The Syndicate

iirc it was banned for obscenity for the voyeurism chapter. Weird shit maybe that's why I liked it

I am not sure why this embarrasses me, but I liked Ulysses.

Why do you have a problem with a role analysis?

Sorry BWT, but yay for a do over. And using it to bting BWT back was a good use of it, too, with his role.

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:

Long Con wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:Okay. I can see where FZ is coming from with LC. It comes off to me as being a bit "overly helpful" for sure. But the part that really stuck out to me was:

Long Con wrote:
Stanley Kubrick Realist, perfectionist director and genre hopper. He can once reshoot a day period.
This will annoy us at some point by delaying the progress, but at least it's a Civvie that we won't lynch.
To me, I don't understand how this is "delaying the progress" of the game if we lynch a civvie and Kubrick uses his power. It lets us restart the day over again, we're not down a civ, and we have plenty of new information to make a new decision on.

I'll wait to hear what LC has to say on the matter himself. But I am now very interested in his response.
Delaying the progress of the game... meaning we wait 48 hours for a lynch post, and instead of a lynch post, we get a Civvie outed and saved, and another 48 hours before we get to see a lynch result. It's good for the Civs, and it's annoying to me as a player. In an impatient way. I hope my response has interested you further.

I often post a role analysis near the start of a game. If you want to call it 'overly helpful' then that's your opinion. I think it opens people up to thinking about the roles creatively, and to keeping some things in mind in their general gameplay.
With the first part, I fail to see how that is necessarily a bad thing. Even with someone being an outed civvie. I don't see why the mafia would want to bother spending the time essentially double-targeting a role for death like that. I'm not sure if it's that I think your being disingenuous, or if it's just a difference of opinion, but I just don't see why it's bad that we had a do-over for a lynch when we gain information from it.

As for the second part, yes, you have done that several times from what I've seen. I'll give you that. I guess it was more your tone that felt off to me.

Votes LC

Also, why does you not understanding someones reasoning make them bad? I always wonder about this, not just in the context of this game. I get lynched for this very thing all the time when i am civ. Someone does not understand what i said, or someone thinks what I said makes no sense, therefore I am bad.

Does the fact that several other people do seem to understand what he is saying, and explained it to you in the thread make any difference to your train of thought?

Since some other people have also voiced a suspicion of LC for his role analysis, this seems a nice, easy out for you if he comes back civ:

I don't know if I feel any worse about you after your response, but I don't feel any better about you either, LC. And given my lack of time to look further, plus the fact I don't really feel comfortable with anyone else right now, I'm going to vote for you. It's a weak case, sure, but it's the best I feel my gut has to go on for now. So think of this as an "I'm keeping an eye on you" vote.

If those people do vote for him, and he gets lynched, you have kinda absolved yourself in advance, haven't you?

This vote got you my vote.

Linki @ Vomp. Fair enough, although iirc, he said he was self voting as he was going to be afk for a bit. So since he signed up, yeah, he might mind being lynched while he is not around to defend. Another one of those silly "principles" I like to keep in mind. Although I do agree re the llama votes.

Linki @MP~ tl;dr gonna go play D & D

Vompatti wrote:Mongoose do you recognize all of the quotes/references in Histoire(s) du cinéma? I used to know someone who had written (or was going to write?) a book that listed and analized all of them but I don't think it ever got published.

Also of the current lynch candidates I'm strongly leaning towards MM as MP always plays like a baddie and Llama currently seems like the epitome of a helpful civ to me.

Why do you think MM is bad? Did I miss this?

My experience of bad Vomp is that he does post more ON TOPIC when he's bad then when he is civ. He also posts alot of Off Topic when a civ if it is the game of someone in his set (which this is) and/or if it is something he likes, which by what he has said in OT, it is.

I have a D & D game at 1, so I will either vote before then or if I am not decided yet, make a short/sweet vote post close to the end.

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

Thats the old school way. You don't vote for nubs on Day One. They never come back if you do, lol. And being right in one game is trumped by getting a new cultist...um, player in the long term. Yeah. Plus it's just polite. It's one of those things like not voting for the silenced or insanified.

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.

Did you read the rest of my post? I said I doubt you have teammates.

You seem to be a natural, though

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: Lastly, was I the only one pinged by LC's analysis of the roles post? Sounded to me like a baddie who thinks the civvies have the upper hand in terms of roles and can't come out and say that he's pissed, so he puts it out there in the form of the many ways the civvies can have BTSC and get stronger. It's something I've seen baddies do too many times. To me, that's a baddie indication, and my vote will probably go to either Vomp or LC
That is an extremely interesting point. I was inclined to believe LC was civvie due to his rejection of my Vompatti suspicion (baddies tend to say things like "oooh, interesting Let me think about that." rather than "you're wrong.") But this makes me want to look at him some more.

That post was a very civvie LC thing to my mind. The very first game I played with him was a Twilight themed game at LP, and he did exactly this kind of post as a civ; he also has done it when bad. He tends to make the civvie roles sound more powerful when he's bad.

It is always a good policy to keep an eye on LC, but I don't see anything there that he would not do as a civ.

And MP, did you ever play at Hedville? That was MY baddie MO, as well as lots of other people. I actually picked up that trick from Aldo. Schmooze the thread, make everyone feel nice about you, chat people up, talk theme. Bolster your post count with crap, make people recall that you posted, just not WHAT you posted. It isn't a biggie, but I am not sure why you seem so astonished at the idea. It is a fairly common thing, I thought.

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?

TBH, I would think if he had teammates they would tell him to answer. So I am less inclined to think he is bad, but I could see why others might think the other way.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
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?
Perhaps S~V~S can better explain what she's looking for... 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. I can't recall anyone doing this though. And it's not like there's really much to discuss on-topic right now, anyway, due it to being D1.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? I don't expect you to agree with me, but surely you have seen baddies hiding in OT? I am not trying to discourage OT, and I am amazed that you are implying that i am. I have been involved in it myself. 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 10 or 15 posts and says nothing game related, that would get my eye.
What?

I can't say I've ever witnessed a baddie hiding in OT, but it's possible I just don't pay attention to it.

I'm not implying that you are; I'm implying that witch hunts on D1, if this were to be the basis by which people judge activity, might discourage OT.

After some time? Sure. But we've hardly had that happen yet.

I agree with you on the bolded and underlined.

I don't understand why you're offended.

This was where I got the "witch hunt" thing from.

Maybe we are miscommunicating. This is something I have seen, and done myself.

"With Hunts", lol??

I am not offended.

And I have seen people do that. i don't think it is a strategy that you discuss in the chatroom, but I think I have seen people inflate post counts to look more civ. Not sure why this is such a big issue for you.

i was asked what caught my eye, I answered and you are acting like I am restarting McCarthyism.

ebwop, "time or days" and "10 or 15"

MovingPictures07 wrote:
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?
Perhaps S~V~S can better explain what she's looking for... 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. I can't recall anyone doing this though. And it's not like there's really much to discuss on-topic right now, anyway, due it to being D1.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? I don't expect you to agree with me, but surely you have seen baddies hiding in OT? I am not trying to discourage OT, and I am amazed that you are implying that i am. I have been involved in it myself. 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.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I never mentioned Llama. Why do you think I was talking about llama? I wasn't, it was a general statement.
Where did I say you did?

Even if it sounded like it, my post wasn't really a direct response to your post. I was just stating all of my thoughts thus far on what people have proposed.

Gotcha, it DID sound that way to me. You responded to my points, then you said, "In any case I am not voting for Llama", as if you thought he was someone to whom I referred.

Canucklehead wrote:
S~V~S wrote:The Hostess said she is actively looking for a replacement. I would rather give her a day to do that. Since she had to cut several roles, she probably loves the ones that are left, and having your roles wasted that way is painful.
You're right, I do remember there being a mention of a replacement being sought....
However, I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning re: "wasting roles". I mean, someone has to be lynched Day 1....one of her carefully curated roles is going to be lost/"wasted" regardless, so I don't see why we shouldn't make it the one that seems the least likely to be used/enjoyed? I guess I'm just not sure why wasting (through a day 1 lynching) the low poster's role is any worse from a host's point of view than wasting (throughthe a day 1 lynching) an active participant's role. I imagine as a host you have to be prepared to lose any role at any time, regardless of how much you love creating it....

But, of course, I have never hosted! Because I am a lazy coward!

I do like your line of thought about OT-heavy content , though. I know that in the later game (again, because I am lazy), I often do a quick browse of a player's number of posts to get a sense of their activity level/contribution when I'm feeling unsure about their blendiness, and don't always religiously comb through the content vs filler ratio, so I can see how that might be a good foundation for te baddies to establish early. I can also see MP's point about squashing enthusiasm, though....but I like the foresight of this observation, SVS, and I think I will join you in keeping it on the back burner going forward.

I'm still leaning more towards a no-show vote, though.

Also, I apologize in advance if I don't respond to things immediately, even if I'm in the thread. I'm currently trying to work on a Pomodoro system, so during the daytime I will only be reading and responding every 30 mins, and will only have 5-10 minutes to do so, so I may not get to everything every time....just a warning!

I think you have the jist of it~ when I host, and I have announced that I am looking for a replacement, I hate it when the players "help me out" by lynching the person I am trying to replace. I just meant I would rather give the host who just cut 10 roles a chance to salvage another. Sure, one of her roles is going to be lynched, but at least that person gave the role a chance.

Apparently BR forgot to vote when she checked in?

I never mentioned Llama. Why do you think I was talking about llama? I wasn't, it was a general statement.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I really don't know vomps play style to know if he is a more active civ or baddie. He seems like a off the wall player in general to me. I also find it odd the MM would self vote on day one and on a poll you can't change your vote so that has caught my eye a little.

I think I have seen him self vote before, and i am not sure that we knew we could not change votes until he said he had already voted and could not change it? But it is possible that I missed it if Mongoose said it prior to MM saying it.

I don't find day 1 self votes all that odd. Ask me again Day 3. If you have nothing else and will be away from the thread, why drop a vote on someone else and start a potential Day 1 bandwagon?

At this stage, i might go back and see (I am mid reread in the other game, but tomorrow AM I should have time) if there is anyone who has posted ONLY OT towards the end of the poll and vote there. Lots of OT is a way to get your name out there, so people remember you favorably, without actually saying anything. Plus on Day 5 or so when people start looking at post counts, all that Day 0/Day 1 OT can make a blendy low lying baddie look better. Especially since alot of the OT is not in green (and I have to admit I have done that this game, too, formatting is harder on phone, but I will force myself to do it from here on in) which could make it look like civvie content to a skimmer.

The Hostess said she is actively looking for a replacement. I would rather give her a day to do that. Since she had to cut several roles, she probably loves the ones that are left, and having your roles wasted that way is painful.

timmer wrote:I Am Curious is a horrible film, whichever "color" you watch. I highly don't suggest it.

The poll just made me LOL, I've never seen one use nicknames like that hehe.

So llama, what are your thoughts so far, then? SVS? Lots of peeps not around, imo.

I saw it in a college film course, my teacher, a rabid McLuhanite, thought all Scandinavian cinema was awesome. Hence his job as a Mass Media professor in a party school in the SUNY system, lol. The only thing I really remember commending it was lots of weird artsy sex.

Not much has stood out to me so far. I am assuming at least one or two are hiding in the OT, which I am enjoying BUT if it does not dry up by day 2 or so, it might catch my attention more.

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

Yes but a long time ago. I was in college and it was fairly dated then. Iirc it was a film within a film about a moody broody crazy girl.

If I ever make a role based on Llama, it will be an Indy. The win conditions will be "Lead as many lynches as possible (first vote for the lynched) without being lynched for it yourself. Extra Credit if the people you lynch are low posters".

Llama loves lynching people just for the pure joy of it.

Ricochet wrote:
Long Con wrote:
I have never seen Casablanca. I don't like old movies, I like modern ones. I saw Citizen Kane at some point, and I don't really remember a single frame of it, I just know it bored me. I saw Gone With The Wind recently, and I enjoyed Rhett Butler's character, disliked the main chick, and just didn't feel immersed or invested in the storyline all that much.

I usually feel the same about the "Golden Age" Hollywood and old, cheap Sci-Fi movies. At least in case of the latter, I realize it's probably because of being fed too much blockbuster CGI these past decades.

Oh I love all those bad sci fi movies, Plan 9 etc, and movies with the underwater scenes shot through fishbowls. I love them mainly in a MST3K kind of way, but even without Tom Servo and Crow, I appreciate the imagination that went into them. But yeah, the CGI gets more real every year.

I resent being called a pleb

You should not have done that

This discussion has been awesome, it has given me some good ideas about what I would like to put on my "must see" list.

I do not see Bertolucci up there. He directed my favorite, ludicrous, overblown Euro epic class struggle epic that I loved in college, 1900. Looking at it now, it's like that old friend who, in retrospect, makes you tilt your head sometimes and think, "What am/was I thinking??" But you love them anyhow. That film is how I think of Depardieu, not as the horrifying train wreck he became.

But he is not an option, and of the rest, off the top of my head, I went with Scorsese. Scorsese films are pretty much the only ones I buy on DVD as well as go to see at the theater.

The Syndicate

Search found 278 matches

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 1]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 0]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 0]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 0]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 0]: Film Directors.

Re: [Day 0]: Film Directors.