The Syndicate

Congrats to the winners

I stopped following the game at some point.
Dom, did you kill me again? Who killed me and why?

thellama73 wrote:I'm self voting today.

I getting sick of being NK in the early stages of the game every time

Boo baddies
Thanks for the game Mongoose

And I voted for The Royal Tenenbaums, because it's the only one I saw, though I'm hoping to see the Grand Budapest Hotel soon

linki: You're welcome

I hope it doesn't come back to bite me

thellama73 wrote:Ignore me. I'm an idiot. I looked at FZ's avatar and thought it was Roxy because of similar colors. Apologies all around.

LOL, I was wondering why you called me Roxy the first time, and then you accused me of voting MP, and for a minute, I thought I actually voted MP by mistake

By the way, I find Roxy more suspicious than SVS for some reason. I feel like she's skating by more than SVS. So if Vompatti turns out bad, I would say my first person to look at is BR, followed by Roxy.

RIP MP

I'm kind of pissed they lynched you.

thellama73 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Btw llama, what are your thoughts on Roxy? Does she usually just post thoughts about players without addressing actual game content?
Damn straight I'm going to vote Vomps tomorrow. SVS or Roxy or both are desperate to see absolutely anybody but him lynched. What better reason to lynch him is there than that?

My suspicions go:
1. Vomps
2. Roxy
3. SVS

SVS is only below Roxy because I think she mostly sounds sincere, and I have a hard time believing she is playing the most blatant baddie game ever rather than just being a victim of bad luck, but the vote record looks VERY bad for her. Roxy has been wiffle waffly and non-committal, barely brought up suspicion of MP before this lynch, and her voting record is as bad as SVS'. I don't trust her one bit.

You know who else just caught my attention? BR. First she says she's going to wait more to decide who to vote for. Then, after MP gets 4 more votes, she comes in and says that MP sounds genuine so she's not going to vote MP, nor Vomps, but gives TH the vote. This really screams baddie to me. It feels like she's trying to find really weird reasons to suspect TH, and she says he's playing his smart baddie game...because when he's a civ, he plays his stupid game, right? I don't buy it.

Roxy wrote:SVS - I hope I was not the one who you thought was rude. I hate to even say this but you still have not answered my only question. I guess at this point it does not matter but I would have liked a response and your thoughts about the other people who used your reasoning for their vote for Teeth.

I cannot believe no one has one word to say about Made. I mean his play style is so unlike Python and so reminiscence of his baddie game.

Here is a linky to all his posts I would like to hear what others are thinking about his game.

BR - can you elaborate a bit more? You seem to be tossing a lot of names about without really backing up as to why you think them suspicious.

Yeah, you just reminded me I wanted to ask about Made. The thing is, he hasn't posted anything since then. I have played with him 1-2 games I believe, and I think he was a civ in both, so I have no idea how he plays bad, but this is definitely questionable. But when baddie, is he so obvious about it? Because that would make it very easy to nail him.

linki: okay, thanks. Well, I'm going to vote now, because no one is going to say anything on the matter.

Oh, so you think that if there was a save, it was MP and not Vomp?

I'm voting now for Vomp, but I still want to know:
1. Why Bass thinks MM is a baddie? (so much that he voted for him when so many people had at least one vote)
2. Why did MM vote LC when he didn't have any votes. Basically the same question that I asked Bass.
3. What do you all make of DF voting as the last voter for himself. What's the point in even voting if you didn't have time to read? He had time to come and say that he doesn't have time, so he's voting for himself, and conveniently, it was after AP was almost a sure bet for the lynch. And then he comes in after the night and says Sabie probably saved herself.

linki: what are you saying?

I need to go in a few minutes. I want to vote for Vomp for the reasons I stated before, but the one thing that's holding me back is the way the lynch went down. It didn't seem to bother anyone that he might be lynched. It could be that the baddies were waiting to see if he got enough votes and when they saw AP was going down, just went and voted for someone else. There's also the possibility that the last voters for AP are baddies, or at least one of them, but that would get them a lot of attention if Vomps flips baddie, so it's a risk.
But it seemed to go really slowly, which makes me wonder if we're not going after a civ again.

If anyone wants to suggest anything, speak now, because I'll be placing my vote in a minute or so

Here is DF's post regarding the NK. I think this is his only post of the day

DFaraday wrote:I've finally just about caught up! I think it's very odd that Sabie would be targeted for an NK so early in the game, and even weirder if someone decided to protect her. I'm thinking Sabie herself probably was the cause of her survival.

I don't have a read on Vomps, but I don't necessarily think Llama is suspicious for looking at him. And I'm not clear on why SVS thinks there is a connection between AP and MM.

Interestingly, he is going for the "save" explanation. But I think this was before Mongoose answered the question about the stories and the kills. So not sure what to make of it. DF is not posting much, and if he's a baddie, it will be his third time in a row. He said he doesn't like being a baddie 2 times in a row (last game), so I wonder if that's the case here.

What bothers me about TImmer's read is that it seems very easy going back to catch up and just find something fishy about everyone. It makes you look like you're not leaving any stone unturned and gives a baddie hunting feel. It's something I do a lot as a baddie. But if you notice, Timmer isn't committing to anything yet and is just delaying it all to "when he finishes reading". Not sure I like what I'm seeing

timmer wrote:
FZ. wrote:Okay, I hope this isn't a mistake, but I'm going to vote for BWT, because I see no point in voting for anyone else at this time.
I've just finished rereading Day 1.1 and this is the one thing that jumped out as being something I hadn't noticed last time. FZ had only talked about the other cases, especially Long Con, and yet just idly jumped onto the bandwagon? Sure, maybe if you vote someone late in the lynch they won't die, but it marks your feelings about the day. Just adding to a bandwagon is a funny thing to do. This is something I will remember for future reference. Moving onto Day 1.2.

I said that I understood why people were feeling he was bad because of him seeming to just want to vote Vomp no matter what, and when I saw that none of the people I wanted to vote for in the first place was going to get lynched, I voted for the next person I thought seemed fishy. If I were a baddie, voting for him at that time, would have been the stupidest thing to do. Am while there are smarter people than me, I'm not that stupid

Long Con wrote:The baddie would likely act normal, like nothing had happened?

True, but he would still be a little more careful, no?

Question: Has Sabie even posted this game? How do I check if someone posted on this thread?

If the fact there was no NK the result of a block, would the baddie blocked, sit quiet for the start of the day and see what people are saying to not gain too much attention, and make the blocker think it wasn't his/her block that prevented the kill,or would the baddie be more likely to talk fast?
I think I would wait some before I started talking, just to see if someone mentions my name. So I want to look into the people who started talking relatively late in the last 24 hours. I hope I have time to do it before I need to leave.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:Here's the only working theory I could come up with for Sabie being targeted by her own team:

Sabie opens her role PM and she's a baddie. This is not what Sabie wanted so she instantly asks to be replaced. Mongoose tells the thread she needs a replacement, but retracts her request shortly after.

So what could have happened here is that Sabie's team suggests, instead of getting replaced, that they target her with the kill and protect. The gambit is that everyone will assume one of the three role blocking roles was responsible for the missed kill. Sabie skates through the game with no suspicion and doesn't have to play her role. Meanwhile the three roleblockers will each be thinking to themselves "Did I block the killer?" And so that knowledge might color their own individual suspicions and lead them all on wild goose chases.

It's possible, and would be a great move, but I'm not sure who's capable of it, and I find it much more likely that a roleblock was responsible.
That's an interesting theory and the first one that actually talks about what they have to gain from it. Because making us even notice Sabie without a pay off would be just stupid, because no one was thinking she's bad up until that point. But why not just get a kill and do what you suggested later. They need as many people dead now, and when people finally started paying attention to Sabie, that would be a good time to use it.

linki: Bass, why did you choose to vote for MM last day? It seemed like a wasted vote, and you didn't even try to convince anyone. Also, does it mean that you think all the people who had votes on them prior to your vote, are civvies?
This early in the game I play with my gut more then anything and my gut is telling MM is bad. I didn't think AP was bad I really not sure about vomps though I think people have pointed out things that are starting to make me think he is bad. So I might me voting him or MM this time. Also why only ask me this question when I wasn't the only person to vote for someone that didn't have any votes?

Thanks for the answer. I'm asking you because after there were 4 votes on AP and 3 on Vomp, you were the first one to vote for someone else. Was just wondering. Can you please remind me why is it that your gut tells you MM is bad?

linki: According to the host's answer, a block is indeed an option. It still doesn't answer why they chose to target Sabie in the first place, though. Who would kill her?

There are a few players who have just vanished, like Lizzie, Timmer and Made. I wonder where they are.

Roxy wrote:I feel I should tell everyone that I had asked to be replaced after what had happened in the GoC game but the next morning I realized it was just a knee-jerk reaction and I had hurt feelings (read:over-reaction) - again. So I joined back in which is why Mongoose then said she no longer needed a replacement. Sorry for causing anyone confusion.

I guess that shoots down TH's theory for good.

Turnip Head wrote:Here's the only working theory I could come up with for Sabie being targeted by her own team:

Sabie opens her role PM and she's a baddie. This is not what Sabie wanted so she instantly asks to be replaced. Mongoose tells the thread she needs a replacement, but retracts her request shortly after.

So what could have happened here is that Sabie's team suggests, instead of getting replaced, that they target her with the kill and protect. The gambit is that everyone will assume one of the three role blocking roles was responsible for the missed kill. Sabie skates through the game with no suspicion and doesn't have to play her role. Meanwhile the three roleblockers will each be thinking to themselves "Did I block the killer?" And so that knowledge might color their own individual suspicions and lead them all on wild goose chases.

It's possible, and would be a great move, but I'm not sure who's capable of it, and I find it much more likely that a roleblock was responsible.

That's an interesting theory and the first one that actually talks about what they have to gain from it. Because making us even notice Sabie without a pay off would be just stupid, because no one was thinking she's bad up until that point. But why not just get a kill and do what you suggested later. They need as many people dead now, and when people finally started paying attention to Sabie, that would be a good time to use it.

linki: Bass, why did you choose to vote for MM last day? It seemed like a wasted vote, and you didn't even try to convince anyone. Also, does it mean that you think all the people who had votes on them prior to your vote, are civvies?

Black Rock wrote:
FZ. wrote:So the case on SVS is that she's not answering questions? while she may be bad, I think that's a lame reason. When I'm bad, I try harder to answer everyone's questions. When I'm a civ, if I see a case on me, it bothers me less and if it seems silly to me, I sometimes just ignore it.

linki: BR, what about how we compared his baddie behaviour in Are you being served, to his behaviour here?

Alright I checked out his posts in a few games, following links and such. Good thing it wasn't MP I was looking for. I saw two different games where he was acting sameish to this game and he was civvie and baddie. I'm wondering if different factors are taking place here. Reading is posts in this came he seems more into the theme this game. I know theme has played a factor in some of my games. I'm just not convinced his behaviour is that different.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Only here for a minute or so, just to say:

BR, I'm not sure I still see the case on Vomps either.

FZ., there is more to the argument against S~V~S than her not answering questions. Why are you saying there isn't? I've repeated multiple times my thoughts about both of her votes this game.

TH, probably just paranoia, but it's just how I interpreted your post -- especially since you just hopped and said yes, rather than more thoroughly explaining why you thought that.
Happy to see I'm not alone.

FZ. wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Only here for a minute or so, just to say:

BR, I'm not sure I still see the case on Vomps either.

FZ., there is more to the argument against S~V~S than her not answering questions. Why are you saying there isn't? I've repeated multiple times my thoughts about both of her votes this game.

TH, probably just paranoia, but it's just how I interpreted your post -- especially since you just hopped and said yes, rather than more thoroughly explaining why you thought that.
Well, why don't you go check that comparison as well. LC quoted those lines as well.

As for SVS, I'm not saying everyone's reasoning is the one I mentioned, but it seems to be building up too fast and people seem to be jumping on that with the "look how she's avoiding answering the questions" train of thought. In contrast, look how hard it is to get people to view the Vompatti case. I wonder why it's so much easier to jump on the SVS case
I am worried about SVS, but I am going to do a lot more thinking and waiting for SVS before I would hop on a SVS train. If she is a civvie I would be very sad to see her wrongfully lynched, civvie SVS is a good asset to have around. So what I am saying is I'm suspicious of her but not ready to lynch SVS. Not before I am over the 90% hump.

I was a little less sure about Vomp after looking at the links. But then he did the "I'll let my team know" conversation, which really reminded me of his baddie game in Are you being served.

TH, you asked why I wondered about Bass. SVS put a vote on one of the two people who had a tie (AP and Vomp), and then Bass came in and voted for someone who had no votes.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Only here for a minute or so, just to say:

BR, I'm not sure I still see the case on Vomps either.

FZ., there is more to the argument against S~V~S than her not answering questions. Why are you saying there isn't? I've repeated multiple times my thoughts about both of her votes this game.

TH, probably just paranoia, but it's just how I interpreted your post -- especially since you just hopped and said yes, rather than more thoroughly explaining why you thought that.

Well, why don't you go check that comparison as well. LC quoted those lines as well.

As for SVS, I'm not saying everyone's reasoning is the one I mentioned, but it seems to be building up too fast and people seem to be jumping on that with the "look how she's avoiding answering the questions" train of thought. In contrast, look how hard it is to get people to view the Vompatti case. I wonder why it's so much easier to jump on the SVS case

So the case on SVS is that she's not answering questions? while she may be bad, I think that's a lame reason. When I'm bad, I try harder to answer everyone's questions. When I'm a civ, if I see a case on me, it bothers me less and if it seems silly to me, I sometimes just ignore it.

linki: BR, what about how we compared his baddie behaviour in Are you being served, to his behaviour here?

Hi, I'm not going to be around much this day. I'll be here a bit later today, and then tomorrow morning my time, when you're all asleep. And then I'm gone. Right now, I still want to vote Vomp, and I also said in my post where I analysed the votes that if Vomp is bad, the timing of SVS' vote seemed most like a save (though I did mention some other names as well). I think I suck at reading SVS, so based on her posts alone, I can't see anything that screams baddie to me. I think that lynching Vomp would give us more information after how the lynch went down, even if he's civ. Because if he is, I can see the baddies spreading their votes more.

What are people's opinion of Bass, by the way?

Woot, no death!

This could be a RB, but why Sabbie in the first place? I don't remember anything she's said.

In terms of how stories go, does it matter if it's a save or a block? Would the story be different?

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

Not if Vomp is a civ...or maybe now they will

Oh, and as for the poll, sadly, I haven't seen There will be blood yet, but I've heard it's really good. Out of those I did see, Magnolia has to be my favourite. Punch drunk love was also good, but I mostly remember the atmosphere and how well Adam Sandler played his character. He conveyed an intense sense of loneliness and despair that was almost tangible, which was very impressive. But I don't remember much of the rest, so I'm sticking with Magnolia. I remember walking out of that film with a feeling of awe that I've rarely had since.

RIP AP

I don't have a lot of time to read, so I skimmed through. I have two options in my mind for how to look at the voting patterns last day:

1. Vomp is a civ so the baddies just didn't care whether it was AP or Vomp that got lynched, but wanted to make sure they were not connected to lynching a civ

2. Vomp is bad so the baddies waited to see if he needed saving, but then when it went in AP's direction, they could spread the votes elsewhere.

The difference in my opinion is, that if 1 is true, I expect to see more baddies in those voting elsewhere, whereas if it's the second option, at least one baddie, if not more should be on the AP list.

Here's the list:

A Person
5
birdwithteeth11 (5), Long Con (8), Roxy (13), S~V~S (17), Canucklehead (19) 23%
Bass the Clever
0
No votes
BirdWithTeeth11
0
No votes
BlackRock
1
MovingPictures07 (16) 5%
Canucklehead
0
No votes
DFaraday
1
DFaraday (22) 5%
Dom
1
Vompatti (12) 5%
FZ.
1
Made (6) 5%
Lizzy
0
No votes
Long Con
1
Metalmarsh89 (15) 5%
Made
0
No votes
MetalMarsh
1
Bass_the_Clever (18) 5%
MovingPictures07
3
timmer (9), Dom (10), Turnip Head (21) 14%
Ninjablooper
0
No votes
Ricochet
0
No votes
Roxy
0
No votes
sabie12
0
No votes
SpaceDaisy
1
Spacedaisy (11) 5%
S~V~S
0
No votes
thellama73
1
Ricochet (4) 5%
Timmer
0
No votes
TurnipHead
0
No votes
Vompatti
3
nijuukyugou (3), thellama73 (7), FZ. (14) 14%
Edward G. Robinson (Host/Mod/NPs/etc).
3
Mongoose (1), zeek (2), Epignosis (20) 14%
Total votes : 22

Roxy and I made it a 3 vote tie between Vomp and AP (while MP had 2 votes). After that, we have the following people voting after that in chronological order:
MM- for LC
MP- for BR
SVS- for AP
Bass- for MM
Canuck- For AP
TH- for MP (bringing it to 3 votes for MP, but AP already had 5 at that point)
DF- for himself.

If anyone was trying to save Vomp, it would be SVS. Was anyone trying to save Vomp? Could be that those who voted last (like DF and TH) were, but when they saw it wasn't necessary, voted for someone else.

linki: too many posts, so I'll read them later

Vompatti wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Vomps, why are you voting Dom?
lol i dunno, i'm just zany and unpredictable i guess xD
That's true. But it doesn't help me decide. Still no point in voting Dom. If you want to bring the rest of your team to vote for him, he'll have more votes and then I'll consider
k i'll let them know

Cool. Since I need to go, I'm voting you though. But if you bring them all, you can still out number your voters.
Seriously, this is exactly the kind of talk I had with you in the "Are you being served" and I thought no way would he be a baddie doing that, and you were.

*Votes Vompatti*

I have to go

@linki: duh

Vompatti wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Vomps, why are you voting Dom?
lol i dunno, i'm just zany and unpredictable i guess xD

That's true. But it doesn't help me decide. Still no point in voting Dom. If you want to bring the rest of your team to vote for him, he'll have more votes and then I'll consider

Why do you all start talking so late in the day? and when I need to go

llama, I saw your answer, thanks. I actually remember you playing like that in the first game we played together and you were a civ.

Right now, I'm still thinking of voting Vomp. First, because he's lowered his post number drastically since we started pushing for him. If he doesn't care if he's lynched like he says, why not continue just the way he did before?

Then, there's AP, which I agree, made a cop out vote. Especially at the time of the vote. Also I see no difference between not voting at all and voting yourself or randomizing. That said, I've seen him do it before.

The last points regarding MP have some merit, but I still think I'm seeing civ MP. Like TH, I can't put my finger on it, but it's the opposite. I can't vote for him feeling like that. I hope I'm not wrong.

Lastly, there's Dom, who focuses on one person (MP), just like he did in the Champions' game, and he was bad. I still think that between the two, he's more likely bad.

So it's between Dom and Vompatti, but Dom doesn't seem to have any votes, so I guess I'll be voting for Vomp. I have 5 more minutes before I need to go

Made wrote:gotta vote now, because last to vote FZ and another reason i swear is legit... i just forgot it <_<

it should be in my post history...

That is one of the worst reasons I've heard of, to vote for me.

Why the hell did I get a vote from Made?

thellama73 wrote:I'm going to go ahead and drop my vote on Vompatti. I've got some meetings coming up and I don't see anything that's likely to change my mind before the day ends.

llama, I think it was last game, when you were a civ, you said that when you're a civ, you goof around more (that was not the actual phrase). Would you say you're goofing around this game? Because you seem very serious in your baddie hunting. And while I usually find that to be a good thing, I just recalled that the last two games I was suspicious of you and you were a civ, and this game, I haven't once thought you were suspicious. So this is now starting to worry me.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I'm curious what everyone else is thinking, and I highly doubt I'll be voting for any of the major thread contributors at the moment. I suppose I could vote TH, since his vote for BWT seemed most bandwagony, the fact that he doesn't seem overtly baddie to me and that both FZ. and BR (two people I'm not sure I trust, especially the latter since she threw out three suspects with basically no reason) are gunning for him doesn't bode well.

I'm out of here, but I'll be back sometime tomorrow before the vote.

Um, I'm not gunning for TH, though maybe I should :P . If anything, he's gunning for me. I have to say, I see nothing wrong with BR.

Long Con wrote:Hi everyone... I got off work over two hours ago, and now I have finally caught up on the thread.

Thanks FZ. for posting those links to Vompatti's past games, I'm glad that they have been analyzed by some, but I haven't gotten to them yet myself. It's getting late here so I won't be delving into that tonight. Tomorrow is my mom's birthday, and while my brother already took her to see Seinfeld live, I still have gotten NOTHING for her. So tomorrow morning is likely to prioritize that, before I go into work for 11:00. I'll be there for a few hours, after which I come home, and soon after, leave for my mom's. Birthday dinner, good times, etc.

What this means is that I'll have to vote early, and I just know some people I am not likely to vote for at this point, so I guess I'll share that list at least. Not ready to vote for Llama, at least until I look into the Vompatti thing, which I intend to do once I have a little more time. So that's on hold. Won't vote Vompatti either, just because Llama says so. Like I said, I like to see proof that the accusation is accurate when we're talking about past games. Now the evidence is there, just need to look into it.

Dom-MP has obviously been a thing. I agree with MP that Dom is the one that made it into a "thing", and that MP was asking a simple question that Dom reacted to with a lot of... reaction. So, if this turned into a lynch with only MP and Dom on it, I'd vote Dom.

What else is going on... BR is suspicious of TH, I'd have to look over that again. I think that a baddie BR is more likely to lay low than to come out with a hot accusation like that so early. So I'll look again at TH to see if she's on to something.

FZ. is still prickly to me, I've seen baddies in a recent game come after someone early on for a Day One thing like they have a good reason, but it turned out to be a baddie just trying to get someone not on their team lynched. It could be personal to me, since it was me she came after, but I can't help but feel that could be what's happening here. That said, I have a small reason to think that FZ. could be on the level, but I'm not sure how to address it yet.

I'll probably end up voting BWT. Kidding!

I'll have a look again at the BWT voters. It's a little hypocritical of me, since I would have voted for him as well, for the same reasons I am considering an FZ. vote. Baddies like bandwagons, but if a bandwagon is already happening, smarter baddies avoid it altogether and let the voters get themselves in hot water. Maybe that's where I'll look... people who avoided the BWT bandwagon.

Long Con wrote:Ok, so Spacedaisy voted for Lizzy after BWT had 4 votes. Dom voted for Rico after BWT had 5 votes, and A Person voted for himself as the final vote.

Baddies would know that BWT isn't on their team (duh) and that the odds are he's a Civvie. This: timmer (12), thellama73 (13), Turnip Head (14) is where BWT went from a single Day One vote to the 'person who's getting lynched'. So, before that time, it was up in the air, so a baddie might have been holding their vote in case of a need for a subtle rescue of one of their own. After, there was no more risk, so they could vote for who they like.

So Spacedaisy, Dom, and A Person have my eye coming from that angle.

I find myself agreeing a lot with these two posts, minus the part about me, of course. If someone came after me so strongly, and I knew I was a civ (if you really are), I would think they were trying too hard to look for something which in my mind would be bullshit. But in my defence I can only say that I truly believed what I said, and if it weren't for these last two posts, I would still be thinking that. Of course you can choose not to believe me.
By the way, if your reason to think I might be a civ is something that's been hinted here, then I'm sorry to say it wasn't me (wish it was, though).

Now, on to your other suggestions.
I agree that if there's a baddie in the MP-Dom thing, it's Dom, because he doesn't seem to let it go, and his reasons don't seem very justified in my opinion.

In regards to the second post and what other people say, I think that looking for the baddie in the voters for BWT at this stage is a stupid idea. Of course there can be one, but the likelihood of it is the same at best, if not lower, than there being one in those who voted differently. Assuming you could vote for anyone, and that few votes can cause a lynch, the only reason for a baddie to bandwagon is to save one from the team. Since apart from BWT, no one had more than 2 votes, that seemed redundant, therefore making it much easier to hide behind spread out votes
I really like your analysis here, and unlike the first day, I find this one very helpful.

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

So Dom, you still think MP is suspicious? Is he the person you'll vote for, or do you still plan to vote llama. In regards to llama, do you think he's trying to make vomp look bad on purpose, or that he's just wrong? It would be nice if you took a look at the links I supplied.

SVS, who is your top suspect at the moment?

thellama73 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:llama, did you see the links I posted? It's only Vomppati's posts, which we all know are not a lot, so it's worth looking at. Do you still think he's playing differently?
I will look at them now and get back to you.
That is a limited sample, FZ, but it confirms my feelings. Shawshank and WWE were both almost entirely off topic from him, and he was civvie in both. Are You Being Served was much more engaged and on topic. I think his play this game is more similar to Are You Being Served than to the other two.

I know it's a limited sample, but this was mostly what I was basing my impressions on. I still see some things that seem more alike in the AYBS game, but some things that I mentioned are there in both alignments, so I don't know.
LC, you asked for it, how about checking it out and telling me if you see a resemble to the baddie game more than to the two civvie games.

Also, at the moment, it feels to me like most people are not really bringing up any contenders for a lynch, but just asking us questions. All the people who are posting here, I want to know who your options for a lynch are...please

linki: too much posts

llama, did you see the links I posted? It's only Vomppati's posts, which we all know are not a lot, so it's worth looking at. Do you still think he's playing differently?

thellama73 wrote:
Long Con wrote: Can you list the games for us? Maybe someone else can do a read of them and analyze Vompatti's behaviour to see if they agree.
I'll list the games I played with him, but somehow I doubt it will be helpful.
Jobs
Masters of the Universe
Bioshock
Homestar Runner
The Hobbit
Fight Club

Side Missions
McGyver
Twin Peaks
The Shining - I hosted
Super Mario Bros.
Sherlock
Super Meat Boy
Shawshank Redemption
Film Noir - I co-hosted
Stanley Parable
Occultism - I hosted
Felt
Clue the Movie - I hosted
Oblique Strategies - I hosted

Special Games
Minimalism - I hosted
2013 Game of Champs

Actually, I just went to read his posts in a few games we've played together. The one he was a baddie in, like TH said, was "Are you being served" I was pleased to see that like I remembered, he was joking around (with me) about being a baddie, and also defended me from others who thought I was a baddie. Also, He had a lot of posts that were on topic.

Here's the link to his posts in that game http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 4&sr=posts

But, and there's a big "but", I then went and looked at his other games, and he voted for himself a couple of times, mostly on the first day. Then, the first game I looked at, where he was a civ, he barely had in topic posts, but in another game I checked, it was similar. Here are links to two:
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 7&sr=posts
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 8&sr=posts

So all in all, I think I just lost my conviction in his baddiness, which brings me back to square 1.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?
Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?
I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.
Four other people voted for BWT because they saw it fit and did not invoke doing so despite hating to vote for someone who won't be able to defend himself (anymore). No hypocrisy there, I believe.
I don't know if llama is bad, but this seems like a weird reason to go after him. Why would he say that if he meant that in the case of BWT and then go and vote for him? So either, he meant it in regards to other people, like he claims, or he's a really silly baddie doing something like this
I'm willing to bet the former of the two. I think llama's post about lynching undefendable players and his vote for BWT are unrelated.

But I would like llama (and you) to explain why you want to lynch vomps today.

I haven't played a lot of games with Vompatti, but I think about 4-5. In one of them he was bad, and his behaviour was different than his other games. This one reminds me of it for a few reasons:
1. He joked about suspecting himself, which is what he did in that game?
2. He posts more serious game related posts
3. He's more involved.
Now, others can tell me they've seen him do 2 and 3 no matter what alignment, but if I keep letting people tell me this every time I have a suspicion, I don't see much point in playing the game

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?
Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?
I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.
Four other people voted for BWT because they saw it fit and did not invoke doing so despite hating to vote for someone who won't be able to defend himself (anymore). No hypocrisy there, I believe.

I don't know if llama is bad, but this seems like a weird reason to go after him. Why would he say that if he meant that in the case of BWT and then go and vote for him? So either, he meant it in regards to other people, like he claims, or he's a really silly baddie doing something like this

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?
Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?
I don't want him to go after her. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in only calling me out on something other people did too. I don't think SVS is bad and I am still unsure about Rico.

I was actually teasing you

...sorry

thellama73 wrote:Also, SVS also said she doesn't like to vote for players who can't defend themselves and she was the first vote for BWT. Why not pick on her for a while?

Are you asking him to pick on SVS because you think she's bad? Do you think he's bad for selectively going after you and not her? Because you told him "You seem to think you have caught me in some kind of "gotcha" moment", which would mean you think he's genuine. If you don't think either is looking bad, why do you want him to go after her?

MovingPictures07 wrote:I thought I had already voiced my thoughts about Dom, but I realize there have been a lot of posts, so I will gladly clarify:

I had no real pings throughout D1 except for Dom, which is why I voted for him (and no one commented on this), because I thought:
1) The fact that he was drawing so many implications out of my question for his thoughts seemed even more overreactive than is what I would expect to be characteristic from him
2) The fact that, even though he had asked me and llama questions, he generally hadn't posted a ton in D1, so a voice in the back of my head was wondering if it wasn't a way to seem like he was being helpful, but wasn't putting forth any suspects of his own. Because, as you can see if you read back through his D1 posts, he never said he outright suspected anyone, by the time I had made my vote.

Now, I realize after:
1) Reflection over the fact that we may just be having a HUGE misunderstanding this entire time
2) Seeing as though we have one day's worth of vote history to base decisions off of, I feel there may be other avenues much more worth pursuing than sticking to some really weak ping I had on D1

That I don't really actively suspect Dom at this moment. I have no read on him either way, I think.

If you read this AND my response above and still don't understand something, then I can try again, but I feel like so many people just aren't understanding my explanations for my thoughts this game. Am I just being really unclear or what? And I'm not being emotional at all when I say or ask any of this; it's an honest question.

I get number 2 in the first list. Can you recall why Dom voted llama? Dom, can you answer it?
But basically you're saying that all this talk was a waste of time? :P
Which avenues do you feel are worth pursuing? I have to be honest. The thing that worries me about you is the fact that usually, you are more involved in the other discussions and is the first one to see my point of view. I haven't seen that so far this game, which makes me wonder. Basically, you've only focused on Dom and defended the rest.

Llama, the way it looks now, I'm with you. But we still have another day.

I guess I'm officially backing off from LC. SVS, I don't think it had anything to do with the play style on Ksite. It was more of a feel of how baddies hide their frustration while trying to look helpful, especially since one baddie team seems to not have much power. But since I seem to be the only one thinking this, and since it's taking away the attention from other players, we'll just move on. Maybe I'm off.

Vomp has gone back to posting jokes. Since the "why do you think I mind getting lynched" post, I think he only posted once or twice, OT and with a joking tone. I wonder if he's trying to go back to his usual MO because people called him out on it, or is it just him being him.

In all honesty, I don't get the Dom-MP back and forth. What's that all about?

And to answer whoever asked me, I wanted to go to sleep yesterday, and I wanted to know if we successfully lynched a baddie or not, before I turned in.

linki: MP and Dom, do you each suspect the other, or is this back and forth just for fun? If you are suspicious of one another, can you please sum up your reasons in a short post?

SVS, you asked why I had a problem with role analysis. I don't. I have a problem with LC's one. Period. Here it is again (below).

Give me one comment which made you actually think about things and somehow progressed the game. There is not one. And again, had I not said a thing, no one would have said a thing. Everyone just ignored that post because it basically said nothing. Now, if you're all going to tell me that his role analyses are never helpful, I might back off, but to me, the fact that it is not helpful combined with the fact he chose to focus on all the people who might turn out to be harder to lynch because they have BTSC or something like that and not on any role that is actually worth talking about, that comes very close to a baddie behaviour. And LC. I saw that you said you're done talking about it. I am only trying to get to the bottom of this. I'm sorry if it's pissing you off.

Long Con wrote:Well, since I'm on late at night, and not many people are around, I'll go through the roles and make some comments about them. That's always fun.

George Cukor wrote:American Director of Classic Comedies. Can target a player to reference a romantic comedy in each post they make.
Hilarious. Total window-dressing role, it doesn't affect the game too much. Perhaps we could increase this role's value to the Civs by having George target people he suspects.

Jean Luc Godard New Wave Director: Can send one message every day period to protege Truffaut.

François Truffaut New Wave Director: Can send one message every night period to mentor Godard.
Cool, limited BTSC. Between these guys and Tarantino and Rodriguez, we should have four Civs that are slightly more safe from lynching than the rest. These four are very valuable Civs.

Darren Aronofsky Another auteur who can find BTSC with David Lean using math, a common theme in his films.
Interesting. This role could probably benefit from some creative ways to use math, another BTSC Civ pair would be very useful.

Stanley Kubrick Realist, perfectionist director and genre hopper. He can once reshoot a day period.
This will annoy us at some point by delaying the progress, but at least it's a Civvie that we won't lynch.

Cecil B Demille Known for his flamboyant showmanship, he also successfully made the transition from silent to sound. Each night he searches for Howard Hawks. If he finds him, they gain BTSC.
Another opportunity to strengthen the Civs. It would be nice to be able to devise a way to help him find Howard, but I don't know any way that wouldn't simultaneously put Howard in grave danger.

[Orson Welles Excess and the demise of Don Quixote left the former prodigy weak. However, in his early days, he is stronger. For the first 5 votes, his vote will count as 2. And 0 thereafter.
Unfortunate, because it's in the mid to late game that the extra votes really start to make more of a difference.

Ingmar Bergman Evocative Swedish film director who often had religion as a theme in his films. May grant amnesty to a player 3x, which will result in his/her removal from the lynch that day.
Is this something that gets used the night before? Or can Ingmar remove someone from the poll mid-day?

Mafia - The Brotherhood (BTSC). Odd Night Kill.

Coen Bros. Jewish brothers who often use the same actors in their films. Can call upon the Golem to protect a player.

Duplass Bros. Mumblecore creators. Inspired by Cassavetes, their super-realism shows the nuances of every day life.

Wachowskis. Siblings known for their multi-part storytelling.
These baddie teams are somewhat weak, unless there are secrets, it looks like Duplass and Wachowski are pretty vanilla. And these guys seem to have the only protector role in the game, will they protect only themselves, or try to protect someone else to push suspicion on them? Probably the latter in earlier game, and the latter, later.

Mafia - The Hacks (BTSC). Even Night Kill.

Michael Bay Known for explosions over plot, this director, can distract civs and turn their minds off (role block).

Uwe Boll Known for video game adaptations, he can twice lock the thread when his work gets criticized.

Roland Emmerich Natural disaster movie guru, his over the top films do not garner much critical acclaim.
A roleblock and a thread-locker. Thread locking seems really annoying. What does it mean, no one can post until the Day or Night is over? I think it would take some skill to do this at the right time to gain a baddie advantage.

Looks like it's going to be, as advertised, mostly a down-to-earth straight-up Mafia game with few surprise angles from the roles... but the number of events may shake that up. Prizes and results of events could be the real bread and butter of this game, with the team that wins gaining a real advantage.

Roxy wrote:Thank goodness for do-overs! At least we have had some discussion so we have something to look back upon. I don't necessarily find SVS suspicious for her vote but I am interested to hear her thoughts on her followers Timmer, llama, TH and FZ.

I screwed up, I'm the first to admit it, but what on earth would I gain by voting a civ that already seemed to have the most votes, when instead I could just vote for one of the people who I found more suspicious but didn't look like they were at risk of being lynched? Nothing but looking bad.

Long Con wrote:Sorry for missing the original vote, Black Rock and I were putting together a bunk bed and it took a long time, and I guess I'm used to the later deadline from the Champions game. I promise it won't become a problem.

I would have either voted for BWT with the crowd, or voted for FZ. Pretty much because they were, deliberately or not, reading me in a negative light where no such light was necessary. For the cross-game record, when I do a role analysis, I try to find ways to help the Civvies. I do it as a Civvie, a baddie, or an Indy. It just makes sense... as a Civvie, I want to help the Civvies. As a baddie, I want to seem like I'm helping the Civvies. The analysis part probably looks the same either way. I don't do it for cred, I do it because I enjoy doing it, and it can be helpful and fun to try and maximize the Civvie roles' power from the get-go.

How exactly did you maximize the civvie's powers with that analysis, I fail to see. If you're a civ, I apologize for going after you, but what exactly did you say in that post that none of us could read on their own?

What just happened? Are we doing the day again?

Crap!

Can we please get the results ASAP?

Search found 61 matches