The Syndicate

Is this what a three-day (or possibly more) Night is doing to players?

No sign from Mongoose? Long night this is gonna be, if she'll be offline until Monday...

Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Yes, but what is that sufficient suspicion more specifically?
What are you getting at?

I'm not getting at anything. I only asked your reason for (very likely) sticking with voting Roxy, much like I asked MM the same thing.

Yes, but what is that sufficient suspicion more specifically?

Catching up a bit...

The case on Llama oscillates too much right now, IMO, between seeking an easy lynch in reaction for the past two ones and a tricky gamble that he'd actually be bad. I'd be surprised for him to be the orchestrator of all that's happened. Has he exhibited in past games such a tactic of leading hunts decisively, but turning out to have been a grand manipulator?

I said I didn't like his reevaluation after the Vomps flop - because he didn't reevaluate much at all - but I just felt it was misguided. On the bright side, just like MM, I too have an idea of how BWT's rezz might have happened. I also have an idea of how Blooper's lynch might have happened, outside the poll tally, but curiously, in case it's a power we're talking about, it'd be a civilian-esque one, so the lynch would still stand as simply unfortunate. The only thing that pinged me from today's conversation is that he sort of did exactly what he blamed Roxy for doing, days ago: being suddenly overdefensive about what his gameplay, in a manner of stating that players would want him now to stop chasing baddies, without anyone actually saying they'd want him to do that.

No eager to jump to conclusions, so far.

MM, why are you decided to vote for Roxy again? BR, why do you reckon Roxy is still your "best guess"?

Made wrote:huh...permission to strong arm this game and lead a lynch on someone? I mean, I know my own alignment, so i might be kinda good at it.

also, I'm kinda just asking permission as a formality, I'm pretty sure I know where my vote is going tomorrow....

What do you mean? It's the night phase until tomorrow.

Hostess forgot to switch the title from Day to Night again.

RIP Blooper.

I'm sorry I missed the vote. I guess staying late the past days (mafia-related or not) had its effect, because I detached from the game after making my summary, watched a movie and fell asleep to it.

Seems like another power or prize power decided the outcome of the lynch, despite the tally. But the poll was tight as hell and not all votes were fully committed, so there's much to analyze.

Contrary to Llama, I think the Best Picture crop is pretty deplorable. Birdman and GBH have no chance to win it, but they're also not my idea of a Best Picture. But I guess I'll go with Birdman, simply as a preference. Boyhood took 12 years to make, though, so... (amirite AP?).

I have one week left to finish writing a project for a workshop application and so far I've done very poorly at concentrating on that and playing Mafia at the same time. So I'm quite pleased the following Nights and Days will be extended to 48/72 and my presence here may be more infrequent during this period.

I went back over the Vomps lynches. LC, Made were most critical of Voopy's gameplay and voted accordingly; Canuck explained her vote, although it was more of a "let's see what happens". Bass and Faraday were pretty noncommital - the latter was slightly critical of Voopy's gameplay, but I can also see Bass strongly following other leads and having just gone with the lynch. Dom and BR stand the worst, imo, with no backing up of their vote. Dom also didn't think Vomps was bad, initially, but switched to it after MP's lynch. He also rather went off the radar after his quarell with MP and MP's lynch, but maybe others can explain better why that is.

I'm torn with Blooper, right now. Given the general context and timing of her activity, she wasn't here enough time to fully sound committed, but stayed consistent with her voting. Then again, others (especially Canuck) are already making good counterpoints regarding this style.

If Vomps would have flipped bad, then my top suspects would have been Roxy and MM with their D3 quarell. But with Vomps a victim, Roxy looks better now - her over-defensiveness withstanding or not - and even the better Vomps defender. MM didn't adhere to Vomps' lynching either, but he still pushed MP's lynch significantly that day- his lynch count is thus 1-2 (defended AP, Vomps, but influenced MP's lynch). I'm not entirely sure how to read him: he's active, he's feisty, he defends some and attacks others and usually gets the same amount of heat for this from different players. Not decided if he's "slithery" because of this, but definitely more wary of him.

So I still have to ponder a bit who to go with in the remaining hours.

Llama, you don't have to hand out verdicts if you don't want to, but why do you feel the 10 other Vompy lynchers are not really worth looking into?

Dom wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Dom wrote:
thellama73 wrote:In Richochet's defense, I also raised an eyebrow at Dom's "hmm." Not the enthusiastic welcome back I would have expected from a civ, but possibly the sign of annoyance and confusion at a civ who refuses to die properly.
Did I do so when my kills did not die in other games?

Is that characteristic of me?
Or are you looking for something where nothing is?
Why would we need to check back previous games for this? Given how typical and casual death/kill/rezz reactions are (intentionally or not), anything outside the norm is, as I've said, open to interpretation.

Dom wrote:
Ricochet wrote:RL busyness has interfered with me being able to look into many things, at least today.

The evil eye (I see it more as a stink eye, tbh) I gave Dom was about his curious reaction to BWT's resurrection. Kinda like Llama felt, too. It felt very open to interpretation. Now I'm getting heat for doing that. When Dom gave me the stink eye for something as accidental as messing up Canuck's gender and I needed BTSC to correct something like that, nobody cared (or even endorsed that). Nothing further to add.
Read: Lynch Dom not me.

The two situations are no where near equivalent.
Nor have I stated intentions to vote you.

Your statement, however, does make me think you don't like me watching you.

MetalMarsh, Marshy, my main Lucy---

Who do you want to lynch and why?
Context or our use of the eye may not be equivalent, but people's reaction to it is. I'm still having to defend, days later, a trivial mistake because, to paraphrase you, you seriously saw "something where nothing is". Instead, I'm suspicious on my suspicion of your reaction.

I have no stated any intentions to vote you either.
If it's not characteristic of me to express disappointment in the thread (who the hell would do this?), then why would you interpret this as such? Do you know what I normally post?

Again, it's not so much what's characteristic of you, but what stood out as uncharacteristic from all the reactions, in that moment.

thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:As I've said, I find it llama's solution to focus on third party and most consistent voters, after Vomps' lynch, highly undesirable, considering that, excluding myself and Blooper as the latter category & BWT as the immortal king of civs, there are 10 other people who contributed to that lynch. As always, I can't say this would necessarily shout baddie from Llama, but it could well be another misguided path he's following.

Actually, I might do this, in the time I'll have left: look back myself and try to filter through the Vomps lyncher. And I'll also reread MM and Made, since SVS asked.
My initial focus was on the third parties, but after doing my reread I found Blooper, a Vomps voter, more suspicious than any of them.

And more than any of the 10 other lynchers? Or, better yet, what do you think about the 10 other lynchers?

As I've said, I find it llama's solution to focus on third party and most consistent voters, after Vomps' lynch, highly undesirable, considering that, excluding myself and Blooper as the latter category & BWT as the immortal king of civs, there are 10 other people who contributed to that lynch. As always, I can't say this would necessarily shout baddie from Llama, but it could well be another misguided path he's following.

Actually, I might do this, in the time I'll have left: look back myself and try to filter through the Vomps lyncher. And I'll also reread MM and Made, since SVS asked.

Last line in OT color, actually.*

I realize that and I can also acknowledge how players will opt to fill with doubt, distrust and suspicion the facts or statements of a player. But this is exactly what puts me in a rather dispiriting position - and a slightly defenseless one, too - given that I don't have anything to hide there, but also not really not much else to plead for, really, besides facts (that I for one see as clear). My intentions in those two situations have honestly been good or neutral at best, yet they are ripe for interpretations from anyone.

I didn't really want to imply that I'm really feeling hurt by this (hence the OT), it's just what I said: there's a hopelessness I feel in being hooked, for days already, with the same thing, while all my reasoning for it (which I find I've been consistent in) appears to be in vain.

It's afternoon here and again I have to do some test preparations and stuff, so I'll be back later.

I'll probably stop trying to reason that I don't have or require any assistance in what to say in this game and how to play it, because it's apparently hopeless. (And slightly hurtful.)

I'll address the facts for the "BTSC arguments" on me one more time, in the simplest terms possible:

1) Several people raised suspicions on SVS throughout an entire night phase. The discussion looked serious. The next phase, I said I'll catch up with that discussion.
2) I have screwed up a female player's gender in a couple of posts. The first time I didn't notice. The second time I did and corrected my mistake with half a minute later. I don't have any other defence for the gap between my mistakes, because I simply didn't notice it the first time and did the second one (along with slighty contextual aid from Llama earlier's post, to which I was replying).

Any other BTSC arguments on me are welcomed, but yeah, I think I'm done addressing these. I'd say everyone should make what they want out of it, but thing is, they irrevocably already are, so

Dom wrote:
thellama73 wrote:In Richochet's defense, I also raised an eyebrow at Dom's "hmm." Not the enthusiastic welcome back I would have expected from a civ, but possibly the sign of annoyance and confusion at a civ who refuses to die properly.
Did I do so when my kills did not die in other games?

Is that characteristic of me?
Or are you looking for something where nothing is?

Why would we need to check back previous games for this? Given how typical and casual death/kill/rezz reactions are (intentionally or not), anything outside the norm is, as I've said, open to interpretation.

Dom wrote:
Ricochet wrote:RL busyness has interfered with me being able to look into many things, at least today.

The evil eye (I see it more as a stink eye, tbh) I gave Dom was about his curious reaction to BWT's resurrection. Kinda like Llama felt, too. It felt very open to interpretation. Now I'm getting heat for doing that. When Dom gave me the stink eye for something as accidental as messing up Canuck's gender and I needed BTSC to correct something like that, nobody cared (or even endorsed that). Nothing further to add.
Read: Lynch Dom not me.

The two situations are no where near equivalent.
Nor have I stated intentions to vote you.

Your statement, however, does make me think you don't like me watching you.

MetalMarsh, Marshy, my main Lucy---

Who do you want to lynch and why?

Context or our use of the eye may not be equivalent, but people's reaction to it is. I'm still having to defend, days later, a trivial mistake because, to paraphrase you, you seriously saw "something where nothing is". Instead, I'm suspicious on my suspicion of your reaction.

I have no stated any intentions to vote you either.

nijuukyugou wrote:
Ricochet wrote:RL busyness has interfered with me being able to look into many things, at least today.

The evil eye (I see it more as a stink eye, tbh) I gave Dom was about his curious reaction to BWT's resurrection. Kinda like Llama felt, too. It felt very open to interpretation. Now I'm getting heat for doing that. When Dom gave me the stink eye for something as accidental as messing up Canuck's gender and I needed BTSC to correct something like that, nobody cared (or even endorsed that). Nothing further to add.

Blooper, if you could specify what you found strange in my behaviour so far or what you find strange about my level of gameplay being so un-newbie-like, I'd like to hear it. All I know is that I'm doing my best to play this game at my best, first game or not. The fact that it's actually a cause for suspicion completely befuddles me.
Sure thing! It's like I said in an earlier post - while at first I chalked up your general know-how to be really careful thread-reading and lurking (I did that a lot when I was new and depended on that to understand the game), it started appearing too...for lack of a better word, knowledgeable to be coincidental. The first instance that made me think along these lines, rather than coincidence/reading, was the Canuck gender thing. You had no prodding in-thread to correct this mistake that I noticed, which just happened to catch my eye. I applaud good playing and participation; however, just to let you know WHY you're garnering suspicion, there have been a few instances of newbies getting a baddie role early in their mafia careers, and they've been caught because they seemed to "know too much" (AKA getting info from BTSC and not in-thread) and didn't hide it well. Hope that answers your question, but I'm happy to address whatever else is necessary.

Why would I have needed in-thread prodding to realize and correct a mistake, throughout an immediate edit, without enough context in the thread to serve as a factor for me realizing my mistake? I'm still surprised that out of three options like "Rico made a mistake, correcting himself right away", "Rico made a mistake and couldn't have realized without in-thread prodding" and "Rico made a mistake and got BTSC alert", the first is the least likely to you and, actually, most around here.

Then again, here are a few other people who understood it the way I explained it (and the way it truly, honestly happened) (1) or at least saw any bit of reason to my explanation (2), in case my words can't convince you (since this isn't actually the first time you bring this up, as a trigger for suspecting me).

RL busyness has interfered with me being able to look into many things, at least today.

The evil eye (I see it more as a stink eye, tbh) I gave Dom was about his curious reaction to BWT's resurrection. Kinda like Llama felt, too. It felt very open to interpretation. Now I'm getting heat for doing that. When Dom gave me the stink eye for something as accidental as messing up Canuck's gender and I needed BTSC to correct something like that, nobody cared (or even endorsed that). Nothing further to add.

Blooper, if you could specify what you found strange in my behaviour so far or what you find strange about my level of gameplay being so un-newbie-like, I'd like to hear it. All I know is that I'm doing my best to play this game at my best, first game or not. The fact that it's actually a cause for suspicion completely befuddles me.

Llama's self-described "major reevaluation" is the most underwhelming thing posted in this game so far: "nothing's changed, everyone's as bad/good as I saw them from the beginning" sounds pretty wary, considering his previous decisive crusade lasted four days and led absolutely nowhere. His "third party voters and the consistent Vomps voters are the main suspects" sounds like the worst interpretations possible to me, considering the 12 people that have bludgeoned Vomps, for various reasons. Anyway, I personally wouldn't trust him on any judgement from now on that is not heavily backed with arguments.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Long Con wrote:I still hold Metalmarsh as my main suspicion, but I'm almost afraid to say that I'm starting to suspect Llama as well. I have to go back and read to see what I am thinking here, something he was saying earlier set off my Spidey-sense.

BWT, way to be immortal!
Llama hasn't set my Spidey-senses off yet at all. So I look forward to seeing what you dig up.

I'm trying. I think the other civvies could learn something from me.

Also, I'm still leaning strongest on Rico. I will probably be voting him unless someone can convince me of a better case against someone else.

You'll still be my hero, even if you lynch a civvie fan like me.

Every paragraph above free to snip. I have a few more thoughts on other players, but I can't fully develop them now, not to mention react to the linkitis. It's 3AM and I can't keep up anymore.

Turnip Head wrote:Where are you looking today, Rico?

Reexamining the situation after Vomps' lynch. Nothing sure, yet.

Now I could see an error in BWT not being on the poll, because the ressurection happened after Day 4 started and the poll was made, so maybe Mongoose didn't edit it.

Ture.

Oh wait, you said other people imply. My bad.

S~V~S wrote:And how would you get that interpretation from my question?

Because you said "BWT must have come back", not brought back or something else. If that's not what you mean, then I guess I didn't understand your sentence at all.

And just to be clear, do you need more clarification on my reaction to Dom's reaction? What kind of clarification, in that case? I had no intent besides finding his reaction peculiar and I now await his clarification on that.

I've answered that earlier.

And wait, are you saying BWT rezzed himself? How?

DFaraday wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Dom wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Awesome, BWT! Very phoenix-like, already. The odd night baddies are having a nightmare of a game, so far.

Dom wrote:hmmmm

why the evil eye?
Your reaction stood out from the rest made me curious, that's all. Why did you "hmm" at BWT's rezz? Are you not happy with it?
I can't answer for Dom, but I, for one, am just a bit wary of anyone who comes back to life twice in one game.

Wary of him, of who rezzed him or of the situation?

I can see the surprise in someone having received a rezz prize and used it, but I don't see what's wary about the first two cases.

Dom wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Awesome, BWT! Very phoenix-like, already. The odd night baddies are having a nightmare of a game, so far.

Dom wrote:hmmmm

why the evil eye?

Your reaction stood out from the rest made me curious, that's all. Why did you "hmm" at BWT's rezz? Are you not happy with it?

Why? I was merely rejoicing. That team is factually on a two-night fail streak.

Just a general heads up: Busy day(s) ahead (errands, test preparations, usual study), may affect even my usual afternoon or evening lurking hours.

Awesome, BWT! Very phoenix-like, already. The odd night baddies are having a nightmare of a game, so far.

Dom wrote:hmmmm

Oh, and one last movie thought before calling it a night: Inherent Vice is probably PTA's dullest movie to date.

Until I saw Birdman, I was bored by all the awards' best actor nominations, because Timothy Spall wasn't in any of them. Now I'd like Keaton to take it. His role is so meta and sort of redemptorial. I still fear Redmayne might snatch it for his (otherwise laudable) metamorphosis into Hawking, but man I'd like Keaton to take this. It won't get better than this.

Lizzy wrote:Aaaaaaaaand back! Sooooo... uhm... sup? *votes Marshy*

Hiya Lizzy. Uhm... we lynched Vompatti.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Note: SVS, Canuck, and LC have each refused to explain why they either didn't vote or post the last two days when they were asked.
Do you think all people who are night targeted should announce it in the thread? I don't.
In this case it might help. We can rule out an inactive being George Cukor (insanifier) or John Waters (silencer).

Wait, why rule out an inactive insanifier? Canuck wasn't a target the other day.

Long Con wrote:Yes, time to re-assess what's going on here. Is Llama a baddie, leading us on a three-day wild goose chase on Vompatti? Or are the baddies just all sitting back and keeping relatively quiet, safe in the knowledge that no one has yet accused them?

If we strip back to Day 1.2, ahead of Voopy's drawing suspicion on himself and the now ill-fated lynches, llama's case would not be as convincing, but I'd also not see him as a baddie for pushing it. 3 Days later, I don't see him the grand orchestrator of what happened.

---

thellama73 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I don't know that I think he is bad, but I would not be surprised to find that some of those who followed in his footsteps are.

I a looking forward to hearing Llama take on things after he rethinks things.
I'm still in the process of rethinking, but this is what I have so far:

We know that the Day 2 lynch was between two civs, with almost everyone piling on one bandwagon or another. The only way to avoid being tied to a civ lynch in that case, would be to cast a symbolic vote for a third party. Four people did that: DFaraday, Bass, TH, and Black Rock. I think they bear watching, although my gut tells me that DFaraday is on the level.

Also on my radar are Ricochet and Blooper, who went along with me and voted for Vomps. Ricochet took some convincing, but as someone else pointed out, his final reasoning left something to be desired. Blooper piled on from the beginning without giving too much of an explanation as to why. Those six players will all be getting rereads from me before the next vote.

The convincing part in me voting Vompatti was Vompatti's sheningans, not your initial case. By the end of Day 3, Vompatti received several other votes for this reason. My D3 pinge on his D2 vote now stands as an over-reach that I feel sorry for. It was not my final reasoning, though, as I've already said.

---

I did think Canuck's entry was odd, but it's not really a romantic comedy reference, plus she posted on-topic otherwise throughout D3 and I think Cukor's role would make the target speak like that throughout an entire phase (except if Cukor's power doesn't actually work the way it's written).

I didn't notice anyone who might have been targeted. Is that the equivalent of insanification, in this game?

I can see SVS as having been the subject of a power, if not actually two concomitantly, but neither are confirmable.

thellama73 wrote:It is interesting to me that SVS, Vompatti, sabie, lizzy, TH, and Spacedaisy didn't vote.

Vompatti probably gave up or was blocked from voting (see below).
I don't know what to make of truly inactive players, but I've been reluctant so far to suspect them as intentionally inactive.

I officially have no idea if Sabie is participating in this game at all or not. Lizzy said she is having laptop problems and might need until this week to fix that or acquire a new one.
I'm still seeing the chance of two players having been unable to vote (due to Almodovar), especially since a couple of generally active players have missed the vote / not voted, but maybe I'm reading too much into this power being used.

Sorry, Vomps.

But damn you, too!

So... what now?

I only liked Rush and Apollo 13 from what I've seen.

Past 2am here and dead tired. Will stick to voting for Vompatti, because of nothing in my discontent with his gaming having changed, along with what potential save votes for him and the NK might signify (but which will be more determined by the outcome of his alignment).

It seems I caught a bit of fire with a fragment of my disapproval of Vomps' own D2 vote, but I'll await judgement for it tomorrow, if necessary. I agree I may not have put it in the best words or insisted too much on this detail, but I still found it dubious, given the full context.

Long Con wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I just realized that MP (essentially) rezzed BWT for the second game in a row. Cars before this one.
Major bromance forming there for sure.

They let it transpire from real life too much.

I remember them on PA often sharing the same pov's, taste in music and such, but when you'd bring this to their attention, they'd go wtf no we have very different opinions.

But I knew better.

Seriously, outside any sort of game speculation, I would have surprised if MP and BWT wouldn't have been linked somehow. Although I'm not sure if Mongoose would have been aware enough to distribute the roles as such...

Dom wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Of the seven votes remaining, half were inactive players (out of which the only thing Lizzy did so far in this game was to actually defend you) and the other half had offered no real feedback on you or were not inclined to vote you. The momentum of voting you was pretty dead and gone. Llama's initial theory has been disputed and contested (including by me), but your own behaviour and the voting patterns of the last two lynches have since aggravated things.
I'm planning on voting Vompatti, but this is kind of BS. I would have voted to preserve myself if I were in Vompatti's situation as well. There WAS a very real possibility he would be lynched. Why do you think we're discussing the "saves"? Non active players could pop in and vote, things change peoples minds... this is a rather contrived shot at a player who I think has enough suspicion around him already to vote for. You are justifying your vote for someone in the worst possible way, tbh.

You are wrong in assuming I meant Vomps' D2 vote is the only aggravating thing in his behaviour or that I'll vote him just on those grounds. You may be right in me being too pinged by his save-vote and by him not backing up possibly the only serious thing he stated (or defence he made) in the game, but that's just how I felt.

Have to go offline for study, dinner, maybe movie. I can wait on voting until after.

Vompatti wrote:I've never pretended not to be useless, yet I don't understand why the civs would rather vote for me than any of the baddies.

You didn't seem invested in voting a baddie rather than voting a civ yesterday, though.

There's not much real feedback on MP from those who didn't vote, either. One or two would have probably not have voted MP, judging from their posts.

Of the seven votes remaining, half were inactive players (out of which the only thing Lizzy did so far in this game was to actually defend you) and the other half had offered no real feedback on you or were not inclined to vote you. The momentum of voting you was pretty dead and gone. Llama's initial theory has been disputed and contested (including by me), but your own behaviour and the voting patterns of the last two lynches have since aggravated things.

I don't think I see the hinting part in Vompatti's vote.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:For me, Vompatti's own behaviour weighs more right now. First two day votes, he acts in a self-described zany way, throwing votes around. Then on Day 2 he suddenly acts serious and bandwagons (in, as I've already mentioned, an irrational way and also instead of backing up some serious baddie-naming...or at least vote for one of them accordingly) . Even if he wouldn't be a polarizing part in how voting went lately, I'd still find that suspicious by default. I may, thus, also vote again for him.
What is irrational about this vote?

Vompatti wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not FZ?
Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.

Timing and context. Self-preservation votes are understandable, but less so when you're most surely no longer in danger (i.e. the vote gap between him and MP at that time). And it's even less understandable, imo, when before that you outright called two other players to be "terrorists" latching on to Llama's theory. I know it's been said, in case of major voting trends, that baddie behaviour is more likely to be reflected in votes outside those trends, but in this case I personally would have prefered to see Vomps back up his baddie-naming. Him bandwagoning for MP certainly doesn't make him look any better to me.

Why would you vote for SVS, if you could?

Anyway, is is slow today because of the Super Bowl? I'll be slightly busier tomorrow than today, but I should manage to pop in occasionally.

Huh, interesting! Shall we assume a certain "persona" has something to do with her not being part of the poll today?

Canucklehead wrote:
Ricochet wrote:What is WIFOM-ing?

Canuck, I get it you won't reveal if you were silenced or not (you said you have a special theory on what effects that has - could you kindly elaborate?), but I wonder if you could tell me why you voted MP. Your early vote, the first for him, is also the only unaccounted one right now.

I think the Waters role works such that the targeted player is silenced for a day period and blocked the following night period not, as people in the thread have suggested, that the player is blocked the night s/he is targeted and silenced the following day. This, of course, is just rampant speculation on my part.

Ah, I see. I'm also inclined to believe the silenced is blocked the following night, not the one before, given how the role is phrased, but Mongoose still hasn't confirmed this. I thought you meant you have your own theory on why revealing if you were silenced or not is beneficial or not, but thanks for clarifying.

What is WIFOM-ing?

Canuck, I get it you won't reveal if you were silenced or not (you said you have a special theory on what effects that has - could you kindly elaborate?), but I wonder if you could tell me why you voted MP. Your early vote, the first for him, is also the only unaccounted one right now.

Also,

Canucklehead wrote:(...) If it turns out that he is a civ who is uninterested in helping us lunch baddies/preventing us from lynching goodies, then that will be unfortunate...

I believe "lunching" baddies will be more of a Donner party speciality.

---

For me, Vompatti's own behaviour weighs more right now. First two day votes, he acts in a self-described zany way, throwing votes around. Then on Day 2 he suddenly acts serious and bandwagons (in, as I've already mentioned, an irrational way and also instead of backing up some serious baddie-naming...or at least vote for one of them accordingly) . Even if he wouldn't be a polarizing part in how voting went lately, I'd still find that suspicious by default. I may, thus, also vote again for him.

Ugh, this might be the death of me in this game, but I screwed up again female player's gender, this time FZ. I don't know why I keep doing this...

RIP FZ.

I can see how this would be a kill done because of him being part of the Vompatti voters, but I don't know how much we can speculate, from this kill, on whom he might be teamed with. On one hand we can only go back and analyze the MP lynch / possible Vomp save, on the other hand he could be in a team with others and draw advantage from the MP suspects.

Made wrote:Yo, and also-- this question being directed towards everyone....and probably what i'm going to back to read, Vomp's post this game, after he received a few votes, has he seemed sporadic or jumpy or any other abnormalities. I know Llama mentioned his more on topic post, which was explained way by SVS, but anything else off?

I think he mostly dived into his "pretence of being bad" tactics when the heat was on him, only to go back to say him getting lynched will harm "the civ cause" when things were more relaxed (i.e. between voting periods). On Day 2, I believed and stated that the chances of him flipping civ or bad are 50/50. But then he bandwagoned on MP's lynch when it was already pretty much shaped to be a clear one, arguing he felt he still had to save himself with his vote, instead of backing up his idea that some of the ones voting for him were baddies, specifically FZ. and Blooper.

At this point, I'd ask everone who is still undecided on Vomps if they still think they can't read / sense / tell from his gameplay enough to tell if he's a baddie or not.

S~V~S wrote:
Ricochet wrote:In reply to BWT's post:

I find your read on what happened interesting, but I can't figure out where you draw the line between me making rookie mistakes and slipping as a baddie. I also don't see how all the issues are connected, the way you put it.

You say you agree SVS was quite "reaction-y" (as Blooper put it) and that it looked like she was baiting me with the "chatroom" idea, but at the same time you still feel like I did "pull up a chatroom topic". Frankly, I don't know how else to comment to this accusation anymore. The conversation was in the thread. It happened throughout a full phase. All I said was I'll catchup/look more into it. SVS happened to be there when I said it and it made her jumpy. From there on, (mis)interpretation galore.

Re: referencing / backing up, I'll say this again. On Day 1, when I snipped a post of hers to address only a part of it, she was kind to advise me not to do that, because it'll look bad. Now that I, just as ill-advisedly, delayed backing my post up and/or referenced pages instead of quoting, oh that won't do. It's understandable, given the circumstance, that her reaction wasn't as nice and it looked bad to her, but I don't see why that should make other players see more than a mistake in this.

The most stunning accusation for me is still regarding my correction re: Canuck's gender. It was literally an EBWOP. I screwed up her gender the whole time, in that discussion with Llama and MM, before realizing. When several people were "he/she" about me during the first day, I politely addressed the issue. When I screwed up a player's gender that I didn't know well (i.e. I didn't know at all outside Mafia, as is the case with about half of the players in this game), I politely corrected myself. If I wouldn't have noticed and, say, Canuck would have later corrected me, perhaps everything would have been fine. But since I did (and on the spot, too!), I'm suspicious for it - or better yet, I received "tips". Again, I don't have much else to say about this, other than how slightly disquieted I am with players picking on trivial stuff like this.

---

This will probably be my only entry for tonight, since my girl will soon come home and we'll watch Birdman, which I'm dying to see and, again, the end of the phase will be too late for me to stay up for.

BTW, you said you missed voting yesterday. Was that purely because of RL or because of a certain civ's powers?
"EBWOP"? Several people have used me, me included. Did someone explain what it meant? Or is it common usage at PA?

And @Llama, no worries. I am sorry if i was rude to you as well.

I searched the abbreviation online. But I didn't develop the habit of using it, so far, as opposed to just writing a second post correcting my previous.

Also, literally the first thing that was on TV when I opened it this morning was The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle.

Search found 322 matches