The Syndicate

I was clearly just speculating.

No I am not, so you can put but that smiley face back in PassiveAggressivesville where he came from. I know that civvies and baddies alike can easily rationalize a vote for me today. That's why I've basically thrown in the towel.

Seems like you're trying to push my buttons, MM.

I'm saying that the info that those roles obtain can be misinterpreted... what did you think I meant?

I don't know MM. I'm lost as fuck. I honestly don't mind being lynched today... As a civvie, this game has been a miserable existence. (Not that I haven't enjoyed it immensely Mongoose, because I have!) Being lynched would validate my thoughts on voting records, for one. It would also be a fun exercise in how discovery roles can be healthy for the game because of how easily they can be misinterpreted.

Your impression that I'm trying to turn the tables is wrong, I'm not pulling a Jane Southworth here. I don't think BWT is bad. The point I was trying to make is that if you took his voting record in a vacuum, as he has done for me, his looks as bad as mine does, confirmed civ status notwithstanding.

And I'm afraid I was forced to jump to conclusions. Here I am, a civvie, and the confirmed civ with (potentially) role-deducing powers makes what by all rights reads like an infodumpy post on me. I have no choice but to try and figure out what's happening

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Or are you talking about your earlier one?

I was talking about my earlier one, but your thoughts on both would be cool too

So you haven't even read it?

Also, what does everyone think of my response to BWT's case? Nobody even commented on it

I guess BWT's vote could also be forced, maybe an Emmerich thing? That's another possibility for sure.

Dom wrote:TH-- "See, there you go BWT, looking simply at voting records and not at all looking at the context those votes were made in." was the first thing you said upon BWT's case against you. You then said nothing until SVS pointed out how poopy of a response that was. Why so dismissive?

SVS said something only moments after my initial post. I always meant to respond properly to BWT's case, and as I alluded to in my next reply to SVS, I was just waiting until I could get home to do so. Dismissive because the case is baloney.

Ricochet wrote:Not sure I fully understand how BWT's role could help him find out info about certain players, either. Doesn't he simply adopt a power from the roles still active, without finding out who is using it?

I should probably ask about this to find out for sure, but my understanding is that he targets a player and then gets to use that player's power? Maybe that's wrong.

Ricochet wrote:Thanks for your input, BTW, btw (nice anagramming, there). If voting record is the main criteria, then I would agree TH is worth re-reading (and will do that myself) and that his remark on voting record being pointless till the point of nailing a baddie pinged me, too. However, if the voting record is the main criteria, then I also think BR and Dom are worth re-reading. What to make, however, off the case TH's built on Made? Yesterday many felt it was compelling. Does a baddie TH usually make a more purposefully convincing hunt than a civvie TH?

Thank you Rico for taking to time to think through your thoughts about me. Not something I see anybody else doing, so it's refreshing.

Canucklehead wrote:Perhaps unsurprisingly

Perhaps indeed I can't make heads or tails of you this game Canuck, I'm lost as fuck, just a turnip down on his luck. But it's quite the caper you pulled with me this game. You have clung to suspicion of me from the very get go, but you haven't said why you're suspicious of me since Day 1. You've echoed your own thoughts from Day 1 re: me, but never bringing up any new points. So whether you're bad or civ, I'm positive you are relishing this opportunity to lynch your dear old pal

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I did because your voting record is incriminating. And then you jump in and say we shouldn't look at voting records because we haven't lynched a baddie??? I don't understand that logic. I think you can still gather useful info from looking at 5 days' worth of voting records.

BWT, ALL of our voting records are incriminating. We have all voted for civilians, and none of us have helped lynch baddies. Do you see that that's my point? That you could make any individual's voting record look bad at this point? You yourself have thrown away your vote onto Ricochet every single lynch until today. Couldn't someone make a case that your voting pattern looks bad, like you've done here for mine? Until we lynch baddies, we don't have enough context. The irony is real.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:That was way different. In that game, I made a case, but made it incredibly obvious it was based off of info I had gotten in a PM from the host on a previous night. If you feel like it came out of nowhere, it's because I spent almost 6 hours yesterday reading up on you and several other people I've been wondering about. So yeah, re-reading that much in a mafia game might change my mind a bit.

The circumstances might have been different but the end result is the same. You posted your case on me like 5 minutes into the Day phase, voted for me right off the bat in a game where we can't change votes, didn't wait to hear my response or anything, after having NEVER brought up my name before this... in a game where your role is outted thread info... my mind immediately went to certain conclusions as to what you could be doing. I'm sure the baddies' did as well. That's why this is so brilliant. All the baddies can hop on this bandwagon guilt-free. I wonder why no one's defending me?

Yeah but he must have somehow made some wrong conclusions along the way because I'm not bad.

Anyways this reminds me of the infodump post that BWT made (as a sock account) against k4j in the X-men game, so I'm pretty sure he thinks he knows something about my role (because this comes out of nowhere)... but he would be wrong to think it.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Day 1 Part 2: Votes MP. Says it's because of his "maximum frustration", but suggests "something really feels off about you here". Mentions AP and Vomps as well as potential vote-getters.

I never mentioned considering a vote for Vomps or AP. That's just not true. It's even in one of the quotes you put in your post:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:TH: You still around? Who are you voting for?

I'm thinking MP but I'm not feeling 100% about it. But I don't think the cases on Vomp or AP are very strong.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Day 2 Vote: Votes Made. Says he wants "the real story" for his Day 1 part 2 vote. I won't pull all the quotes (feel free to go back and examine them yourselves), but it really feels like a good opportunity to throw away one's vote here.

I voted for Made because, after mulling over an MP vote all day, he came into the thread with a really genuine sounding defense that made me not want to vote him. I wasn't trying to throw away my vote like you claim. I explicitly tried to start a counterbandwagon because I suddenly found myself not wanting MP lynched. Nobody joined my vote, so I guess looking only at voting records makes it look like a "throwaway vote" eh? But my explanation here is all stuff I said in the thread, so I don't know why you're ignore those relevant quotes.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Day 4 Vote: Votes Roxy. But wait. I thought you said the whole Roxy vs. llama thing was civ vs. civ?

Yes, I said her argument with Llama sounded like civ vs civ to me. But as it came down to the end of the lynch I ended up being the only one left to vote and there were three people tied with the lead in votes: MM, Bloops, and Roxy. Upon rereading I really wasn't feeling an MM or Blooper vote, and I saw a few small things in some of Roy's posts that reminded me of her baddie game, and so out of the three of them I chose Roxy.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:But this here is the real nail in the coffin for me:

Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Timmer hope your hand feels better.

MM, we cannot look at voting patterns, we cannot look at who voted for civvies, because we haven't lynched a baddie yet. So none of those data points have enough context. That is why it's so important we get a baddie, like RIGHT NOW. Otherwise we will be flailing around aimlessly all game until one by one we're all put out of our misery.

With everything I've gone back and read, this translates IMO to: We can't look at voting patterns. Because it will reveal that I have a not-so-good one. Including 2 obvious throw-away votes.

Translate it however you want BWT, but I stand by my philosophy that voting records are useless without lynched baddies, I've said it before in other games. You can design a narrative around practically any vote at this point. You made up your own narrative of my votes, so that definitely proves my theory

I can respond more thoroughly when I get home.

See, there you go BWT, looking simply at voting records and not at all looking at the context those votes were made in.

Rest in peace Llama I'll miss you you crazy bastard.

Holy crap how did I forget about Jurassic World. GIMME NOW PLEASE

I might be looking forward to Pitch Perfect 2 the most out of these. Where is Hot Tub Time Machine 2?!?!?!

Very hesitantly looking forward to Star Wars 7... please JJ, don't screw this up any worse than George already did.

I'm any case , what would that short lost look like? I feel like we'd have to exclude SVS, as she was one of the players with a vote. MP is dead, Llama and Daisy expressed confusion about the locked thread, suppose that could have been part of the ploy. Roxy has mod powers in the speed game but would they work here?

It's possible Canuck, but idk. I've never heard of a role that could carry out its own actions without the host being a middleman. And it also assumes that Mongoose didn't randomize roles.

I have my own questions about how Uwe's power works. It says "May lock the thread when his work gets criticized." Does that mean there's specific conditions that must be met for the ability to activate, i.e. he garners suspicion? Or is it just flavor to justify the role's power, and he may use it whenever he wants?

Yeah I agree BR, maybe a host post to confirm the thread lock would have helped our mods out here. Like half the players in this game have mod powers lol.

Well that was some craziness. Rest in peace Made. Shit.

Yikes, this poll ends at 9:30am on the west coast. What's the over/under on the # of missing votes? I'ma say 6.

Made, bro. I have questions. I'm going to have to channel MP for a bit here because I've got lots to say.

Made wrote:

Dom wrote:TH are you seeing baddie svs?

Personally I think I am. I elaborated on this previous, so check my post history or ask for repost. Opinions since then have not since changed.

I went back through your posts to look for this, and was shocked at how little is actually there. You have two posts in the game which explore your own thoughts on SVS, both from Day 3. The quotes:

Made wrote:Llama, you of all people know how easily it is to get close to a lynch multiple days in a row as a civvie. For a sus Vomp, I'd need to see blantant support of a teammate. this ofcourse being the reason I'm looking into SVS.....speaking of which....

Just finished reading her, and tell me (everyone) what you think about this: It just be my shitty luck of getting a ton of baddie games in a row, but SVS seems to be playing "Better" than usual. Like don't get me wrong, SVS is an amazing player, but like the reason that i often don't suspect her or think about her is because she seems to sandbag. Like her cases aren't super solid, but the case again Bwt, and jabs on Rico are focused and on point.

Also, tangent, the awesome thing about trust you Llama is i can tell you in thread and not worry about you getting Nked because you're you.

Made wrote:And I just thought of the perfect comparison for how SVS is acting this game: She's playing like how she did in Monty python. While on the surface, that's not damning because she was technically neutral in that game, but it's noteworthy that she said in the post game that she was attempting to draw a night kill that game. Maybe baddie team /w Gollum protection?

In the first post, you say you're looking at SVS because she has defended Vomp... who it seems you weren't suspicious of if I'm reading this right. Looks like if you DID suspect him, it was due to a connection to SVS. That connection has been debunked, but as you've said above, your thoughts on SVS have not changed.

You accuse SVS of playing "better" than usual. You say her cases are on point, and cite this as cause for suspicion. It's an impossible suspicion for SVS to defend against IMO. You're accusing her of playing "better" directly after she had very conspicuously helped to lynch 2 civvies (this is Day 3, remember). And yet, you say your thoughts on her have not changed. Also, what's up with the part where you qualify your opinion of SVS by citing your streak of baddies roles? Has that streak continued into this game, or...? I don't understand what you were getting at by bringing that up, it seems to have no bearing on anything that's said before or after it. So for now it pings me simply because it's so left field.

In your second post, you come up with a crazy theory that SVS is a baddie trying to get targeted by the other baddie team so that she can protect herself. This looks like blatant suspicion mongering to me because of how flimsy the premise is. I get the impression you'll say anything if you think it could plant seeds of suspicion in people's heads.

This is all I could find in your posts that explore your suspicion of SVS. In recent days you spent far more breath/keystrokes, on arguing that LLAMA should be gunning for SVS, even though it seemed clear Llama didn't want to pursue that after the Vomp lynch. You continuously belabored this point for some reason. To really spell this out, this is how it looks to me: Pre-Vomps lynch, you explored suspicions of SVS/Vomp in relation to each other. Post-Vomps lynch, you explore LLAMA's suspicion of SVS bereft of the Vomp connection. That's the kind of switch in tactics that I see coming from the baddies' camp, not from a civ.

As a parting thought, while going through Made's posts, one post from Day 1 in particular stood out to me. Early in the Day phase, Llama made a list of everybody in the game with his thoughts on each one attached. Made piggybacked off of it, as you can see here. Of particular interest to me are Made's entries on FZ and Llama, and how different those two are from Made's entries on the rest of the players in the game.

Have you finished reading that list? Good, here's my conclusions from it. In light of all that's happened, I think Made might be on the team that killed FZ: look how easily Made gives her a pass in his list, while putting "no read" next to virtually every other player. I think he might have killed FZ to push Llama further toward a Vomps lynch, and after that I think Made turned on Llama to try and pit him against SVS in the aftermath. Look at how quickly he buddied up to Llama in that entry, while still leaving himself an out to suspect Llama in the future. Which is... exactly what Made did.

I encourage everyone to do a chronological read-through of Made's posts, because I'm seeing baddie intentions hidden underneath just about everything he's written. If we're looking for a baddie who took advantage of the Vomp suspicion in order to cause infighting and mayhem amongst the players who suspected him, then I believe Made fits that profile, almost to a tee.

I now see that you could have meant you'll vote MM and not me, but it wasn't clear.

Linki. What? Sure. That doesn't answer my question though, I was talking about the vote part.

thellama73 wrote:I still want to reread TH and MM before the lynch (been crazy busy at work) but I would not be surprised if I voted for him tomorrow.

Why? The last thing you said about me re: alignment is that I'm probably a civ, and you haven't reread me yet apparently, so I'm super curious.

I suppose we could do that LC but again I fear it would just lead to some wrong conclusions. I guess I shouldn't say that voting records are downright worthless atm, but those records will become exponentially more useful with a baddie lynch under our belts.

No Dom I don't think that I am. You?

What changed for you, BR?

I don't suspect Roxy for defending Vomp, Rico. Hell I defended Vomps myself. SVS said that Roxy doesn't bother defending players when she's bad, and I disagree with that notion.

I remember Roxy's response to MM, but I still feel like we're missing a more complete reaction from her. Frankly I expected her to get on my case a bit for putting the final vote on her, or even ask me WHY I voted for her, but we didn't get much. Not even a "rip blooper but DAMN I'm lucky to be alive". It just made me think that her reaction was reserved for BTSC conversations.

As for why I don't think voting records matter yet... We haven't caught a baddie yet, so we can't argue that any votes were cast to save teammates. People tried to apply this logic on Day 2 and 3 and it resulted in the lynching of two civs. Analyzing voting records at this point will lead to all sorts of wrong conclusions and already has. We need to lynch a baddie before voting records will mean anything. If there's a certain vote that piques your interest or feels out of place, I'm all ears, but voting records in general just don't mean much yet.

Because everyone's opinion has value regardless of whether others agree with it or listen to it. It is important to know what people think and why they think it. Do you disagree?

I have to go back to work, too, so you two can carry on feeling like the rest of the thread is trying to crucify you

Llama, stop it. You hold your opinion higher than anyone else's. And when we don't listen to you, you scold us. Yet when people ask for your opinion, you act as if it shouldn't matter.

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:SVS all I'm trying to do is have a discussion about a player in the game. I did not ask that you "reread through entire games in order to disagree with me" nor was it implied. I don't care if you agree or disagree. My post was for the entire thread to read, not just you. You stated your opinion and now I have stated mine.

But YOU do seem to care, you have gone through great lengths to refute my argument.

And you are starting to sound kinda annoyed. But my break is over anyhow, back to work for me. Carry on

I am kind of annoyed because I feel you have the wrong takeaways from my posts.

I have not gone to great lengths simply to refute your argument. I went to great lengths to get a better grasp on a player I suspect in the game. The fact that my findings refuted your argument, as opposed to confirming it, is inconsequential. I didn't go into it with the idea of "Ooooooh boy I can make SVS sound wrong!", which you seem to think was my intention.

And I am not just discussing "your opinion", I am discussing "Roxy". You have discussed Roxy, so you are part of the discussion.

SVS all I'm trying to do is have a discussion about a player in the game. I did not ask that you "reread through entire games in order to disagree with me" nor was it implied. I don't care if you agree or disagree. My post was for the entire thread to read, not just you. You stated your opinion and now I have stated mine.

S~V~S wrote:I mean that she would not have bothered day fending him either unless she was sure he was civ. And she would have had no way of knowing that.

S~V~S wrote:I could be wrong, but this is something she and I have in common when civ. I honestly do not think she would have bothered to defend Vomps. I think she would have voted for him.

I remember one game where Roxy was a baddie in a two-mafia setup, 3 baddies on each team, very similar to this game: TV Show Mafia on RM. I just went back and reread all of Roxy's posts from that game, and I must disagree with your opinion that Roxy doesn't defend other players when she's a baddie. She did it multiple times in that game. She also did NOT hop on bandwagons just to blend in; if anything she did the opposite.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:If you are suggesting what I think you are, I don't think Roxy would even entertain voting for vomps at all. Multiple times on Days 1 and 2, she set herself up for possibly voting vomps. This being the obvious one.

I'm not understanding your conclusion in regards to the Roxy post that you quoted. Can you clarify what you're saying here?

S~V~S wrote:I could be wrong, but this is something she and I have in common when civ.

Wait, what exactly are you saying that you have in common with Roxy here, SVS? That you guys both defend people you think are civs when you're civs?

I don't suspect MM, but I don't have any solid reasons why. In my opinion this doesn't resemble his baddie game, and I don't have much experience with his civ game, so that makes me think this is it.

I need to consider what you're saying about Roxy. I haven't ever picked up on that trend you mention. You're saying she doesn't defend other players when she's bad, which makes me want to look into whether that's true or not.

Rest in peace Timmer hope your hand feels better.

MM, we cannot look at voting patterns, we cannot look at who voted for civvies, because we haven't lynched a baddie yet. So none of those data points have enough context. That is why it's so important we get a baddie, like RIGHT NOW. Otherwise we will be flailing around aimlessly all game until one by one we're all put out of our misery.

I have to admit I'm a little perturbed at how Roxy handled this past lynch. She should have been lynched and obviously wasn't, and I think a good chunk of us have an idea as to why, but I still find it odd that Roxy basically had no reaction to that lynch. It makes me think that her reaction played out behind the scenes rather than in the thread. I also don't agree with SVS's opinion that a baddie Roxy would have voted to lynch Vomps, because wasn't Roxy defending Vomp? So why would she vote for him, civ or scum?

Dom wrote:It's been forty eight hours, has it not?

Closer to 72

There was one ages ago on The Piano that Lorab and splintsy hosted.

Oh man that Swedish Chef insanifier was hilarious

My eyes are bleeding

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

Made wrote:TLDR: Llama is shifty because he suspected a Squid before SVS or Roxy.

Made wrote:RE: MM The thing is tho, he had other option. Why create a new case when he still had one? I'd look specifically at Roxy and SVS as the cart before Llama, the wagon.

But I thought you said you didn't suspect Llama/ you don't think we should lynch him... so what are you going on about here? You seem to feel strongly about this but I can't figure out why.

Um. That is not who I voted for.

Rest in peace Bloops