters, to pull us away from others who may be bad. Also, I don't think I've fully understood one theory made has put out there. I may understand part of it but usually there is a line or two i don't understand. I'm not saying a general "I'm confused" or even a general "I'm confused about everything made has said". But I am confused by some of it, which is what I thought I said.

So, you think Made and his baddie teammates have a plan where the rest of them escape suspicion through Made's demand for attention? Made is just a sacrificial lamb in the hopes that his team won't get suspicion because of it?

I don't really think that's credible. Ping remains on Juliets.

juliets wrote:Yeah Made, I didn't play Misfits but i read enough of it to know your playstyle is whack. Nevertheless, I agree with Bullz. I have also started to wonder if you are making up these wild theories to keep the eye away from others. I have believed in your civviness but I am starting to have doubts or as Bullz brings up maybe I'm just confused by you. I know I'm confused by some of those theories.

Hmm...

Ping. I don't buy the "keep the eye away from others" thing. Sounds contrived. Then add "I'm confused" and it's more suspicious to me.

S~V~S wrote:
So while it was a gut thing, it was based on something fairly specific. Something that is not what he believed it to be.

You really have to stop saying that. I have clarified for you several times about what my ping was based on.The fact that you are still trying to act like it was about the content of the warning is just making you look more suspicious to me.

Stop twisting my ping! Acknowledge the reason for it, the reason I have given several times over already!

Thank you, Canuck, saved me the trouble on the "Fight Club opinion" front.

S~V~S says I'm "trying too hard to defend this position". All I'm doing is responding to her - if anyone is trying too hard, it's her. I never wanted to try to make the gut ping into a big thing. What happened to the S~V~S that welcomed a bit of suspicion as a Civ, to keep safer from NKs? It's why I said she seems desperate - this little suspicion is hardly something to get so worked up about. Maybe it's the sig thing.

Made wrote:
Made wrote:
Long Con wrote: Sort of. It was the way she repeated the warning, it rang false to me and made me suspect that her purpose for doing so was to have *good, Civvie-intentioned content* in the thread. That's what my gut said. If you don't understand it, then feel free to disregard it. It's my suspicion, my gut, not yours.
I get your suspicion. Twice this game( suggesting no lynch, and trying to determine odds off numbers i couldn't possibly know) SVS has told me thing i was suggesting either benifited Mafia/or were classic mafia moves.

Regardless, I don't currently suspect her as mafia. However, you suspicion has definately warrented another Full SVS read.
Also, there's no reason for SVS to be deserperate, yet anyways. I read her quick succession post as more Angry/Impatience.

I plan to reread you too btw, thought you might want to know that .

What, don't do that! My posts are single-read only!

Have a read of her and see what you think. Is she a baddie going with safe and easy posts to stay involved but not put herself too much out there? Maybe, maybe not. Your insights will be appreciated.

reywaS wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Looking at the roster, Juliets played and she was one of my primary victims, and rey played, he was one of my teammates. But you say that you still think i am suspicious even if they corroborate me.

Linki, made, I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought you were suspicious for suspecting BWT for not being all that in the challenge. This is reminiscent of what happened in a game Roxy hosted in the past, that is what LC & I are talking about. NOT whatever you are talking about.
FWIW, I get where SVS was coming from with her warning about people that try to develop suspicions based on the side game chat. We did it in Roxy's Survivor game and we kicked ass...SVS made it to the very end and IMO only lost because Tranq was a challenge freak. But, yes, a HUGE part of our strategy in that game was to keep suspicions based soley on what happened in the challenges. Lynching poor performers kept the actual baddies under the radar because, well, we were all very active in the challenges. That's how i remember it anyway.

SVS played a helluva game in Survivor, so I don't see anything wrong with her warning in this game. I'm still quite confused over what LC is basing his suspicion of her on. It's not the contents of the warning, but it's the fact that she issued the warning in the first place??? Is that right, LC?

Sort of. It was the way she repeated the warning, it rang false to me and made me suspect that her purpose for doing so was to have *good, Civvie-intentioned content* in the thread. That's what my gut said. If you don't understand it, then feel free to disregard it. It's my suspicion, my gut, not yours.

S~V~S wrote:
The fact that you are trying to make it seem like I suspected you because I didn't believe you, or anything else, reeks slightly of a sliver of desperation... Or something. Hm. Don't change my reason for suspecting you, and you'll see that you've done nothing to lessen it. There's nothing you can do, it's only about what happened before I brought you up. Before I tipped you off that I found it suspicious. I call it "S~V~S au natural"
When did I do this?

Linki, it isn't relevant, he just popped into the discussion that for once had nothing to do with him, and misconstrued it to be relevant to him..

S~V~S wrote:Really, LC, tell me when i did this. because i am so not freaking bad, and i need to know where you are coming from.

This is an example of the desperation I spoke of. These posts are literally one minute apart. You ask me to tell you "when you did this", and, though you KNOW I was at a fair (home now), you ask again one minute later like I'm holding out on you.

"When you did this": Well, you clarified what you meant by saying baddies can take advantage of Roxy's challenge, and expected my suspicion of you to vanish. I have already explained that the suspicion isn't based on what you meant by warning everyone, it was a gut feel based on your repeated insistence that we watch out for it. It rang baddie to me, like you were trying to foster goodwill by being a helpful player.

You said "so you think I am bad regardless of what i say or mean. Good to know, LC." You're right. It's not what you say or mean right NOW, it's what you said and how you said it THEN.

S~V~S wrote:So no opinion about the game i am playing here vs Fight Club?

Not everyone develops suspicions the same way. I don't know what the difference is between your gameplay here and your gameplay in Fight Club. I don't know what the difference is in my gameplay. I just play the game and try to develop suspicions. I'm not inclined to comb Fight Club to see if this amorphous thing called "gameplay" is the same or not. And if you were a baddie, then I'd be a complete fool to go and compare your gameplay because you told me to, since you are in control of your gameplay and could craft it so as to be different just so you could say "See how different??" when someone suspects you. "I was bad there and acted way differently so I couldn't be bad here so stop suspecting me k?"

Yeah, not speaking of official warnings,, just S~V~S' concern that some bad stuff etc.

S~V~S, I have never been unclear about why I suspected you. It was never about the content of the warning, or the veracity of anything. It has always been about the way you pushed it.

The fact that you are trying to make it seem like I suspected you because I didn't believe you, or anything else, reeks slightly of a sliver of desperation... Or something. Hm. Don't change my reason for suspecting you, and you'll see that you've done nothing to lessen it. There's nothing you can do, it's only about what happened before I brought you up. Before I tipped you off that I found it suspicious. I call it "S~V~S au natural"

Caught up here at Port Perry fair. I didn't click on that pastebin thing, but I don't understand what Made was up to with that "recreate the situation" a stuff. Was the point to make a game part that was offsite as the Chatzy was offsite? And then to argue with Enrique over the contents, which would then be made unavailable, I guess?

If anyone can verify S~V~S' claim about how her Roxy challenge warning works, someone who played the game with her, then that would be good. I don't think the specific meaning of the warning, or the claim that Made was doing what she warned against, affects my gut ping, since it was due to the frequency and earnestness of her warnings, as I recall.

I have to re-read Hedgeowl because I see a lot of chatter about her, and I only know about the vote she cast which is suspicious for some reason. A quick synopsis of the case against her would be helpful as I'm at the fair and can't really tear back like that easily.

Oh yeah! I thought I responded to that. Maybe I did. But here's what I say to it: What you're describing Made doing isn't what I understood your point to be.

My understanding was that the "baddies buddying up to Civvies through Roxy's challenge" concept would look like "Hey, fellow Wink-Wink, let's go after some of those Nudgers!" Wasn't that what happened in the other game you were repeatedly referencing? Wasn't that the thing you were warning us to look out for?

What you're describing Made doing ("Let's suspect BWT for challenge nonparticipation") isn't remotely the same thing from my perspective. So, my suspicion of you remains unchanged based on your response, sorry.

Don't you think it's a very different thing?

See ya, baddie DF! S~V~S, you asked me to respond to something, would you mind repeating it?

BR and I are doing the Port Perry Fair this weekend with the Sandwich Shack, so another busy one. Then next weekend is another fair, and we're done for the year with the food truck. Just so y'all know what's going on with us. I like to catch up on my phone on the down time (assuming there is some!) so I don't expect to be missing in action. Epignosis seems to be trying to take a leadership role with his analysis around DF, so we should be vigilant when considering his logic. Maybe get a devil's advocate in there to refute some of his assumptions, just so we can look at all the angles. Maybe it will be me! We'll see how it goes today. His was my favourite post since the lynch so far though, focused analysis can now really begin.

I think Canuck is super-bitchin'.

I voted for S~V~S because she's my biggest suspect. Looks like MP is far ahead at this time though, so it will take a bunch of people voting for the same person to save him.

Suspenseful!!

I vote now because I'm going to work.

S~V~S wrote:LC, Made did it. First he made a joke about it, then when someone asked who he was suspish of, he said something like, "Um, well, BWT was not as helpful as he could have been in the challenge."

I thought the "baddie buddy" concept was different, and would look more like "Hey, Wink-Winks, let's stick together and lynch those noobs, the Nudgers!" What you described there, though it does straddle the line of "contest stuff" and "suspicion stuff", is not the idea I got from your public service announcements.

And you saw me "acting civvie" in Fight Club, making up theories and not cases, and holding suspicions & votes until no one could jump on my bogus Leamiteo/Mighty Rearranger faux suspicions to make ME look suspicious. And working hard to protect Black Rock, on whom all of our fortunes rested, as well as myself; I don;t think I took one vote that whole game. Here I only have to protect myself, and am doing a piss poor job of it apparently.

I'm not much of a "compare someone to their older games" player, I think. I don't remember everyone's style well enough, I tend to go more for scanning intentions and gut feel. I ESPECIALLY am not going to start judging you based on a comparison with Fight Club after you yourself brought it up in your defense. Maybe if someone ELSE had tried comparing you to get a better read on you, but when it's you bringing it up, well... you decide how you act. You could be a baddie who is specifically trying to act differently just so you could bring up Fight Club, compare for us, and seem Civvie.

Enrique wrote:Wait, what? I had no part in that argument at all lol. And yeah, English is my second language, but I'm bilingual m8.

C'mon elsie you know me better than that

No, I think you mentioned the second-language thing, and someone misremembered who said that, and asked someone else if THEIR first language was English, which led to some possibly-ruffled feathers. Not saying you were involved in that discussion, just that your statement may have inadvertently caused it. Of course I know you better than that, you're a longtime pillar of the Mafia community I know and love.

Made wrote:Tomorrow, I'm going to start tldring things on a document on my Signature. of course, it'll be nothing like reading the whole thread, but it'd be a great way to get context to make skimming more effective. For the sake of bias and stuff/keeping it objective I'll list all who endorse my summarry, and allow for a space where those who disagree can voice there disagreements.

Cool idea, actually. Use the sig as a home for important points and suspicions.

thellama73 wrote:
Long Con wrote:Llama, any comment on the "you would know" perspective I brought up?
I'd really rather not. It is so tedious. But if you insist...

Yes, I can see how it makes sense now that you've used it in context. I think so much of that expression in the way it's being used is in the tone of voice in which it is said, that it's difficult to convey over through typing. I honestly had no idea what Made meant when he was first using it without much context.

You may have been the only one. Even Enrique, whose first language is not English (as I understand things), seemed to understand the meaning of it.

Was anyone else unclear about the meaning of "you would know"? I shouldn't speak for anyone else, but I don't recall anyone asking for clarification on that statement.

Also, I think that "Is English your first language?" thing that seemed to get irate might have had its genesis with a misunderstanding of whose issue that was: Enrique's.

Mongoose wrote:Some of the youngest players here have been the most astute. For instance, Simon is a local wunderkind who pegged all the baddies 4/4 in the Thomas the Tank Engine speed game. He was 5 at the time. Simon currently has 0 fancy degrees, yet he can shake with the best of the bunch.

There's a 5-year-old player on this site??

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)

Don't jump to such conclusions... I have been Mafia and responded to every accusation levelled against me... and even though I proved that my accuser(s) were using false/trumped-up/very misleading information to put suspicion on me, I ended up lynched anyway, BECAUSE I had stayed too much in the spotlight. Spotlight players are any easy sudden lynch. You're a spotlight player right now, Mr Made, and I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up lynched when the lynch endtime looms and suddenly five or six people say "I've been really unsure about Made, but I don't have any better suspicion, so he gets my vote."

I've been there too many times, lynched by people who hadn't focused on other things for too long and ended up throwing a vote my way because it was 'safe' or something.

Llama, any comment on the "you would know" perspective I brought up?

Epignosis wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Linki~ thanks for saying things I like suck
Lots of things you like suck. Like Communism. They don't suck just because you like them though.

It's possible for two conflicting stories to both be told as truth... memory is imperfect. I don't know if anyone is outright lying yet.

S~V~S wrote:Linki, LC I was proud of that game, I had the civvies eating out of my hands. When i have a successful baddie tactic, I look for others doing the same, don't you? Also if talking about it alot keeps the baddies from railroading a civ or two (and my team railroaded at least 5 with that tactic in that game) whats the harm?

It's not harmful, I just feel like you were pushing it in a way that felt gut-suspicious to me.

Ok, I haven't gone back and looked at S~V~S' posts to see if my reasoning is accurate - during my catchup, I read over BR's shoulder a bit as she caught up, and ended up going through some sections twice. Which wasn't that bad, it's like an instant re-read in a *busy* thread. Back to S~V~S in a sec.

Llama: I'm a little confused by your insistence that you didn't understand "you would know"... have you never heard such a thing said? In my experience, it's a common enough phrase, loaded with commonly understood meaning.

A: "Yeah, Cindy would sleep with anyone!" B: "Oh, you would know!" Before this game started, you would be scratching your head, wondering why Person B said such a thing? You seem to be acting like you had no idea what it meant.

Even if it's not a direct quote of what you said, "you would know" means pretty much the same as "Do you know because you have teammates?" I'd say it's a little more accusatory, but it implies the same thing.

Made: Given the information I have read so far, I'm not inclined to vote for him today. I think he just needs to get a few games under his belt here before people pick him apart.

Enrique: I'm enjoying his faceoff with Llama. He seems sincere to me. He could be a sincere baddie, but I don't have that read on him at this point.

S~V~S: How many times did S~V~S bring up the other game where Roxy's challenges led to Civvies being buddy-buddy with baddies? I remember reading about it back when the Challenge was first announced, or some early time like that before the thread exploded. I felt like S~V~S was pushing the idea a little too hard or something... like, she was trying to do a public service to the thread so as to seem like a good, upstanding Civvie. And that gave a baddie ping to me. Mostly gut there, but that's what happens, I guess - you read the thread, and after reading someone's post, you feel like something was wrong.

I will be responsible and go back through her posts to see how many times it was brought up. Maybe I read the same one three times or something, and then I'd have to re-examine the gut ping.

Epig: Not sure how I feel about you being upset about S~V~S coming out with the facts of a situation. Did you want to see Made try, and perhaps fail, to find an example of S~V~S sarcasm?

Argh, linki...

CAUGHT UP!!! Nice.

Epignosis wrote:
Mongoose wrote:I feel like MP is probably staying UTR because he's died early in a lot of games recently (well like always on TS, unfortunately) and playing safe can be a smart move if you tend to draw a lot of fire early. Not that I would at all understand this plight at all. Ahem.
Exsqueeze me? Baking powder? (That's surely a Monty Python reference)

How is 33 posts by Day 1 staying under the radar?

MP died early in a game (The Hobbit) because I lead a Day 1 lynch against him and he was bad. Other than that, he WON Are You Being Served? Mafia and he WON Occultism Mafia. He has not died early in anything this year other than The Hobbit, when he was an evil smelly necrophiliac goblin.

Wow, this thread is... chatty! I haven't finished catching up yet, and I have quoted where I'm stopping because of blurry tired eyes. I am currently suspicious of my friend S~V~S. I'll discuss tomorrow after my continued catchup.

Dom wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Made wrote:"The Current Job #2"....oh no.....
That's a good thing. Trust us.
Mafia, it's fun. Trust

Ikkl Genius... what a pioneer.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:The Day 0 challenge shall begin at 6PM EDT tomorrow. Preparest thyselves.

By the way, sorry Team Nudge-Nudge, but I start work at 5pm today, so if this Challenge is posting-intensive or presence-necessary, then I won't be able to help win until about 11pm.

Dana wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Don't sweat it, Dana. I've seen way worse newbie mistakes before. :P
Thank you, friend!

Very friendly of you, Dana... maybe TOO friendly...

Enrique wrote:Does it have to be newbies? Ambray posting a PM in public and thus outing her entire team was pretty bad/great.

I was the Mafia Leader in Simpsons Mafia on Lostpedia... I mixed up two players, and ended up sending a Civvie a PM revealing my identity.

I planned on killing him first, but, well, he outed me before I could.

Gooble Gobble!

And the Winks take the lead!

A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat... so I'll nudge!

The Syndicate

Search found 233 matches

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 2 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 1 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 0 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 0 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 0 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 0 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 0 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 0 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 0 Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Re: Day 0 Monty Python and the Holy Grail