[ENDGAME]: Film Directors.

[Ricochet]

Event: Directors Respond to Negative Film Reviews



Roger Ebert was known for his sometimes scathing reviews of film.

Ebert's story is being told in the new biodoc Life Itself. I sobbed uncontrollably when I read these memoirs (before he died) because they were so beautiful. Reading his thoughts on Bergman's Persona or meeting Fellini were breathtakingly effervescent.

Additionally, negative reviews can be hilarious in nature.

For today's challenge (optional as always), your job is to write a snippet AS any director responding to a fake negative review of your film. Feel free to a fake quote or include block quotes from this hypothetical bad review. Alternatively, you may respond AS any director responding to an actual negative review of the film.

Be hilarious! Have fun with it.

Post your submissions within the game thread by the end of Night 2 for one doozy of a prize. The winner will be selected by a neutral third party.

Inspiration: http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/ ... ood-movies

Nah you're wrong.

xo xo
Quentin Tarantino

Ok, I get it now.

"Star Wars is a junkyard of cinematic gimcracks not unlike the Jawas' heap of purloined, discarded, barely functioning droids"

Peter Keough, Boston Phoenix

"The Force is not strong with this one."
- George Lucas

I've been working my brains to write a page long invective for hours now and you guys crack it with a one liner? I give up.

[thellama73]

RIP MP I'm kind of pissed they lynched you.

Wait, what? They? You voted for him! You tied the vote with Vomps! What do you mean "they"? You are directly responsible for his lynch!

[thellama73]

Ignore me. I'm an idiot. I looked at FZ's avatar and thought it was Roxy because of similar colors. Apologies all around.

[Ricochet]

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

[S~V~S]

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.

[Ricochet]

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.

[FZ.]

Ignore me. I'm an idiot. I looked at FZ's avatar and thought it was Roxy because of similar colors. Apologies all around.

LOL, I was wondering why you called me Roxy the first time, and then you accused me of voting MP, and for a minute, I thought I actually voted MP by mistake

By the way, I find Roxy more suspicious than SVS for some reason. I feel like she's skating by more than SVS. So if Vompatti turns out bad, I would say my first person to look at is BR, followed by Roxy.

[S~V~S]

So you're refusing to say whether you were silenced or not, is that correct, Canuck?

It used to be, old school, that you did not discuss thing like whether or not you had been targeted in the thread. Some hosts won't allow it. Sometimes people are reticent to do so.

And thanks, FZ. ~ imagine that, someone even more suspicious than me

[thellama73]

Ignore me. I'm an idiot. I looked at FZ's avatar and thought it was Roxy because of similar colors. Apologies all around.

LOL, I was wondering why you called me Roxy the first time, and then you accused me of voting MP, and for a minute, I thought I actually voted MP by mistake

By the way, I find Roxy more suspicious than SVS for some reason. I feel like she's skating by more than SVS. So if Vompatti turns out bad, I would say my first person to look at is BR, followed by Roxy.

We are on the same page.

[thellama73]

So you're refusing to say whether you were silenced or not, is that correct, Canuck?

It used to be, old school, that you did not discuss thing like whether or not you had been targeted in the thread. Some hosts won't allow it. Sometimes people are reticent to do so.

And thanks, FZ. ~ imagine that, someone even more suspicious than me

I'm assuming it is a host rule, since LC did the same thing.

[FZ.]

And I voted for The Royal Tenenbaums, because it's the only one I saw, though I'm hoping to see the Grand Budapest Hotel soon

linki: You're welcome I hope it doesn't come back to bite me

[nijuukyugou]

Yikes, I thought I posted, but I got caught up with GoC and baking a cake, and here I am.

RIP MP Second time Vomps wiggles his way out.

I may be in the minority and hated for this, but I've seen two of the above films (Fantastic Mr. Fox and Moonrise Kingdom), and I just...I just did not enjoy them. At all. I'm thinking I didn't "get" Moonrise Kingdom because I'm not an Andersen buff (could also be my ex dumped me a few days after I saw it with him, which didn't give the good vibes association ), and Fantastic Mr. Fox annoyed me with its dialogue and pull away from the book. I'm even usually into avant-garde stuff, but alas. Nothing against those who like them, of course, but they weren't for me. A friend of mine who feels the same way tells me I would like Grand Budapest Hotel, so I'll vote for that one and cross my fingers, as third time's often a charm.

[nijuukyugou]

Anderson. Doh!

[Mongoose]

Loving the submissions, guys! Thanks for participating!

You still have a couple hours to get your entries in should you want to still engage.

[thellama73]

Dear Filmore Reviewmacutty Quackenbush, Esq.,

I was dismayed to see your recent review for my film Mulholland Drive and I, being an eminently sociable man who is not at all weird and reclusive, thought I would drop you a line to correct a few of your misconceptions.

First of all, you said that the plot of the film "makes about as much sense as a Chinaman with a hairbrush in his mouth." Okay, I added the part about the Chinaman, but the gist is there. What you fail to understand is that my movies are not about "making sense." That's for amateurs. Anyone can tell a straightforward linear story, but it takes a genius to string together random, unconnected scenes that seem like they're symbolic, but are really not. Didn't you see Eraserhead? If not, go see it. It's nuts.

Second, you criticized my use of color, music, and scenery as "shallow and superficial." Oh really? What about the scene where they guy (I forget his name) pours pink paint all over his wife's jewelry? Wasn't that a pretty shade of pink? I thought it was. Sometimes I just put things in my movies because I think they are pretty, even if they have nothing to do with the story. I do that because I am a genius. Also, why did he have that shade of pink paint in his garage anyway? Why would a guy like that have such a horrendous color picked out for a paint project? See, it's all about making you think, my friend, but apparently you didn't do much thinking. You were too busy critiquing. "Less critiquin', more thinkin'", that's my motto.

Finally, you complained that my film was "nothing more than a pretentious buildup to a gratuitous lesbian sex scene." Gratuitous? I've got four words for you, bub. Integral. To. The. Plot. Also, you're probably gay.

Maybe you should stick to lawyering, "Esquire," "and leave the film reviews to the pros. After all, Roger Ebert liked my movie, and you're not half the man he is (because he is fat, you see?)

Respectfully yours,
- David Lynch

[Bass_the_Clever]

Well I'm still not feeling well so I just popped into vote.

[Mongoose]

Night 2: Who Peed in My Cornflakes?


Ida Lupino did not pee in your cornflakes.

Ida Lupino was a visionary filmmaker. During a time that filmmaking was largely a man's gig, she brought strong acting and camerawork to the screen.

Perhaps best known for such classic hits as The Big Knife (starring Jack Palance andherself) and The Hitch-hiker (she was the first woman to direct a Film Noir), Lupino was also an actress who was frequently cast as a femme fatale or naughty girl.

FZ thought someone had actually peed in her cornflakes when they had not. She died at the thought of it.



FZ has died.
It is now Day 3. You now have 48 hours to find the serial cereal killer.

[Mongoose]

Night 2: Just for Fun Poll

Just For Fun Poll: Wes Anderson's Oeuvre
Poll ended at Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:41:29 pm


Bottle Rocket
0
No votes
Rushmore
0
No votes
Royal Tenenbaums
4
zeek (5), S~V~S (7), timmer (11), FZ. (14) 25%
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
3
Mongoose (1), Vompatti (2), Long Con (3) 19%
Darjeeling Limited
0
No votes
Fantastic Mr. Fox
3
Ricochet (6), A Person (10), Black Rock (13) 19%
Mongoose Kingdom
1
thellama73 (4) 6%
The Grand Budapest Hotel
5
MovingPictures07 (8), Dom (9), birdwithteeth11 (12), nijuukyugou (15), Bass_the_Clever (16) 31%
The Shorts: Hotel Cavalier/Castello Cavalcanti
0
No votes
Total votes : 16

[Mongoose]

And now a word from Eisenstein:

So here is the recap folks mp got lynched, and it could have been a vomp save. So vomps might be worth a vote this next day phase. If you aren't feeling a vomps vote I would suggest looking a MM somethings up with that guy. Well till next time folks .

[Mongoose]

Thanks for your entries! I enjoyed them all.

The winner has been notified via PM.

[thellama73]

I wonder if it means anything that FZ was a Vompatti voter and got killed?

RIP FZ.

[Vompatti]

Finally some progress!

[Made]

I wonder if it means anything that FZ was a Vompatti voter and got killed?

RIP FZ.

Llama, I'm reading you as civvie this game partly because of this unrelenting attack of Vompatti, but I think you're wrong (or at least right for the wrong reasons?) I'd personally look elsewhere, but iunno man....
i'm going to reply to stuff in revere chronological if that's cool
oh, and i wasn't cursed or anything, I just been crazy with life and things. Got a huge snowstorm and the super bowl coming up, so I should have a lot of free time in the coming days.

[Made]

The baddies can communicate with each other outside the thread. The civs cannot. Do you think the civ cause is advanced by obfuscating and purposefully withholding information?

yes

[Made]

To recap: MM just asked why a baddie would try to save a teammate. That's how bad it is, people.

Are you going to deny me an answer?

If this were late game, i'd agree with you, but losing a teammate this early would be devastating and avoided at all cost, at least for the first few days imo.


K think that pretty much caught me up. Gonna try reading Squid Roxy and SVS

[Made]

Oh and the slip case against Rico is pretty bs too. calling thread chat imo is only a slip if you're a vet player. I personally referred to thread as chat well into Monty Python.

[thellama73]

I wonder if it means anything that FZ was a Vompatti voter and got killed?

RIP FZ.

Llama, I'm reading you as civvie this game partly because of this unrelenting attack of Vompatti, but I think you're wrong (or at least right for the wrong reasons?) I'd personally look elsewhere, but iunno man....
i'm going to reply to stuff in revere chronological if that's cool
oh, and i wasn't cursed or anything, I just been crazy with life and things. Got a huge snowstorm and the super bowl coming up, so I should have a lot of free time in the coming days.

You don't think him narrowly avoiding a lynch two days in a row, with the same people making the difference, followed by an NK of one of his voters looks suspicious? What kind of evidence would you find suspicious? Would it take an overt confession?

[Made]

I wonder if it means anything that FZ was a Vompatti voter and got killed?

RIP FZ.

Llama, I'm reading you as civvie this game partly because of this unrelenting attack of Vompatti, but I think you're wrong (or at least right for the wrong reasons?) I'd personally look elsewhere, but iunno man....
i'm going to reply to stuff in revere chronological if that's cool
oh, and i wasn't cursed or anything, I just been crazy with life and things. Got a huge snowstorm and the super bowl coming up, so I should have a lot of free time in the coming days.

You don't think him narrowly avoiding a lynch two days in a row, with the same people making the difference, followed by an NK of one of his voters looks suspicious? What kind of evidence would you find suspicious? Would it take an overt confession?

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]

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?

[Made]

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?

[Made]

Caught this on my reading of roxy

SVS - I hope I was not the one who you thought was rude. I hate to even say this but you still have not answered my only question. I guess at this point it does not matter but I would have liked a response and your thoughts about the other people who used your reasoning for their vote for Teeth.

I cannot believe no one has one word to say about Made. I mean his play style is so unlike Python and so reminiscence of his baddie game.

Here is a linky to all his posts I would like to hear what others are thinking about his game.

BR - can you elaborate a bit more? You seem to be tossing a lot of names about without really backing up as to why you think them suspicious.

Sorry I missed it, and, no, I was not talking to you silly.

I thought I already commented on that, since no one else really seemed to have been in danger day 1.0 I don't see baddies piling on a bandwagon to get rid of someone who often plays a distracted game. Did you mean someone specific? On phone on bus so I can't really look back at this point. I can later if you like.

Maybe I just thought I posted it and just thought it Lol.

What do you think of them?

SVS - I gave my thoughts on them when I asked for yours the ssceond time Here

TH - he (Made) has posted since then.

Llama - again we will agree to disagree inre:Made. I have been baddie with him and his scatteredness reminds me of that game. Lemme tell you - I could not tell him what to post or how to post it - he played his own way.

Here's the funny thing tho. While this is something that i've gotten better at concealing with a facade of scatterbrainedness in thread when i actually am bad, I express my scatterbrainedness to anyone who will listen, or just an empty chatroom or quiet thread. It's just a matter of getting my thoughts out, and writing them down and ish.

Anyways, finished my read on roxy surprisingly little there considering how often her name seems to be mentioned... Her read of me reminds me a lot of the type of read people have on me In my earliest games. This isn't leading me to any clues on her alignment tho . If Llama's theory is that somehow SVS, Roxy, and Vomp are linked, I'm not seeing the Roxy Connection in post alone, but i've yet to really analysis poll results.

[Dom]

Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????




RIPIYWG FZ.

[Made]

Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????




RIPIYWG FZ.

The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.

[FZ.]

I getting sick of being NK in the early stages of the game every time Boo baddies
Thanks for the game Mongoose

[Dom]

I getting sick of being NK in the early stages of the game every time Boo baddies
Thanks for the game Mongoose

FZ. I really really want you to make it further in a game someday! I love playing with you.

Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????




RIPIYWG FZ.

The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.

What do you propose we do today?

[Marmot]

I'm home and I'm exhausted. I'll be around tomorrow to chwt.

[Ricochet]

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.

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.

[Ricochet]

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...

[birdwithteeth11]

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.

I didn't feel like she was "reaction-y". I felt like she was trying to elicit a response, and the way you responded was what made her jumpy. Did the same to me too.

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.

I didn't have a problem with you snipping posts. I've done it before, especially when I'm trying to deal with multi-quoted posts. But I do it to the extent of deleting certain entire posts in there because they aren't relevant to what I am posting. I don't change or edit anything within the post(s) I need, and keep them whole. I think her issue was with you removing part of someone's post. You might not have had nefarious intentions, but it makes it look to some people like you're trying to re-write history so to speak.

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.

Okay. I can at least understand this. I will rethink how I feel about this part of my case against you.

---

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?

[birdwithteeth11]

Also, I missed yesterday's vote because of RL reasons. Like, having to go into work and not getting a chance to vote before the lynch ended.

Also, RIP FZ!

[Long Con]

RIPIYWG FZ.!

Okay, I'm done with Vompatti review. Here is the spreadsheet. I only looked at Jobs, it's just taking too long to look at Side Jobs and other areas, sorry.

He was only a baddie in one of the games I looked over all his posts for, and I found him to be non-jokey, but with a good dose of Off Topic stuff. Not in the spreadsheet is the already-discussed Are You Being Served, which I think is a lot more damning to Vomps than anything I found in the Jobs search.

[thellama73]

Long Con, your analysis of past games in commendable, but while my initial suspicions of Vomps were based on his playstyle, they have now blossomed to be consideraby more than that.

What do you make of the fact that there appear to be a number of people desperate to lynch anyone but him, and the fact that one of his most vocal opponents has now been executed? To me, this is far more conclusive evidence of his guilt than the playstyle analysis that set me on his trail in the first place.

[Long Con]

Well, the FZ. kill would make total sense for a non-Vomps baddie to commit, right? For the very reason you're saying. It could even have been you, as an excellent setup which you are now presenting. If Vompatti wanted to kill an accuser, why wouldn't he choose you? For that matter, if a non-Vomps-baddie wanted to kill a Vomps accuser, why wouldn't they choose you?

The Vomps saves are a compelling piece of evidence. I think that looking at the earlier votes in those saves could be just as telling as the later ones that actually DID the saving, because baddies don't like to be so blatantly obvious. That all hinges on whether or not Vompatti is bad at all, of course.

The biggest thing for me with Vompatti is the Are You Being Served comparison. Unless Metalmarsh, my top suspect, is getting lynched, I could see myself voting Vompatti just for that.

[thellama73]

Well, the FZ. kill would make total sense for a non-Vomps baddie to commit, right? For the very reason you're saying. It could even have been you, as an excellent setup which you are now presenting. If Vompatti wanted to kill an accuser, why wouldn't he choose you? For that matter, if a non-Vomps-baddie wanted to kill a Vomps accuser, why wouldn't they choose you?

Because I have a habit of getting myself lynched, a habit which FZ does not share.

The Vomps saves are a compelling piece of evidence. I think that looking at the earlier votes in those saves could be just as telling as the later ones that actually DID the saving, because baddies don't like to be so blatantly obvious. That all hinges on whether or not Vompatti is bad at all, of course.

The biggest thing for me with Vompatti is the Are You Being Served comparison. Unless Metalmarsh, my top suspect, is getting lynched, I could see myself voting Vompatti just for that.

Yes, the obviousness gives me pause as well, but at this point I'm inclined to believe that one baddie teams has just decided o go all in on protecting Vomps. This is especially plausible due to a worrying tendency in recent games for civs to be overly WIFOM-y and rationalize what seems like clear evidence away in favor of more elaborate theories. This approach seems absolutely crazy to me (as I say, I prefer to take the Occam's Razor approach), but I am seeing it more and more these days, and would not put it past a baddie team to exploit it.

[Made]

Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????




RIPIYWG FZ.

The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.

What do you propose we do today?

Comment on the above if applicable, if not, then pursue other leads.

[Canucklehead]

Yes, the obviousness gives me pause as well, but at this point I'm inclined to believe that one baddie teams has just decided o go all in on protecting Vomps. This is especially plausible due to a worrying tendency in recent games for civs to be overly WIFOM-y and rationalize what seems like clear evidence away in favor of more elaborate theories. This approach seems absolutely crazy to me (as I say, I prefer to take the Occam's Razor approach), but I am seeing it more and more these days, and would not put it past a baddie team to exploit it.

I find the bolded part is really ringing true for me, llama, and may be the push I needed to get firmly on board with your Vomps suspicion. I think you are very much right-on in your analysis of the "there's no way te baddies would be so obvious therefore let's explain away the only actual facts we have in these games, which are voting patterns"-attitude which you see as a recent phenomenon, an which I would argue has been going on at least as long as I've been playing mafia....

So yes, I think I can actually buy the possibility that Vomps was blatantly saved twice. Maybe it will ultimately turn out that in this case, it was a bunch of elaborate baddie WIFOM-ing, but since Vomps doesn't seem interested in defending himself, and since this topic is the overwhelming focus of the thread, we really can't know for sure until we know Vomps' alignment. If it turn out that he is a civ who is uninterested in helping us lunch baddies/preventing us from lynching goodies, then that will be unfortunate, but at least we will have some clarity about recent voting patterns.

[Long Con]

I have also taken note of the over-complicated reasoning that may be running rampant, and it's good to see I'm not alone.

[Made]

The reason I'm quick to explain away voting specifically, is because of how easy it is for a civvie to have a shitty voting record. That said, I just read Vomp....wtf dude?
Let's take it this way: Vomp, Do you have any opinions at this point on any player, or things you want to investigate, or defenses of your play (IE, love for the theme, or lack of time) that you'd like to commit to?
If you don't answer this questions, I might have to vote you.

[Ricochet]

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,

(...) 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.

[Canucklehead]

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.


As or my MP vote, two main reasons:
1) I wanted to vote early, to signal to the thread that I was, in fact, around...even if I wasn't commenting. (This is not a super uncommon tactic, and I think a few people picked up what I was putting down right away)

2) I chose MP because my previous main suspicion, TH, had been seeming more and more civ in his posting, so I was no longer ready to place a vote for him. I thought Timmer made a persuasive case on MP earlier in the night(?) or day, so I decided to place my vote consistent with my lingering suspicion on MP from Day 1. I was somewhat surprised to see the number of people go also decided to vote MP, but his name had been discussed an tossed around since Day 1, so I suppose it wasn't that shocking a turn of events. If it was my vote tht was responsible for kickstarting the bandwagon, then I'm deeply sorry....but if anyone tries to suggest that they were just following my lead (which, to their credit, no one has done as far as I'm aware), then they would have some serious 'splainin to do, since following along with a very early vote from a very quiet player is a rather questionable tactic.