The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:

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 may be tempted, now that you seem imply things I never said.

But on a more serious note, why do you feel I'm limiting myself or picking on something that isn't relevant? Why would you ask me what I am looking into and then want to throw me off it because I haven't fully accounted for it yet? I've already replied to somebody else that, so far, I've had my input on several cases, out of which I've said that few progressed past the original Day 1. Much of the rest, tbh, involved a lot of gaming behaviour analysis or assumption making from everybody, a domain in which I currently have zero experience.

On Day 1, you found his case against Vompatti "wanting". How do you feel about it on this new Day 1, now that he persists on it? What do you think of his full arguments?

You asked me what my lead is. I said what it is, while mentioning I have to finalize my case on it. You don't seem satisfied with this and I have to wonder why. (That, or maybe I'm becoming paranoid about seemingly simple questions that seem, however, to be part of a game. )

??

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.

Is that What? addressed to me? Maybe i don't fully understand the "looking at" thing, yet. If I'm supposed to bring a new case myself, I got nothing.

Turnip Head wrote:

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.

I'm looking at Llama, through the perspective of his case on Vomps.

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.

But this brings me to a disclaimer regarding how tomorrow (well, today already here) will affect my playing: I'll have to check out of my rented appartment at noon, at the latest, after which I'll be out in town for another two-three hours, then travel back home until midnight, with almost certainly no good connection at any point in the train. So I will probably vote before taking the train home (roughly five-six hours before poll closes). I'll also do my best to look again through the Vomp/Llama matter - arguments, posts, links et all - and share my view on it in the morning/afternoon, to avoid the already bad precedent of "voting now k thx bye", but I want to state again that my participation tomorrow (today) could be severly limited by the circumstances.

thellama73 wrote:
I havn't let go of Ricochet. I am still watching him, and very wary. I guess I am waiting for more evidence to roll in, since so many people seem to disagree with my suspicion. I think his "I am not going to answer your question" followed by a delayed "okay, I am not bad" is consistent with a baddie who was late to see his teammates frantically waving their arms and saying "stop!" The key word is "consistent." It is certainly not proof. Not yet.

Right now I am more confident about Vomps, so I am voting there today (unless something big happens). I can then pursue Ricochet in the future if I still feel I need to.

That is entirely your (mis)understanding of what I posted. I did not revert from the exchange I had to you. I wrote it in response to something pointed out by SVS, which I'll quote below.

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Did you read the rest of my post? I said I doubt you have teammates.

You seem to be a natural, though

I did, but I was just addressing what you said re my reply to Timmer (and hopefully dispel your suspicion on that misimpression).

For future reference, picking what you will respond to out of posts, and ignoring connected bits, looks bad. Pulling that out made it look as if I suspected you, and I do not.

Like I said, I think if you had teammates, you would have just answered the question. And i won't vote for someone on Day One of his first game, even if i did think you are bad, which at this stage, I do not. Probably a lot of the old school people won't vote for you Day 1 either. But they might vote for you Day 2. So i you haven't clearly answered this by Day 2, you might want to consider it.

A Person wrote:

Ricochet wrote:FZ*. Sorry. Typo-ing like mad right now.

I'll think I'll watch Frank tonight. Hey, rememeber movies being the theme of this game?

F**K MOVIES

Frank was good stuff

BOYHOOD. 12 YEARS, MAN

Apologies for snip.

Turnip Head wrote:
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.

I've addressed all major cases built during Day 1 (i.e. Vomps, MM and LC), saying I ain't convinced to vote for either. The BWT case kinda blew up in the final three hours, when I was away at the movies. I don't think I would have voted for him either, though.

As for me being the only one to have done it, it's purely circumstancial. Roxy said she'll randomize at her point of going through all the Day, but ultimately missed the vote or something. Also, with seven people or so not voting, it's hard to say what they would have done, if they would have voted.

thellama73 wrote:

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.

You are right, they are unrelated. I did not notice that BWT said he would be gone when I voted for him, until Roxy pointed it out. I was referring to you, not BWT.

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 have very often seen baddies try to support the people who suspect them as a way of engendering sympathy, and I have very often seen it work.

It doesn't feel like Vomps' normal game. He seems unduly worried about getting lynched (even though only two people really mentioned him as a lynch possibility) and in my experience, people with teams to support are more worried about getting lynched than lone civilians.

This is the first time that I can record llama fully explaining his read on vomps and his reason to vote him, which took some time, but I wholeheartedly applaud. Some parts (the being more on-topic thing) still sound more like "I'll just feeling it this way" obstinate reasoning, especially given others having pointed out the opposite (or nothing that is entirely concludent) from past experience, but other points are actually interesting. I think this deserves a defence from Vompatti.

I think I'm out for the day (midnight here).

FZ*. Sorry. Typo-ing like mad right now.

I'll think I'll watch Frank tonight. Hey, rememeber movies being the theme of this game?

I supposed it's clear now, but you could have first defended that you didn't meant BWT and then ask me why I didn't pick on SVS for this reason. You did it the other way around.

linki @FS: see above

Also, it was not my intent to get you in a "gotcha" moment. Perhaps it was Roxy's. I only didn't understand your reasoning in your reply to her, as I pointed out.

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.

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?

Kindly point out where she said that about BWT in her post in which she decided to vote for BWT. She said about MM's self-vote, which, by your criteria, perfectly fits "an entire-day absentee" that "you'd hate to lynch". Her vote was a clear reactiong to BWT's vote.

link @llama: Wasn't his post meant to be a conclusion to what he wanted to say (and did say) that day?

thellama73 wrote:

Roxy wrote:Llama - we almost always never see eye to eye and it deffo always seems we are butting heds so I hate to bring this up but there is a question mark in my mind I would have you answer.

First Teeth says he will be out with his G'parents for most of the day -

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'm going to be out with my grandparents for most of the afternoon, so I'm going to go ahead and vote now. And for the reasoning, we shall refer back to this post: <<<<snip>>>>

Then you say -

thellama73 wrote:I don't like to vote for people who are not around to defend themselves either, but it is more because I think their defense could be enlightening and alert me to a misstep rather than because I feel sorry for them.

But in your very next post you do a 180 and do exactly what you said you don't like to do -

thellama73 wrote:I also think, of all the people who have votes, BWT is the most suspicious. I didn't like the way he presumed to speak for Ricochet, and I didn't like his LC vote.

*Votes BWT*

'Splain Lucy

This one would be called llamasdramacloppositeopposite

It's a fair question, and I don't expect you to go easy on me because you feel like we butt heads a lot. I appreciate the attention.

Do you want the truth? The truth is that I didn't notice that part of BWT's post. I missed it. I looked over it.

That being said, I do not consider being out for "most of the afternoon" the same thing as what I was talking about. I meat if a player was silenced/insanified/out of town for the entire Day period. BWT had plenty of time to make his case before he went out with his alleged grandparents.

I don't understand the part underlined. Isn't it retroactive or paradoxical? BWT made his case and voted before having to leave for the rest of Day 1. He then started getting lynched for his vote. How could he have had time to further "make his case", having left?

thellama73 wrote:I'm definitely going to vote for Vompatti today unless someone changes my mind.

That seems slightly obstinate. Could you perhaps elaborate on why do you (still) think him being active was something suspicious and why other member's counterarguments aren't satisfactory for you?

Ok then, thanks for clarifying.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Wait, what's happening?

If I had to guess, I would say that Stanley Kubrick used his power to reset the day period. BWT is still alive, and we have another chance to get it right.

I assume he can only do it once in the game, right?

Correct, but now Hawks could presumably steal his power and use it himself.

Oh, can power steal / adopt happen without actually knowing who has the power? I always assumed the player with the power to adopt would PM the mod, designate another player and adopt whatever power he has.

Anyway, it looks like it could be February when we'll finally pass Day 1.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Wait, what's happening?

If I had to guess, I would say that Stanley Kubrick used his power to reset the day period. BWT is still alive, and we have another chance to get it right.

I assume he can only do it once in the game, right?

Wait, what's happening?

With nothing but Magnolia to ever possibly change this (since I still haven't seen it), my favourite PTA is definitely There Will Be Blood. And sorry to bitch, but this poll would have rather been nice in chronological order.

RIP, BWT. Pretty significant power we lost there.

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:(Plus, I'll be amazed if I'll be able to crack out Vompatti at any point of the game. )

What makes you feel that way?

If he'll just vomperdoodle as usual, I don't see how I'll manage to profile that in any way as good or bad. But you (collectively) certainly have much more experience with that already.

Do you know Vompatti outside of Mafia/this game?

Yes, from ProgArchives and currently FB.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Back from movie with less time to even go through what was posted, let alone process it. I've given an entirely aleatory vote.

Flash back to roughly 48 hours ago when I said:

thellama73 wrote: I generally think it is less productive for everyone to roll in five minutes before the lynch and say "no time to catch up, voting so and so."

That's nice, but I didn't do that. I announced my plans in advance. Had I realized I wont mansge to vote after the movie, I would have voted (the same way) before heading out.

Back from movie with less time to even go through what was posted, let alone process it. I've given an entirely aleatory vote.

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:(Plus, I'll be amazed if I'll be able to crack out Vompatti at any point of the game. )

What makes you feel that way?

If he'll just vomperdoodle as usual, I don't see how I'll manage to profile that in any way as good or bad. But you (collectively) certainly have much more experience with that already.

OK, I feel like I have to address this because too many people seem unsure about it:

I'm a he.

The poll is signaling me that there are less than six hours left to vote and it's just incredibly difficult to bring charges against anyone. The only big cases that stood out for me, from what was thrown into debate, are Vompatti, MM and LC.

I don't think I'll vote for Vompatti on the grounds of being more active on Day 0; the game theme is of undoubtable interest for him and I believe that's why he posted (more) about it on that day (besides, much of what he posted was replying to other members' questions). I already said I personally appreciated the movie conversations on Day and I stand by it. (Plus, I'll be amazed if I'll be able to crack out Vompatti at any point of the game. )

I've said already that MM's self-vote and its entire context was somewhat weird, but also possibly simply ironic. He definitely said he'll just vote for himself because he'll be away and have no time to build a case against somebody else. He probably won't make it in time today, either, to defend his position. I don't I'll vote for him because of his self-vote because I haven't fully embraced yet the principle that self-voting would be bad, the way MP did.

I have to say, the most surprising and interesting theory was about LC's overview, but it requires extensive background in playing this game, which I don't have, so I can't really comment upon it. Besides, it's been pointed out already that he did this before and it didn't weigh much on him being a civ or a baddie. I'm more curious why would a good player, as a baddie, intentionally show discontent about civ roles being too overpowered as opposed to bad roles. Wouldn't that be a tactic 101 fail?

I think this will be my final input for Day 1, excepting really significant changes. Again, I have no idea who to vote for.

Can the vote simply be a negative / disapproving vote on one's actions (ideas) or does it have to mean a vibe that that person may be bad?

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:To anyone who still expects an actual, straight, simple answer from me, allow me to do "the right thing" and state that: No, I am not le baddie.

Why should we believe you???? That 's exactly what a baddie would say!

To anyone who still expects an actual, straight, simple answer from me, allow me to do "the right thing" and state that: No, I am not le baddie.

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Did you read the rest of my post? I said I doubt you have teammates.

You seem to be a natural, though

I did, but I was just addressing what you said re my reply to Timmer (and hopefully dispel your suspicion on that misimpression).

For future reference, picking what you will respond to out of posts, and ignoring connected bits, looks bad. Pulling that out made it look as if I suspected you, and I do not.

Like I said, I think if you had teammates, you would have just answered the question. And i won't vote for someone on Day One of his first game, even if i did think you are bad, which at this stage, I do not. Probably a lot of the old school people won't vote for you Day 1 either. But they might vote for you Day 2. So i you haven't clearly answered this by Day 2, you might want to consider it.

Still not sure we're on the same page with what I wanted to respond, but I fully understood your advice, thanks. Clipping quotes is something by habit for me from regular forums.

S~V~S wrote:Did you read the rest of my post? I said I doubt you have teammates.

You seem to be a natural, though

I did, but I was just addressing what you said re my reply to Timmer (and hopefully dispel your suspicion on that misimpression).

S~V~S wrote: Also, re Ricochet, some people ALWAYS ask noobs that question. I can see Ricochets hesitation at first, but Timmer explained it to him, he acknowledged the explanation, but still refused to answer?

Of course not. I answered to Timmer in a fun way.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ricochet are you new to mafia or just new to the site?

I think I remember when the site was created, but I never joined until Mongoose planned this game and invited me. Regarding mafia, I didn't really do much research in the past games, tbh.

thellama73 wrote:
I don't think he is bad (or at least I didn't. I'm rapidly forming an opinion of him.)

Can I confess towards the feeling being mutual and leave it at that? I really feel like detaching from the game for now and watch that movie I planned.

thellama73 wrote:Riddle me this: Why would someone refuse to say "no" when asked if they are bad? There are many explanations, but the following springs immediately to my mind:

Because of the implications of simply answering "no". Again, no basis from the debate so far for my answer, just as much as no basis for you to ask. You can promptly go on to say you did simply just asked a question, but I didn't believe it to be anything except a trick question and that's that. If there's something springing immediately in my mind, it's that you could be out to troll on me being a baddie as much as you may have been out earlier to troll on Vomps being a baddie. Opinions on that being a credible theory are 50-50 so far, so I'll take my chances here as well.

timmer wrote:
I will say this, about this recent llama/Ricochet thing.

@Ricochet... when someone asks you if you are bad, and you aren't? You typically say "no". :P

Ah, got it.

I was not saying you were accusing me. I would just rather have you claim what gives you the impression of being bad, and start from there, rather than having to give an empty answer to an empty question.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Ricochet, you are a new player, so let me ask you a direct question (I hope you don't mind).

Are you bad?

Whoa there! Do all newbies get this baptism of fire?

I don't think that, at this point, either my answer or your reason for asking could be supported by anything from the discussion. But feel free to make claims, if you believe you have reasons to.

Are you refusing to answer?

No, I merely wish to be accused properly.

thellama73 wrote:Ricochet, you are a new player, so let me ask you a direct question (I hope you don't mind).

Are you bad?

Whoa there! Do all newbies get this baptism of fire?

I don't think that, at this point, either my answer or your reason for asking could be supported by anything from the discussion. But feel free to make claims, if you believe you have reasons to.

MovingPictures07 wrote: - Ricochet - He's new, and seems to be generally interested in playing the game

The only thing I can trace back in the thread regarding MM's self-vote was that there was a lot of irony regarding MM being lynched again on D1, he excused himself for going on a boat trip, even more ironies about lynching him followed, to which he just said fine, I'll vote for myself, because I'll be away. He also voted himself knowing the vote is not changeable, judging from his post. It is an odd vote, indeed, but perhaps this whole thing can at the same time be considered to be completely ironical?

***

I'm back in the hole room, with nothing left to do for today, but I think I'll see that movie now. And some tennis, too. At least Federer was the first to get lynched there mwahaha

Ricochet wrote:I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?

Frankly, the only way this would even prove meaningful to me is that if someone makes every effort to post about film directors, but refuses to engage in current discussion. [/quote]

S~V~S wrote: What I am saying is that after some time days, if someone is mostly posting OT, then I might find that suspicious. Like if someone has 1- or 15 posts and says nothing game related, that would get my eye.

I can perfectly understand these two viewpoints, thank you for clarifying.

I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?

Ah well, it probably won't be long now until I'll get overwhelmed by the level of debating here. Needless to say, I didn't pick up anything from anybody, either. I personally appreciated anyone's immersion into the theme during day 0. Without any background in past behaviours, I'd also like to know more on why Vompatti would make a suspect for having been more active. No intention to vote for him, at the moment. That being said, I somehow also can't really imagine him getting an ordinary role, civ or not, either. I'll try to make up my mind who to actually vote, later or tomorrow.

Mongoose wrote:Anyone seen the controversial foreign film I Am Curious (Yellow)?

First time hearing about it.