The Syndicate

Marshy's point about Bass doesn't read like he (Bass) is contradicting himself there. I see how you can not understand the votes for a player while still not being suspicious of said voters.

Ricochet wrote:??

Turnip Head wrote:So Rico you don't think Llama's suspicion of Vomp is genuine? Or is there something more to it than that.

I have to decide, basically, if I do or don't, especially based on his full input (explanation), which I haven't fully processed. I don't think I can be more clearer than that at 3am, so apologies if confusion persists.

But why are you limiting yourself to this one case when you don't have a strong opinion on it? Are you not tempted to pursue other avenues of suspicion if this one hasn't led you anywhere yet?

I'm trying to get clarification on that point as well.

thellama73 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Linki 3: What?

What?

Huh?

Eh?

So Rico you don't think Llama's suspicion of Vomp is genuine? Or is there something more to it than that.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Linki 3: What?

What?

thellama73 wrote:

thellama73 wrote: I will gladly explain why I want to vote for Vomps. Basically, I just think I am seeing his baddie game. He's more engaged than he usually is, and more on topic. He reacted to my suspicion of him when I was the only one even talking about a vote for him, and in my experience, a civ Vomps would have been unfazed by that and ignored it. Then, he started trying to buddy up to me, calling me the epitome of a helpful civ.

I went back to look into this and I think Vomps was ribbing you with the "epitome of a helpful civ" comment, since you were attacking him and he said he was suspicious of himself too.

Again this obviously doesn't look good for Vomp when he says stuff like this, but I really think he's just being goofy and I don't think it means he's bad.

Ricochet wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Rico who are you looking at today buddy?

I think the only rehashed cases today were Vomp/Llama and MP/Dom. I hope they won't take this the wrong way, but I've done poorly to follow any of the banter with the latter. That only leaves Llama's case on Vompatti, on which I already welcomed his input and... well, I don't know if we can expect too much serious defence from Vompatti. I truly want to give my first responsible vote on this matter.

Interesting, and thanks... but I wanted to know who you were looking at, not what you thought of the cases by others.

Rico who are you looking at today buddy?

Tune, not time. D'oh.

Fair enough Canuck, that's valid. I feel I have committed to: not suspecting LC for his list, Vomp for his Vompiness, or MP/Dom for their knack to talk in circles around one another. But other than that I haven't had strong convictions about anything, and that's simply a reflection of where we are in the game right now. As we get further into it I have a feeling you might change your time about my noncommittallness, because I guarantee that any convictions I have will bubble up to the surface soon enough.

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 was baddies with Vomp in Are You Being Served, and I didn't feel that Vomp was particularly engaged in that game (nor was I for that matter). Can you point to specifics? He got lynched on Day 2 in that game, so again it's a limited sample size.

What have I been noncommittal about Canuck? And do you feel that noncommittalness is baddie behavior?

You say you don't want to rehash the Dom thing anymore MP, and even said you don't suspect him, and yet you seem to expect that someone else should find his behavior suspicious. Why is that?

Canuck, just digging that the discussion is happening, as opposed to being quiet right up until lynch. People are actually playing instead of... not playing. It will be useful to be able to reexamine the early discussion as we get deeper into the game.

Canucklehead wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Wow, somehow I missed linkitis where a few other people agreed re: BWT, so the vote isn't as spread out anymore. Still casting my vote there, but I'm a bit wary of the quick support it garnered. I guess that includes me though...

TH (you beautiful human, you): did you read the previous pages before you voted? Or were you doing a quick catch-up/skim through kind of thing? I ask because, iirc, the fact that votes were unchangable was adressed both by MM's self-vote (which he realized afterwards he couldn't change) and llama's explicit question to the host (which MM answered for her). Did you miss these posts?

Yes, yes I definitely missed those posts. I don't think I would have ended up changing my vote, but when I cast it I definitely thought I had the option. It's been the norm for so many games now that I didn't even think twice about it.

I was going to be looking at FZ today but she's backed off of LC which gives me pause when suspecting her. I felt her vote for BWT was disingenuous as it seemed she was more suspicious of LC and Vomp but voted BWT anyway. Something about FZ feels off to me so far but I don't know enough about her baddie game to know if what I'm seeing is correct. I know she has explained her BWT vote but it still sticks out to me.

Other than that I still don't feel I have enough to go on. The MP/Dom exchange reads like the screenplay for Cloud Atlas: long, meandering and pointless. The Vomp suspicion doesn't resonate with me because he seems normal.

Does anyone want to talk about Rico's Day 1 vote? I believe he was the only player to randomize, and I was under the impression this was his first mafia game. Day 1 randomizing has become somewhat standard around here but it felt too savvy a move for a new player to make especially since he was the only one to do it.

That's all that really stood out to me though I'm digging all the discussion we've got going so far.

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.

You seemed way more suspicious of LC and Vomps though. Who cares if there's no point in voting anyone else? That's never stopped you before from voting your biggest suspicion

I didn't realize voters weren't changeable this game.

^^ That was in reply to FZ's post. I'm missing linki all over the place

No, I see your point, I just don't agree with it. Maybe I need to read his analysis again, but I just didn't get that vibe from it at all. You could be right. I just don't see it yet.

Re: Vomp, I remember the game you're talking about, I was baddies with him in that game (it was Are You Being Served). But I've seen Vomps say and do things like that plenty enough times as a civ and a baddie that I can't put too much weight into it, especially this early in the game.

FZ. wrote:While I see the point in the votes for BWT, because his last post did seem like he wanted a reason to vote LC, I don't see how LC's response felt genuine. Can anyone explain it? And I don't get why people are not more suspicious of Vomps. So I guess I'm between these three. Any response would be appreciated.

FZ, I have played a game with LC where he laid out an analysis of all the roles like that, and we lynched him on Day 1, and he was a civ. I see what you're saying, about how his post could be baddie-tinged ambivalence toward civvie power, but that's not how I interpreted his post, and he's felt like normal LC to me so far.

I also don't really see why I should be suspicious of Vomps just because of his off topic chattiness. Is there something else about him that sticks out to you? What am I not "getting"?

Wow, somehow I missed linkitis where a few other people agreed re: BWT, so the vote isn't as spread out anymore. Still casting my vote there, but I'm a bit wary of the quick support it garnered. I guess that includes me though...

The vote is hella spread out so far. The only thing I agree with so far was SVS's analysis of Birdy's vote for LC. Seemed like BWT was intent on voting for Con regardless of Con's response. DFaraday just did something similar as a baddie on Day 1 in the Champions game, so my vote will likely go to BWT for what feels like a drummed up vote.

I'll cast my vote now, but I'll be around til deadline to see what happens with the remaining votes, because I don't like how spread out it is.

*votes Birdo*

The cases on Llama, Con and Sir Vomps-a-Lot have been examined, and they have been found wanting. In addition, I have found nothing during my reading of the Day's events that seemed noteworthy or suspicious of any sort to me. I am at a loss for where to place my vote today.

It might have to be Soderbergh for me. He is a cinematic chameleon, he seems to reinvent himself with each project.

Also I think there might be an error on the poll. Steven Spielberg is on there twice, and the second time his name is misspelled as "J.J. Abrams".